User talk:Zylox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. This account was created for you. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme|your question here}} on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! --AccReqBot 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genki Rockets

Hi Zylox,

In the future, please do not remove AfD tags from articles, as you did from Genki Rockets, until the corresponding discussion is closed. Even though this particular discussion led to retention of the article, the debates aren't always clear-cut, and sometimes are even extended to gather a more thorough consensus. The AfD tag on the article lets people know that there is an active deletion discussion and invites them to share their opinions there. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 20:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This was my first encounter with an AfD tag. I was under the impression that meeting the requirements for notability was an automatic pass. I will be more vigilant in the future. Thanks for your help. Zylox 12:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe you need a little experience around here...

...before you start telling much more experienced editors how to do their jobs. According to your contribution history and timestamp on the welcome message above, you apparently have been here only since this summer, whereas I am well into my third year as an active editor and participant. Moreover, your assertion that few of my speedy-delete nominations are actually deleted is about as inaccurate as it could possibly be. The great majority of my speedy-deletions are deleted. You undoubtedly couldn't see that, since the articles are usually gone within a flash, and no longer exist in my user contributions list. Only the ones that aren't deleted are still there for you to see, since you obviously aren't an admin and don't have access to internal deletion logs.

Much of what I do is in what we call "new-page patrol." In that job, we watch the list of newly-created articles, to see which ones are clear candidates for deletion. These articles run the gamut, but often are of the "So-and-so is the coolest person ever!!!!" variety posted by kids in school, or articles about garage bands that no one outside the garage ever heard of, or out-and-out vandalism, or articles that are merely advertising for non-notable companies and/or web sites. Wikipedia has standards for notability of the subjects of articles, and many editors spend a large amount of time trying to enforce those standards to ensure that Wikipedia does not turn into a junk box full of articles about non-notable subjects. That's not to say I have a perfect record, as occasionally articles that I mark for deletion do turn out to be notable, especially after another more-experienced editors make improvements. In fact, I created a Wikiproject called the Wikipedia intensive Care Unit, which is designed for salvaging articles about subjects which are probably notable, but need quick and decisive work to save them from being deleted.

It would seem to me that, as someone who committed a quite serious violation of Wikipedia policy by removing the AfD notice for Genki Rockets, you are being very presumptuous by telling me how to conduct new-page patrol when I have been doing so rather well for quite some time. I don't normally like to compare raw numbers, but it appears that your count of user contributions numbers less than 50 in the entire time since you signed on, whereas I've had ten times that many in the last three weeks alone.' Furthermore, to accuse me of "gaming the system" is highly laughable at best. I'm protecting the system, not gaming it.

I very strongly suggest you gain quite a bit more experience at Wikipedia before you address similar messages to more experienced editors, presuming to tell them how to do their jobs. Please reconsider your own actions. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for being a bit uncivil. I'm not used to being upbraided in such a manner, particularly by a relatively new user, and I overreacted a bit. You caught me on a bad day, real-world wise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a perfect example of some of the stuff we try to clean up on new-page patrol. Usually the vandals get the message after the first warning/revert and go away, but some are more persistent. One guy vandalized my user and talk pages under three different user names, after being blocked on the first two. The same thing happens with people trying to promote their businesses, bands and what-not; the Valasero guy is another example. Most will go away after a speedy-delete, but some don't give up so easily and must be dealt with by harsher measures.
Thanks for catching the vandalism on my page. If you have the time, you can join in on new-page patrol by clicking on Special:Newpages and checking out the incoming feed. You might want to read up on the speedy deletion criteria, but all editors are encouraged to help stem the rising tide of vandalism and spam. In other words, we need all the help we can get. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hanged and hung (Judas Iscariot)

Hello, with reference to this [1]: sorry about the brevity of the edit summary but this comes up every so often and I don't feel up to going into detail every time. The Oxford English Dictionary says that the past participle of hang is, indeed, hung - except when it means "killed by tying a rope attached from above around the neck and removing the support from beneath the feet ". Other dictionaries agree with this as far as I know. I think it's just a quirk of the English language. I am tempted to add a reference to this to the Talk page if I thought people would notice it. Rbreen (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice noted

I've noted your advice. In case of edits to 'List of Fictional Astronauts' & 'SDI' pages. The source of information was a watching of the film in question, the film is still in my possession.

Details: 'Memorial Day'. Flashback Entertainment Catalog Nº6677

Graham1973 (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you really just revert an obviously correct edit as "vandalism"?

