Well technically it isn't a speedy candidate. However, it is a prime redirect candidate, which I've gone and done. The album article itself is far to short to warrant branching off into individual song articles. — Xezbeth 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply
That's stupid reasoning. So if I lock myself out of my car, it's not mine anymore? 67.135.49.29 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I have removed your tagging of this page for deletion, as the prod tag is only for use on articles, user pages and user talk pages and not on pages in the Wikipedia namespace. If you still want it deleted, then take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, though I should warn you that it has been nominated before several times and there has been a lot of controversy about it recently, so be careful. Hut 8.5 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I've watchlisted it... if the editor gets abusive with the talkpage I will protect it, but I don't want to do premature protection there. User Talkpage protections are really a last resort.-- Isotope23 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I've replied to your questions on the above page. I know it would seem easier to put my reply here but I left it there for ease of continuity :) SGGH speak! 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Anas is an Arabic name; it is pronounced as Ānas ( IPA: [aːns]). Can't read that? OK, then. The first part, An, is like the an in man; the second part, as is like the as in cast. The name is derived from another Arabic word which means entertainment or enjoyment and means someone you would enjoy sitting around. Why the "lol", though? :) — Anas talk? 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks, next time I´ll make my edit summaries more informative. GiZiBoNG 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I put the cite for the change in the discussion page. It comes from the weekly sales figures reported by USA Today. "Tifferoo wanted a Bo Bice album sales update. Contrary to what you've heard (800,000-950,000), the official Nielsen SoundScan number is 688,000, or exactly what Taylor's sold as of this week." ( http://blogs.usatoday.com/idolchatter/2007/06/answering-a-few.html) Other than put in the cite in the discussion page, there's doesn't seem a system to add cites for the sales figures on that page. ( MarcoNYC 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)) reply
I was reading you and Kyoko on Riana's talk page and looked at your monobook.css and was wondering just what does what? Could you tell me? Thank you. :) — $PЯING rαgђ 03:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply
In addition to stalking and reverting user Jayjg is now threatening. On my talk page. Unlike others I don't think he's god, don't find the situation humerous, and wonder if there is a procedure for dealing with those who misuse administrative privledges to censor ideas they don't care for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rktect ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 July 2007
That was weird! I din't actually move anything. Software glitch I suppose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I thought a while about it. This account isn't spam-only, as there were a few valid contributions before today's massive spam. That's why I've decided to block a single day. If tomorrow this user is back spamming, then an indef block is likely. Regards, Hús ö nd 01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Ooops, sorry will be more careful.-- Tigeroo 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Removed due to ad hominem attacks, and intimidation. It can be found here: User talk:Until(1 == 2)/unwelcome#July_2007. Miikka is welcome to post again without commenting on my personality or trying to intimidate me. Until(1 == 2) 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Duly noted. Until(1 == 2) 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a battleground, my goal is to clean up an article, not butt heads with this guy. Unless I am approached by him in a less rude fashion, I will limit my exposure to this person to the amount needed to work on the article. Until(1 == 2) 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Ya, don't know who Tones benefit or Bonaparte is. Not really taking much from his post anyways, thanks. Until(1 == 2) 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks, will look at it. I like to stay relaxed, peace. Until(1 == 2) 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It is great that you can tell me that, but do you have a citation for it? Until(1 == 2) 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Just find something that meets our definition of a reliable source and put a citation next to the claim. The citation should support that the word is used as a slur, and should also support any other information included in the entry. Until(1 == 2) 18:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Re: revert because of cross referencing wikipedia. Thank you for explaining why Wikipedia shouldn't link to other wikipedia pages. Most of those links were actually added by another editor and I would have thought they made perfect sense.
What I had actually corrected is the speculation as statement of fact. The two rivers are not known. It is speculated and the speculation is often repeated that they are the Tigris and Euphrates. The territory of the Nahrin as reported in Pritchard the ANE and other sources as between the djadi and upper retnu. Generally ANE references take these as the Orontes and Jordan.
