User talk:LeyteWolfer/Archive 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please sign your posts

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Typically, for IP users, I tend to assume that they are all dynamic IP addresses, meaning that their IP address could change from day to day, as determined by their ISP. If a user receives a t3 or t4 within the past day, and vandalizes again, (for me) I block them only then. See Template:SharedIP for more information about dynamic IP addresses. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Roger. While I disagree in this case because of the typical nature of the vandalization noted, I can understand the safety factor in your policy. --LeyteWolfer 02:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

  • What is your basis for this allegation: [1]. You made it 10 days ago, and there is no explanation on the talk page, a link to an open case, or an actual open case which involves this username over at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets or WP:RFCU.--Crossmr 06:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I can honestly say I don't remember. I do know in my investigation of how to deal with SPs, I hadn't run across either of the two pages you provided. What is more proper: listing a possible offender on one of the two pages or both? --LeyteWolfer 16:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
usually you want to list it at suspect sock puppets, or AN/I to get some input to make sure you're not seeing things with your evidence. But if you can't remember why you thought this person was a sockpuppet that makes things more difficult as usually you'll provide some evidence with your claim (i.e. a user owning others comment, 2 or more users editing identical articles at the same time etc). If you can remember what it was that tipped you off, let me know and I'll see if I can't make the same connection.--Crossmr 23:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why? (Editing User:Gungadin/sandbox2)

  • Why have you tagged my sandbox for deletion? Editing User:Gungadin/sandbox2 I have not completed the article yet and so am constructing it in my sandbox before I add it to main space. I have done this several times in the past and not had them tagged for deletion.Gungadin 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, you called it "Editing User:Gungadin/sandbox2" instead of "User:Gungadin/sandbox2," so it shows up as "Editing User:Gungadin/sandbox2." I suggest moving it to the latter title, before it gets deleted. --LeyteWolfer 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. I dont understand why the name changed like that though. Will that happen everytime I edit it now? Gungadin 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it won't. As some one noted, I should have moved the article myself (instead of setting it up for speedy deletion). No harm, no foul. --LeyteWolfer 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biofuel, History

Hey, sorry to have screwed up your nicely cleaned up section, but there were inaccurate parts that had to be cleared up :P --Tunheim 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I may have cleaned it up before your edit, but I don't see that you changed anything of mine. Anyhow, its a cooperative effort, right? Good luck. --LeyteWolfer 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riscio/FYEO

  • Hi LeyteWolfer, I've been reading the short stories recently. I really don't see the connection between the plots in the short stories and the film, I think the film just used elements from the short stories then used the plot from the LALD novel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.216.24.4 (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Sorry, dude: no clue what you're talking about. --LeyteWolfer 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
On the For your Eyes Only page where it says that the film is based on the short stories.
Gotcha, understand now. Also, remember to sign your comments (on Talk & Discussion pages) with 4 tildes (~), located on the button bar above the comments field. That will automatically 'sign' your name and date to the comment. --LeyteWolfer 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. By the way, given the sucess of Casino Royale, I've tried taking down the DCINB links on the Daniel Craig page, but someone keeps putting them back up. Is it possible, to take the links down then put a lock on that part of the page? (please sign comments --LeyteWolfer )
Not without an admin's effort. I suggest you go to the article's talk page and discuss why the links are necessary to the article. Ask for a consensus opinion. Once you have that, any reversions of your entries will be contrary to concensus, and an admin may step in, if necessary. --LeyteWolfer 04:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIAV

Please do not inform the vandals that they have been reported to admins. This may anger them in some strange way, or they could be encouraged by this comment, and continue to vandalize.

