User talk:Zsinj/July-August06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Whizkidravi - Hoopaholic400

Listen, I assure you I have no idea why he reported me, for if you look in the early history of both our user pages, you will find that he vandalised my page first, on 26 June. You see, Amit Om happens to be my friend, and we both live in Florence, SC. H If you check most recent user page histories you will find that he has edited my page last, on 11 July. Therefore, action should be taken, if any, on User: Hoopaholic400 rather than I, §çђèîßéŋҜяäñĸәň 17:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only is HoopaHolic vandalising my page, he is vandalising my talk post too! (Check page history)he is the true culprit and centre of our conflict-§çђèîßéŋҜяäñĸәň 18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I also apologise for forgetting to sign in-§çђèîßéŋҜяäñĸәň 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Zsinj^Talk 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for temblocking hoopaholic400 I also thank you for reverts to my user page from 'Hejoli's vandalisim. Hejoli is obviously one of his aliases. Thank you Zsinj in you efforts against vandalism. -§çђèîßéŋҜяäñĸәň 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You see, User Whizkidravi is not original at all. I am, indeed, older, wiser, bigger, faster, and stronger than he is. Also, Whizkidravi tries to be just like me, quoting my common German phrase,"Scheißenkranken." It was wrong for me to be temporarily blocked, and I am upset an organization such as Wikipedia makes wrong decisions as such. scheißenkranken

light. -§çђîèßéŋҜяäñĸәň 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Millard73

You just reverted one of my edits because of "vandalism" on Warrington. I have no idea how this might have happened. I certainly didn't mean to remove any sections and preview looked just fine. In fact, I was trying to add a Trivia section. If you look at my contributions you can see that I'm not in the habit of vandalizing pages. I apologize for my browser or myself screwing up. I'll try and add my Trivia section again and hoep that it doesn't mess up the page this time. --Millard73 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick work, thanks!

You got 'em before I did. Guess I made 200.45.6.131 mad - fun, huh? :-) Vsmith 19:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very fun. Do you like it? --200.82.18.187 19:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah...and he re-incarnates so quickly :-). A range block maybe? Vsmith 19:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistaken "Vandalism"

I didn't *intentionally* delete anything in the article. I can only assume something went wrong in the form submission. I only changed one word in the first paragraph. I re-submitted my revision; hopefully this time without omitting anything. - 208.47.211.5 21:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was most likely a bug with your internet browser. No lasting damage was done. --Zsinj^Talk 22:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

For unvandalising my talkpage. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Inquiry

I appeciate your help, but I filed that a while ago. He has since kept the warning, and I'm sure that the recent message will probably inrage him further. I might expect a response from him, but hopefully he will just ignore it. I didn't realize that he name was not removed from the investigation. Thanks again for letting me know and I will go check it and remove it so that there isn't anymore confusion. Bignole 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush

I was trying to alter the message to reflect the fact that it's permanently protected. Sorry for the confusion. Rompe 01:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I would, but I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia and my baptism by fire didn't go so well, so I'll leave that to you or someone else. Rompe 01:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIV warning (Slavery)

...grr, you beat me to it. Happy editing to you! Teke 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falsely accused

Hi, you accused me of vandalism on the Beverly Hills High School wikipage... Specifically, the bit about "whoring" someone's self in Hollywood (I don't remember the actual quote). Anyway... it wasn't me... It was the user who added an edit right AFTER me. You can check it out in the History. Just wanted to clear my name on that issue. Thanks.

Oh crap... sorry... Boldy1 again... I didn't really look at what you wrote. I read it wrong. You never accused me. I'm an idiot. My bad...

