User talk:Thomas H. Larsen/archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas H. Larsen

This is the English Wikipedia discussion page assigned to Thomas H. Larsen. Please assume good faith, remain neutral, and stay civil; if everyone abides by this code of conduct, discussions will be more fruitful.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, current.

I will generally continue discussion where our conversation started. Thus, if I posted on your talk page first, I will usually continue discussion there; if you posted on this page first, I will usually continue discussion here; and if either of us posted on another page first, I will usually continue discussion there.

Start a new discussion.

Note: At this time, I am not very active on Wikipedia, typically editing for only one or two hours per week. Therefore, I may take four or more days to respond to your messages. I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause, and I hope to resume active editing within a reasonable time frame.

Please do not major changes without first discussing it on the appropriate talk page, those pages exist for a reson, if you would like to discuss it i'd be glad to.--WWWUser 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Comment

Yuser31415, an admirer of Vivien Leigh--218.217.208.185 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, sorry. Clarify, please? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Claim

What are personal attacks? I said that it was an anti-fan anyway. Isn't it you that began vandalism? Wiki is the place where you should write a fact precisely, not your agreement or objection.--Wbrz 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you an idiot who doesn't understand if it doesn't explain separately? Foolishness ..disappearing... --Wbrz 01:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User warned with BV and NPA4 warnings. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is that bad?

Is that bad? I just don't understand why it won't work here at home. Perhaps it is because my home IP address won't show briefly in the username box as it does in the office I work at. Power level (Dragon Ball) 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You know that there is a special page on Wikipedia where you're able to see new accounts created, right? I'm just doing what you sometimes do, you welcome random newcomers to Wikipedia too, don't you? Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leo Ryan

  • The electoral history link is not a spamlink. Please stop removing it from the article page. Smee 07:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
    • The second time I removed it was an accident; I thought I had made a mistake saving my edit. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, okay, well thank you. I will put it back in then. Smee 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
        • I see that you already have done that, again, my thanks! Smee 07:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] rm spamlink

Hello,

I just reverted the change you made on John A. Nejedly. You removed this link from the References section and flagged it as a spamlink, but I think you may have done that in error. The link is to a website that archives election histories for California, and this would seem to be a reasonable link/reference for a biography on a dead politician from California. If there was some other reason for your edit that I missed, please let me know. Thanks, Spicoli 08:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a stupid mistake of mine. It's been pointed out above. Now I have 75+ of my edits to undo :( Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zarbon

How is it that his IP changes every 24 hrs.? Is there a certain program like that that exists, where one could have his/her IP change over a 24 hour period? BTW, I posted a message about some peculiar behavior regarding another revert at Action figure. Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the ISP, I believe. Some rotating IPs change every 15 minutes or so - making it very hard to target blocks, as I'm sure you can imagine. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That's kinda scary when ya think about it... Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep ... Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is just a little strange also. Another newcomer just so happens to also want the Zarbon toy image to stay. What I think is funny here is that these newcomers all just happen to visit the Action figure article and edit it. Now, if all of a sudden this person (or someone else) puts a {{ifd}} tag on Image:Ryan Giggs action figure.jpg again, then I'll definitely think something fishy's going on here and then I'll have to investigate... Power level (Dragon Ball) 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, would you ever expect an anonymous new IP user to do this? No, right? "What's your point", you ask? Because for as long as I've been on Wikipedia, I have never even learned how to do this with my past earlier accounts (which I deeply regret ever making since I screwed up before) anyways, this person knew of: Reverted revision 106760900 by Power level (Dragon Ball) (talk) via undo. I mean that, automatically, is peculiar because of these two reasons:
  1. The person has just started editing the encyclopedia and already knows how to undo revisions
  2. This person also wants the Zarbon image to stay so badly without giving a thourough reason
Does this ring any bells to you, at all? I mean, who would care so much about a Zarbon toy in the first place? Power level (Dragon Ball) 05:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't stop. Whenever you're back online, see User talk:SUIT#Action figure for comment. Power level (Dragon Ball) 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Yuser. I'm sure you noticed the craziness that happened on Action figure last night, huh? You know, last night was actually my first somewhat successful time using CheckUser reporting those anon. IPs and new users behaviours. In the beginning it was sooooooo confusing to figure out the codes and whatnot. In the end, it was taken care of. Hey, shall we start a CheckUser on 4kinnel (talk · contribs)? I think I know who it is. It may very well be Wiki-star (talk · contribs) or Taracka (talk · contribs); abusive users that created several sockpuppets in the past that damaged a lot of the Dragon Ball related articles. Taracka had several run-ins with Deskana as well in the past. I love the magic of CheckUser now! Don't you? I just wish it was less complicated... So! Shall we get started? Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to go CheckUser, as long as you've got sufficient evidence - please email me with that. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hu12's RfA

Meh, I was just being bitchy myself, I think. Looks like we both had a sort of rough night. Lord knows I've contradicted myself on RfA's before, too. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA
Thank You,
Thomas H. Larsen/archive 17 for your Support!
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.


