CesarB/Archive1 |
=Older comments=
If anyone wants to know the rationale behind my current shuffling on Dewey Decimal Classification, see 22:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please hold off on this project until we can get a wider discussion of it. Please correct me if I m wrong, but from what I can tell, this is essentially your unilateral project rather than something for which the wikipedia community as a whole has expressed a need. As this expansive of a project will obviously affect, well, everything, I think this needs to be debated. Best way I know to do this is to list the root category at 10:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:I thought it had already been debated before (and I m not the only one doing it). See .
:Isn t there a better page than something for deletion to ask for comments on something It would be an abuse of CFD for me to ask there, since I wouldn t really be asking for deletion .
:I started doing it really slowly (just a few category pages per day), in the hopes that if someone had an objection, he would raise it before I created too many pages. Looks like it worked.
: 12:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I didn t create 11:15, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for noting the 13:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:If you want to ban him by IP (or even get his IP to do a trace), you will have to find a 13:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
= Thanks Cesar 
=
I appreciate your assistance! - 21:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
= re: =
Good afternoon. I saw the addition you made to the Guide about refactoring. You specifically mentioned tables in addition to refactoring of the list. Is it your thought that we should preclude, for example, the recap table at the top of Even though I added that one, I ll admit that I ve had second thoughts about whether or not those recap tables are really helpful. Their big advantage in my mind has been to give the ambiguous voters a chance to come in and clarify their position. On short discussion threads, it s not usually so important but on the really contentious issues, it seemed helpful. The downside is that the recap table tends to bias people toward vote-counting and away from discussion. I felt it was acceptable because the really long and argumentative discussion threads have almost always already degenerated into namecalling by the time they re that long so not much would be lost.
Should I stop 22:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*I think you confused my edits with someone else s. I only expanded the links from the cryptic WP: abbreviations to their full names. 22:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*It was I who added the note about refactoring. See the article talk page. 23:35, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
= Thanks =
Thanks for removing that disgusting piece of vandalism from my talk page. -- 01:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Thanks from me as well. I really appreciate it. 07:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= Great work =
My pleasure. I m always happy to welcome users: it s one of my little hobbies here. :) – 01:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=Period at the end of formula=
I am now doing myself a bad service, but there is discussion going on at about period at the end of formula if formula is at the end of sentence. So, you can go there and put your vote (which will be against me). I would like to ask you to specify there your background. It seems that mathematicians are mostly for period at the end of formula, while engineers (and now I see, computer scientists) are against.
In the future, I will avoid modifying non-math articles, like 19:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I don t care either way, as long as it s obviously separate from the formula (like a big fat period). You not only added a period which looked like part of the formula, but you added it inside the <math> tags, which made it even more like part of the formula . 19:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I found a solution to prevent breaking the line at the period while still putting the period outside the <math> tags. I created a template 19:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: Thanks. Let us see how the opinions develop on this. 20:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= re: Multiple lines in VfD nomination =
We are still working on . You might have highlighted a new area that we need to discuss. Let me see if I can explain here. If this explanation works, maybe parts of it can be incorporated there...
It is considered extremely bad form to change another person s votes or comments. There are only a few exceptions. 1) It is acceptable to tag votes with signatures or attributions if the voter forgot (or deliberately avoided) signing their comment. 2) It is acceptable to remove personal attacks - usually leaving a comment such as (personal attack removed) . 3) It is acceptable to refactor comments for general format. This is what I was doing in your case.
The general convention is to use bulleted lists in the discussion threads. Each bulleted matches to a signature. Indentations are generally rebuttals or expansions and may or may not be new votes. One of the big advantages of this pattern is that the deciding admin can fairly easily spin through the discussion history to determine if anyone has been tampering with the votes. I usually do this with two windows open. Since the comment is confined to a single paragraph, it s relatively easy to compare the window with the diff against the window with the final discussion. When people break their comments into multiple paragraphs, other users feel free to insert their rebuttals in the middle, breaking the connection between the first paragraph and the signature.
This explanation is clear as mud... Let s see if I can do better with an example.
==First broken comment==
I think this article should be deleted because I don t like it.
It s also original research.
And it s unverifiable.
==Rebuttal==
I think this article should be deleted because I don t like it. : That s not a good reason to delete. It s also original research.
==User:C s reaction==
I think this article should be deleted because I don t like it. : That s not a good reason to delete. :: And we should ignore the comment because it s unsigned. It s also original research.
