Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 00:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my user page - first time I've experienced it, and I'm so proud! :) Ziggurat 23:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. As I said when we first discussed this, though, I consider the knowing and repeated wholesale reversion of edits that bring an article into line with the MoS as low-level vandalism. It certainly doiesn't count as good faith, I think; the MoS and other documents are clear enough, but editors like BGC (who are particularly common on the pop-music articles) are simply uninterested in Wikipedia policies and guidelines — they want to do things their way, and resist attempts to make changes with stubbornness and hostility. Note that BGC was in fact calling my edits vandalism — yet despite my request at W:AN/I for someone to have a quiet word with him in an attempt to get him to calm down and to lower the temperature of the situation, no-one seems to have done so. I'm a little peeved, in fact, that rather than explaining to him that his understanding of vandalism is incorrect I've had three people reproaching me; even if I'm wrong concerning the nature of (low-level) vandalism, the imbalance seems a little odd to me.
Er, what does not dropping it entail? What exactly are you threatening me with, in exchange for my pretending that I don't believe something that I do believe? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me off of that unwarranted block. I wanted to let you know that Mel has once again undone my work. His justification is that he started a dispute page: [1], to which I'd like you to give your two cents if you so wish. I have returned my images to the pages ( Love You to Summer in Paradise) solely because no one else has weighed in on the matter yet (thus, no consensus reached) and Mel's poor reasoning of "I don't like it" is not reason enough to delete the helpful images. Very subjective on his part. I will not cater to a potential 3RR again, but Mel's power trip reverting needs to be dealt with, especially as he's an admin and he even went over your edits last week. I've stated my case at the appropriate page. I'd appreciate if you could weigh in.
Thanks BGC 13:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I've just moved this back in line with normal naming conventions (prepositions not capitalised); was there a reason that you reverted my initial move? I know that User talk:Winnermario insists that songwriters are exempt from normal English style, but none of the style manuals agrees with him (see his talk page for discussions). -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 08:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
You're probably right that my experiences with these editors had lessened my patience with them. On the other hand, three or four other (experienced) editors aside from me are involved in reverting to the unified table form, and my experience has taught me that OmegaWikipedia et al. don't understand the notion of compromise (I mean that literally. OmegaWikipedia has used the term twice to my knowledge: once in a dispute with Extraordinary Machine, in which by "compromise" he meant "if you don't change these articles from x to y, I won't change those from y to x", and once in a message to Boa, in which he praised the creation of a differently divided set of tables as a compromise). You might be interested in the suggestions at Talk:The Trouble with Love Is, though.
I don't see the relevance of the out-of-context diff from Language, though. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 15:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting that for me. He's promised to harass me and made personal threat awhile ago. I've reported him on the intervention page. Maybe you can follow through there, as an admin. Thanks again! Gator1 20:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Greetings! I am (imo) a newb here to Wiki, and have ran into some difficulty vis a vis the "BartCop" Wikipedia entry. It seems that this sole Wiki page, in opposition to every other page I have either read/edited/created, is being allowed to be hijacked, slurred, revert-vandalized and extremely non NPOV'd into a joke. If you have the time, please review the "BartCop" pages (article and talk/discussions) and tell me if I am correct, or if I just need to take a break, let those who would cheapen Wiki by attempting to insert half-researched or whole-cloth backed info as fact win, or if indeed I have a leg to stand on. Thanks, in advance for your advice. Lone Odessan 06:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Would you also agree that this: [ [2]] is vandalism? Can nothing be done to prevent this anon user OR sockpuppet, whichever, from popping in and vandalizing legitimate edits? Isn't the user guilty of the "3RR" rule? Curious..... Lone Odessan 07:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Heya, you blocked User:150.176.239.178 as an open proxy; it is a shared proxy, but not an open one (though judging from google you're not the only one to be fooled by its contributions). It's a shared cache for the schools in Alachua florida, and like with all schools their contributions are at best a mixed bag. I've unblocked them and since they weren't at test5 yet I haven't short-term blocked either (as it's a school, anything longer than a few hours won't do much good anyway). Is that ok? -- fvw * 17:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Would you mind protecting Clemson University for a while? It's been getting some pretty heavy vandalism. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I was just wondering if I could add my case to your RfC on Mel? Or do you want me to keep out of your case? Also, do I have the right to reply to his statement where he mentioned by nickname? Either way, I signed the petition - or whatever you guys call it. Thanks. -- Anittas 21:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