If you want to revert to the speculation you should provide sources that address the issue at the primary sources level. That would mostly consist of corespondence between merchants and military commands in Akkadian and Hittite. There is reference in the Egyptian campaign literature, some reference in Silvia Luraghi's ancient Hittite sentence structure, some reference in Mesopotamia 101by Marie Louise Thomas and in the Cambridge Atlas of Mesopotamia.(CAM)
Beth Nahrain ( Syriac: ܒܝܬ ܢܗܪ̈ܝܢ; "the house/land of the rivers") is the Syriac name for Mesopotamia (a Greek-derived word which translates to "the land between the rivers"). It might refer to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in and around the modern-day countries of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq or to the two rivers which defined the home of the [ Nahrin], the [ Orontes] and [ Jordan]. This area was the focus of the 18th Dynasty Egyptian military campaigns against the King of [ Kadesh] The Syriac name loosely describes the area of the rivers, not between like the literal Greek term; however both names refer to the same region. The name Bayn Nahrayn is also found in Arabic (Arabic: بين نهرين; "between two rivers"). Rktect 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The Mitanni or Nahrain may have as their territory a region roughly the same as that of the Assyrians, but what supports that other than the name two rivers? Even the article as it was allows that its questionable. I take this as an attempt to reference the two rivers as the Tigris and Euphrates.
If you look at their cities and places where they are specifically mentioned all of them are on the Orontes and Jordan. The two rivers symbol dates long before the Mitanni and is incorporated in Literature in the form of Ruth and elsewhere
the four gods of air, earth, fire, and water include the two rivers glyph and Mitanni style costuming.
Until more information and sources are produced Their presence over as wide an area as the Assyrians should be discussed as speculation Rktect 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
You might want to peek into Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiability_in_lists Jeepday ( talk) 13:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I have asked for a third opinion regarding your convictions about CSD A3. Picaroon (Talk) 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
One day on an article with little traffic is not "plenty of time". If you want to waste people's time, then nominate the thing for AfD. Otherwise please leave it alone. — Xezbeth 14:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Just a suggestion, you might want to read Wikipedia:There is no deadline. I understand you are motivated and you are being bold. In Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles am working articles that have had {{ unreferenced}} on them for a year or more, and still people are resistive to my deleting content even after I tried and failed to verify it. It is polite to give several days warning before deleting content. I have learned that when cleaning house slower is less stressful and better received. Remember you are working in a community of volunteers, many of whom have contributed similar effort to add content as you are using to remove it. I know you are adding references and you may actually find your work easier be giving other editors a chance to reference their work from resources they have easily available that you don't. The policy may support your arguments but, your are working in a community, try and get the community to support your arguments as well. Jeepday ( talk) 01:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Sourcing is new to wikipedia. Articles written for wikipedia in the early years were typically not sourced. There remain many thousands of excellent article in wikipedia from those years that remain to be properly sourced. Do not delete any data from wikipedia that you believe to be both true and not harmful regardless of whether or not it is sourced. Sourcing is an improvement and only a requrement if someone honestly believes it is either false or harmful (per WP:BLP or WP:LIBEL for example). The reqirement is that it is capable of being sourced. It only fails this requirement if people actually look online and in libraries for a source and can't find one. It does not fail this requirement just because a question on a talk page goes unanswered. WAS 4.250 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I see from your last edit to your user page Diff that you are feeling bitten. We all try to apply WP:BITE as with anything sometimes we do better then others. If you are looking for a less stressful project take a look at {{ Active Wiki Fixup Projects}} there is always something going on there. Jeepday ( talk) 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It's really pretty simple: |
---|
|
Hi. I'm sorry that your editing experience here has been harsher than it should have been. Please don't be too discouraged. It seems you have run into people here that have been less than friendly. Well it happens. Some people are best ignored or stayed away from if you are the sensitive type. Perhaps what you need to read is not our policies but an explanation for how the policies work together and an overall sense of the spirit or justification of them. Wikipedia:Trifecta is exactly that. The idea is that if you always keep two things in mind you don't need to know the rest. Those two things are:
I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday ( talk) 03:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure the best way to put this, but being a Quaker and believing in plain speaking, I'm just going to put it bluntly. Please don't take it as an implicit insult.