[edit] Wjhonson

Hi Zsinj, I note that you also warned Wjhonson about violating 3RR. Since I don't want to violate 3RR myself, I wonder if you could revert his edits for me. He's not technically vandalising the article, but it's clear from this deletion review that I should have deleted the article at first because there is no verifiable information that Kitty May Ellis is notable enough to have her information in these articles. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I sent another warning, we'll see if he heeds it (forgive me if I don't hold my breath). --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metta Forest Monastery

Hi, I removed your speedy delete tag on Metta Forest Monastery. Copyright violations can only be speedy deleted if the article is created in the last 48 hours. The article in question was already made in March 2006. Thanks. Garion96 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, how'd I miss that? Thanks! --Zsinj^Talk 20:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From looking at your contributions, you've probably been reverting vandalism too much. :) No problem. Garion96 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi there Zsinj. Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. - Gimboid13 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• No problem. :-) --Zsinj^Talk 15:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry

Zsinj- I must apologize to you- I vandalized several pages which you then had to revert, and then I personally attacked you here. This as well as all of my vandalism in the past was rude and completely uncalled for, and it will never happen again.I look forward to much more possitive dealings with you in the future- Betty Yves 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the blanking...

I'm not sure encyclopedias need to be that listy... not many encyclopedia's have lists of items in their articles. And I was going to put that I was going to be bold in the discussion... Sorry for the misunderstanding. And note that I was the person who put those listy things in the first place... finally decided to be bold. I'll put something on the Gopets discussion page, discussing about removing sections that don't need to be there. I just hope someone actually checks the talk page. Abby724 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the point of all this template expansion?

All this bot-driven template expansion, especially on user pages, makes the pages harder to edit and more confusing. Is it worth it? Do you have server benchmarks justifying it? Thanks. --John Nagle 18:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong with Image:GovCupb4b.GIF?

I've explained my question at Image talk:GovCupb4b.GIF. BigNate37_T·C 05:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Hoopaholic400

You made a typo on hoop's userpage, I think you meant to use <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> but you used </nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> instead. BigNate37_T·C 21:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

Errr... have another look at what happened? I was reverting vandalism! HawkerTyphoon 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries! Try looking at Vandalproof - it's lovely, and makes it easier by millions to fix vandalism. I'm watching Mohammed Ahad on it right now ;-) HawkerTyphoon 23:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Redeem offer

I was just (yesterday or the day before) thinking about that. The problem is you've rather caught me at a bad time to ask for a nom (taking a look at my latest attempt, currently live on WP:RFA should give you an idea why...) I'm planning to be on 'process wikibreak' until I go off on holiday (just under two weeks time), and then I'm properly off for two weeks. After that I should be ready to start considering noms again- is that ok? (Of course, feel free to do a self nom or ask someone else to nominate you in the mean time, just let me know so I don't duplicate effort). Cheers, Petros471 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I was simply redeeming the offer to review my contributions and give some constructive critisizm! What you decide to do with the result of your "more serious look" is up to you to do on your own time. ;-) --Zsinj^Talk 17:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Same thing- of course I'd nominate you if I liked what I saw while taking a 'more serious look', and I wouldn't nominate without doing one; so if you prefer delete 'nom' replace with 'contributions review' in my above message and it still stands :) Petros471 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I hope you find peace in your semi-wikibreak. --Zsinj^Talk 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Petros471 11:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk

I've made a proposal here, and am seeking feedback. Best,--Anthony Krupp 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Hello. I was one of the editors who opposed your initial RfA, joining in the chorus of, "Too new! Too new!" Well, you're no longer new. You have a ton of edits and I appreciate the way you handle yourself on AfD. Would you be interested in my nomination? Ifnord 05:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad, I will prepare it. Meanwhile, someone will ask if you've passed the 1FA criterion. I think it's an over-the-top criteria but if you have done substantial work on a featured article it would be worth mentioning in my nomination. Ifnord 23:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Though note the correct link would be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zsinj 2 as this is your second nomination. Take lots of time to look it over and answer the questions, no rush to post it up - the date will be changed when you're done. Do have a look at the successful RfA's for pointers on answering trhe questions. Ifnord 00:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That was fast indeed. Are you happy with it or do you want some time? Ifnord 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Stanislaus

Sir,

Thank you for taking an interest in the article about the Order of Saint Stanislaus, it has been abused a lot but ironically it seems to be factual as it is now, therefore the "disputed" sign is superfluous. At least, it will be untill our anonymus friends start accusing each other again!

It is a bit of a drag. The four orders are all of them toys for big boys and the on-line photo-albums filled wih people wearing hillariously bad tailored tuxedos and queer crimson mantles are straight out of Monty Python!

There are dozens of pseudo-orders like these and even Frank Sinatra joined one, but nowhere are the knights as tenacious as in these four competing orders of Saint Stanislaus.