How can I add to the warning templates auto signature. so that you only have to put it there and it does your signature
☺Adam1213☺| talk 03:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
A quick note to let you know that I removed the same links inserted by this user again today. Your last block and unblock is referenced here after his assertion on IRC that he would stop. -- GraemeL (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Why did you protect the article on its POV version? This is against wikipedia rules. Do you know who the people depicted supposedly as "Macedonian Slavs" are? It's a disgrace to wikipedia to promote such POVs, even when it's about a content dispute. That would be like protecting the article of Israel under the name Palestine until Arab-Jewish conflicts are solved in Talk. Articles should be protected in their original version, until the disputing party makes a valid point in discussion, not the other way around. Miskin 12:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
10 minutes ago (as of 13:55pm 11/10 GMT) a message was received to this IP address, demanding the cessation of the editing on an article titled 'Vandalism', with the offending user being prevented from editing said article
Address: 212.135.1.57
The IP address is for a school network, therefore the banning of said IP address is not recommended, as this is a valuable resource. However, I recommend that you ban this IP address from editing or placing new topics
Regards
I need to know something. When editing a page on Wikipedia... As it is an actual encyclopedia, should decisions by contributors be made on their opinions or on printed, concrete facts? You can see the problem we're having if you visit the Avengers (comics) page. Certainly a reverting war going on. It seems to be me against two people, so they've declared me a vandal. The only problem is that the facts are in favour of my point of view. If every printed publication didn't agree with me, I'd gladly back down, but their opinion differs from the facts and they are constantly reverting -- and even resorting to stalking me around Wikipedia to revert any edits I make.. Is it possible that every printed publication is indeed wrong and that these two people are right? Avengers fan 11:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
How is it not when it clearly goes against a merge vote? It's a refusal to accept consensus, and is disruptive, creating a fork when a fork was voted against. I don't know about you, but I think that disruption is a blockable offence. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Why did you speedy delete this article? I think it really had some merit. I was just wikifying it a bit and then I found out you had deleted it. Aren't admins supposed to explain a speedy deletion in the edit summary, i.e. write more than the first sentence of the original content? (that's not a rhetoric question, I really don't know)-- Carabinieri 19:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Brookie here - I see you have jumped on and deleted this which was being worked on - are you not aware of this famous cissy (as linked to Nigel Molesworth)?
...en passant! 19:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will promise very hard not to let the community, especially you, down. Denelson 83 21:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
BMI-
I noted that you have placed a NPOV warning on Ketchup on hot dogs topic. I read through the article and, although the people quoted do not favor ketchup on hot dogs, I don't believe that the article has any sort of bias in the presentation. Can you suggest revisions that would remove the label? Unfortunately, there are no quotes that I have been able to locate that are pro-ketchup since, quite frankly, I don't think that it matters all that much to them. A little assistance would be helpful. Jtmichcock 22:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
DIR SIR, MY ARTICLE IS NOT NONSENSE. IMPORTANT TAMIL TOPIC, MAYBE COMPUTER NOT SUPPORT TAMIL? DOWNLOAD TAMIL FONT, YOU SEE, IMPORTANT IN TAMIL. PLEASE TRANSLATE.
Thanks for fixing my archive. I had a feeling I wasn't doing it correctly. Salva 00:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I noticed you gave User:203.26.2.2 as final warning for vandalism (on that user's talk page. I have reverted two items of vandalism, Kevin Johnson and Inca Empire.
It must mean I'm doing something right. :) Wikibofh 17:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You blocked this user, but only for 1 hour. That seems very generous, given that the user was warned 7 times before, given 3 "last warnings", and blocked twice. Would you consider a longer block? The user clearly seems to have malicious intentions. Superm401 | Talk 04:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
OOH i'm scared.
I was not vandalizing your userpage, I was simply voicing my opinion on the subject. I realize that this kind of free speech may be contrary to your belief but not to our current US patriotic judicial system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.157.199 ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 October 2005
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- case. →Raul654 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I only reverted actual material 3 times - the other reverts are removal of tags by the people who I have a dispute with. I've decided to just avoid the page, since there is a clear revert gang, and no possibility of good faith discussion. Since it is a reasonably active page, and will (eventually) get to a reasonable state without my participation, I'm just going to drop it from my watch list. Stirling Newberry 06:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Not sure why you deleted this page. I placed the {{deletedpage}} there to protect it from the vandal who was constantly re-creating it. Have you been aproached about using this page for a legitimate article? Owen× ☎ 19:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
This message is in addition to the message I left you on the White Sox talk page.
Here is the White Sox infobox for your perusal that will be implemented this weekend after the Series. Mind you, it is part of the ongoing project so changes are always welcomed. Feel free to update the info, but any wholesale changes to the infobox that would affect the other teams should be discussed first. Have a good one!--
CrazyTalk
19:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey-I just saw your message about changing the COTW from awhile ago and agree 100%. Sox fan all of my life an NOTHING can describe how big this is (WORLD SERIES!!!). It hard to image that this is REALLY happening after so long, I'm taking my 94 year old grandfather to game 6 if they play-hes been a sox fan his entire life and has never seen anything like this. Sorry I haven't been around much, I've had a lot going on and I have decided to go back to school to so I've been quite busy, but I hope to come back full time pretty soon. C ya around!
GO SOX!!!!! -- Gpyoung talk 04:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm using your copyvio and menu system, but am having a problem. When I mouseover the talk messages menu, it lists the items one-by-one horizontally, rather than vertically. Any idea how to fix this? Thanks. — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-10-30 00:37
Would you happen to know how to make a firefox extension using Javascript? It would be very simple and used to fight vandalism. The basic idea is to feed RC diff's into firefox, and let it determine which pages contain text (such as an obscenity) listed in a file. For pages that don't contain anything on this list, the tab is closed. The others remain open and ready to be examined. If you can't figure out how to hookup the IRC RC output into firefox, then it could be used with WP:CDVF to open new tabs in firefox to be checked. I found a guide to making extensions, but it says you need to know Javascript. Thanks. — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-10-30 03:50
Feel free to vote on the Frank Davis AFD as well. The anon creator has been manipulating both AFDs and has been deleting votes. Gator (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 00:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my user page - first time I've experienced it, and I'm so proud! :) Ziggurat 23:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. As I said when we first discussed this, though, I consider the knowing and repeated wholesale reversion of edits that bring an article into line with the MoS as low-level vandalism. It certainly doiesn't count as good faith, I think; the MoS and other documents are clear enough, but editors like BGC (who are particularly common on the pop-music articles) are simply uninterested in Wikipedia policies and guidelines — they want to do things their way, and resist attempts to make changes with stubbornness and hostility. Note that BGC was in fact calling my edits vandalism — yet despite my request at W:AN/I for someone to have a quiet word with him in an attempt to get him to calm down and to lower the temperature of the situation, no-one seems to have done so. I'm a little peeved, in fact, that rather than explaining to him that his understanding of vandalism is incorrect I've had three people reproaching me; even if I'm wrong concerning the nature of (low-level) vandalism, the imbalance seems a little odd to me.
Er, what does not dropping it entail? What exactly are you threatening me with, in exchange for my pretending that I don't believe something that I do believe? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me off of that unwarranted block. I wanted to let you know that Mel has once again undone my work. His justification is that he started a dispute page: [1], to which I'd like you to give your two cents if you so wish. I have returned my images to the pages ( Love You to Summer in Paradise) solely because no one else has weighed in on the matter yet (thus, no consensus reached) and Mel's poor reasoning of "I don't like it" is not reason enough to delete the helpful images. Very subjective on his part. I will not cater to a potential 3RR again, but Mel's power trip reverting needs to be dealt with, especially as he's an admin and he even went over your edits last week. I've stated my case at the appropriate page. I'd appreciate if you could weigh in.
Thanks BGC 13:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I've just moved this back in line with normal naming conventions (prepositions not capitalised); was there a reason that you reverted my initial move? I know that User talk:Winnermario insists that songwriters are exempt from normal English style, but none of the style manuals agrees with him (see his talk page for discussions). -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 08:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
You're probably right that my experiences with these editors had lessened my patience with them. On the other hand, three or four other (experienced) editors aside from me are involved in reverting to the unified table form, and my experience has taught me that OmegaWikipedia et al. don't understand the notion of compromise (I mean that literally. OmegaWikipedia has used the term twice to my knowledge: once in a dispute with Extraordinary Machine, in which by "compromise" he meant "if you don't change these articles from x to y, I won't change those from y to x", and once in a message to Boa, in which he praised the creation of a differently divided set of tables as a compromise). You might be interested in the suggestions at Talk:The Trouble with Love Is, though.
I don't see the relevance of the out-of-context diff from Language, though. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 15:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting that for me. He's promised to harass me and made personal threat awhile ago. I've reported him on the intervention page. Maybe you can follow through there, as an admin. Thanks again! Gator1 20:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Greetings! I am (imo) a newb here to Wiki, and have ran into some difficulty vis a vis the "BartCop" Wikipedia entry. It seems that this sole Wiki page, in opposition to every other page I have either read/edited/created, is being allowed to be hijacked, slurred, revert-vandalized and extremely non NPOV'd into a joke. If you have the time, please review the "BartCop" pages (article and talk/discussions) and tell me if I am correct, or if I just need to take a break, let those who would cheapen Wiki by attempting to insert half-researched or whole-cloth backed info as fact win, or if indeed I have a leg to stand on. Thanks, in advance for your advice. Lone Odessan 06:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Would you also agree that this: [ [2]] is vandalism? Can nothing be done to prevent this anon user OR sockpuppet, whichever, from popping in and vandalizing legitimate edits? Isn't the user guilty of the "3RR" rule? Curious..... Lone Odessan 07:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Heya, you blocked User:150.176.239.178 as an open proxy; it is a shared proxy, but not an open one (though judging from google you're not the only one to be fooled by its contributions). It's a shared cache for the schools in Alachua florida, and like with all schools their contributions are at best a mixed bag. I've unblocked them and since they weren't at test5 yet I haven't short-term blocked either (as it's a school, anything longer than a few hours won't do much good anyway). Is that ok? -- fvw * 17:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Would you mind protecting Clemson University for a while? It's been getting some pretty heavy vandalism. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I was just wondering if I could add my case to your RfC on Mel? Or do you want me to keep out of your case? Also, do I have the right to reply to his statement where he mentioned by nickname? Either way, I signed the petition - or whatever you guys call it. Thanks. -- Anittas 21:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
How can I add to the warning templates auto signature. so that you only have to put it there and it does your signature
☺Adam1213☺| talk 03:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
A quick note to let you know that I removed the same links inserted by this user again today. Your last block and unblock is referenced here after his assertion on IRC that he would stop. -- GraemeL (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Why did you protect the article on its POV version? This is against wikipedia rules. Do you know who the people depicted supposedly as "Macedonian Slavs" are? It's a disgrace to wikipedia to promote such POVs, even when it's about a content dispute. That would be like protecting the article of Israel under the name Palestine until Arab-Jewish conflicts are solved in Talk. Articles should be protected in their original version, until the disputing party makes a valid point in discussion, not the other way around. Miskin 12:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
10 minutes ago (as of 13:55pm 11/10 GMT) a message was received to this IP address, demanding the cessation of the editing on an article titled 'Vandalism', with the offending user being prevented from editing said article
Address: 212.135.1.57
The IP address is for a school network, therefore the banning of said IP address is not recommended, as this is a valuable resource. However, I recommend that you ban this IP address from editing or placing new topics
Regards
I need to know something. When editing a page on Wikipedia... As it is an actual encyclopedia, should decisions by contributors be made on their opinions or on printed, concrete facts? You can see the problem we're having if you visit the Avengers (comics) page. Certainly a reverting war going on. It seems to be me against two people, so they've declared me a vandal. The only problem is that the facts are in favour of my point of view. If every printed publication didn't agree with me, I'd gladly back down, but their opinion differs from the facts and they are constantly reverting -- and even resorting to stalking me around Wikipedia to revert any edits I make.. Is it possible that every printed publication is indeed wrong and that these two people are right? Avengers fan 11:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
How is it not when it clearly goes against a merge vote? It's a refusal to accept consensus, and is disruptive, creating a fork when a fork was voted against. I don't know about you, but I think that disruption is a blockable offence. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Why did you speedy delete this article? I think it really had some merit. I was just wikifying it a bit and then I found out you had deleted it. Aren't admins supposed to explain a speedy deletion in the edit summary, i.e. write more than the first sentence of the original content? (that's not a rhetoric question, I really don't know)-- Carabinieri 19:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Brookie here - I see you have jumped on and deleted this which was being worked on - are you not aware of this famous cissy (as linked to Nigel Molesworth)?
...en passant! 19:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will promise very hard not to let the community, especially you, down. Denelson 83 21:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
BMI-
I noted that you have placed a NPOV warning on Ketchup on hot dogs topic. I read through the article and, although the people quoted do not favor ketchup on hot dogs, I don't believe that the article has any sort of bias in the presentation. Can you suggest revisions that would remove the label? Unfortunately, there are no quotes that I have been able to locate that are pro-ketchup since, quite frankly, I don't think that it matters all that much to them. A little assistance would be helpful. Jtmichcock 22:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
DIR SIR, MY ARTICLE IS NOT NONSENSE. IMPORTANT TAMIL TOPIC, MAYBE COMPUTER NOT SUPPORT TAMIL? DOWNLOAD TAMIL FONT, YOU SEE, IMPORTANT IN TAMIL. PLEASE TRANSLATE.
Thanks for fixing my archive. I had a feeling I wasn't doing it correctly. Salva 00:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I noticed you gave User:203.26.2.2 as final warning for vandalism (on that user's talk page. I have reverted two items of vandalism, Kevin Johnson and Inca Empire.
It must mean I'm doing something right. :) Wikibofh 17:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You blocked this user, but only for 1 hour. That seems very generous, given that the user was warned 7 times before, given 3 "last warnings", and blocked twice. Would you consider a longer block? The user clearly seems to have malicious intentions. Superm401 | Talk 04:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
OOH i'm scared.
I was not vandalizing your userpage, I was simply voicing my opinion on the subject. I realize that this kind of free speech may be contrary to your belief but not to our current US patriotic judicial system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.157.199 ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 October 2005
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- case. →Raul654 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I only reverted actual material 3 times - the other reverts are removal of tags by the people who I have a dispute with. I've decided to just avoid the page, since there is a clear revert gang, and no possibility of good faith discussion. Since it is a reasonably active page, and will (eventually) get to a reasonable state without my participation, I'm just going to drop it from my watch list. Stirling Newberry 06:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Not sure why you deleted this page. I placed the {{deletedpage}} there to protect it from the vandal who was constantly re-creating it. Have you been aproached about using this page for a legitimate article? Owen× ☎ 19:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
This message is in addition to the message I left you on the White Sox talk page.
Here is the White Sox infobox for your perusal that will be implemented this weekend after the Series. Mind you, it is part of the ongoing project so changes are always welcomed. Feel free to update the info, but any wholesale changes to the infobox that would affect the other teams should be discussed first. Have a good one!--
CrazyTalk
19:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey-I just saw your message about changing the COTW from awhile ago and agree 100%. Sox fan all of my life an NOTHING can describe how big this is (WORLD SERIES!!!). It hard to image that this is REALLY happening after so long, I'm taking my 94 year old grandfather to game 6 if they play-hes been a sox fan his entire life and has never seen anything like this. Sorry I haven't been around much, I've had a lot going on and I have decided to go back to school to so I've been quite busy, but I hope to come back full time pretty soon. C ya around!
GO SOX!!!!! -- Gpyoung talk 04:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm using your copyvio and menu system, but am having a problem. When I mouseover the talk messages menu, it lists the items one-by-one horizontally, rather than vertically. Any idea how to fix this? Thanks. — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-10-30 00:37
Would you happen to know how to make a firefox extension using Javascript? It would be very simple and used to fight vandalism. The basic idea is to feed RC diff's into firefox, and let it determine which pages contain text (such as an obscenity) listed in a file. For pages that don't contain anything on this list, the tab is closed. The others remain open and ready to be examined. If you can't figure out how to hookup the IRC RC output into firefox, then it could be used with WP:CDVF to open new tabs in firefox to be checked. I found a guide to making extensions, but it says you need to know Javascript. Thanks. — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-10-30 03:50
Feel free to vote on the Frank Davis AFD as well. The anon creator has been manipulating both AFDs and has been deleting votes. Gator (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)