This is a really long-winded way of saying that there s nothing absolutely wrong with what you did but that it creates a small possibility of ambiguity. I wouldn t go out of my way to refactor such a comment but I might tighten it up as a courtesy if I m editing the discussion anyway. Does that help 18:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Understood... How about adding to the guide Avoid using multiple lines on your nomination or comments unless they are really needed, because they might get broken by replies. And then a condensed version of the example... I think this discussion should be moved to 18:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= List of purported cults =
Need your help at 00:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=Camp Hero=
The information you posted on Camp Hero is innacurate and unprofessional. Camp Hero was not a Radar Base and was not operated by the Navy. Pleased research your information before posting on this topic again. -- 22:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:You must be confusing me with someone else. The only changes I did to the article were to add a stub notice (since it was only one paragraph long) and copy the categories from the related Montauk Project article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Camp_Hero&diff=prev&oldid=11309911]. :The change you are probably complaining about is the one just before mine[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Camp_Hero&diff=prev&oldid=11302087], which removed most of the information from the article (and made it look like a stub). In fact, he reverted the article to its original state[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Camp_Hero&diff=prev&oldid=9097678]. :You probably believed the history view of the article[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Camp_Hero&action=history]. I ve noticed lately the history seems to be missing some edits, which can be found via the next/previous links in the diffs. Try opening the diff that seems to be mine[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Camp_Hero&diff=11309911&oldid=9185169], click on the Newer edit link, and then on the Older edit link, and my real edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Camp_Hero&diff=prev&oldid=11309911] will appear. :-- 22:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Interesting, you seem to be correct, someone else vandalized the page and then removed the edit from the history page somehow. Anyway, I ve repaired the content - sorry I mistook you for the vandal. -- 23:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= List of stupid article ideas semi-revert war =
As a side note, I ve come to the conclusion that SPUI is a Troll in this situation given his vote on 01:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= User:Pedant/911 =
I notice the page is in two categories; however, the categories were clearly intended to be links. I don t want to fix it since it s in your User: space, but could you please change the two instances of 03:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:sorry... go ahead and make whatever fixes you feel are suitable, regardless of it being in my namespace. I looked it over real fast and couldn t spot the links... I just got in from a 2 day shoot, and I m too beat to do anything now. 02:09, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
=Vfd controversy=
13:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for your explanation. 06:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= GRider != Jimbo =
Ok, thanks for pointing that out. Added now. 09:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
=Socks and pics=
I had reached the same conclusion as you when I first looked into his contribs on Friday. Also can you take a look at Image:Ron Branson.jpg, 03:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
=Sockpuppet letter=
It appears that created as a sockpuppet in order to give him some support at . Rex created the article at 9.12 on April 1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Uniform_Parental_Rights_Enforcement_and_Protection_Act&diff=prev&oldid=11762212 here]. DJ Clayworth Vfd d it 6 minutes later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Uniform_Parental_Rights_Enforcement_and_Protection_Act&diff=next&oldid=11762212] At 11.14 Agwiii makes his 1st ever edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Uniform_Parental_Rights_Enforcement_and_Protection_Act&diff=prev&oldid=11765418 here] with Rex coming back in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Uniform_Parental_Rights_Enforcement_and_Protection_Act&diff=next&oldid=11767074 here] at 12.15. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:RexJudicata&diff=prev&oldid=11770732 Here] RexJudicata mentions and the elimination of Lenin s creation, the no fault divorce. . [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=No_fault_divorce&diff=prev&oldid=11896168 Here] Agwiii cretaes an article on this subject. They have very similar interests, and both supported the father s rights being POV d into 20:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
::Copyvio images: done. 09:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=Cock ups=
Feel free to correct my cock ups. Cheers, -- 21:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
=Sockpuppet spotting=
Thanks for your help - I ll contact a developer. 00:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= Convention =
Would you be interested in a Charter Convention If so, email me. — 13:41, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
= User_talk:10.0.0.23 Issue =
(Thanks for responding.) Wikipedia is supposed to use the external IP, I understand. But there is something funny going on, because when I visited wiki yesterday, there was a banner saying, You have messages. When I followed the link, it delivered me to 17:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= Changing merge templates =
Please see 12:42, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
= Ip banning =
I am on a boat and go ashore to use wireless internet access via Starbucks. Late this week I have been unable to edit on Wiki (an example IP was 208.54.15.1.) due to some idiot who had caused an IP ban. I also had no way of letting anyone know that the ban was affecting the innocent too!!
I believe you may know how to get this ban lifted...I mean banning access from Starbucks customers must affect a lot of Wiki users vizion
= HP Block =
Trouble was that as I was blocked, and the sysop had no email, and due o block I could not notify sysop I was stuffed!11
== Maps == Thank you for the reformatting. -- 21:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= Thank You =
Thank you for your message about moving pages. I didn t know about the move function about moving pages. I m just getting used to it for the first time. That s why I used the copy and paste.
= IEEE 829 =
You put a clean-up tag on this page at the beginning of April, but I m unclear why. Having gone to the link given I could find no further reference to what anyone might think this article needs. Please would you indicate, preferably on my talk page, thanks. 11:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= thanks for template help. =
Thanks for that help with 07:16, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
=New pope spike=
Hello cesar,
I noticed on the Signpost newsroom page that you commented on the influx of interest in the new pope s selection, and the traffic spike it caused. Do you think you could write down a few notes and link the draft from the Newsroom I would really appreciate it. I m subbing for Michael as editor this month, but I don t have time to write nearly as much as he usually did...
=closure=
Is there a reason the closure template is necessary I actually looked for one that had been closed properly, but couldn t find any; shouldn t the note at the top that they have been closed be enough -- ) 17:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) :OK, I ve fixed up ) 17:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= Category:TOC =
Thanks for the info. I looked and could not find it. I know the information is there since I found it before. 17:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=Inapp project=
Hi there! If the wikiproject you mention bothers you, I d suggest starting an RFC on it; the inapp projects page doesn t seem to spark that much discussion, so it may be a non-issue. 09:19, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
= Thanks =
Thanks. With all the chaos your misunderstanding was understandable. I need to be more careful about how I word things in the future.
So, your vote is still in the delete column... If you honestly believe that way after all the discussion, then I respect your right to disagree. For what it s worth, I now think the article is more a victim of misunderstanding then any sort of anger-motivated deletionist attack. It seems that the deletion-viewpoint and the inclusion-viewpoint both have Wikipedia s best interests at heart. The concerns of both viewpoints need to be addressed and respected. Everyone isn t going to agree on everything, but I think there is a HUGE common ground where, though things might not be done exactly as you or I would prefer, they are done in a way which we don t seriously object to... Hey, I think I just described consensus! I wasn t ever trying to. Maybe consensus is a natural aspect of respectfully working in a collaborative envirionment.
- 22:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=Xiong=
Hi there! Because the RFC about Xiong seemed to deal mainly on his disagreements with Netoholic, I thought it best to start a new RFC to see if people have comments on Xiong s behavior that do not relate to Netoholic. Please give your thoughts and/or opinion on that at 08:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
= Mostwanted =
Great man, thanks 23:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
= Wikipedia:Transclusion_costs_and_benefits =
Hah! Wiki moves SO darn fast! I almost just have to THINK stuff and it happens. Thanks for watching.
00:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
=re: =
00:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
= Re: Wikipedia:Disclaimer templates =
Thanks for telling me :) I don t have a problem with it being there, although I probably would ve put a bit more thought into how I said it had I known (oh well ;)). I really appreciate the fact that you let me know! - 01:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, reading 13:21, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
=Netoholic=
I ve fixed the evidence page. I also put a note on the Proposed Solutions talk page reporting it as an injunction violation. As much as I would like so Assume Good Faith, if Netoholic can act like this even before his RFAR is final, he will not last 6 months before all three of his mentors give up on him. 02:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
= {notpolicy} =
I m not grousing about your application; I rather think it gives the pair of opinion pieces a nice symmetry. Now, all that is wanting is VfD on the new page, and all will be equal. :)
But the template itself annoys me somewhat, and not because it is unnecessary....
:If you want to move this discussion somewhere else, go ahead; you can replace the copy here with a pointer to the new place. :-- 05:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The discussion has overgrown its home; apologies for flooding your Talk. Moved to 15:38, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
=Abortion sockpuppet=
Agwiii/RexJudicata has returned. See 23:27, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
= Stub template weirdness =
I notice you created . I can t figure out why the expanding it link is screwed up in ) 09:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
:I can figure out why, but the fix probably isn t easy. When you write RFC 3377, it gets turned into a link; that seems to be badly iteracting with the link on the template (which is — take a look at the wiki markup for that), and closing the [] before it should be closed. You should talk about it to the 12:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
:: FYI, this phenomenon has already been submitted to [http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/ MediaZilla] as a page-rendering bug. - ) 03:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
:: It s [http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgiid=1344 Bug 1344]. I added a description of this particular example of the bug. - ) 17:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
= =
I say requiring a BS/BA because a Computer Scientist is a title awarded by a univerisity/college to a person completing its CompSci degree. how else are you going to be a Computer scientist as far as the move is conscerned, yeah, you re right, i ll move it right now.
So, you re telling me that there are persons who, on their own, will study the following topics and be able to excibit considerable knowledge on them:
*Algebra *Statistics *Discrete mathematics *Linear algebra *Differential equations
and on top of that, learn 4-5 computer languages, 4-5 computer language paradigms, 5-6 APIs, 2-3 development enviroments and 1 or 2 operating systems.
Dang. I d like to meet this guy :)
:And there s also another two cases: :*A student who (like me) hasn t graduated yet. :*Someone who studied outside academia (even if following the same curriculum). :Neither of them would have an academic degree.
True. I would place a computer science student under our category, in fact, i d welcome a student with open arms (cuz they have all the time in the world and can reseach and write articles BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *Evil laughter*)
Somone outside of academia is not a computer scientist even if he has followed the same curriculum. it s the same deal between mathematicians and amature mathematicians. see Mathematics#Common_misconceptions . Same goes for Computer Science. When was the last time you saw CS theroy being created by an amature computer scientist (person without credentials) and being accepted by the computer world (academia is the self-refencial pointer by which we can tell if a person has *some* background about his work or not)
00:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
: The pioneers of the field, where trained mathematicians (which is mostly where computer science originates from) or electrical engineers. Turing, knuth, Dikjstra(sp) were definately not amateurs. 01:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
: Complexity (computer science) arises from simple variables(pioneers). In anycase, the category is a way for wikipedia computer scientists to be able to find each other, so, we can verify the integrity of the computer science articles. That s why i reqiure credentials.
: O grego deixou o edifício no 10:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
: It will make sence during next year s 13:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
= Hey! =
Hi CesarB!
Preliminary congrats on your RfA. It s looking good at (14/0/0) and four days left! Unless something freaky happens from now to then, yay!
I noticed you re a 12:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
= image alignment =
Hi - Do you enough about CSS to know whether the monobook skin can be fixed to avoid the issue raised ) 15:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
= Trolling user =
Hi CesarB,
Our friend from RfA has sucessfully annoyed a lot of people with his nonsense; I am considering opening an RFC against him. What is your opinion on the matter 16:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Hi again. Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/64.62.161.12 this RFC page] and add your comments. 17:53, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
= Congratulations! =
Congratulations! It s my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an 03:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= My old talk page =
I am not entirely sure I understand what you mean by Could be confusing later .
Ops, forgot my sig. 02:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
= Libertarianism =
Hey, thanks for fixing the references on libertarianism. I hadn t bothered to keep them in order while the article was being written because they kept moving around. Thanks for taking the time to clean up after me
03:13, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
=Thanks for your support=
Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some 08:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
=Vandalizing user pages=
Kindly refrain from vandalizing my user page. It is NOT appreciated. 07:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= =
Thanks for the user and article templates! 17:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Re: User:68.33.122.254 =
Why, thank you! I will gladly extend his block to a month... actually, you know what I think I ll make it indefinite! Hmm, a *long* history of vandalism... sure. Thanks, CesarB! 20:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) *Done. Check out 21:47, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
= Thank you =
Hey, Cesarb!
I know this is a bit overdue, but I just wanted to thank you for your support vote on my RFA. Thanks to everyone who supported me, I am now an admin and I have been using my new powers to help Wikipedia out. Thanks! 00:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
= Thank you 2.0 =
While it won t stop them from vandalizing my talk page, at least I don t have to worry about them vandalizing my user page.
When I come up with something to put on it, I will let you know.