So, next time you report a vandal to WP:AIAV, please just do that alone, and don't tell the vandal they have been reported. Hopefully that made some sense. If it didn't... If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Okay thanks for telling me. I though vandals could be blocked if they had recieved the bv template too. Thanks for clarifing! | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 18:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The {{bv}} template. I use it often, sometimes the users get blocked, but I guess I should go with test4, just to be safe. By the way, do you have a program installed to edit the orange "new messages" bar? Because mine doesn't say "You have new messages (last change)" anymore (the last 15 minutes/your messages), it says "Your user talk page has been edited (last change).". | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 19:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism, I do the same (must be the standard ;). The messages, I've had another "different" one, and another "standard" one. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, LeyteWolfer! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

I've noticed that you are active in the BattleTech articles here at Wikipedia. I've started a proposal for a Battletech Wikiproject. If you are interested please check out my proposal at the Battletech main article's talk page. Thanks alot. NeoFreak 05:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This needs to be solved

I have taken the "List of Companies" problem (what to do with an entire class of articles that get repeatedly submitted for deletion en mass?) for debate to two different places. This really needs to be solved once and for all (we can't keep debating the same stuff for eternity). Would you take a look at either the discussion on the Village Pump or the relevant wikiproject? Aditya Kabir 15:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burgstone

I think you've identified the challenge with this article quite succinctly. But did you really not expect our friend's reaction? Risker 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, assuming our friend is actually Burgstone himself (otherwise, where does the passion come from?), but also assuming he avoids identifying himself as such, we might have been able to actually make the article meet Wikipedia's standards. I suspect, however, the only reference we probably would have found that would allow the article to meet those standards would have been the one focusing on the business acumen of his partner and himself. That would make it notable, but not have met his personal standards (the ones where a Burgstone article doesn't need to highlight the subject's stumbles).
What I did find interesting was his attempts to directly avoid addressing the issue of notability, like an apprentice stage magician: a little bit of patter ("here are articles where he (or his business dealings) is(are) mentioned"), a bit of mis-direction ("how come someone of equal importance to Burgstone -Jimmy Wales- doesn't meet my strict standards?"), with a slight of hand that attracts too much attention ("I /really/ think that all of my editing talents should be focused on him...but its not important as to why"). I think wikipedia's policies have stood out well, again.
By-the-way, I think both Metros and you did a good job at researching and verifying the case for lack of notability, and you still did it without going negative. Instead, it was a demonstration as to why better references were needed. --LeyteWolfer 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, most of the articles I invest time in are far easier to research because of a plethora of sources, so it was probably a good exercise for me to work on something that required a more subtle form of information gathering. I'm not quite sure what to do with the article at this point - it seems to be on a bunch of review lists but not attracting significant further attention, and until the protection is lifted it probably shouldn't be listed at AfD. Suggestions? Risker 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right: we could work to find references that actually pinpoint Burgstone as the subject of the reference, but notability? Nothing in the material he...I mean our friend gave us established that notability, in my mind. I'm all for AfD come tomorrow. --LeyteWolfer 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Moot point, now. Ryulong has summarily deleted it. Darn...and some of my best work ;) Risker 23:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[shaking head] Darn shame, indeed... --LeyteWolfer 01:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Cohen (economist)

New information making Lauren Cohen (economist) a notable athlete, I believe. Please reconsider.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to your reconsideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a pest, but My comment4 is particularly directed at your fear of article spamming.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation

I have no unserstanding where the following statement: "such standards may allow for for-hire article writing. In that regard, you're the first that was obviously well camouflaged, if you are indeed such a writer." comes from. As I understand it you are accusing me of being a mercenary writer. I am not, have never been and a for-hire writer as you call it. On what basis would you make a claim and how would it relate to this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa...settle down, Tiger. Gotta say this was 180 direction change I hadn't expected. If you go back and read it again, you'll see that my radar is set on high for such for-hire writers and of all that I had met, you definitely didn't fit the mold (which raised my confidence higher). In fact, it was your (previously) stable & even keel that made me doubt you were such a writer. It was only your passion for this specific article that lent the 20% doubt. Might want to go back and re-read my statement from a second and more positive perspective. The important variable was, of course, "if you are indeed such a writer."--LeyteWolfer 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your warnings

Note that adding level three warnings after a level four warning has been given is more or less redundant. Just let the WP:AIV report run its course. Thanks for your efforts. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, got caught up in the swing of things. --LeyteWolfer 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheese

Thanks for that.
I like cheese a lot.
but I don't have a reference to support it
'  :( '
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 05:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's gotta be the 'cheesiest' excuse I've heard today...and its not even 6 am yet! ;-) --LeyteWolfer 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Todor Jivkov