Someone changed "WKRPC" to "KPRC" in the (still otherwise execrable, but that's beside the point) National Academic Championship article, and you reverted it as "vandalism." As a quarter-second Google search shows, KPRC is correct; furthermore, anyone who knows anything could tell that it was right, since all American TV stations have four-letter (not five-letter) identification codes, that start with either K or W (but not both). Whatever the reason your reversion was 100% wrong, and the original edit was not vandalism. Are you one of the people who just revert every change you see, mark it as "vandalism," and then go jerk off over the new size of your edit count? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Greetings Zylox!

I recently reverted your edit to the National Academic Championship that you made earlier today. From a factual standpoint, Randy Blackamoor, that a google search does turn up that KPRC is the correct radio station. I'm not sure your reason for labeling it vandalism, as it may have been in error on your part. Mistakes happen.

On that aside, Mr. Blackamoor was out of line in his final sentence. Regretfully, you and I and some other editors have been treated in a similar way before. I have filed a report on him at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:_Randy_Blackamoor.

Please understand that treatment of this nature is contrary to the policy of this site, as laid out at Wikipedia:Civility.

Best of luck to you and your editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My reversion was done rather hastily in response to a repeat IP vandal, and that particular reversion should have been investigated a little further. I can understand why he would be upset, but you are correct in reporting him for a breach of WP:Civility, and I would also assume WP:PA. Thank you for your assistance. :) --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned, mistakes happen. I have done it a few times myself ... I once even accused someone of vandalism, when in fact they had jsut done a revert, and had just missed a piece of vandalism from their cleaup. Errors happen, and your explanation makes sense. Best of luck in your continued editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander The Great

"Macedonian" is not a lessor known title for him, as per your edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realtycoon (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment Response

I have responded to you request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Realtycoon I hope to have a civil and resonable resolution to this issue without resorting to any forms censorship and restriction of free speech. Realtycoon (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Also, I would appreciate that next time you discuss with me before making a WIKI-Federal case against me! You are posting on other users talk pages that you have attempted to be civil to me, as quoted "Hi there, I am currently starting a dispute resolution process for user Realtycoon's excessive edit warring at Alexander the Great (disambiguation) and I require the assistance of another user. I was hoping that since you were involved with this situation at one point, that you would be willing to endorse my request for comment by signing the request where needed, and by contacting Realtycoon in order to achieve a resolution. My attempts while perfectly civil, have all failed. Thank you for your time. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)"

The one issue that you had with me regarding the Macedonian Naming Dispute was noted and I dropped the issue. I was unaware that was against Wiki-Rules and the previous issue was solved. If you have a problem with me, then let's discuss. Realtycoon (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have offered a proposed solution to solve this issue. See the request for comment page. Regards. Realtycoon (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A request-for-comment is not a summons for administrators, but merely to obtain comments from other experienced users. However, your request for arbitration, along with your accusations of sock-puppetry are insulting and are not assuming good faith. Unfortunately, you have broken WP:3RR and have suffered bans on other users without good reason. You are participating in an edit war over an issue that is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV that you claim you have sources to, but refuse to source. If you would like to revert your last change to Alexander the Great (disambiguation) and end your one-sided edit-warring, then I will more than gladly end the request-for-comment process now. If not, then I will have to let this run its course. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize that I may have been harsh with the Admin involvement, thus I respctfully have withdrawn that request.

I'll revert my change to the last one by you. However, can you set up some sort of poll/survey on the talk page (I don't know how to) to help resolve this? Let me know and I'll make the change. I would like to resolve this too. Realtycoon (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also responded on the RFC page too. Realtycoon (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Another response on RfC Realtycoon (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn I was away and missed all this fun :-) --   Avg    21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you'd call it that. :P --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Furthermore

I'm curious why you did not initiate disciplinary processes against 157.228.98.181 / 157.228.118.212 as they were also "Edit-warring" as per your posting "excessive edit warring at Alexander the Great (disambiguation)" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:157.228.98.181 . How is only one side of the edit war targeted and not the other???

Realtycoon (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

They each made one or two edit, which doesn't even break WP:3RR, whereas you made 9 reversions. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 13:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:205.210.159.33

Hi. I'm sorry I declined the block. However please note that the instructions at WP:AIV clearly state the vandal must be currently active. The last edit made is some 15 hours ago - that in no way can be seen as current. Also, you will note this is a shared IP address. It is very likely that the person who made the edits on the 7th is not the person who made the edits in connection with the warning from the 30th April. To block here would not be preventative, which is the point of blocking. I'm sorry, but no edits in 15 hours and no warnings in 8 days is very much "stale". Pedro :  Chat  15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)