I hope that Mel Etitis doesn t simply unprotect, vandalize, then reprotect it (he does, sadly for Wikipedia, have Admin powers). 04:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=Rules that condone unethical behavior=
If you review the recent behavior of Squeakbox, you will see he has stalked Rexjudicata on Wikipedia, and made changes to any page edited by Rexjudicata. He has claimed that Agwiii and Rexjudicata are the same person. They are not. Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true. Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute. It is important to note that Squeakbox knows nothing of these topics, and the sole purpose of his changes have been to harass Rexjudicata. As Squeakbox is an old member of your clique (aka Wikipedia community), he rallied his friends for support and they joined him. Your code of conduct notwithstanding, the fact remains that the behavior of Squeakbox is a violation of the Cyberstalking Laws of Florida, many other states, and a growing number of other countries. Your Wikipedia S.O.P. is in conflict with these laws, and that should give you pause. Why are your members allowed or even encouraged to break the laws in a growing area of International regulation If you can get past the fact that Squeakbox is allowed to make edits -- as are all Wikipedians -- and examine why and what he has been editing in his attack on Rexjudicata, you see that he has used your rules as a vehicle to harass Rexjudicata. The choice is yours -- ignore the stalking and harassing by claiming the rules permit Squeakbox s behavior -- or look at the unethical behavior of his stalking. Consider what we call the ethics transparency test. Ask, Could I give a clear explanation for the action, including an honest and transparent account of my motives, that would satisfy a fair and dispassionate moral judge Squeakbox s behavior fails this test.
Consider what we call the ethics Golden Rule test. Ask, Would I like to be on the receiving end of this action and its potential consequences Am I treating others the way Id want to be treated Again, Squeakbox s behavior fails this test. If Rexjudicata had behaved as Squeakbox did, he would have gone to all of the substantive pages that Squeakbox edited, and made changes to them -- this did not happen. Instead, he posted his complaint about being cyberstalked and erased harassing comments made by Squeakbox on his page. The choice is very clear. You may intervene and stop the unethical, stalking behavior of Squeakbox, or you can stand behind a technical interpretation of your rules, ignoring the fact that they permit unethical and illegal behavior. This is not about suggesting that Squeakbox or any other Wikipedian stalker be prosecuted, but about the fact that your rules are increasingly out of step with both ethics and laws. Philanthropists and investors are very careful about such issues. Rex
07:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
:There is evidence that Agwiii and RexJudicata are indeed the same person, and this was accepted by other editors and admins at the time. In so far as the Golden Rule makes sense as a practical rule (which it doesn t), one would have to say: If I were pretending to be two different people and were found out, would I be satisfied to be dealt with accordingly The trouble is that, if I were the sort of person who behaved in that way, then I d not have the moral integrity that made my response relevant — and if I had the requisite moral integrity, I d not have pretended to be two people in the first place. 08:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is also evidence the earth is flat, but both are untrue. I suggest you review the definition of libel before you embark on your conditional ethics rationalization. It is not surprising that you feel the golden rul is not practical. Clearly, ethical behavior and wikipedia are at odds.
13:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The only clearly illegal edits in this case are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:66.176.193.185&diff=prev&oldid=14365689 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:66.176.193.185&diff=prev&oldid=14365768 this]. If you pump the IP address into Google you get this cached version [http://www.computerbanter.com/q-t_60611-Re-a-notice-to-all-spammers-on-this-forum.html], note the reference to Spam & Kook Killers are Us, the company Rex admits to working for on his user page. [www.computerbanter.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D55510+%2266.176.193.185%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en|lang_es&client=firefox-a" title="http://72.14.207.104/searchq=cache:XBawYvuAvHUJ:www.computerbanter.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D55510+%2266.176.193.185%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en|lang_es&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">http://72.14.207.104/searchq=cache:XBawYvuAvHUJ:www.computerbanter.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D55510+%2266.176.193.185%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en|lang_es&client=firefox-a Here], in another cached version, we see this is actually Grayson Walker, with a connection to [http://www.ianwalker.org this], which I used in the Grayson Walker article, and which is 15:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
= Enviroknot, et al. =
Given that 08:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:As the placing of the template is policy, I think that asking for further assistance at Admin s noticeboard isn t necessary (though my request for advice about Grace Note s removal of the template resulted in the advice that I should warn him against doing it, and block him if he continues). I don t think that any admin has expressed opposition to the placing of the template (again, difficult to do so, given that it s policy to place it). I ll sleep on it. 23:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Don Black, et al. =
Thanks for moving 21:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Er, hate to ask you, but the same editor is back and has done it all again. - 06:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
= VfD =
Yes, I normally do just that. However, when there s a backlog of 500+ VfDs, anything that saves time is a good thing. — 20:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
=you re welcome=
...bet you d do the same for me! Cheers, 21:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Stanislaw Tyminski =
Ah, thanks for correcting that. Sorry, but I didn t know you have a problem with diactrics, and thought that ll work. Thanks for correcting me. Regards, 12:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=VFD=
Thanks for figuring that out. :) 21:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
= NOEDITSECTION =
Yeah, that was quite fun , wasn t it ;) Ah well, the wikihousekeeper s work is never done... 22:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= NOEDITSECTION =
Congratulations, you just destroyed VfD!
Well, not exactly destroyed , but now the edit links are gone on the latest log (and possibly in others). Could you help find out and remove the ones that are subst: ed and couldn t be found
-- 21:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Oh god yes, I hadn t thought of it working globally, I m a pillock. Sorry about that, and thanks for cleaning up my mess. -- ) 23:21, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
=Well that was quick.=
I went away for one weekend and behold, Mel Etitis has abused his powers not only to vandalize my user page but to prevent me from fixing it. 04:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= RfA thanks =
Thank you for your support for my adminship (complete with example!). I hope to live up to the high standards set by other admins such as yourself. Cheers, - 21:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
= School vandalism =
I realise some idiots from the school I attend are ruining wikipedia, unfortunatley we share the same IP, I did contribute but I noticed people around me destroying it so thats why I registered, I hope that you do block people from modifying from my schools particular IP, but please not my account, you can keep track of what I do and see its not vandalism.