When you make a point repeatedly and it doesn't seem to penetrate, it isn't necessarily (or even usually) because people aren't listening, or are disregarding it for their own reasons; they may well have listened, evaluated, and not agree. They often explain this. Repeating your point again and again is usually fruitless. This is not to say that I disagree with it (which is not to say that I agree with it either). Specifically, I'm referring to the 'move unsourced content to talk page' point. SamBC 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Removed due to repeat ad hominem attacks and unwillingness to discuss anything other than cease commenting on me as a person. It can be found here:
User talk:Until(1 == 2)/unwelcome#Congratulations.
Until(1 == 2)
17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
...when the universe turns into a black hole, just before the next Big Bang. Baseball Bugs 02:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Good plan. :) Baseball Bugs 02:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I have now added references to each list as well. I am the person who created each corresponding category also. I made the lists because many artists simply have no articles yet on Wikipedia, and so I am using the lists to appear with the categories in order to give more comprehensive coverage. I do hope all this deletion talk will die down now that references have been provided. ( Mind meal 04:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)) reply
Thank you for the speedy delete! j talk 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Ha! I was considering questioning your actions at UAA, since you're not an admin, but then I saw you speedy delete my image. I guess you are one! :) I didn't know that. :) --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Just concerning some of the usernames you removed that would normally be decided on by an admin. Since you are an admin, I know have no concern, since it's your descision. Some names can be removed by normal users, but some need to be handled by admins. --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Here are some other useful tags, courtesy admin Pathoschild:
Usage | Code |
---|---|
Not blocked | {{ sockpuppet|username}} |
Blocked (suspected) | {{ sockpuppet|username|blocked}} |
Blocked (confirmed) | {{ sockpuppet|username|confirmed}} |
Blocked (proven by CheckUser) | {{ sockpuppetCheckuser|username|checkuser subpage}} |
You can type "sock" instead of "sockpuppet" to save time. {{ IPsock}} (with the name of the puppeteer following a pipe) is useful for tagging the userpage of IPs used by sockpuppets. Cheers, Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply
He is a clever vandal: see this and this. He is a regular vandal in FR:wp. I just had to block about 12 IP's in WP:fr over less than 30 minutes time, plus a fr:ScolasMario of course. We have a special page dedicated to the fellow. Bradipus 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply
My actual focus here is Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia. For example, it's notable in Wikipedia history that certain things happened within the community. New policies were agreed, userboxes were popularized then purged, mediation and enforced mediation was introduced, RfA success rates declined, and so on. The primary and reliable source for these is permalinks on Wikipedia project pages. I don't know how one can write a History of Wikipedia without citing these pages at some point. I feel that a debate such as the deletion of Ezperanza, the rejection of WP:ATTRIBUTION, RfA success rates, article stats, and so on, are all self-pub, but all reliable. I'd like to recheck my own views, with how others categorize this sort of thing, within current WP:RS wording? Anyhow, that's the issue. FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
My apologies if this seems kind of strange, but I am curious as to whether or not you had an RFA. I checked the old discussions, and I couldn't find an RFA for you, which is quite strange as you are an administrator. To be completely honest, the reason I looked is that you are a very new account and it seemed very strange to me that you were given admin status in less than two months. If you didn't have an RFA, I'm really curious as to why. Natalie 15:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Welcome back. :) --- A. L. M. 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I hope you will be more careful this time. -- A. L. M. 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
See User talk:Ursul pacalit de vulpe `' Míkka 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Meh, enough hogwash. On behalf of the vast majority of Wikipedians who are happy to trust the 'crats that we said we trusted when we gave them the 'crat powers, a big fat "meh" to all the hogwash. You're a useful Wikipedian and admin. Until you protect the wrong version. Then, I reserve the right to call you all the names under the sun, assume bad faith and go shoot some cuddly lemmings. But in the meantime, meh to the hogwash. (I might have said that already). Come back soon. We need you. And meh. -- Dweller 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
You've got mail. — DerHexer (Talk) 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
You have more mail. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 20:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
On RC patrol, I came across this edit with an edit summary, "editor contacted me via e-mail to rescind his free licenses and invoke copyright". I didn't think that was allowed, is it? Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