I have tried to restore the peace by giving them a page describing the historic order with internal links to the four communions. But it was to no avail... It is like creating peace in the Middle East!

Do you approve of this solution and do you have suggestions?

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massiveego

Interesting approach, but not too informative. Ah well; Wikipedia attracts a large array of folk and if he contributes to articles content or quality, that's all we need ask. Appreciate your response. Williamborg (Bill) 02:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFD presumed

Hi Zsinj. Would you consider removing your tag from Image:Beatles1967.jpg? This user has uploaded an aweful lot of professional-looking photos (log, EthanLITD's log) and has not responded to User:ACupOfCoffee's queries on either of their talk pages. I feel pretty confident that they are not the copyright holder of any of their uploads. ×Meegs 09:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

and Image:Brian May1975 1010016.JPG, uploaded by a third account. Thanks ×Meegs 10:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Best of luck with your RfA; it seems to be a landslide. ×Meegs 15:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously

How do you spot vandalism so quickly? I mean, I know there are lots of wikipedians, but does every single IP address get looked at or what? 63.23.56.71 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay

I was just logged out, I forgot that I was. Sorry, I have to go. One more message from me and one more message from you. I am using my IP. 71.231.130.56 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It was my fault. I should've checked. Sorry, good day and happy editing! --71.231.130.56 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you revert teh vandalism? I need to talk to someone else. -71.231.130.56

[edit] Adminship

I have promoted you to an admin. Congrats. Please make sure you are familiar with all hte relavant policies before using those shiny new buttons. Raul654 02:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done! -- Samir धर्म 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! Syrthiss 12:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

About time :) I'll try and join you again at RFI after I've cleared a few other things out of the way. At least you can deal with the ones that need a block now! Petros471 19:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No vandalism for the past half hour

"*:No vandalism for the past half hour. --Barefact 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC) "

does this mean that the window for reporting vandalism is only a half hour after vandalic action took place? Barefact 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your block of Birdow

Hello! I noticed that you just blocked User:Birdow for vandalism. That appears to be another suscpuppet of the same vandal as "Canppock", "Pockingb" and "Canpock", whom Shanel has blocked immediately. For consistency, you might want to upgrade your 31-hour block of Birdow to an indefinite block, or otherwise coordinate with Shanel to maintain your ferocious defense of the wiki. :) Kickaha Ota 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Image

Why did you remove the image on the Rachel York page? I specifically made sure that it was alright through her management to use her picture. They granted permission, and even emailed Wikipedia and told them that they DID give me permission to do so. There should be no reason to delete it...

[Edited for clarity] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipfellax1 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Deville's RfA

Hello, Zsinj, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA (and congrats on your recent success there as well). The final tally was 72/1/0, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I'll be tentative with the new buttons for a while, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how I might be able to use them to help the project. All the best, and thanks again! — Deville (Talk) 01:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GIen's RfA: Thank you!

Zsinj for your Support! I I feel truly humbled & honored by your support in my RfA, which closed at 90 / 5 / 0. Thank you! If you need me for anything, just say the word. For now however, just like Mr Potter here: My mop & I shall thwart all evil :) IThank you once again my friend. GIen

PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)

[edit] RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly note about deleted pages

Protecting deleted pages, with {{deletedpage}}, is only for when it is likely that the page will be re-created, which usually means, that it has been re-created before, so that legitimate articles could be created at the same title. —Centrx→talk • 01:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(You may already be doing this fine, I just noticed a few in a row that were only created once and didn't seem to be related to a persistent problem.) Cheers, —Centrx→talk • 02:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, Thanks for all of your help while I'm getting into the groove of things.

As far as protecting those deleted pages, they were all created by a single user and were all hoax pages that a few of us had noticed on IRC. There were about a dozen images that had been negated in MS Paint and reuploaded as creatures that really didn't exist. From the logs, I understand how that could look suspicious. Thanks for ensuring that I was staying on track. :-D --Zsinj^Talk 02:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, it didn't look suspicious, it just means I have to do more pages when I go through on Special:Shortpages and later when deleting old deletedpages. Unfortunately, they do not automagically delete themselves on a time limit. —Centrx→talk • 02:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)