= Vandalism =
They have been vandalizing my page constantly like this. The first time they did it, I sent each a warning not to do it again. Mel Etitis response was nasty email to me followed by his constant hunt for nonexistent evidence , as well as encouraging his Islamist friends to attack me at every opportunity. This has been beyond ridiculous, and it IS vandalism as well as complete bad faith on their part. 01:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Even then, calling names only makes things worse. It s even possible that some of the editors reverting you might be thinking ill of you just because of these kinds of edit summaries. --cesarb 01:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::No, I m pretty sure it is because they are friends/sympathizers of Mel Etitis political agenda - his first recruits were the like of BrandonYusufToropov and Yuber and it seems to have gone downhill from there. 01:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Thanks a lot! (RE:Urgent repair requested) =
Thank you, Cesar!
I had some ideas (one of them almost the same) about fixing but I was not sure (beeng not seasoned enough plus feeling badly after mistake I ve made).
Thanks again!
20:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= =
Please join the discussion on 09:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) *yess the establishment needs you to suppress articles, becaus they change the rules all the time. -- 06:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Blocking or not =
First of all, you are correct on that fact that I did not warn on his talk page. However, did you actually take your time you understand what we are talking about Did you check that article s talk page Tried to understand what he s been doing for a long, long time, and the amount of people who went against his ideas I might be wrong for not warning, but I guess that s far more than a reason for anyone to be banned with no warnings on his talk page. Also, he didn t accept the block, and used an anonymous IP to keep on posting and reverting and using the arguments that were judged to be POV-oriented and unsuitable for Wikipedia, by a consensus achieved through a long time discussion. User s unhappy with their blocked status should wait until the blocking period is over to try anything else. You might think That s right, I ll unblock him, and he won t do this again . Of course, because he now knows how it feels to be blocked. What he did do as soon as you unblocked him was to delete what was put on his talk page, in order to erase it from the eyes of anyone that would happen to cross it.
I m just upset with the fact that it took you so little time to try to understand this. If any at all.-- 22:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I just noticed you re Brazilian. Everything leads to that conclusion. If so, you re very much aware of what the article in question talks about. I actually do believe any Brazilian that saw that article and what has been added to it, would refuse to accept it. The claims. Everything. If you have no idea of what I m talking about, go check it. I know I would. The user you unblocked today just told me he will get back with those claims very soon. If you are here because you fight for a better encyclopedia, free of bias as much as possible, you should keep an eye on that. You should not refrain from it. I ve done my part. I ll be watching this from a distance for now.
:Lembre-se de tudo isso. Boa sorte, e veremos se você fez a escolha certa.-- 03:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= My Talk Page =
When I remove contents of my talk page, is because generated constaint ackward for me. -- 23:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: Hello. I can clean my talk page now I m just requesting your authorization. -- 01:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=Moving forward with anarchism=
I proposed a disambig header at 16:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, I ran out of ideas before you did. You might want to ask the 17:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::None of the three Users I singled out have agreed to mediation. I could try the 29 June 2005 04:40 (UTC)
= Linux =
Thank you! — 21:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Blocking MARMOT IPs =
I regret to inform you that I had to undo two of your blocks on IPs used by MARMOT, because they were cache proxies and used by many other people. See also 22:34, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
= Proxy block =
I saw you blocked as a proxy.
How do you know I ve been trying to establish this for the last few minutes now, and then I saw you had already blocked.
Are you just using the heuristic same user, radically different IP , or something more tangible 00:03, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC) :I can t say how CesarB did it, but it s running an open web proxy on port 80. -- ) 00:33, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
= re:Reblocking =
I am actually not sure. I might check it out on Meta. If I do have to temporarily unblock, I ll not do it for an hour or two hoping that this person is not hanging around here anymore. 00:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Thanks! =
Well. After that recent bout of vandalism on my user page, I feel like I should thank you for reverting it (and reverting it again, and again...) for me. You are truly very Wiki-nice, er, something. So thank you! -- 04:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Size matters =
How do you tell how big a article page is 23:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: Can we suggest that they had that feature at the bottom of the page 00:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: I am not that good at computers, I don t program, except for very basic HTML.
= RFC =
I was aware. Thank you.-- 28 June 2005 21:29 (UTC)
=Site notice=
I immediately reverted what I did. It was a mistake in pasting between windows. Of course it makes no sense. The problem is not all projects have a valid sitenotice right now, it requires to be sysop to edit it and it takes so much time to switch oneself sysop on each project one at a time, that I lazyly pasted the message in village pumps for sysops to change their site notice. I just messed between windows. I hope you will accept my words when I say it was a mistake.
= re: Subst: ing speedy deletion notices =
I wanted to apologize for that, I had no idea and thought it was helping the server load. June 29, 2005 22:05 (UTC)
:Ditto the above really - I m sorry about doing it (I didn t realise that it caused trouble). The reason I did it in that circumstance was the author had deleted the previous speedy tag and I was trying to deter him/her from doing it again. However, now I know this I will make sure I don t add the subst: to any more. Apologies again and thanks for letting me know. 29 June 2005 22:12 (UTC)
= Thank you! =
Hello, I just wanted to say thank you for updating my userpage so quickly! Even though, it turned out that I was still here to do it myself (but don t know when I may no longer have computer access,) thanks again! June 30, 2005 21:38 (UTC)
= Merging page histories, etc. =
Oh, I don t plan on messing with merging page histories for awhile, if ever. I m slowly easing myself into being an admin, and for now (and possibly ever) will only block obvious vandals who have been given a fair warning and deleting obvious speedy candidates (if I have ANY doubt, I ll just mark them as speedy so another admin can look at them.) June 30, 2005 22:18 (UTC)
=Vandal=
Thank you for the help with the vandal!!!! 1 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)
= Possible spam links =
Since you seem to be the master commercial link remover, could you tell me what to do when I find edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Home_cinema&curid=183370&diff=17980999&oldid=16068471 this one] and the previous edit -- 1 July 2005 22:44 (UTC) :Well, first you check if they comply with ) 3 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)
= Your threat =
You just threatened to block me. Am I breaking a rule, or are you just allowed to block people when you don t like their edits 3 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
No comment I can wait. 4 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
= Updating =
Bom dia,
looks good to me. The only thing you didn t do is remove the oldest date from the list of old votes , but that s hardly important. -- 4 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)
=Tutorials for HTML=
Why did you revert Peterf s edit on 5 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)
:Thanks for the explanation. It wasn t meant as a criticism anyway, I was just curious. 5 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)
=Hogeye on =
I ve never done an arb-req before. Is there anything I should know -- 6 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
= Hogeye =
He is attempting to take absolute control of the article for himself by avoiding the 3 revert rule and instead simply cutting and pasting from various degrees from a pet article. I have no desire to participate in a revert war, but nor do I intend to simply watch Hogeye unilaterally determine the status of the anarchism article. If you have a solution for me, please offer it. He refused mediation, mocks arbitration, rejects page protection, and insults people repeatedly on the talk page, no longer even trying to engage in substantive dialogue. Doing nothing means he walks all over a public works, so is there another possiblity other than undoing his edits
I have reverted 2 times today, and so have several other users, and he just continues to put the same texts that he knows are objected back in. Still, I will hold off for your response for at least another day before reverting again out of respect for the mere hope that there is some other solution. 6 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)
: It is exactly the eventual affects of his actions, the long now, rather than the immediate now, that I am concerned with. Hogeye knows that his edits won t stand. What he is hoping is that he can poison the article enough to force a compromise around his edits. But the article was already the result of compromises between dozens of editors, and he now wants the entire thing to represent his views in particular. Anyway, I will try to gather evidence of partial reverts, but it is difficult as he is purposefully using different segments of the article he is cutting and pasting from with each edit. 6 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)
= Re: Template stuff =
The reason why I added the category was to assist in the already existing one (Wikipedia:Indefinitely blocked users). Take a look at July 6, 2005 22:05 (UTC)
=Thanks=
Thanks for pointing that out. I realize that I should have gone to bed long ago.-- 6 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
= =
You are in danger of violating the 2005-07-07 00:20:31 (UTC)
= Hogeye =
Most or all of the behaviour that made me certify this RFC has either reduced greatly or disappeared. Withdrawing. - from RFC. Does this still represent your opinion, considering this user s recent edits -- July 7, 2005 02:15 (UTC)
= wanker001 not blocked =
Any particular reason you didn t block the wander dude Just curious. -- ) July 8, 2005 02:16 (UTC)
= =
In case I need to be more clear, your reverts break that template on IE. I understand if my changes break on FireFox, but a vast majority of our users are on IE.
Why bother reverting to a version I ve said is broken Why not report it to me instead.
You re gonna run us both out of reverts by the end of this and it s pointless since we re BOTH RIGHT. Calm down a bit, and I ll fix it if you can tell me what is wrong. -- 8 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
=Dr. Weazel=
How is he circumventing your blocks -- July 9, 2005 10:45 (UTC)
:I think it has something to do with the weird characters he s using in his usernames. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr._W%D0%B5%D0%B0z%D0%B5l and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr._Weazel July 9, 2005 10:47 (UTC)
::No, it s due to a new 9 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)
= Stale inuses =
Hi - thanks for removing my stale inuses . I was conscious that I was using this template incorrectly, but didn t want to remove them myself, as another editor had told me that if I was still in the middle of working on an article, I should flag this up by using the inuse template, rather than mentioning this fact in the text. Can you let me how you would suggest I mark these articles to indicate their incompleteness I wouldn t want people to go away thinking that the articles were complete. -- 22:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
= re: Concerns about vandalism =
I m not quite sure exactly what you were trying to say by that link. Were you saying only that the user was allowed to edit their userpage The user was obviously incorrect in claiming to be no longer banned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk%3AWilly_on_wheels&diff=18392875&oldid=17166038], and that s the reason I reverted that. Were you explaining that they could edit the userpage Perhaps I should watch the noticeboard more closely. 00:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC) :Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying. 01:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
= VFD info =
Thanks for the help with that VFD question I posted on Village Pump! 23:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
= Delete extra archive page =
Hi CesarB! Thank you for your comments on the vote today. Since you seemed to be helpful, do you mind helping me delete the page 00:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for moving my comments to the right place...With all the links pointing in a thousand different places, I couldn t figure out where to put them! -- 01:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
= Romath deletion =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Romath
You said the result of this vote was delete. Please look at it again. A vandal had been repeatedly removing keep votes, and the result should have been no consensus if all votes were counted. 23:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
= Hogeye (again) =
Hogeye continues to break the 3RR [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/3RR#User:Hogeye]. He has now grown more sophisticated in his gaming of the system, he is using multiple IPs, as well as continuing to refuse to label his reverts, making reverts with superficial changes, and shuffling them around to make it difficult to collect evidence. I provided all of the evidence for this on the 3RR page, except for the url for the IP tracking service that reveals both anon IPs to be of the same origin. I didn t want to give him further tools to mask his behavior. Is this the proper approach Should I have made a separate section for the 3RR page, or should I include the url for the IP trackers 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
: Thank you for saving my report, it took some time to put together. Sorry for putting it in the wrong place. Thought you might like to know that Hadal blocked another of his sockpuppets [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Danneskjold]. Crazily enough he has continued, now making [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Anarchism&diff=18578806&oldid=18576928 this revert] using an anonymizing proxy service called kaxy.com . I suppose there is nothing to be done if he jumps from IP to IP, but at least its a recognized problem now. 05:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
:: Hogeye continues to violate his ban by using alternate IPs. Hadal is doing a great job of looking out for new IPs and blocking them as they come up, but Hogeye is being very persistant and doing a lot of reverts during the time Hadal isn t on. For example, in the last day alone he has reverted the anarchism page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Individualist_anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism&curid=2212830&action=history 7 times] from 04:15, 17 to 03:39, 18. I ve already informed Hadal of this. I think Hadal already banned this IP once already as a sockpuppet of Hogeye after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Anarchism&diff=18581569&oldid=18580479 this] edit, but if so it must have been a 24 hour thing since he is back at it now. Would it be possible for you to keep an eye on this, to help take some of the burden off Hadal 03:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::: Ah, okies. Well when you get back, you had asked me for proof of an IP being an open proxy, and Hogeye thankfully gave it himself: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Anarchism&curid=12&action=history 02:42, 19 July 2005 205.234.161.227 (http://www.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/p5.p1.pjt.perutbrrxq.pgka- Anarcho-capitalism)] Of course, it is always possible that isn t Hogeye, but the IP is definately from an open proxy, and it is making edits very similar to his. 04:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
=Page protection request=
Please protect Creation science. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests here] for more details. -- 04:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
= =
This is just over-categorization. No one ever needs to go looking for pages that are Inuse , as those pages are marked as such for only short periods. You can always use 18:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:I disagree; see for instance 19:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:: almost all the templates of that kind... have a category - true in some respects. But that is a poor reason to automatically over-categorize this template series. A solution in search of a problem. -- 20:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC) ::*The category is on CFD now. I do agree that if a template is supposed to be temporary, there s no need to add a category to it. This may or may not apply to other cleanup templates. 19:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
= Right you are =
Those pesky redirects! I have fixed it. Thanks for the catch. -- 23:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
=Your comment at =
Hi CesarB, just to clarify since there s now some confusion there, did you mean to cast a vote or just post a comment If you could clarify what you intended there it would help. Thanks either way. 07:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
=Block clash=
I see you blocked 00:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
= Subject matter s importance =
I m not quite sure how this Wiki thing works but I think you modified the following entry to say it lacks importance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_from_Golders_Green
For what it s worth, Rosemary from Golders Green is just a member of the public who calls a small London radio station from time to time (they have about 2.0 to 2.5% market share) and spouts nonsense. I really fail to see how she warrants an entry in the Wiki. How does this benefit the world or even the other 98% of Londoners who have no clue who she is (assuming that all of that stations listeners know her - which they don t)
And as you suggest, there s not much in the way of useful information in that entry. Given that the original author seems to think that a member of the public who phones up a radio station to say she thinks recycling is a waste of time (without even explaining why) has a place on the Wiki, may I suggest that the entry is only of interest to obsessive fans of the station - all of whom already know what s on there - and it should therefore be removed from the Wiki
I don t know how you go about getting an entry removed, that s why I posted here
Thanks!
= Removal and Restoration of Freenet links =
Hello, as i ve noticed you have once reverted a removal of spamming section. I just would appreciate it if you would please say something there. Thanks either way.
= renames of speedy deletion templates =
Now that the TfD on has been closed I have renamed all the speedy deletion templates to names that start with db- as discussed in that TfD discussion. I have also cleaned up all double redirs and fixed all coumentation pages I know of. The only template not conforming is because it is currently protected. I hope this meets your concerns in this matter. 23:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:You wrote (on my talk page): Yes, much less confusing right now. I think it s better to keep Template:delete as it is, since it s a bit of a special case. I would have also left isn t that bad. --cesarb 00:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
::I didn t leave unchanged becase i wanted it to group exactly with the other tempaltes, and thus to start with db- otherwise a hypothetical speedy-tagged 15:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
= Careful with your categorization! =
Cesar, I ve noticed that you ve been removing articles from some of their categories recently based, apparently, on a misunderstanding of ) .
However, states:
An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. . (emphasis added)
Thus, a distribution that s a spinoff of Debian would go just in .
Unfortunately, this happened to coincide with a somewhat more partisanship-inspired effort by a particular user who was very selectively applying the policy based not on whether the articles defined the sub-category but whether they defined the parent category -- a POV judgement he affected to believe was the operative criteria (ignoring evidence to the contrary), and affected to believe was his to make. i.e., instead of Does 00:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
=Oops!=
Thanks for the tip. Looks like I need to read that section a bit more carefully. :) Best, 00:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
=Bot or Not Bot=
Hi. I m drawing my conclusion based on recreated article titles which come in from a different proxy every time, with or without the same text in the body. Wiki vandal bots seem to be a pretty hot Google if memory serves. Just my assumption when I see the titles keep popping up over and over. - 00:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
LOL! Oh, heaven forfend! :^P - 00:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
= Block interference =
Sorry, I usually check but I must have missed that one. Say, shouldn t this be a bugzilla request 00:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
= Spam/Ad/Advert/Advertisement =
All of these words represent the same concept. Our reaction to all instances of possible ads should be consistent. No — 16:38, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
= thank you =
Thank you very much for reverting my mistakes with RobotE. 22:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
=You are Ril and I claim my Colley Cibber=
Thank you, CesarB, that s interesting. Anybody who says 01:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
= Redir tl s =
I ve nominated the lot of them as I believe they re 12:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
= IPCC =
Thanks for your comments.
The issue is that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is known internationally but Independent Police Complaints Commission is just a British thing. (I say that even though I am British myself!)
Compare Google hits: :http://www.google.com/searchhl=en&q=ipcc+intergovernmental+panel+climate+change :http://www.google.com/searchhl=en&q=ipcc+independent+police+complaints+commission
Until recently there wasn t an article on the police complaints commission. It was created because of the Jean Charles de Menezes affair.
20:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
= Revert =
Thanks for the revert of vandalism to my user page!-- 02:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
= Diff modification =
Just now I feel like trying out your modification, but you aren t using it anymore 14:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I m trying to install it specifically to edit this series of edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Water_fuel_cell&diff=21805191&oldid=16808498] but none of the versions I have tried have done anything. Am I missing something very basic 14:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:I stopped using it because of a really annoying problem: on some diffs, the right column would be extremely thin, making it really hard to read. I just need to find a way to force both columns to have the same size, and I will start using it again.
:It also sometimes does not work (and again, forcing both columns to have the same size and filling the whole screen would probably fix it). I have no idea of what makes it not work, unfortunately.
:Take a look at for some of the problematic diffs.
:-- 19:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::Yeah, I tried a few different diffs, and couldn t get it to do anything. I will stare at the code later and try to figure out what it does. I m not a javascript master. 20:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
=Reference Desk TOC=
Please see 02:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
=You blocked one user but not the other, Calton, who also made four reverts. Why Partisanship on your part=
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special:Log/block&page=User:67.182.157.6]
And anyway, where do you get the gall to TOTALLY block so that he cannot even edit his own user space or a request for arbitration where he needs to be free to defend himself
:Check the timing. I blocked 67.182.157.6 at 17:35. The fourth revert by Calton was at 17:37. When I looked, there was no 3RR for him. -- 18:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
DotSix has been blocked under his IP 67.182.157.6,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special:Log/block&page=User:67.182.157.6] but has made six edits since then using 172.198.185.228 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special:Contributions&target=172.198.185.228]. He is taking ArbCom for a ride. 21:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
You would look a lot less partisan if you blocked Calton now, wouldn t you, old boy
:I can t. He falls under one of the 3RR exceptions. -- 14:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
=IP address=
Cheers for locking the article. Hopefully we can all calm down and resolve any problems on the talk page. Also thanks a lot for helping me resolve my difficulties with avoiding the yellow message. Much appreciated, 19:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Please send me the IP address that you are testing this with - I would like to hard code it and verify it - thanks :) 17:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
= =
Hi, yes an anon created the sub-page for a Cfd. We do not use individual sub-pages, so I moved the entry to the correct place 20:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC) *Thanks, that works good. I didn t think of that, but will do it if it occurs again. Thanks again. 21:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
=Thanks!=
I appreciate your reverting that Lucky 7.0 doofus. I ve blocked him from editing. Anything I can do to help in return, just ask. :) - 00:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
= Talk Protection =
Hello CesarB - I ve been following the whole Dot 6 troubles, hoping for the situation to calm down, so true, truth (and related articles) can come back online - as you re probably aware, the Rfar against Dot 6 has led to his banning of editing any pages bar his own talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix/Proposed_decision#DotSix_edit_restrictions] - do you think it might therefore be appropriate to unblock the truth talk page - thank you! 11:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
=Thanks CesarB and sorry=
Request to Block 216.234.114.127 and 24.30.157.246, Ddespie
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ddespie%40san.rr.com] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special:Contributions&target=216.234.114.127] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:24.30.157.246 User:24.30.157.246]
Been a problem and is a complete nuisance. Thanks 23:18:12, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
rv; this is completely the wrong place to put a blocking request. Try [WP:AIV].
Will do thanks Cesar, 00:23:45, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
=Thanks Cesar!=
I didn t catch the newgroup>newsgroup thing when I posted it on Scientology versus the Internet
Marbahlarbs 23:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
= Unprotection =
Thanks.
Should we run a book on how long it takes until his return My money is on about 12 hrs. 22:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
= =
Thank you for blocking the latest Willy incarnation. Could I trouble you to delete 01:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
:I ve done better: moved over the redirect (a delete and a move in a single command; very annoying when you do it by accident, but very useful when it s exactly what you want to do). -- 01:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, it s hard for the bot to detect that kind of vandalism. It s a different kind, subtler. -- 01:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
= Me and RFA =
I think I d make good use of adminship, so if you think the same, feel free to nominate me. Due to my lack of substantial content contributions (almost all minor fixes, vandal-fighting, and discussion), I m not sure I d pass, but it d be nice to get the feedback. Thank you for expressing your appreciation of my work - I didn t think it would happen so soon. ~~ ) 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
= Raye and Nestor =
I noticed you deleted my article; that s expected, especially since it doesn t belong in an encyclopedia at all. I just wanted to do something nice for my two best friends who finally hooked up and became a couple. I d like to ask you two questions:
1) What does nn-bio mean You wrote it as the cause for deletion. 2) Obviously you re an administrator because you deleted the page; can you please copy-and-paste the content of the deleted page and give it to me so I may always remember this pivotal day in my friend s lives
Thanks!
-- 21:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
: Thanks for the info, and thanks for putting the page back up under my user. How would I release the picture to the public domain :-- 00:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
=Explanation Please=
Okay, why did you delete my RFC about DESpiegel s unsolicited obscene message to me It was of great importance to me to stop such behavior and you interfered with my legitimate efforts to put a stop to it. Send your explanation to my user talk. 03:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC) ==Apology and User Talk Problem== I genuinely apologize for the RFC mix-up. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I now realize that I chose the wrong RFC board. By the way, a user named Knowledge Seeker says that I am accidentally damaging others user talk pages (something or other about the enter key). If so, I certainly want to stop. Have I in any way caused misalignment on your user talk page, including with this message If so, please respond at my user talk. Thank you very much. 17:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
=Article in question =
You might want to check out the efficacy of this article on Wikipedia, as its companion article you just took off ( 21:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)|
|