You have e-mail. :) --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Well technically it isn't a speedy candidate. However, it is a prime redirect candidate, which I've gone and done. The album article itself is far to short to warrant branching off into individual song articles. — Xezbeth 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply
That's stupid reasoning. So if I lock myself out of my car, it's not mine anymore? 67.135.49.29 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I have removed your tagging of this page for deletion, as the prod tag is only for use on articles, user pages and user talk pages and not on pages in the Wikipedia namespace. If you still want it deleted, then take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, though I should warn you that it has been nominated before several times and there has been a lot of controversy about it recently, so be careful. Hut 8.5 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I've watchlisted it... if the editor gets abusive with the talkpage I will protect it, but I don't want to do premature protection there. User Talkpage protections are really a last resort.-- Isotope23 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I've replied to your questions on the above page. I know it would seem easier to put my reply here but I left it there for ease of continuity :) SGGH speak! 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Anas is an Arabic name; it is pronounced as Ānas ( IPA: [aːns]). Can't read that? OK, then. The first part, An, is like the an in man; the second part, as is like the as in cast. The name is derived from another Arabic word which means entertainment or enjoyment and means someone you would enjoy sitting around. Why the "lol", though? :) — Anas talk? 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks, next time I´ll make my edit summaries more informative. GiZiBoNG 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I put the cite for the change in the discussion page. It comes from the weekly sales figures reported by USA Today. "Tifferoo wanted a Bo Bice album sales update. Contrary to what you've heard (800,000-950,000), the official Nielsen SoundScan number is 688,000, or exactly what Taylor's sold as of this week." ( http://blogs.usatoday.com/idolchatter/2007/06/answering-a-few.html) Other than put in the cite in the discussion page, there's doesn't seem a system to add cites for the sales figures on that page. ( MarcoNYC 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)) reply
I was reading you and Kyoko on Riana's talk page and looked at your monobook.css and was wondering just what does what? Could you tell me? Thank you. :) — $PЯING rαgђ 03:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply
In addition to stalking and reverting user Jayjg is now threatening. On my talk page. Unlike others I don't think he's god, don't find the situation humerous, and wonder if there is a procedure for dealing with those who misuse administrative privledges to censor ideas they don't care for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rktect ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 July 2007
That was weird! I din't actually move anything. Software glitch I suppose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I thought a while about it. This account isn't spam-only, as there were a few valid contributions before today's massive spam. That's why I've decided to block a single day. If tomorrow this user is back spamming, then an indef block is likely. Regards, Hús ö nd 01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Ooops, sorry will be more careful.-- Tigeroo 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Removed due to ad hominem attacks, and intimidation. It can be found here: User talk:Until(1 == 2)/unwelcome#July_2007. Miikka is welcome to post again without commenting on my personality or trying to intimidate me. Until(1 == 2) 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Duly noted. Until(1 == 2) 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a battleground, my goal is to clean up an article, not butt heads with this guy. Unless I am approached by him in a less rude fashion, I will limit my exposure to this person to the amount needed to work on the article. Until(1 == 2) 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Ya, don't know who Tones benefit or Bonaparte is. Not really taking much from his post anyways, thanks. Until(1 == 2) 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks, will look at it. I like to stay relaxed, peace. Until(1 == 2) 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It is great that you can tell me that, but do you have a citation for it? Until(1 == 2) 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Just find something that meets our definition of a reliable source and put a citation next to the claim. The citation should support that the word is used as a slur, and should also support any other information included in the entry. Until(1 == 2) 18:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Re: revert because of cross referencing wikipedia. Thank you for explaining why Wikipedia shouldn't link to other wikipedia pages. Most of those links were actually added by another editor and I would have thought they made perfect sense.
What I had actually corrected is the speculation as statement of fact. The two rivers are not known. It is speculated and the speculation is often repeated that they are the Tigris and Euphrates. The territory of the Nahrin as reported in Pritchard the ANE and other sources as between the djadi and upper retnu. Generally ANE references take these as the Orontes and Jordan.