...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ip block

When IP blocking, watch for sensitive IP addresses. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.44.13.214 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not an admin. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject

Hi, I'm iceDevil. I saw your message. And I would like to ask what is actually the WikiProject. Besides, how to join the WikiProject if i am interested and what should i do after joining the Wikiproject? Thank you.

--IceDevil 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird caching

That's not the first time I've seen that recently... I think somebody has changed something regarding the caching headers that are sent with each page load... /wangi 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that's it. I'm not entirely sure what happened there :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Checkkkk ittttt.... --Deskana (request backup) 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Go check yours now :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't have any evidence that the person who's speaking to Deskana could possibly be Taracka or Wiki-star. But I'll keep an eye on that person too. Just for now... Power level (Dragon Ball) 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. That's the best thing to do. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block of ip

That ip appears to be a library terminal which has repeatedly been used for vandalism. Only anonymous editing is blocked. Fred Bauder 02:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kindness Campaign userboxes

I noticed that there currently exists a redundancy in the userboxes for the Kindness Campaign; Template:User KC and Template:User wikipedia/Kindness Campaign are nearly identical and both are in widespread use. Wikipedia: Kindness Campaign states that the official userbox is {{user KC}}, but {{user wikipedia/Kindness Campaign}} was created earlier. I think there should be just one "official" userbox (and it's not as if two userboxes are actually needed, given that they practically mirror each other), but I have a bit of a dilemma over which to propose for deletion. +A.Ou 06:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I would suggest taking the matter to Wikipedia talk:Kindness Campaign, and arrange a redirect from one official template to the other, unofficial, template. Cheers! Yuser31415 06:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just been WP:BOLD and redirected Template:User wikipedia/Kindness Campaign to Template:User KC. Cheers! Yuser31415 06:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nasz

Yuser31415, I saw you repeatedly asked Nasz not to blank his talkpage - to no avail. I certainly wouldn't call him a vandal, since at least some of his edtis seem to show good-will, but they are often controversial, unsourced and ungrammatical, and it's impossible to discuss his edtis with him. Do you think there's anything than can be done to teach him to be more civil and open to co-operation? Kpalion 10:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relisting AFDs

Hi Yuser, when relisting AFDs, please remember to de-list from the original log page [1]. Thanks! --Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 11:09Z

Sorry, my mistake :). Yuser31415 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing AFDs

Hi Yuser, I'm here to comment on your AFD actions again. I'm glad that you're trying to get your feet wet in preparation for asking for adminship again, but please, be conservative. For example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OttoBib.com, you closed the AFD even though there were no comments after another admin had re-listed. That means another admin felt there was not enough for consensus, and nothing had changed yet. By closing it, you were going over an admin's head. The right thing to do in this case would have been to re-list again. You might think it pointless if you expect the same thing to happen again, but in fact AFD participation is highly variable and usually even if a first re-list request generated no additional comments, a second one will (participation depends on day of week, time of day, who's active, etc.). Also, you had to write a long statement supporting your closure result, with your own opinions and using words like "probably" -- that means it wasn't an obvious closure. In general, before you get your adminship you should only close AFDs that are extremely obvious and uncontroversial. One keep, 1 weak keep, 1 delete, 1 neutral is not "extremely obvious" and the fact that W.marsh had re-listed it is a big hint that more input is needed. I'm not going to take any action on this but please remember to be conservative. There are lots of "pure keep" uncontroversial AFDs that you can close if you want. Thanks. --Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 12:01Z

Well, I'm not sure I was "going over another admin's head" but closing an AfD that was going to go through another week of process :). If you feel my actions were inappropriate then tell me and I'll revert myself; thanks for pointing this out. (Surprising lack of uncontroversial AfDs that weren't closed yesterday.) Cheers, Yuser31415 19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Impunv

He has been informed multiple times over the past few days about WP policies, most notably WP:OR. He has been so informed by a number of different users (see his talk page, Talk:String theory, and Talk:Higgs boson as well). He consistently refuses to engage in dialog, and even after being informed by the Mediation Cabal that he was not operating inside Wikipedia policy, violated the 3RR on String theory. When you are searching through the pages, look for "R. Mirman" which is how he usually signs his posts. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I referred to the WP:3RR rule and linked to it... I'm not sure what more I can do to explain. If you look, you can see how he's now opened a 2ND Mediation Cabal request, and STILL cannot figure out how to use History or Discussion pages. I have TRIED (as have many others) to engage him in dialogue... he refuses. I have done my best. You are welcome to attempt to explain things to him, but we have made no progress thus far. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:JzG

A less heavy-handed approach might be more effective. He's a reasonable person; you should be able to explain your concerns compellingly and moderately and have them listened to. Jkelly 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. This user has been warned numerous times for personal attacks; at one point Durova was considering blocking him for doing just that. Yuser31415 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

Please explain why you stopped the Delete process for EVP and why you are threatening me now? The reasons for requesting the review are clear and reasonable. All I am doing now is following the rules! Tom Butler 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(a) I am not threatening you. (b) The nomination was made in direct violation of WP:POINT. (c) The deletion process would never get past the first step you enacted, because your reasons for deletion were invalid. Yuser31415 00:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You are making an assumption for which you would have to read my mind to find support. In fact, This comment by one of the new editors helped me decide it was a reasonable move: It might come to that, but I'd recommend giving it a little time. There have been admin reports for COI and 3RR so someone may step in. Looking at the sources, there may be a case made to just delete the article as not notable since there only seems to be one mention other than fringe sources. Let it play out for a couple days, step back and see if other editors step in. --Milo H Minderbinder 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Milo_H_Minderbinder#EVP.
By saying "The last time" you are threatening me, so please change your approach. Meanwhile, I am going to appear precisely because the delete request is not me making a point. It is me trying to solve a problem that is openly acknowledged by others. You should let the process run its course according to Wikipedia rules. Tom Butler 01:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Deletion is not a cure-all for 3RR or COI. Yuser31415 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Hi,

I recently encountered an autobiographical article (Carla Hughes Lieblein). Since the subject most likely does not qualify as notable (CSD A7), I tagged it for speedy deletion and placed a notice on the creator's talk page. However, the user removed the tag so I reverted that edit, and then I placed a level 1 warning on their talk page. This time, the user contested the speedy deletion using {{hangon}}, but did not provide a reason.

Since this is my first time dealing with such things, I don't know if my course of action was appropriate. What should I do when dealing with an editor that doesn't have a knowledge of wikipedia policies? Thanks! +A.Ou 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

They provided a reason, but not a really legitimate one (does not address WP:N). I really wish that an admin would come...it's kind of frustrating. +A.Ou 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Your actions were entirely appropriate (you could use {{db-bio}} next time). Keep it up :)! Yuser31415 03:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my question, but is this actually an appropriate method of editing? It seems wrong.Arcayne 10:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] en:User:CroDome

Hello. I would have liked en:User:CroDome to make such changes, rather than having another user make them for him. This (diff) runs the risk of envoking anger in the user and putting him on the defensive. Your changes were made a full half-hour after my contribution (diff) to the user's talk page, giving you plenty of time to see the recent additions.

Please, in the future, take into account if the user made their userpage recently (usually meaning they are inexperienced/new users) and if other users have notified them of changes that need to be made. I prefer to give all Wikipedia editors the chance to make their own changes (with regard to such things as userpages) once they have been notified, rather than other users imposing such changes on them because this gives them a chance to learn and become better contributors. Cheers, Stop The Lies 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Stop_The_Lies

Good point. However, if the userpage remains in its current state for any reasonable length of time, I will {{db-attack}} it. Yuser31415 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Stop The Lies 04:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies
Hm, I was not aware that attacks were to be removed on sight (I think I slightly disagree with that with regard to very new users, but still sounds like good policy). I guess that alters what I previously said. Stop The Lies 05:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies
You (Yuser) have no right to edit other people's userpages just because the content offends you. If that were the case Striver would either have been banned by now or his userpage would be drastically altered. You know you have no right. You also know how innapropriate it is to be posting vandalism warning templates on other users' talkpages. CroDome is a meatpuppet. If you went through his contributions you would see the account is a joke, and an obvious one at that. I suggest that in the future you not pick fights with other users. KazakhPol 05:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I politely suggest you read WP:ATK. It is quite natural to make a mistake (which is perfectly okay, IMO) but to continue reverting to attack revisions after being warned (nicely, for that matter) is vandalism. Yuser31415 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
And, BTW, what is wrong with Striver's userpage? It seems okay to me. Yuser31415 05:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:ATK is a guideline, Yuser, not a policy. Convention on Wikipedia is not to edit somebody's userpage without discussing it with them first. I have seen you act aggressively with other users about their user pages as well as their talk pages; as you seem to desire an admin position, this concerns me. I urge you to try discussing your concerns with users first, and in a non-aggressive tone, before making unilateral actions. Jeffpw 09:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting my talk page & posting a final warning on CroDome's talk page. I was going to do so myself, but then saw that you had already done so. Stop The Lies 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I have good reason to believe given the latest edit to my user page that CroDome's account is a joke account, simply created to vandalize and annoy others. Stop The Lies 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies
You know what? That's exactly what I'm thinking. Yuser31415 00:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Arbcab

Currently, there is no binding method to resolve disputes aside from Arbcom. In Arbcom, generally at least one party will be sanctioned. Arbcab is meant to take care of minor disputes where mediation isn't an option. It will be designed to be like a binding third opinion. Geo. Talk to me 05:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But when isn't mediation an option? Yuser31415 05:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experimenting with Wikipedia?

Can you please explain to me which article you are referring to on my talk page. Thanks. Famico666 16:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Yuser31415 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for experimenting with my user talk page. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
I explained my reason for removing that POV box in the edit summary. I had just been watching the said episode and I felt that the comment as it was written was entirely justified - it accurately described the banter between Amstell and Tourette without taking any sides. I am actually a very experienced Wikipedian and I know what I'm doing (I have a number of reasons why I have started a new username) Famico666 11:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think User:Recoome's fighting back...

I lefted a comment about this anon. IP that began blanking the tagged sockpuppet userpages of User:Recoome's confirmed puppets on Deskana's talk page. I even opened a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Recoome just to confirm that he's doing it. Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you appear to be getting the hang of RFCU quite well. Keep it up, we need more people to track down sockpuppets. Yuser31415 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I finally understand it now. I hope Deskana logs in soon. I lefted a very important message on his talk page regarding Recoome's block. Did ya read it? Power level (Dragon Ball) 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Just read it now and left a comment there :). Yuser31415 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you have Deskana's e-mail right? Could you e-mail him about Recoome's most recent sockpuppetry? I tried asking the admin. who blocked his socks yesterday to lengthen Recoome's block, but the person never responded back. I don't know about reporting it on WP:ANI... Power level (Dragon Ball) 16:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The answer you wanted about my past socks is on Deskana's talk page. Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you see it? Hope it answers what you wanted to know... Power level (Dragon Ball) 07:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do I get the feeling that Deskana's been ignoring me? Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Just busy, I expect. But calling someone a "dick" doesn't help :(. Yuser31415 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you see my response? Also, that "dickey" business has been taken care of. Deskana understood what I was trying to say to Recoome. If you were thinking that I called Deskana a dick, then you're very wrong. Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello? You there? Power level (Dragon Ball) 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes :). I'm thinking about something else at the moment, in case you were wondering. Yuser31415 03:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you read my response to you on your friend Deskana's talk page? It's about my old accounts on Wikipedia and the truth about my bloody past... Power level (Dragon Ball) 03:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Oh, and as a note, I see you left a comment just above: "Hey, you have Deskana's e-mail right? Could you e-mail him about Recoome's most recent sockpuppetry?" Anyone who has their email enabled can email another user with their email enabled. For example, to email me click here. Just remember though that when you email someone your email address is generally revealed, so if it includes your real name you might wish to create an anonymous account with some free email service provider (I use gmail). Cheers. Yuser31415 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
So, you understand right? About my dark past? Also, I don't trust that "e-mail". Don't want people knowing it... Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand :). And BTW, how do you mean, "Also, I don't trust that "e-mail". Don't want people knowing it..."? Yuser31415 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's nothing personal. I just don't want strange people to know my cool e-mail and start sending me wierd messages. Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, that's understandable :). Yuser31415 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your offer of assistance

Hi: You offered to help mediate as a qualified third at Talk:Zodiac killer#Request_for_Comment:_Link_placement_in_Zodic_killer_entry. I would greatly appreciate it if you could visit there and offer your advice. Thanks. Labyrinth13 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Barnstar for You

Hello, my name is Avdo. I would like to thank you for helping out with the CroDome problem, and I'm glad that there are good and neutral users like you on Wikipedia. I wish you all the best --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Have a barnstar! :)

The Original Barnstar
For the excellence in neutrality and editing style. Your very concise editing style is a great example to us all. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thank you! I'm glad to help :)! Yuser31415 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I DONT understand. Why am I discriminized? Because I'm a Croat, right? Serbs must've told you a lot about us, how we are a "Ustashas and demons on erth", when you're not warning other users like User:Alkalada and User:Ancient Land of Bosoni, both riddled with Islamic fundamentalist BS => just look at it; full of hatred towards Croats and Serbs, and I was only telling the truth and yet my page was deleated BECAUSE OF THAT???

Firstly, read WP:CIVIL. Secondly, don't write in ALL CAPS, because that tends to add fuel to the flames. Thirdly, read WP:NPOV. Fourthly, read WP:ATK. Then come back and apologize. Yuser31415 23:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 7 12 February 2007 About the Signpost
US government agencies discovered editing Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD closing

I am a bit concerned about this: [2]. Though I personally think the article/disambig is fine, and agree that the result would *most likely* be "keep", it just seems like bad form to close an AfD after only four hours and only three comments. I don't think any damage would be done to the Wiki by being a bit more patient. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've reverted my edits. Yuser31415 06:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see expanded reasoning for this proposed deletion.--Triglyph 09:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yuser31415, it is laid down in the rules that non admins are not allowed to close AfDs as "speedy keep", actually. Just thought you would want to know. Regards PeaceNT 09:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As a note of clarification, I believe PeaceNT would be referring to this, namely the sentence "[n]on-administrators may not "speedy-close" deletion discussions. They must either express their view that the debate should be "speedy-closed" in the normal procedure, or wait until the discussion has run the full AfD period to close it as a "keep" if there is a consensus to do so". Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the rule I mentioned. I should have been clearer. =) PeaceNT 11:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I probably shouldn't have closed that AfD as speedy keep. If it is blatantly obvious the AfD is going to fail (ie., some George W. Bush nomination) I don't think anyone would object if an IP closed the discussion. Yuser31415 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I would object, Yuser. If you want the tools to enforce policy, the best way to get them (IMO) is to follow the policy before you ask for the tools. The rules apply to everybody. Jeffpw 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheer up, Yuser. I don't think anyone is questioning the "keep" decision here, the result is of course unambiguous. However it doesn't hurt to be a little bit more patient. Just my two cents ;) PeaceNT 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :P. That cheered me up :). Yuser31415 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm hosting a game on my user page.

If have the time go to my user page and see what the game is.Sam ov the blue sand 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good (certainly useful for finding all the relevant articles that go with the quotes). I'm sure I'll have a go sometime! Yuser31415 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:

Good, now maybe you should also check the number of articles which were successfully locked because of the edit wars Dacy69 and Adil have engaged in. Adding in every given Armenian related articles "terrorist this" or "terrorist that" or obsessivally edit warring resulting in multiple locking of articles, is much more than some isolate cases of answers. What should an Azeri editor feel or even answer, if I were to type "Azererbaijan", "Azerbaijani", "Azeri",... on Wikipedia search engine, to then one by one throwing edits and then with socks meatpopputs reverting and reverting until the articles are locked, and then after a week of it being locked, after it was expired, engaging in and off again? The only thing those users could find as miscundict from my part is abrasiveness. But article content; I was never blocked for article disruption, 3RR etc., or anything content based. The same could not be said with those peatpopputs. Fad (ix) 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is disruptive, but the least of my worries. Personal attacks, such as this, are extremely detrimental to the goals of this project and serve to create and encourage edit wars rather than stop them. I politely suggest you stop. Yuser31415 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Good grief. Yuser31415 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Dacy69 added something on that article to specifically force an edit war. He is a very disturbing user who has been suspected to be a meatpopput of Adil, not only by me, but also many other users from all spectrums. This guy is not acting in good faith. Personal attack might not be the best, but I disagree with you that it encouraged in my case revert war. To the contrary, everytime I was abrasive it gave some results, positive results as the person who is the real disruptor by reporting me and aware that the actions will be reviewed for a moment stoped.
Also, I don't see what you mean by good grief. Reviewing my blocks, all for supposed personal attack, it actually absolve me. Jtkiefer block was not valid, as he blocked me for an accusation directed at a member involved in an arbitration cases, the accusation was the bases of the evidences I brough in that cases. Jtkiefer was a new administrator and did a mistake, he actually emailed me and apologized for it. InShaneee two first blocks were not valid, other administrators disagreed with those two blocks. The only valid block by InShaneee was the one, which I have reported myself for my own personal attack, which was to a member who was using an articles talk page as a server to copypast endless material from an ultra-nationalist racist website. My answer, as harsh as it could was the only way it gave positive results. Fad (ix) 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing forces an edit war, and nothing forces personal attacks. Whether you revert war or make personal attacks is up to yourself. However, if you are not going to play by the site rules you will have to be shown the door. I hope that is clear. Yuser31415 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I will not answer to undue intimidations like the above. I may not be an administrator, but have been here for over 2 year and know that such tones like "shown the door" is much more abrasive than the comment I left which resulted with your warning. Also, I don't need anyone to tell me revert wars are not acceptable as I have restricted myself in engaging in revert wars. If your warning is for the better of the project, then as an administrator you should act with the same rudeness in warning members revert warring, something which directly effect the qualify of an article, than warning a veteran with "literaly" being shown the door because that veteran happens to not have the ressources than some occasional abrasiveness to restrict some recent meatpopputs to close yet another article to add in their collection of articles they've got closed. Anyway, I have nothing much to add else. Fad (ix) 00:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And one more thing, could be Dacy for all I know showing how well he could attack me without getting a warning, since no one could decipher. Check well the message under your warning directed against me. I don't know whatever it is an open proxy, such things should be handled by administrators, as I think being called an animal is more than the insignificant comment I directed against Dacy. Now the question, is how you will be handling this. I will not lower myself to report someone who could be a member with whom I am in conflict to shut him up, unlike some users I won't name. Fad (ix) 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Stop being disruptive. That's my final warning. You seem to be attempting to justify your severe personal attacks with the behavior of others, which is possibly also unacceptable. That is a straw man attack, and I encourage you to stop them. Yuser31415 00:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Final warning for answering in a talkpage? This is turning to what? Accusing me of straw man attack is actually against "Assume Good Faith," you are being disruptive. First you show me the door, second straw man attack, which is offending, you are not assuming good faith at all. And a last thing, I never justified my actions, I know what I did is against NPA, I did it in spite of it to stop an even worster disruption. When I did it, I knew the possible consequences. Thats all. No justification. Oh and, here stops my "disruption", since continuing on this is simply a waste of time for both of us. Fad (ix) 00:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms. Yuser31415 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garion96's RFA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship which closed successfully last night. Feel free to let me know if I can help you with something or if I have made a mistake. I would also like to encourage you to vote often (just in case you don't) on other candidates since we need more admins. Happy editing, Garion96 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edit of Animal Rescue on 2/13/07

Hi, thank you for keeping an eye on this wonderful site. This is my first edit, so I can see that you would be suspicious. However, I was not adding a commercial link, www.petfinder.com is the largest non-profit pet adoption website in the USA. I am an animal rescuer myself, and have a great deal of experience in the field.

Thanks for your edit. Please let me know how I can contribute my knowledge of animal rescue properly. I would still like to add the petfinder website, it has helped place literally millions of homeless animals in the past 10 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hsong (talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks for the message

I do have some navigating difficulties that may slip passed some more apropriate routes as a new user. Encyclopedia look to page is important to appeal & to my efforts. A simple "reply here" idea, is something I look for that doesn't really exist here.

In time I will get used to that. Thanks again --Ob Unum Verse Re 02:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC) --EPLU RIB USU NUM VERSE 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Its stated in the Min V's programming software help file that the pager is manufactured by Unication.

Cool. Yuser31415 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your note

interested to know why you reverted changes on article for rob bell. I just added a couple lines about him using yoga in his church and his views on christianity as an eastern religion and the fact that some evangelical christians take issue with the views put forward in his book Velvet Elvis. this is not promotional. another user seems to think that the words 'eastern' and 'yoga' are inflammatory but this is hardly the case. 70.188.25.24 03:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, just make sure you cite your sources in line with BLP, and I'll be happy :). Yuser31415 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Yoga, I cited a published Christianity Today article and regarding the concerns some Christians have with Velvet Elvis I cited a published article by a respected Christian pastor. Are those considered adequate? Thanks for your input. 70.188.25.24 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are acceptable references. Yuser31415 04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good call

I think this was a good call, even though it won't stick.

On another note, you asked me sometime back for an editor review. While I don't really "believe" in them because I view them as primarily a means of grooming RfA candidates--a practice I find unconstructive--I will say that I think your observations and comments in discussions have become much better formed and more relevant than a few months ago. If I saw some evidence of more participation in article creation, I would offer to nominate you for adminship. Maybe in a couple of months, but I really feel that, with some specific exceptions, an admin should have experience really creating some content here before they get to rule on its fate in XfD discussions. So there's your editor review in a nutshell. --Doug Bell talk 06:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the review. In fact, I myself have seen an improvement since that long-ago MfD I participated in (in fact, I can only look back on my contributions to that page with great embarassment).
And yes, in case you were wondering, I am going to attempt to contribute to articles (wow, I find it hard :). I do occasionally fix links to dab pages.
Cheers! Yuser31415 06:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI: Your browser is still converting em dashes (—) to two hypens (--). —Doug Bell talk 07:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Generally I use two browsers (one fast and non-unicode compliant, the other slower and unicode-compliant). Apologies :). Yuser31415 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About a revert

Hi, Yuser.
In short, why have you reverted a change on my talk page, removing that way CroDome's message to me?
If that user's behaviour turns into spamming with rubbish contributions on my talk page, your help 'd be welcomed.
I'll talk with CroDome on his talkpage, and try to calm things down, if possible.
Maybe he reacts too passionately, I don't know, I haven't seen his contributions.
But many times I've seen on en.wiki that certain users spread blatant Greater Serbian propaganda. And instead of punishing those users, admins are reacting like cowboys when some users remove that propagandist crap. Kubura 09:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser - if you're under the impression that users can't delete things on their user talk page, you're wrong. I'd be happy to provide more details if you wish (pointers to discussions); you also might want to try to find anything in policy that says users can't do deletions, if you believe that (WP:VAND says "frowned upon"; that does not mean "forbidden"). Users are allowed to even remove valid warnings. In the future, please do not revert deletions by users to their own talk pages, or blanking of user talk pages by users. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, did I revert the wrong person? I intended to revert CroDome's message. My apologies :). Yuser31415 00:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I dont understand

do you have something against me just because Im Croat? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CroDome (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Then see Anti-Croatian sentiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CroDome (talk • contribs)

[[RE:User:CroDome & WP:BAN

As the editor in question has never even been issued a block, I don't think there is a realistic chance they would actually be banned. While I see incivility and some strong POV pushing, I don't see anything that would warrent a ban. Bans are pretty last resort.--Isotope23 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've proposed a ban on WP:CN. We'll see what we get. Yuser31415 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boxinwear

You said you listen to everybody (so it says above). I am trying to resolve the situation, soon i will find some information on boxinwear and george reeves, i am certain boxinwear tried to help reeves, check his contributions, there is no vandalism. But it's not wise for people to block boxinwear talk page

How can you ever reply? Did you notice some people here like antranadus have personal agenda against reeves and they are goign at it for 2 years now. Those 2 hate each other a lot. You guys are blocking all the ip's it's impossible to log on without open proxy and leave a message, all public libraries on the border of illinois, michigan, wisconsin, blocked. Nobody can edit, great. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BoxingWear&diff=106112466&oldid=106111953 Some of the comments. I am waiting for additional evidence before I resolve this sitation. I am aware (certain administrator gave me all the information i need, but you will never find out who that is) of your secret talks, hidden pages and so on, i believe both boxinwear and reeves have not been treated right, but this is what happens, you try to help somebody, you get into hot waters. Amazing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chick_Bowen#BoxingWear This link should not be seen by boxinwear or reeves since it creates controversy, connecting one individual with another, especially from people who have personal vandetta against somebody is not healthy nor correct. Boxinwear's contributions speak for themselves, there are times he warned others not to vandalize pages. He was blocked because he argued with certain individual who had tons of time on his hands, when you do not have the luxury of time, if something takes up your time, of course you will react in a negative way, but reacting to some people in a negative way is the only way out. But, read what I sent you well. Also reopen boxinwear talk page, reverse to the link. This goes to show you, when wiki is wrong, they do not want to admit it, easy way to block somebody. Imagine during a trial judge gives his decision based on the testimonony of one individual, shame on you. On boxinwear talk page you can find a lot, also leave a message there so somebody replies. But I wonder if you will, under pressure from administrators who should not be administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.53.18 (talk • contribs) 23:00-02, 7 February 2007

What, exactly, do you want me to do here? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
OK well, at least you replied. We know you guys are talking in secret. I am waiting for some evidence before i go public, but because of your blocks i was unable to get online and leave a message, very hard to leave a message, everything blocked.
But, delete some of the links i gave you and restore some, just read it carefully, boxinwear does not deserve this. Just read it again, follow the links,they will tell you the story, look at boxinweaer contributions (except for arguments with mkil, who started this provocation) and ask yourself, why block somebody who tried to help somebody? If you have an email, i can send you other information i can not tell here, besides, all these things get deleted fast by certain administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.53.18 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 7 February 2007
If you need to tell me something, please tell me here instead of emailing. I will ensure such information is not removed inappropriately. However, without information, I don't know exactly what you are trying to tell or ask me. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the links, before you go to bad, analyze, this is truly complicated. Boxinwear is not george reeves, there are few things i can not tell you here, besides i know you guys share that info "hidden". Right now delete that talk page on chick browen page, it only indicated boxinwear is vandal, which is the opposite. His contributions were appreciated by many. I have to tell you the history of the problem. You are an administrator, it will be hard to trust you, we had many problems with them, trying to find one is next to impossible. When I posted for assistance, deleted, one guy who replied he/she said not interested. This is complicated, again i will provide the evidence and this is not just one single thing, this takes time. I do have wikipedia account, but I do not want to write from there, since I will be blocked as well for being somebody I am not, this is a wiki habit. You can start with unblocking boxinwear talk page, explained. Do know, because of the block on local libraries, over 100 000 can not edit now, so, if you tried to stop boxinwear, you made it worse, as it's wiki's norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.53.18 (talk • contribs) 23:32-33, 7 February 2007
I am not an administrator at this time, but would appreciate the evidence regarding this matter. Please take the time to provide it, there is no hurry. Thank you, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You must be an administrator, wow, i guess you are not, you have many great edits and you seem to be a reasonable man.
First, remove the talk on boxinwear at it again, just like you did when plo did (i hope is he never an administrator).
2. I can not post from my ip, i am using other ip, i had no idea that was possible, antanadus and few others blocked 100 000 computers, i can tell you that, just post your email here, i will get back to you, how i prove it, I CAN NOT tell you, but i can tell you boxinwear is deep waters because he tried to help gordon reeves guy. I am still learning the facts. Remember, i have to go now, i will not be able to email you since you do not have an email set up, i will NOT be able to leave you messages. There are few things you can do for us. I am typing from german ip, last time i was able to type from loyola university ip, lol, even though i have no idea where that school is, except that it's in chicago. All because administrators blocked everything. Hopefully if we get this worked out, we will try to make you an administrator and we will not forget you. You seem civil, you do not revert our posts, etc. But do know, we know what you guys are talking behind our backs. Now, I am involved, but I want to resolve this problem. Again, unblock boxinwear talk page and read the link. You edit a lot on administrative board, i am amazed you are not an administrator.
well, you know what to do, this can not wait too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.53.18 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 8 February 2007
I copied and properly indented the preceding from User talk:Yuser31415/Archive 16, where the most recent comments from 217.111.53.18 didn't belong.