Read here please!Bulgarians#Bulgarian_Communist_Dictator_Todor_Zhivkov.27s_forcibly_deporting_Turkish_ethnic_minority The chapter was more harsher and I softenеd it and now I am not neutral!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Two things: 1) always sign your posts on talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~) and 2), this is still very non-neutral. For example, you still use the following words: sadly, showed no mercy, stains, biggest nazi remark, negative, hatred. You also don't cite any sources for your facts. The English isn't great, and I'd clean it up for you, but without sources and with all the negative words emplyed, I'd have to change it drmatically. Go ahead and work on it again and I'll check on it in an hour or two. Thanks! --LeyteWolfer 16:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What edits

MAKE THE NEW MESSAGE BAR GO AWAY IT'S BEEN UP FOR A HALF HOUR! And what edits? At the risk of annoyance, post under here. 70.186.217.199 23:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. --LeyteWolfer 02:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! That was there for quite a while. But what's controversial?70.186.217.199 22:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wu Cheng Yi

Don't really understand your revert to one of the comments on the Wu Cheng Yi page which you classified as vandalism. It said "Wu Cheung Yi" can mean "no sincerity" when spoken in Chinese .. and it can. The characters are different, but the pronunciation is the same. I don't see how this is classified as vandalism. Rols 15:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I recall thinking the same thing, based on the context of the article. I think I had doubts about the editor, based on previous edits that leaned towards vandalism, but in that case, I thought there was acceptable doubt to leave it be. I must have gone ahead and changed that one issue accidentally. I'm all for returning the statement to its original intent. --LeyteWolfer 16:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-vandalism edits

Hi LeyteWolfer! Yes, I know about the templates - in fact, I often use Twinkle to do my counter-vandalism work. I tend to use the popups (which don't include the warning message templates) when I'm in a hurry or feeling lazy.  :) Thanks for the reminder though! --Folic_Acid 03:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oooh...a new toy. Thanks for sharing! --LeyteWolfer 04:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 :D Anytime! --Folic_Acid 04:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continental Airlines

I'd appreciate some research on your hand before you accuse me of breaking the 3-revert-rule. I was reversing vandalism each and every time, and the last time I checked this was not a violation of the 3RR. If you need some explaining, the anon user 67.170.147.184 continuously changed an entry in the article to make it seem like Continental Airlines had Boeing 777-200LR aircraft instead of Boeing 777-200ER aircraft, which is simply not true. The anon user was continuously on the offense in his edit comments, saying words such as "prove it", "idiot", and "wrong" and then when I did "prove" it, he simply reverted it again and said that he didn't care. Fortunately another user corrected it this time, however it clearly shows no wrong doing on my part. Thank you. NcSchu(Talk) 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please understand the difference between a warning and notification of past violation.
I definitely agree that he was less professional than you, but by your reasoning he wouldn't have been close to violating 3RR either, right? Afterall, he could tell me that he was simply reverting what wrong information you were putting in [there is every indication that he thought you were as wrong as you thought him].
What I was doing was informing you both that at the time I came across the edit war (how else is an edit war defined?) that you were both in danger -with one more revert each- of being in violation of 3RR. So, as you can see, no further research of 3RR was required on my part. I am curious, however: in what different circumstances do you think the 3RR applies, if not this one? Sincerely, --LeyteWolfer 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Specifically when two users revert each other's edits simply because they disagree with one another's edits. That was not the case here, in which I was reverting an edit that was clearly false: Continental does not have 777-200LR aircraft, they have 777-200ER aircraft. I find it absurd that I should ignore the correction of false information simply because of the 3RR. I understand how it could easily have looked like an edit war, but I also had indications that the anon user was a vandal, especially after he/she ignored referrals to sources. NcSchu(Talk) 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The point is you both thought the other was wrong and intended to revert the other's edit. You may be right; you may be wrong: I don't know. Whether one was right and the other wrong does /not/ come into play in regards to the 3RR. The point is, by the third edit, you should seek admin intervention or consensus discussion. I am not asking you to ignore false information, but when an edit war does not solve the problem, seek admin help to arbitrate. You'll find that one person following the rules every time will always win a dispute on Wikipedia. Editing more than three times (which you didn't do) would be in violation. No worries: you didn't actually violate 3RR and I presume you would not have. --LeyteWolfer 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well, I'm not overly upset by what he did.

That user should have just been thankful he came to me for the creation of those articles. I think, from what I've seen of the people he communicated with, that I was the only one who could get him to talk without "yelling" at everyone.

As I said on the deletion discussion for Robin Burger, perhaps the articles could just be redirected to the articles for some of the shows they apparently worked on. That way, if they ever have a reasonable notability established, the articles can be restored easily. Along the way, I thank you for taking the time and concern to raise a debate over what will happen to the articles, so...

Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Wilhelmina Will 21:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yrgh

Hi. You placed an AfD notice on the talk page of User Yrgh today. That user was banned back in January. Just thought you should know. (I'd forgetten the page was on my watchlist, is why I noticed.) --SandChigger 13:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just rich! Huh...makes me wonder if he's the unregistered editor that 'tasked' all of those non-notable articles to others, before getting blocked for harrassment. Well, thanks for letting me know. --LeyteWolfer 14:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Sorry for not using edit summary, but what I removed was just vandalism. 200.255.9.38 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see it wasn't malacious. I honed in on it because it was a deletion from a talk page (which generally isn't allowed) and because the deleted material didn't have anything of a negative nature (that I could see in a pop). However, Talk pages are supposed to be regarding the page they are for only, and its clear to me now that what you removed had no relevance to the Main page. I agree with you that the summary would have been helpful. Good job and my apologies. --LeyteWolfer 16:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk cleanup

Hello. I just noticed your "cleanup" edits on several user talk pages ([2], [3], etc.). If you are not familiar with WikiProject user warnings, you may wish to review the standardized layout for warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for sharng it with me.--LeyteWolfer 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, adding a subsection header like "Doubtful" as you did here is not very helpful. We need to be very professional and courteous in our anti-vandalism efforts, and things like that tend to just fan the flames. I have cleaned up that talk page. Thanks, Satori Son 14:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You might also wish to check out WP:DENY, as many would view those sorts of headers as "feeding the trolls." --Kralizec! (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your username

Is it related to the Philippine island of Leyte? BrokenSphereMsg me 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's where the inspiration came from, yes. --LeyteWolfer 01:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 211.30.34.207

I've lock his talk page for 1 week for trolling, threats, warning removals, etc - so maybe he will calm down. He is blocked until the 22 or 23rd for a total of 1 week which is more then usual for the first block, which generally is 24 to 48 hours. If he continues to do this again, he will be block for much longer. I hope though the 1 week will be enough for him to stop. Thanks!--JForget 01:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If he is to threaten again, I'll try and hold off from seeking longer blocks until the end of theis current one. Again, thanks for the consideration. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. --JForget 01:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Marine

My account keeps failing but there must be an error since i have been messaged for an edit made on a page about a movie called the Marine. Not only have i not made such an edit but i have not even seen the movie. I am resolving the membership issue.

I'm not sure why you're writing to me about this, and I definitely can't help you, because you haven't signed your post (with four tildes ~~~~). If you come back here to check out the status of your message, please let me know who you are & what you'd like me to help you with. Thanks. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] America's Next Top Model

Hiya. Believe me, I wish more people would put in edit summaries too! Unless you're very familiar with the page and its history (in this case, these same changes have been happening for months) there's no way really to know what's true and what isn't. Though unfortunately I think encouraging people to put in edit summaries is kind of falling on deaf ears. Except it actually seemed to work on Superrodris89, so thanks. Eatcacti (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry but i dont understand why the information i submitted is wrong...the girl's myspaces have those surnames too so they cant be false...i mean....they must know their surnames..anyway get me back about this Superrodris89 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I wasn't judging whether they were wrong or not, just that I didn't know. You may not have provided an edit summary, and because I didn't know your intentions, I assummed you were another vandal to the page (I'm a vandal patroller). If you /do/ know more, then make the change freely...just provide an edit summary, so that us patrollers feel more comfortable with the edit. (It also helps when you log in; most vandals are unregistered.) Thanks! --LeyteWolfer (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry for the surnames...i was just informed that Potpower was like an unreliable source...so sorry for the trouble i caused :( :D anyway see yaLucia (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Nicolerichiefan

This edit makes no sense to me. Was it an accident? —dgiestc 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was. Thanks for bringing my attention to it. Registered users should not be put in that category. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Paneld LRG.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paneld LRG.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I have recived several vandilism warnings, of which are falsely given to me. I edited the It Had To Be You page because the Footnotes were unaccurate and the page is full of errors I.E: "\[[Gossip Girl}}". Also I changed the publishing company from Little, Brown to Poppy because Little, Brown did NOT publish this book. A new company called Poppy did.

Also I edited Lucky page by removing the future release tag because it has already been released. The book is now aviable EVERYWHERE. This is NOT vandilism as well as changing the publisher Little, Brown to Poppy because Little, Brown did NOT publish this book, a new company called Poppy is.

And for the page Shock site I removed the original research tag because there were sources and reference in the page, I was not aware that this also applies to the intro.

Also I recived all of the vandilism warnings because of my last two days edit all today, within a few seconds apart from each other while I was offline. There would be no way I would have known that these edits were vandilism since I did not have that intention in mind.

Thankyou. -- McSteamy (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, apologies are in order. I assummed that 'Poppy' was a mis-spelling of 'poopy' (yes, I've seen it, I'm sad to say) and the wililink for Poppy for the publisher went to the article on the poppy plant/flower. In that case, I'd write in the publisher without a wikilink if no article exists, and with the publisher's full name (ex: Poppy Publishing).
I was obviously too rushed to judgement in your case, and I aplogize. Thanks or politely setting the record straight.

--LeyteWolfer (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP talk edits

Hi. Just curious - what is the point of edits like this? Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than the category treatment, the 'association' is because I've cleaned up the section headings to conform with some policy suggested to me, but in those cases the original poster included the article title only in the section heading. In order to allow future admins to research vandal claims, I move the article title under the original post and sign for it. (I don't feel comfortable changing the post itself, since I didn't write it.) What it boils down to is, if I'm going to clean up a talk page dedicated to vandalization warnings, I don't want any information to be lost because of my efforts. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I wondered if some standard had been agreed to re: IP talk pages. If there is, let me know. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah, no worries there, mate. This wikiproject has a way of standardizing and bulleting the warnings section. What I came away from it with was that the only sections should be by month of warnings, and I had agree it had it much more coherent. Best, --LeyteWolfer (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr A Knife in Dwight Schrute's entry

The joke in the show was that he went to a filing cabinet, and pulled out a hanging folder labeled 'Mr A Knife,' inside of which was another of his knives. He had them spread across the office, and I thought that joke was worthy of preservation in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.26.230.102 (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got no real problem with that. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV request.

Hi. I saw your request at AIV re User talk:Shadowkage 5‎. Technically as there has been no recent vandalism there is a case for saying he shouldn't be blocked. However his user page was essentialy an attack on all Wikipedians, and he has made no constructive edits at all. On that basis I've indef. blocked. If another admin overrules as out of process that's up to them, but I can't see this account will do anything but come back and cause havoc. Cheers for your help. Pedro :  Chat  16:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pedro: that was a real moment of frustration for me. I appreciate the consideration. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You blocked my IP from editing wikipedia, presumably after Langdell requested you to do so. I want to ask if Langdell has an unjust First Mover advantage (of complaining to an admin). I'm afraid you did not give ANY tangible reason whatsoever to justify your action, except the background complaint from Langdell. Have you examined the case at hand ? How did you decide that Langdell's reverts were "OK" whereas mine constituted "vandalism" ? Until you have the answer to this question, you cannot arbitrarily use your priveleges, which would otherwise conform to their blatant abuse. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If I have admin privileges, then you found out before me. But, looking at your Contribs and Block Log, I'd have to presume that the reason you were blocked was because of your previous history of violating the Three Revert rule (in March), harrassment, disrupting Wikipedia and reverts again (in August), more disruptions and reverts (in September), then doing having it lengthened for another reason, getting blocked indefinitely for another reason (vandalism, maybe?) and then having it changed to one month. Now, you've been on Wikipedia since 06 June 2006 and blocked for (it looks like) close to a month a half. I really don't think you grasp the rules well enough to decide an admin is doing anything wrong. But that's just my opinion. Its up to others to interpret your history. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I would advise you to first learn 'How to read and comprehend a block log'. Whenever a block is revised, it is first undone and then the new period is imposed with a new reason. I have had 3 blocks, 2 of which were due to simple unintended 3RR (the ones on March and September, the latter one being an indefinite ban that was re-reverted to 1 month after a roller-coaster from 1 week to indefinite). The Moreschi ban was because of a bit too much undoing after the guy deleted my talk edits from my article. Now the guy is reformed and does not delete others' discussion edits.
That was about my block log, and you probably could not fathom anything from my contribs which are exhaustive, and having contributed to numerous articles, withstanding the scrutiny of professionals and upholding the standards of wikipedia.
So the next time when your friend or buddy comes wailing and asks you to block or ban somebody else with whom he/she does not have the good protocol to first invite & discuss in talk pages, give it a thought. As a guideline, find proper answers to the questions that I had earlier put to you. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
First, its clear that you have reading comprehension problems, since you didn't understand the first sentence of my response. You weren't blocked by me; most people know that general editors don't have blocking authority. Second, I have no need to "find proper answers to the questions that [you] had earlier put to [me]" since the very questions presume events that didn't happen. For whatever rules you broke, it stands you have a block history and I have no truck with vandals. Since this conversation is over, there is no need to apologize to me for your mis-understanding or your mis-deeds. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in. I think he's talking about this edit. You accidentally tagged his talk page with the repeat IP vandal template, which he assumed was a block and turned into a super exciting conspiracy. Kuru talk 00:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that out when I went back to see what I did; I was too quick to apply the IP label to a registered user. However, seeing his past record combined with his 'demands' upon me didn't really ingratiate him to me. But, heh...thanks for trying to clear it up. Cheers! --LeyteWolfer (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LeyteWolfer, I apologize for the unfriendly language that I used earlier which was a reult of a misunderstanding. You said that, "If I am an admin, you found out before me". I should have re-read that sentence after not paying attention to it. It happens after one is very stressed and exhausted. This is India, where outside your house one has to battle to commute. However, I guess you could have cleared the matter yourself before Kuru. Had it not been for him, ill-will would have lingered around. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding vandalism IP category

Hi -- just a thought. I don't think that adding Category:IP addresses used for vandalism is helpful, without adding appropriate tags that transclude the category. That is because it interferes with bots (and other users) adding warning tags. Therefore, unless the activities on that page warrants adding one or more tags that would automatically put the IP into the category, I don't think you should manually add the category. I also think it is counterproductive when the vandalism status of the IP has not yet been ascertained -- as was the case with several that you just tagged now. --Nlu (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to ask you to explain the act of transcluding. I've been a vandal patroller for some time now and never had any problems applying a tag to a page because of any existing cats. As for ascertaining acts of vandalism, I generally review the last several edits that led the IP to be added to WP:AIV. If those are uncertain, I generally review older history of the IP as well as existing warnings and often look at the block log. If you could be more explanatory in your descriptions of how several of those that I tagged were free of identified vandalism, I'd be more apt to understand the problem. Cheers! --LeyteWolfer (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is three-fold:

  1. The category is more appropriately added to by adding {{repeatvandal}} to the tag.
  2. The category can be misleading. When you add the category to an IP's talk page that an admin had not yet had the chance to review, it creates an impression that the IP had already been ascertained to be vandalizing, which really has to be ascertained based on its activities at the time before an admin can justifiably block the IP. Again, at the time that I posted my message above to you, at least one of the IPs that you added to the category turned out to be not vandalistic -- it was more of an edit dispute.
  3. You manually add the category at the bottom, which means that, at some point, if the category is to be removed, whoever edits the talk page would have a hard time finding the category to remove it if bots or other users had already piled more and more warnings below.

In any case, there is no real policy on this, but my own preference is that the category not be added to, since I find the category to be unhelpful -- since the admin still has to make a real-time determination whether the IP was vandalizing. But if you really wish to add to the category, using the {{repeatvandal}} tag and add it to the top of the talk page may be more appropriate. Just my thoughts. Thanks for your dedication to fighting vandals. --Nlu (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining. While my intention is to allow warning editors to know they can - in certain cases- go straight to WP:AIV without having to add any further warnings (due to the repeat nature of the IP), I understand what you mean by adding 'tl' to the tag, and I'll make that change. Also, generally I do put it at the top when I make it the sole entry on a page, but for efficiency's sake, I've combined it with the cat tag and placed it at the bottom. I'll endeavor to make sure it goes at the top, in the future. Again, thanks for explaining. --LeyteWolfer 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP address adding as vandalisim

I am disputing the fact that you have added my ip address on the vandalisim page.

The warning that i have recicved for removing a part of the page is being disputed. This discussion is taken place on the persons talk page and i still am waiting a reply.

Untill this matter is dealt with i ask that you revert your edit and in the future investigate the sceniro before taking action due to the fact that i was within my rights to remove what i removed as the source is disputed.

Thank you 220.239.85.96 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the vandalism tag was applied because of past edits from that IP. If you feel that your edit was not -in actuality- an act of vandalism, then fear not. Its just that in the past, the IP in use by you has been documented having committed vandalism. In other words, the tag doesn't apply to you the editor, but the IP which you may share with others.
I'd like to suggest that you register as an editor, so that your acts of In Good Faith editting are represented apart from that of the edits of anonymous editors (and vandals). Thank you for approaching me, however, so civilly. It is appreciated. --LeyteWolfer 04:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tekk me what edits were made that was considered as vandilisam. The problem i have is that all edits under this IP address have been made by myself and i have not commited what i call to be vandalisim. Just because i contributed or editied an article and the editor did not agree with the statment etc it should not be classed as vandalisim. According to WP:VANDAL "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". None of my edits fit into this context and all have been made in good faith.

As a result i request that the vandalisim tag be removed from this IP address.

Thank you 220.239.85.96 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To get a detailed report on what vandalism was allegedly commited, please review your talk page and contact the editors that applied the individual tags. In some cases, where time has gone by, they may not be able to provide that report to you, but its a shot. However, I really urge you to register, so that it is clear to everyone (including yourself) which edits can be credited solely to you. This will also allow you a 'frsh' start, clear of the tag regarding an IP having been used for vandalism. Cheers. --LeyteWolfer 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I just took a look at some of your IP's history: the warning applied to Mathematical Notation does not appear to be valid, from what I understand. However, today's warning regarding MacGregor State High School absolutely appears valid, for the IP removed a sizable amount of information from the article. If you did this edit and you felt deleting the information made the article better, an explanation as to why in the edit summary (at a minimum) and in the page's discussion page would have helped identify you as a non-vandal. My advice is to improve your editing practices by 1) registering, 2) using edit summaries, 3) avoid deletion blocks of information rather than improving them and 4) invite discussion before making major changes.
By the way, the IP vandalism tag does not hinder your work in any respect. What it does is help admins quickly identify edits that may involve vandalism, so that that IP can be more quickly blocked when vandalism sprees occur.
Good luck! --LeyteWolfer 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What action should i take if an editior keeps reverting my edit as the believe it is vanadalisim and as a result issues me with warnings when i believe that these edits do not constitue vandalisim. This time i explained in the edit summary however once again it was reverted. I do not wish to sign up for an account.

220.239.85.96 05:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing the details, I'd reccommend discussing (usually on his/her page) why you believe your edit is valid, backing it up with valid references. If the editor ignores your reasoning, contact another editor of the same article to see if he/she might agree with your reasoning. Never lose your cool (which can be very difficult at times) and seek out an admin (at WP:LOA) for assistance. The intervention may not be immediate, but that's how I'd start. --LeyteWolfer 05:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Its unfortunate, but using an unregistered account gives the registered editor the 'home field advantage' (which you've granted him). Registering helps protect your real-life location from being identified (as only admins will be able to see your actual IP, rather than every Wikipedian, as is true now). --LeyteWolfer 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If i was to create an account can i get my edit history from this IP address transfered over to the account 220.239.85.96 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Extremely doubtful. Not speaking from a position of knowledge, but I imagine it would be rather difficult for any admin to feel confident that you had all those edits. Afterall, you are using an IP, which is generally open to anyone using the same i-net service in a certain geographical area. You could try and petition for that, but you would need to register first. And, to be honest, 1) this would allow you to step away from those 'training' edits that you were warned upon and 2) you are early enough in your Wikipedia career that not being associated with 50 or so edits is not that big of a loss. --LeyteWolfer 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

Good one! [4] :) --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Every now and then a jab at a vandal jumps out on its own. I'm reluctant to take credit. Cheers! --LeyteWolfer 13:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More about Category:IP addresses used for vandalism

Well, I do think it's better that you add it to the top instead, but I still find that simply adding the category for every IP that vandalizes to be unhelpful and, at times, misleading. In any case, though, even with IPs with substantial vandalism history, it's better to simply add the tag {{VandalIP}}. It really makes me feel that you are just reflexively adding the category whenever there is a single instance of vandalism or report of vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I gotta be honest with you, Nlu: I don't think we're going to get our personal policies to merge. I believe I have an open mind on the subject, but I feel that when an IP has been used to blatantly vandalize (using anything from blanking, curse words, vanity additions (ex: "Mike was here!!!"), as well as other forms of vandalism), tagging the IP (not the specific user), helps bring the repeat damage to Wikipedia to a greater head (in regards to an admin's awareness). Its much more effective, in my experience, then explaining why to a responding admin that a third 24-hour block is far from effective. I've found that block responses by admins have been 31+ hours in cases where an IP has been both 4th level warned and been tagged as having vandalized. To help soothe your concerns, I generally disagree with posting on WP:AIV one-shot vandals, especially if they have not received a 4th level warning (I've had to restrain myself frome deleting from the AIV list when I see some other editor has added someone who has never been warned). In fact, more often than not, one of my VP duties is to go and warn IPs when a second editor has only reverted their work, and not warned them. However, again, if the vandalization is clear, even on the first attempt, I think that should be noted. It does not affect the In Good Faith editors on that IP at all and has sparked some conversations towards registering as an editor.
Again, I do have an open mind and I decided to be more clear in my intent by posting at the tops of pages the cat tags (even though I suspect some of the more adept vandals will be quicker to delete them). I guess I should say this: I don't see what harm my efforts have to Wikipedia, but I have seen the benefit they have had in stopping vandals semi-interested in being pains. When I grab a screen of recent changes, I'm appalled at how many edits are actually pure vandalization! I'm talking a large portion, sometimes in excess of 60% (when it is an IP-only review). If my efforts make it harder for post-Level 4 vandals to do their deeds and easier for the few VPers out there, plus help improve Wikipedia's image, then I think the discomfort level in comparison may be rated as very low.
I appreciate your passion for VPing. Rest assurred: I'm not throwing the tag at every person who appears on WP:AIV. While I may make mistakes (and I correct the ones I discover or are brought to my attention), I am using a suitable degree of consideration. Thanks for conversing with me! --LeyteWolfer 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television series

This is 68.151.70.78, Have you keep under observation of Avengers: United They Stand. It's was cancelled, read the citation needed. —Preceding comment was added at 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more clear? I've never edited that article, it appears. Please explain your above statement.--LeyteWolfer (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best Intro to Wikipedia, Suggestions?

Hi Leytewolfer, what do you think is the best comprehensive introduction to Wikipedia? Also, I'm a little confused. I see that Wikipedia is a non-profit raising, donations, but I also read that the company is raising venture capital money? How can it be non-profit and for-profit...is something changing? --Masonfree40 (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to response from CBDunkerson (eom)