If you want to revert to the speculation you should provide sources that address the issue at the primary sources level. That would mostly consist of corespondence between merchants and military commands in Akkadian and Hittite. There is reference in the Egyptian campaign literature, some reference in Silvia Luraghi's ancient Hittite sentence structure, some reference in Mesopotamia 101by Marie Louise Thomas and in the Cambridge Atlas of Mesopotamia.(CAM)
Beth Nahrain ( Syriac: ܒܝܬ ܢܗܪ̈ܝܢ; "the house/land of the rivers") is the Syriac name for Mesopotamia (a Greek-derived word which translates to "the land between the rivers"). It might refer to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in and around the modern-day countries of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq or to the two rivers which defined the home of the [ Nahrin], the [ Orontes] and [ Jordan]. This area was the focus of the 18th Dynasty Egyptian military campaigns against the King of [ Kadesh] The Syriac name loosely describes the area of the rivers, not between like the literal Greek term; however both names refer to the same region. The name Bayn Nahrayn is also found in Arabic (Arabic: بين نهرين; "between two rivers"). Rktect 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The Mitanni or Nahrain may have as their territory a region roughly the same as that of the Assyrians, but what supports that other than the name two rivers? Even the article as it was allows that its questionable. I take this as an attempt to reference the two rivers as the Tigris and Euphrates.
If you look at their cities and places where they are specifically mentioned all of them are on the Orontes and Jordan. The two rivers symbol dates long before the Mitanni and is incorporated in Literature in the form of Ruth and elsewhere
the four gods of air, earth, fire, and water include the two rivers glyph and Mitanni style costuming.
Until more information and sources are produced Their presence over as wide an area as the Assyrians should be discussed as speculation Rktect 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
You might want to peek into Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiability_in_lists Jeepday ( talk) 13:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I have asked for a third opinion regarding your convictions about CSD A3. Picaroon (Talk) 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
One day on an article with little traffic is not "plenty of time". If you want to waste people's time, then nominate the thing for AfD. Otherwise please leave it alone. — Xezbeth 14:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Just a suggestion, you might want to read Wikipedia:There is no deadline. I understand you are motivated and you are being bold. In Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles am working articles that have had {{ unreferenced}} on them for a year or more, and still people are resistive to my deleting content even after I tried and failed to verify it. It is polite to give several days warning before deleting content. I have learned that when cleaning house slower is less stressful and better received. Remember you are working in a community of volunteers, many of whom have contributed similar effort to add content as you are using to remove it. I know you are adding references and you may actually find your work easier be giving other editors a chance to reference their work from resources they have easily available that you don't. The policy may support your arguments but, your are working in a community, try and get the community to support your arguments as well. Jeepday ( talk) 01:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Sourcing is new to wikipedia. Articles written for wikipedia in the early years were typically not sourced. There remain many thousands of excellent article in wikipedia from those years that remain to be properly sourced. Do not delete any data from wikipedia that you believe to be both true and not harmful regardless of whether or not it is sourced. Sourcing is an improvement and only a requrement if someone honestly believes it is either false or harmful (per WP:BLP or WP:LIBEL for example). The reqirement is that it is capable of being sourced. It only fails this requirement if people actually look online and in libraries for a source and can't find one. It does not fail this requirement just because a question on a talk page goes unanswered. WAS 4.250 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I see from your last edit to your user page Diff that you are feeling bitten. We all try to apply WP:BITE as with anything sometimes we do better then others. If you are looking for a less stressful project take a look at {{ Active Wiki Fixup Projects}} there is always something going on there. Jeepday ( talk) 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It's really pretty simple: |
---|
|
Hi. I'm sorry that your editing experience here has been harsher than it should have been. Please don't be too discouraged. It seems you have run into people here that have been less than friendly. Well it happens. Some people are best ignored or stayed away from if you are the sensitive type. Perhaps what you need to read is not our policies but an explanation for how the policies work together and an overall sense of the spirit or justification of them. Wikipedia:Trifecta is exactly that. The idea is that if you always keep two things in mind you don't need to know the rest. Those two things are:
I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday ( talk) 03:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure the best way to put this, but being a Quaker and believing in plain speaking, I'm just going to put it bluntly. Please don't take it as an implicit insult.