[edit] My Talk page

Thank you for removing the vandalism warning. I just would like Wbrz to discuss the edit instead of just reverting me and calling my edits vandalism. Corvus cornix 23:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what it feels like when people give you warning messages :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yea, tell me about it corvus cornix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.53.18 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 8 February 2007
Dunno who that was. Yuser31415, could you look at Talk:Vivien Leigh? It looks like Wbrz is adding information into the Vivien Leigh page, then going to the Talk page and using an anonymous signature, asking why it was added. Corvus cornix 00:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I copied and properly indented the preceding from User talk:Yuser31415/Archive 16, where the most recent comments from 217.111.53.18 didn't belong.
Isn't it amazing what happens to my archives that I don't even know about :). Thanks. Yuser31415 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Box

It's the second one on the user box set. --Cremepuff222 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. Thanks for helping though. --Cremepuff222 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Thomas H. Larsen/archive 17

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user Fadix

Insults and threats are continued [3] Fadix threatens with edit revenge ("Anyway, you've got interested me in contributing on Heider Aliev article. Which I will be doing as soon as possible. Fad (ix) 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)") Another user Fedayee also embarked on assaults - his language is also self-explanatory. They accuse me of lack of knowledge ("Read the history Fadix showed you and stop playing dumb") (before they called me stupid, now it seems they refined the language). Fadix was reported several times by other users - no action taken against him. I reported him once to admin User talk:Dmcdevit (and got blocked instead :-)). I did it again. Maybe this time it is more evident - I mean Fadix attitude. In the meantime, I'd ask you kindly to watch this case as well.--Dacy69 22:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, I'm not an admin :(; so I'd recommend you let those on ANI know about this in case anything has to be done. Good luck ;), Yuser31415 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hi, I was wondering if you (I can't find anyone who wants to be accepted) would like to be nominated for adminship. I'mgoing to be away from Monday to Friday, so if you accept, I'll nominate you tomorrow or after I come back. Thanks, Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)11:34, Saturday, 17 February '07

Hi Jorcoga! Thanks for offering. I'm probably aiming more for early-to-mid March (my last RfA was December 22, from memory) so I'm trying to get a little more time between now --> then. I hope that's okay :P. Yuser31415 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. I think Yuser31415 will make a fine admin either now or in March!. Has my support--Hu12 23:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement :P. Yuser31415 23:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll third that, prob best mid march though so people don't complain "Its too soon since the last one!" If you want a co nom give me a shout RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll nominate you then. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)09:14, Sunday, 18 February '07

[edit] Current active discussion, please join

Sorry but you may not be aware of it but there is a very active discusion going on right now. Please join in: WT:UP#JOKE. Thanks. (→Netscott) 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as your neutrality, I think this edit says otherwise. (→Netscott) 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Where are you on the latest active discussion about this? You'll note that David Levy (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) is actively particpating even as I type this. (→Netscott) 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No. Now I'm saying you're not paying attention, kindly click WT:UP#JOKE and see where you go. (→Netscott) 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, my only suggestion is that you actually read most if not all of the thread as it appears that you are only reading the final lines of it. Please hold off on closing and editing.. from what I'm sensing we're about to arrive at a provisional (meaning until we hear more definitively from from either Jimbo or the ArbCom) solution. (→Netscott) 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser, the Jimbo quote really shouldn't be there. Time reference wise that quote is a bit out of place now...his comments were referring to the original version of this new section. I would recommend you revert it out. Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, please see this WP:AN posting. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I was away for a little while. That's okay. Cheers, Yuser31415 03:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

I'm not clear what you mean by "need for adminship not asserted". This is my first RFA so I don't know if I stated the need correctly. I said "I can be helpful at 3RR, AIV, RFPP, CSD ANI and deletion debate closures." Did I state it wrong? Regards, Navou banter / contribs 00:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I want to ask you a question: what participation so far have you had in those areas? It is entirely possible I have made a mistake. Yuser31415 03:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I have made a 3RR report, some reports to AIV, some tagging, participation on AIV, and closure of deletions as keep, redirect, et al. Also AFD participation. I have withdrawn the RFA for now, I think perhaps in a couple of months... I just was unsure if I did not make an assertion clear and was looking for advice. Navou banter / contribs 04:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I wish you the best of luck in the future :). Yuser31415 04:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You as well. Regards, Navou banter / contribs 04:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AGF You are not RIGHT. thx alot !

Um, did you come here to say something? Because I don't understand. Cheers, Yuser31415 04:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)