When you make a point repeatedly and it doesn't seem to penetrate, it isn't necessarily (or even usually) because people aren't listening, or are disregarding it for their own reasons; they may well have listened, evaluated, and not agree. They often explain this. Repeating your point again and again is usually fruitless. This is not to say that I disagree with it (which is not to say that I agree with it either). Specifically, I'm referring to the 'move unsourced content to talk page' point. SamBC 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Removed due to repeat ad hominem attacks and unwillingness to discuss anything other than cease commenting on me as a person. It can be found here:
User talk:Until(1 == 2)/unwelcome#Congratulations.
Until(1 == 2)
17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
...when the universe turns into a black hole, just before the next Big Bang. Baseball Bugs 02:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Good plan. :) Baseball Bugs 02:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I have now added references to each list as well. I am the person who created each corresponding category also. I made the lists because many artists simply have no articles yet on Wikipedia, and so I am using the lists to appear with the categories in order to give more comprehensive coverage. I do hope all this deletion talk will die down now that references have been provided. ( Mind meal 04:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)) reply
Thank you for the speedy delete! j talk 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Ha! I was considering questioning your actions at UAA, since you're not an admin, but then I saw you speedy delete my image. I guess you are one! :) I didn't know that. :) --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Just concerning some of the usernames you removed that would normally be decided on by an admin. Since you are an admin, I know have no concern, since it's your descision. Some names can be removed by normal users, but some need to be handled by admins. --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Here are some other useful tags, courtesy admin Pathoschild:
Usage | Code |
---|---|
Not blocked | {{ sockpuppet|username}} |
Blocked (suspected) | {{ sockpuppet|username|blocked}} |
Blocked (confirmed) | {{ sockpuppet|username|confirmed}} |
Blocked (proven by CheckUser) | {{ sockpuppetCheckuser|username|checkuser subpage}} |
You can type "sock" instead of "sockpuppet" to save time. {{ IPsock}} (with the name of the puppeteer following a pipe) is useful for tagging the userpage of IPs used by sockpuppets. Cheers, Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply
He is a clever vandal: see this and this. He is a regular vandal in FR:wp. I just had to block about 12 IP's in WP:fr over less than 30 minutes time, plus a fr:ScolasMario of course. We have a special page dedicated to the fellow. Bradipus 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply
My actual focus here is Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia. For example, it's notable in Wikipedia history that certain things happened within the community. New policies were agreed, userboxes were popularized then purged, mediation and enforced mediation was introduced, RfA success rates declined, and so on. The primary and reliable source for these is permalinks on Wikipedia project pages. I don't know how one can write a History of Wikipedia without citing these pages at some point. I feel that a debate such as the deletion of Ezperanza, the rejection of WP:ATTRIBUTION, RfA success rates, article stats, and so on, are all self-pub, but all reliable. I'd like to recheck my own views, with how others categorize this sort of thing, within current WP:RS wording? Anyhow, that's the issue. FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
My apologies if this seems kind of strange, but I am curious as to whether or not you had an RFA. I checked the old discussions, and I couldn't find an RFA for you, which is quite strange as you are an administrator. To be completely honest, the reason I looked is that you are a very new account and it seemed very strange to me that you were given admin status in less than two months. If you didn't have an RFA, I'm really curious as to why. Natalie 15:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Welcome back. :) --- A. L. M. 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I hope you will be more careful this time. -- A. L. M. 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
See User talk:Ursul pacalit de vulpe `' Míkka 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Meh, enough hogwash. On behalf of the vast majority of Wikipedians who are happy to trust the 'crats that we said we trusted when we gave them the 'crat powers, a big fat "meh" to all the hogwash. You're a useful Wikipedian and admin. Until you protect the wrong version. Then, I reserve the right to call you all the names under the sun, assume bad faith and go shoot some cuddly lemmings. But in the meantime, meh to the hogwash. (I might have said that already). Come back soon. We need you. And meh. -- Dweller 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
You've got mail. — DerHexer (Talk) 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
You have more mail. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 20:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
On RC patrol, I came across this edit with an edit summary, "editor contacted me via e-mail to rescind his free licenses and invoke copyright". I didn't think that was allowed, is it? Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
You have e-mail. :) --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply