![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Apologies. I saw that on ANI and I was under the impression the "Arrogant ..." username was an admin. It seems I didn't revert myself like I'd intended too. Thanks. Qst ( talk) 16:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dmitry Medvedev ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't like you very much. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 03:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
2008 (UTC)
I have question about this article and its AfD. From my perspective proctecting it is a good call (selfish reasoning here: since it also keeps me from breaking the 3RR rule), but the article is also in AfD and its current state is poorer than it need be, given the sources that exist (A block quote from once such un-included source can be found on User_talk:Firefly322). Since editors who are not administrators can no longer contribute to the article,yet the nominator of the AfD still can. Doesn't this admin-only block make its AfD process a bit twisted? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 04:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have talked to ScreamAimFire a couple of times in the past and ScreamAimFire seems like a person who wouldn't do that I was wondering if you and a couple of admins. could conference talk about and review his case and maybe reconsider because I know that my account has been hacked into a couple of times and there were some inappropriate edits made without my knowledge but thankfully I reverted alot of those edits before alot of noise was made. So, I would like to kindly ask you if you could review ScreamAimFire's case and maybe reconsider. Thank You. Have a good day! Chrismaster1 ( talk) 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well he said that he can't email you because your email address wasn't by ur name but I did say that you probably meant your talk page, was that what you meant by emailing you? -- Chrismaster1 ( talk) 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I just edited an article and I clicked in Preview, but now all my stuff is deleted! How can I get it Back?-- Ginnina ( talk) 8:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not continue to introduce a child pornography conviction into the introduction, such as your edit here, as it introduces undue weight early on and provides an unfair balance for the remainder of the article. It is covered with extensive details below. This issue has been brought up at BLP/N, but as an uninvolved administrator who frequently oversees various cases there and elsewhere... seicer | talk | contribs 01:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please cite chapter and verse the Wiki Policy supporting your unilateral move of the "Nationalist" page? Thanks. Sarah777 ( talk) 08:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a courtesy call to note that I fixed a link in your post and wanted to make sure that was really what you meant, so as not to be putting words in your mouth.
Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 00:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you weren't aware, you can check the tor status of any IP by going to the IP's talk page. It's one of the links in the "WHOIS" bar at the bottom, and my experience is that it's as accurate as any other tool I've used; because of the nature of tor, there are always the occasional false positives and false negatives. Hope that's helpful. Risker ( talk) 03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to remove your comment :) SirFozzie ( talk) 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not upset about it in the least bit and i'm thankful that you stepped in but can you please explain to me so I will know in the future how I violated the 3RR rule? From what I understand I am allowed to make more than 3 edits if the following is true..."Addition of libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons." I believe that the edits made to the page in question def fit this description. Either way thanks again and hopefully the two week period will allow all editors to cool off. Dirkmavs ( talk) 02:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the full protection. Maybe now the edit warriors will be forced to negotiate. Personally, I'm recommending they get together and invite several 3rd parties in to review things. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know I put up File:ArrowTre1.jpg, which you deleted, up for review here. I think the deletion was in error. - Pete ( talk) 17:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Can something please be done about this user? He is highly disruptive, refuses to listen to reason and insists his view is always correct. He is currently insisting on the following additions [2] and [3], which I have tried to explain are not necessary until either they are released or at least have articles, yet he insists on adding them. I do not want to end up in an edit war with this kid again, but frankly the majority of their edits are disruptive and counter productive. Nouse4aname ( talk) 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just to let you know the reasoning behind my removal of some of the images and text from the article is this: The Danvers image was not a UE image as much as it pertained to the construction at Danvers. If it had been an inside shot, or some other type of UE shot of Danvers then I would have kept it. At my count there had been over three drain shots. Two were from the same person and even one of the shots the user had submitted even had himself in the shot. I think one drain image is enough to give the reader the impression of what it looks like in a drain. The reson I removed the user's images was because they did not add to the article and were posted to advertise what the user had explored and even to advertise the user himself and his shots. I then removed the Kentucky image because it also did not pertain to UE and was only there to advertise that the place gave tours. Lastly I removed that bit of text because it was a personal opinion and had no references to back it up.
I looked up MOS and I don't think you meant Manual of Style, which does not pertain to what I did.
It would be fine to have an image per portion, like one of an abandoned asylum, tunnel, drain, etc. We don't need repetitive images and also unrelated images in the article.
The one thing I have noticed is users penchants to advertise their actions, photos, and web sites in the UE article. I removed those photos under that basis. Brothejr ( talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I have absolutely no connection to the previous edit warring which was committed by another IP. I have attempted to discuss my changes on the talk page, but instead have been reverted twice without any participation of the other user in the debate. I believe this clearly shows I was not the one edit warring, so perhaps you could retract your accusations that I was continuing an edit war. 121.216.227.175 ( talk) 05:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
...because I realize that, somehow, I left this very important bit off the talk page. I was very happy with the mediation process and its results; on the other hand, I noticed that the article (both in the form I found it and in the suggested from from mediation) needed numerous edits to comply with style guidelines, and it at least needed a little more clarification or discussion in order to protect it from possible ravages at GAR and FAR. I am not the expert on Wikipedia policy, but I know something about style guidelines and about common objections at GAR and FAR. The bit I forgot to say was that my goal in my review was to accomplish the minimum changes necessary to show the GAR and FAR people that I was doing an adequate job, while still respecting the mediation process. I'll go make that clear now. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I will soon give the final GA checkmark at Cold fusion, if no new issues come up. I'd like to add this paragraph to the "neutrality" section of my GA review on the talk page, but please tell me if this is too strong or too provocative:
Please tune into the last section at Talk:Cold fusion#Regarding last night's changes. Feel free to weigh in there, or on my talk page, or email me. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Seicer, This article is full of gibberish and made-up stuff about a middle school. I searched back through several versions and could find no article-quality version of the article so put a speedy delete on it. Is this the right thing to do in this case? If not, please feel free to modify. I'm not sure what to do about such articles? Renee ( talk) 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Seicer. Can you please put a stop to Omegatron’s vendetta against me? He started an Administrators’ noticeboard against me here. Numerous editors weighed in that the issue wasn’t one of my being uncivil (though I admit I have a sharp tongue—or fingers). Rather, except for Omegatron and one other editor, all the rest took time to come to my defense and opine that it is really a content dispute. Most of these other editors were very familiar, involved editors, and one was an uninvolved editor who takes an interest in what is going on over on Talk:MOSNUM. The vast majority of us editors believe this issue is simply over Follow current literature, which would deprecate the use of the IEC prefixes. This is a guideline that Omegatron rammed through, admittedly without a consensus, it has been the subject of a record-setting amount of dispute (twelve “B” archives dedicated exclusively to bickering over the use on Wikipedia of the IEC prefixes).
Then, after hours of responding to him, and after much effort from many other editors, Omegatron started up a parallel complaint via an RFC here. This is an absurd amount of hoops to have to jump through; particularly after so many editors already made an effort to weigh in on this and put an end to it. Can you help?
P.S. Omegatron is undoubtedly watching what I am doing here. He is an administrator and I am not. I am at a disadvantage here. He will complain that it is entirely about my behavior. I do hope you will click on the Administrators’ noticeboard complaint here, and read what the other editors are saying. The consensus is clearly that this is nothing more than a dispute over content. Greg L ( talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
While I am certainly prone to plain-speak in my dealings with other editors and “tell it like I see it”, I do take pain to not be uncivil to the individual; I try to focus my ridicule so as to point out the logical holes in others’ specious or fallacious arguments. It’s nothing one wouldn’t see (often) in college-level debate classes. And I do try (hard) to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia. Further, my value system places high importance on conducting oneself with honor and integrity; most editors at Talk:MOSNUM know where I am coming from and have no reason whatsoever to mistrust my word. I am a realist though. I do not expect reciprocal conduct from all other normal editors; I have truly had a bellyful from a certain subset of editors who will consistently say one thing and do yet another. This is life. But I really do have a much higher expectation of administrators, who have been entrusted with special powers and are expected to resolve conflict, not create it and game the system. As an administrator, Omegatron should have known better than to post Administrators’ noticeboards and RfCs against me and not alert me to that fact. He should also know better than to solicit an editor who isn’t involved on Talk:MOSNUM just because he knows the editor is predisposed to playing follow-the-leader in his bash-fests. I ask that Omegatron be severely sanctioned for this.
I’ve seen Omegatron’s method of operation now for quite some time and have honestly seen no other behavior from other administrators that demonstrates such an questionable lack of judgment and lack of desire to conform to conduct expected. That we are here at all is all due to the fact that Omegatron, three years ago, played an instrumental role in posting to MOSNUM, a policy to use the IEC prefixes here on Wikipedia (unfamiliar terms like “kibibit” and “mebibyte”). Judging from the twelve “Binary” Talk:MOSNUM archives on just this single issue, this policy has been the most contentious and least successful policies in MOSNUM history. There was significant opposition in the voting on it three years ago, and Omegatron admitted that there was no consensus (“There was no consensus in Archive [B0]…”). Back then, in July of 2005, other editors weighed in with comments like this: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an instrument for special interest groups (like IEC) to try to push the way they would like the world to work. We should reflect in the encyclopedia what the world is like, not what we think it should be.” Or this one: “I had never heard of [the IEC prefixes] before it was raised on the Pump, and I've been downloading countless gigs of who-knows-what since 1996. Come back in 2008 when it's an accepted term, or, rather, at which point it's stagnated.” But Omegatron posted it to MOSNUM without a proper consensus anyway. Well, here we are in 2008 now and the use of the IEC prefixes has far less support today than three years ago. The record-setting amount of debate and bickering that has occurred over that period speaks to the damage Wikipedia can incur from a single administrator who routinely exercises poor judgment and flouts the rules.
I haven’t been timid in the past about pointing out the above to Omegatron after his periodic deletions of “ Follow current literature” (FCL)—a policy that uninvolved editors have said truly gained consensus. In the last few days, a new policy that would replace FCL recently took a sudden turn towards a consensus to accomplish what FCL already does. I lead this change after another editor—Thunderbird2—reduced his vote after we gave a try with deleting some wording he opposed. After his reduced vote, I restored the wording. From Omegatron’s point of view, that was a big turn for the worse. Omegatron’s obsession with those who would correct his goof is the only reason we are here today on this issue. Greg L ( talk) 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I'm not getting the procedure exactly right; I've never filed an RfC before. Seicer, can you advise me on this? — Omegatron ( talk) 23:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Holy crap. I'm gone for like a most of the day and I find all this :P I'll give a third opinion on this tonight. seicer | talk | contribs 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So... you contacted Aluvus. Why? Because you listed him as an editor who was "attempting to resolve a dispute". And how exactly is that? Aluvus's connection with anything to do with current affairs on Talk:MOSNUM are absolutely non-existent because he's been totally inactive there for so long. He couldn't possibly have any first-hand experience regarding what's going on there except to take your word for it. Hell, his last hundred edits takes him back to mid-January, he's been highly inactive in all of Wikipedia! Admit it Omegatron, you simply solicited Aluvus for an "I agree with Omegatron" validation on your ANI because of his (very) recent, wholesale support in your most recent effort to bash Fnagaton. That I'm trying to do exactly the same thing as Fnagaton (get Wikipedia in line with the rest of the world on binary prefixes) makes it sort of a no-brainer that he'd be happy to bash me too, doesn't it?
All your conduct comes across to me as that of just any other editor who regularly gets into disputes that need to get cleaned up in mediation, arbitration, or something else. As an admin, other editors look to you for leadership as to what is appropriate to do or not. When you refused to accept consensus on "Follow current literature" and deleted it from MOSNUM the first time, you set everything back and started editing wars where other admins had to step in and lock MOSNUM down. And all this battling is over a terribly unwise policy that made Wikipedia a laughing stock in the computing world because we are (soon, were) the only general-interest publication in the world using these weird units of measure; a policy which you knew (and admitted as much) never had a proper consensus when you posted it to MOSNUM. It's been three years and twelve "binary" archives dedicated exclusively to laborious attempts to reverse the results of your having broken the most fundamental of rules three years ago. It's taken three long years to undo this because of your willingness to ignore and twist rules (and bash opponents) in order to get your way. Why in the world hasn't someone stripped you of your administers privileges yet? Now that would fix things. Greg L ( talk) 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course I'm not ashamed; I don't believe I've done anything wrong. Greg L and Fnagaton make lots of accusations, but don't back them up with facts. If you think I have behaved badly, please (concisely) list below this comment actions of mine that violate a policy, guideline, or essay, either in spirit or in letter. You can attack me for "abusing admin powers" all day long, but if you can't even back it up with evidence, few people are going to believe you.
I'm not trying to "game the system"; I'm trying to prevent Greg L from gaming the system. He knows perfectly well that his proposals do not have consensus, but tries to push them into the guideline anyway. This is not how policy is made. His conduct and attitude drive people away from participating in the discussion and prevent it from reaching any real consensus, so instead of wasting my time on the Manual of Style talk page arguing the same points over and over, I've gone after the root of the problem: his conduct and attitude. — Omegatron ( talk) 20:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Existing articles that use the IEC 60027-2 prefixes should be brought into compliance with this policy. Two imperatives must be met when revisions are made: 1) all changes must be correct so the articles remain accurate, and 2) courtesy should be afforded to editors who are currently shepherding an affected article or had recently greatly expanded an affected article. If you abide by expected etiquette and treat other editors as you would hope to be treated, all should go smoothly.
As regards, point #1 above (accuracy), read the existing text and research your material before making changes. As regards point #2 above (courtesy), post a message on the talk page of the article as well as the talk page of the shepherding editor. In that message, bring this MOSNUM policy regarding proper use of IEC 60027-2 prefixes to the editor’s attention and allow him or her a reasonable opportunity to update the article. Observing this second point has the dual virtues of keeping editing Wikipedia a fun hobby for all of us, and best ensures articles remain factual and correct.
This may take a while to fully flesh out, but my findings of Omegatron is that,
Possible remedies,
seicer | talk | contribs 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Seicer, what is your opinion on the above? Is there anything you can do about this? Should this be kicked to a more formal venue? It is becoming ever clearer in my mind that perhaps Wikipedia would be better off without Omegatron as an administrator. I’m seeing a pattern now of “rules don’t apply to Omegatron” here that goes beyond just what happened over on MOSNUM. That’s no good at all for Wikipedia IMO. Please advise. Greg L ( talk) 22:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Greg L ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L. -- — Omegatron ( talk) 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC) — Omegatron ( talk) 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
why did u jsut remove all of the used official extenal links jack? USEDfan ( talk) 05:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I love your smiley, may I have permission to shamelessly copy you and add it to my user space? :)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Green Beer Day. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tikiwont ( talk) 18:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw this request for unprotection, and thought you should be made aware of it, because it is in your userspace and because the user requesting unprotection is alleging improper use of tools on your part. I asked for more information, but I think you might want to have a chat with the editor in question. Horologium (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
First I'd like to apologize (without sarcasm this time), I gravely mishandled this. I should have contacted you to see your reasoning first. In the mean time I've added the page to the NFCCE category to stop BJBot from (in theory) removing the image. The other 4 or so bots may remove not have the check in place but they should. BJ Talk 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This AfD has gotten long and it's sometimes hard to see the relevant opinions for the extraneous discussions. I tried to solve this by asking people to, in a few words, summarize how they felt about the topic. I called it a poll. That was a mistake, as words like "vote" and "poll" are red-flag words. I restored the edit and added language to clarify my purpose. If you think it needs to be removed, please open a discussion on the talk page. I'm going offline for the night, please do me the courtesy of not deleting it while I'm asleep. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Cold fusion#New proposal; I'm proposing to split the page in two. Since you did the mediation, you're my first stop, but I'll be happy to go elsewhere, maybe you have a suggestion. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I only made three revisions, but that was two hours ago, and the page is stable :S -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 02:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
why are u asking for citations for what is on a dvd on the used discovery page, watch the dvd or look at the dvd track listing, u dont need citations for that. USEDfan ( talk) 02:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Vassyana has put me under a restriction which amounts to a near complete ban from paranormal articles, and which gives ScienceApologist a completely free hand to do with them as he likes. I am asking for your input, as this is otherwise the complete end of my editing on Wikipedia. Here is the link
For details on why it is actually a ban, see this section.
Thanks —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw your note on the Mediation Committee's talk page and just thought I'd welcome you to Ohio! I would like to take this chance to extend a welcome to [WP:OH|WikiProject Ohio]] if you have any interest. Having an active contact in Cincinnati would really help the project. I understand moving is a lot(of time, energy, patience, ect.) and was just placing the offer on the backburner for you to maybe think about. Have a safe move and a happy wikibreak! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kentucky Museum of Art and Craft 2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, when you get a chance, can you take a look at the article? Brothejr ( talk) 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ninjalicious Book Cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but is included in an article that does not describe the book as indicated in the rationale. Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion state that non-free images or media that are used in at least one article and that fail any part of the non-free content criteria (except criterion 1) may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. The image is included in an article that does not discuss the subject depicted. You are hereby notified that the image has been tagged.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 13:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there. May I asked why the article was deleted ? Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes professional and league (it's not football NFL or wrestling, its german soccer also not my field of sports ;) I'think there was also a {hangon}. sorry for the inconvenience, but this is not the right way. could this be undone? Thank you Sebastian scha. ( talk) 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any comments to whether these images should be delete or not. Because if I was the admin, and I made it thn I would've deelte this, since these images vs. i-xx (WA).svg looks exactly the sameimage, both white fonts is same in diameter, to me it look nearly 100% duplicate. This does not meet csd so once 10 days is up admins can take action. I will like to see what you think.-- Freewayguy Discussions Show all changes 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Color me unsurprised. Here's the edit summary he just made regarding his revert my and others edits to the American Family Association article:
So I'm an anti-Semite, now. I'd say that was a personal attack, wouldn't you? 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the protection of the teardrop trailer page protected the user who was being disruptive. The page now is locked showing a trailer that is not a teardrop trailer and has the link farm spam as Liftarn was warring over. If you look at the major history of the page it is apparent. Wikiwerks ( talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to get the protection lowered/removed? Brothejr ( talk) 10:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm absolutely aghast that an admin would so blatantly violate the protection policy. Do it again and I'll take you ANI. YOu know involved editors may not remove protection, and there has clearly been no solution or compromise made on the talk page, therefore, the reason for protection still stands. Your reason for removal is bogus since people can't edit war on a protected page because it is protected. Bottom line...you violated the policy, and refused to even try to solve the problem. This is not behaviour we expect from admins. pschemp | talk 12:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Seicer, would you consider helping us on cold fusion again ? There is a dispute brewing. Thanks. Pcarbonn ( talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. The edit you restored on the article does not coincide with the sources provided. I'm going to restore the last edit with the correct one providing that is what the sources support. Webster121 ( talk) 06:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There is an interesting discussion playing out at User talk:Prester John. If I'm reading it right, PJ has been evading your 3 month block by use of the sockpuppet User:C.Marsh b.Lillee. But I could be wrong. Hesperian 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm requesting that you amend the Block user log entry to indicate that there was a misunderstanding between us regarding the Star Trek reversion issue. I reverted a deletion of content I created that imncluded two references and found it deleted summarily twice rather than finding efforts to rearrange the information or have any discussion or diplomacy. I was not engaged in malicious activity and removal of vandalism (which is what I thought it was) is not subject to the reversion rule (there is an exception stated for that.) Another admin has pointed out to you that the timing of warnings vs. block were not what is customary on Wikipedia. I think it is reasonable, therefore, to amend the block entry. Since the block, I've added the references (sources) to the companion article and assisted in the Talk page by initiating a discussion of what is or isn't a fan movie. Thank youfr your consideration. Raryel ( talk) 22:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words at Orangemarlin's talk page. FWIW, the answer to this is, yeah, probably. I recently changed my mind, since I am finding that not being an admin is occasionally limiting my ability to mediate at WQA and ANI (not so much because I don't have the mop, but more because occasionally people will say, "You're not an admin? Piss off then!" heh...) I put in a request for admin coaching, as I am worried that my current relative lack of article-building and reference-finding contribs would torpedo an RfA. Anyway, I was flattered. Thanks for the kind words :) -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed this page from Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Consensus is needed to put a page into that category. If you want to have a list of your images, you could just have links to the non-free ones instead of displaying them, for example Image:Example.jpg instead of actually displaying it. Listing it is ok (if it were fair use) while displaying it on a user page is not. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You need a bigger smiley face. :) I just sent you an e-mail, but probably won't see your answer until the end of the workday. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
...is asking for an unblock, seemingly claiming ignorance of the concept of copyright. I've declined the unblock, but take a look anyway, let me know what you think. – xenocidic ( talk) 02:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
He says in his latest request he agrees. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Apologies. I saw that on ANI and I was under the impression the "Arrogant ..." username was an admin. It seems I didn't revert myself like I'd intended too. Thanks. Qst ( talk) 16:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dmitry Medvedev ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't like you very much. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 03:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
2008 (UTC)
I have question about this article and its AfD. From my perspective proctecting it is a good call (selfish reasoning here: since it also keeps me from breaking the 3RR rule), but the article is also in AfD and its current state is poorer than it need be, given the sources that exist (A block quote from once such un-included source can be found on User_talk:Firefly322). Since editors who are not administrators can no longer contribute to the article,yet the nominator of the AfD still can. Doesn't this admin-only block make its AfD process a bit twisted? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 04:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have talked to ScreamAimFire a couple of times in the past and ScreamAimFire seems like a person who wouldn't do that I was wondering if you and a couple of admins. could conference talk about and review his case and maybe reconsider because I know that my account has been hacked into a couple of times and there were some inappropriate edits made without my knowledge but thankfully I reverted alot of those edits before alot of noise was made. So, I would like to kindly ask you if you could review ScreamAimFire's case and maybe reconsider. Thank You. Have a good day! Chrismaster1 ( talk) 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well he said that he can't email you because your email address wasn't by ur name but I did say that you probably meant your talk page, was that what you meant by emailing you? -- Chrismaster1 ( talk) 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I just edited an article and I clicked in Preview, but now all my stuff is deleted! How can I get it Back?-- Ginnina ( talk) 8:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not continue to introduce a child pornography conviction into the introduction, such as your edit here, as it introduces undue weight early on and provides an unfair balance for the remainder of the article. It is covered with extensive details below. This issue has been brought up at BLP/N, but as an uninvolved administrator who frequently oversees various cases there and elsewhere... seicer | talk | contribs 01:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please cite chapter and verse the Wiki Policy supporting your unilateral move of the "Nationalist" page? Thanks. Sarah777 ( talk) 08:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a courtesy call to note that I fixed a link in your post and wanted to make sure that was really what you meant, so as not to be putting words in your mouth.
Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 00:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you weren't aware, you can check the tor status of any IP by going to the IP's talk page. It's one of the links in the "WHOIS" bar at the bottom, and my experience is that it's as accurate as any other tool I've used; because of the nature of tor, there are always the occasional false positives and false negatives. Hope that's helpful. Risker ( talk) 03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to remove your comment :) SirFozzie ( talk) 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not upset about it in the least bit and i'm thankful that you stepped in but can you please explain to me so I will know in the future how I violated the 3RR rule? From what I understand I am allowed to make more than 3 edits if the following is true..."Addition of libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons." I believe that the edits made to the page in question def fit this description. Either way thanks again and hopefully the two week period will allow all editors to cool off. Dirkmavs ( talk) 02:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the full protection. Maybe now the edit warriors will be forced to negotiate. Personally, I'm recommending they get together and invite several 3rd parties in to review things. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know I put up File:ArrowTre1.jpg, which you deleted, up for review here. I think the deletion was in error. - Pete ( talk) 17:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Can something please be done about this user? He is highly disruptive, refuses to listen to reason and insists his view is always correct. He is currently insisting on the following additions [2] and [3], which I have tried to explain are not necessary until either they are released or at least have articles, yet he insists on adding them. I do not want to end up in an edit war with this kid again, but frankly the majority of their edits are disruptive and counter productive. Nouse4aname ( talk) 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just to let you know the reasoning behind my removal of some of the images and text from the article is this: The Danvers image was not a UE image as much as it pertained to the construction at Danvers. If it had been an inside shot, or some other type of UE shot of Danvers then I would have kept it. At my count there had been over three drain shots. Two were from the same person and even one of the shots the user had submitted even had himself in the shot. I think one drain image is enough to give the reader the impression of what it looks like in a drain. The reson I removed the user's images was because they did not add to the article and were posted to advertise what the user had explored and even to advertise the user himself and his shots. I then removed the Kentucky image because it also did not pertain to UE and was only there to advertise that the place gave tours. Lastly I removed that bit of text because it was a personal opinion and had no references to back it up.
I looked up MOS and I don't think you meant Manual of Style, which does not pertain to what I did.
It would be fine to have an image per portion, like one of an abandoned asylum, tunnel, drain, etc. We don't need repetitive images and also unrelated images in the article.
The one thing I have noticed is users penchants to advertise their actions, photos, and web sites in the UE article. I removed those photos under that basis. Brothejr ( talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I have absolutely no connection to the previous edit warring which was committed by another IP. I have attempted to discuss my changes on the talk page, but instead have been reverted twice without any participation of the other user in the debate. I believe this clearly shows I was not the one edit warring, so perhaps you could retract your accusations that I was continuing an edit war. 121.216.227.175 ( talk) 05:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
...because I realize that, somehow, I left this very important bit off the talk page. I was very happy with the mediation process and its results; on the other hand, I noticed that the article (both in the form I found it and in the suggested from from mediation) needed numerous edits to comply with style guidelines, and it at least needed a little more clarification or discussion in order to protect it from possible ravages at GAR and FAR. I am not the expert on Wikipedia policy, but I know something about style guidelines and about common objections at GAR and FAR. The bit I forgot to say was that my goal in my review was to accomplish the minimum changes necessary to show the GAR and FAR people that I was doing an adequate job, while still respecting the mediation process. I'll go make that clear now. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I will soon give the final GA checkmark at Cold fusion, if no new issues come up. I'd like to add this paragraph to the "neutrality" section of my GA review on the talk page, but please tell me if this is too strong or too provocative:
Please tune into the last section at Talk:Cold fusion#Regarding last night's changes. Feel free to weigh in there, or on my talk page, or email me. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Seicer, This article is full of gibberish and made-up stuff about a middle school. I searched back through several versions and could find no article-quality version of the article so put a speedy delete on it. Is this the right thing to do in this case? If not, please feel free to modify. I'm not sure what to do about such articles? Renee ( talk) 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Seicer. Can you please put a stop to Omegatron’s vendetta against me? He started an Administrators’ noticeboard against me here. Numerous editors weighed in that the issue wasn’t one of my being uncivil (though I admit I have a sharp tongue—or fingers). Rather, except for Omegatron and one other editor, all the rest took time to come to my defense and opine that it is really a content dispute. Most of these other editors were very familiar, involved editors, and one was an uninvolved editor who takes an interest in what is going on over on Talk:MOSNUM. The vast majority of us editors believe this issue is simply over Follow current literature, which would deprecate the use of the IEC prefixes. This is a guideline that Omegatron rammed through, admittedly without a consensus, it has been the subject of a record-setting amount of dispute (twelve “B” archives dedicated exclusively to bickering over the use on Wikipedia of the IEC prefixes).
Then, after hours of responding to him, and after much effort from many other editors, Omegatron started up a parallel complaint via an RFC here. This is an absurd amount of hoops to have to jump through; particularly after so many editors already made an effort to weigh in on this and put an end to it. Can you help?
P.S. Omegatron is undoubtedly watching what I am doing here. He is an administrator and I am not. I am at a disadvantage here. He will complain that it is entirely about my behavior. I do hope you will click on the Administrators’ noticeboard complaint here, and read what the other editors are saying. The consensus is clearly that this is nothing more than a dispute over content. Greg L ( talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
While I am certainly prone to plain-speak in my dealings with other editors and “tell it like I see it”, I do take pain to not be uncivil to the individual; I try to focus my ridicule so as to point out the logical holes in others’ specious or fallacious arguments. It’s nothing one wouldn’t see (often) in college-level debate classes. And I do try (hard) to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia. Further, my value system places high importance on conducting oneself with honor and integrity; most editors at Talk:MOSNUM know where I am coming from and have no reason whatsoever to mistrust my word. I am a realist though. I do not expect reciprocal conduct from all other normal editors; I have truly had a bellyful from a certain subset of editors who will consistently say one thing and do yet another. This is life. But I really do have a much higher expectation of administrators, who have been entrusted with special powers and are expected to resolve conflict, not create it and game the system. As an administrator, Omegatron should have known better than to post Administrators’ noticeboards and RfCs against me and not alert me to that fact. He should also know better than to solicit an editor who isn’t involved on Talk:MOSNUM just because he knows the editor is predisposed to playing follow-the-leader in his bash-fests. I ask that Omegatron be severely sanctioned for this.
I’ve seen Omegatron’s method of operation now for quite some time and have honestly seen no other behavior from other administrators that demonstrates such an questionable lack of judgment and lack of desire to conform to conduct expected. That we are here at all is all due to the fact that Omegatron, three years ago, played an instrumental role in posting to MOSNUM, a policy to use the IEC prefixes here on Wikipedia (unfamiliar terms like “kibibit” and “mebibyte”). Judging from the twelve “Binary” Talk:MOSNUM archives on just this single issue, this policy has been the most contentious and least successful policies in MOSNUM history. There was significant opposition in the voting on it three years ago, and Omegatron admitted that there was no consensus (“There was no consensus in Archive [B0]…”). Back then, in July of 2005, other editors weighed in with comments like this: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an instrument for special interest groups (like IEC) to try to push the way they would like the world to work. We should reflect in the encyclopedia what the world is like, not what we think it should be.” Or this one: “I had never heard of [the IEC prefixes] before it was raised on the Pump, and I've been downloading countless gigs of who-knows-what since 1996. Come back in 2008 when it's an accepted term, or, rather, at which point it's stagnated.” But Omegatron posted it to MOSNUM without a proper consensus anyway. Well, here we are in 2008 now and the use of the IEC prefixes has far less support today than three years ago. The record-setting amount of debate and bickering that has occurred over that period speaks to the damage Wikipedia can incur from a single administrator who routinely exercises poor judgment and flouts the rules.
I haven’t been timid in the past about pointing out the above to Omegatron after his periodic deletions of “ Follow current literature” (FCL)—a policy that uninvolved editors have said truly gained consensus. In the last few days, a new policy that would replace FCL recently took a sudden turn towards a consensus to accomplish what FCL already does. I lead this change after another editor—Thunderbird2—reduced his vote after we gave a try with deleting some wording he opposed. After his reduced vote, I restored the wording. From Omegatron’s point of view, that was a big turn for the worse. Omegatron’s obsession with those who would correct his goof is the only reason we are here today on this issue. Greg L ( talk) 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I'm not getting the procedure exactly right; I've never filed an RfC before. Seicer, can you advise me on this? — Omegatron ( talk) 23:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Holy crap. I'm gone for like a most of the day and I find all this :P I'll give a third opinion on this tonight. seicer | talk | contribs 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So... you contacted Aluvus. Why? Because you listed him as an editor who was "attempting to resolve a dispute". And how exactly is that? Aluvus's connection with anything to do with current affairs on Talk:MOSNUM are absolutely non-existent because he's been totally inactive there for so long. He couldn't possibly have any first-hand experience regarding what's going on there except to take your word for it. Hell, his last hundred edits takes him back to mid-January, he's been highly inactive in all of Wikipedia! Admit it Omegatron, you simply solicited Aluvus for an "I agree with Omegatron" validation on your ANI because of his (very) recent, wholesale support in your most recent effort to bash Fnagaton. That I'm trying to do exactly the same thing as Fnagaton (get Wikipedia in line with the rest of the world on binary prefixes) makes it sort of a no-brainer that he'd be happy to bash me too, doesn't it?
All your conduct comes across to me as that of just any other editor who regularly gets into disputes that need to get cleaned up in mediation, arbitration, or something else. As an admin, other editors look to you for leadership as to what is appropriate to do or not. When you refused to accept consensus on "Follow current literature" and deleted it from MOSNUM the first time, you set everything back and started editing wars where other admins had to step in and lock MOSNUM down. And all this battling is over a terribly unwise policy that made Wikipedia a laughing stock in the computing world because we are (soon, were) the only general-interest publication in the world using these weird units of measure; a policy which you knew (and admitted as much) never had a proper consensus when you posted it to MOSNUM. It's been three years and twelve "binary" archives dedicated exclusively to laborious attempts to reverse the results of your having broken the most fundamental of rules three years ago. It's taken three long years to undo this because of your willingness to ignore and twist rules (and bash opponents) in order to get your way. Why in the world hasn't someone stripped you of your administers privileges yet? Now that would fix things. Greg L ( talk) 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course I'm not ashamed; I don't believe I've done anything wrong. Greg L and Fnagaton make lots of accusations, but don't back them up with facts. If you think I have behaved badly, please (concisely) list below this comment actions of mine that violate a policy, guideline, or essay, either in spirit or in letter. You can attack me for "abusing admin powers" all day long, but if you can't even back it up with evidence, few people are going to believe you.
I'm not trying to "game the system"; I'm trying to prevent Greg L from gaming the system. He knows perfectly well that his proposals do not have consensus, but tries to push them into the guideline anyway. This is not how policy is made. His conduct and attitude drive people away from participating in the discussion and prevent it from reaching any real consensus, so instead of wasting my time on the Manual of Style talk page arguing the same points over and over, I've gone after the root of the problem: his conduct and attitude. — Omegatron ( talk) 20:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Existing articles that use the IEC 60027-2 prefixes should be brought into compliance with this policy. Two imperatives must be met when revisions are made: 1) all changes must be correct so the articles remain accurate, and 2) courtesy should be afforded to editors who are currently shepherding an affected article or had recently greatly expanded an affected article. If you abide by expected etiquette and treat other editors as you would hope to be treated, all should go smoothly.
As regards, point #1 above (accuracy), read the existing text and research your material before making changes. As regards point #2 above (courtesy), post a message on the talk page of the article as well as the talk page of the shepherding editor. In that message, bring this MOSNUM policy regarding proper use of IEC 60027-2 prefixes to the editor’s attention and allow him or her a reasonable opportunity to update the article. Observing this second point has the dual virtues of keeping editing Wikipedia a fun hobby for all of us, and best ensures articles remain factual and correct.
This may take a while to fully flesh out, but my findings of Omegatron is that,
Possible remedies,
seicer | talk | contribs 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Seicer, what is your opinion on the above? Is there anything you can do about this? Should this be kicked to a more formal venue? It is becoming ever clearer in my mind that perhaps Wikipedia would be better off without Omegatron as an administrator. I’m seeing a pattern now of “rules don’t apply to Omegatron” here that goes beyond just what happened over on MOSNUM. That’s no good at all for Wikipedia IMO. Please advise. Greg L ( talk) 22:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Greg L ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L. -- — Omegatron ( talk) 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC) — Omegatron ( talk) 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
why did u jsut remove all of the used official extenal links jack? USEDfan ( talk) 05:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I love your smiley, may I have permission to shamelessly copy you and add it to my user space? :)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Green Beer Day. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tikiwont ( talk) 18:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw this request for unprotection, and thought you should be made aware of it, because it is in your userspace and because the user requesting unprotection is alleging improper use of tools on your part. I asked for more information, but I think you might want to have a chat with the editor in question. Horologium (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
First I'd like to apologize (without sarcasm this time), I gravely mishandled this. I should have contacted you to see your reasoning first. In the mean time I've added the page to the NFCCE category to stop BJBot from (in theory) removing the image. The other 4 or so bots may remove not have the check in place but they should. BJ Talk 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This AfD has gotten long and it's sometimes hard to see the relevant opinions for the extraneous discussions. I tried to solve this by asking people to, in a few words, summarize how they felt about the topic. I called it a poll. That was a mistake, as words like "vote" and "poll" are red-flag words. I restored the edit and added language to clarify my purpose. If you think it needs to be removed, please open a discussion on the talk page. I'm going offline for the night, please do me the courtesy of not deleting it while I'm asleep. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Cold fusion#New proposal; I'm proposing to split the page in two. Since you did the mediation, you're my first stop, but I'll be happy to go elsewhere, maybe you have a suggestion. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I only made three revisions, but that was two hours ago, and the page is stable :S -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 02:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
why are u asking for citations for what is on a dvd on the used discovery page, watch the dvd or look at the dvd track listing, u dont need citations for that. USEDfan ( talk) 02:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Vassyana has put me under a restriction which amounts to a near complete ban from paranormal articles, and which gives ScienceApologist a completely free hand to do with them as he likes. I am asking for your input, as this is otherwise the complete end of my editing on Wikipedia. Here is the link
For details on why it is actually a ban, see this section.
Thanks —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw your note on the Mediation Committee's talk page and just thought I'd welcome you to Ohio! I would like to take this chance to extend a welcome to [WP:OH|WikiProject Ohio]] if you have any interest. Having an active contact in Cincinnati would really help the project. I understand moving is a lot(of time, energy, patience, ect.) and was just placing the offer on the backburner for you to maybe think about. Have a safe move and a happy wikibreak! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kentucky Museum of Art and Craft 2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, when you get a chance, can you take a look at the article? Brothejr ( talk) 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ninjalicious Book Cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but is included in an article that does not describe the book as indicated in the rationale. Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion state that non-free images or media that are used in at least one article and that fail any part of the non-free content criteria (except criterion 1) may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. The image is included in an article that does not discuss the subject depicted. You are hereby notified that the image has been tagged.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 13:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there. May I asked why the article was deleted ? Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes professional and league (it's not football NFL or wrestling, its german soccer also not my field of sports ;) I'think there was also a {hangon}. sorry for the inconvenience, but this is not the right way. could this be undone? Thank you Sebastian scha. ( talk) 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any comments to whether these images should be delete or not. Because if I was the admin, and I made it thn I would've deelte this, since these images vs. i-xx (WA).svg looks exactly the sameimage, both white fonts is same in diameter, to me it look nearly 100% duplicate. This does not meet csd so once 10 days is up admins can take action. I will like to see what you think.-- Freewayguy Discussions Show all changes 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Color me unsurprised. Here's the edit summary he just made regarding his revert my and others edits to the American Family Association article:
So I'm an anti-Semite, now. I'd say that was a personal attack, wouldn't you? 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the protection of the teardrop trailer page protected the user who was being disruptive. The page now is locked showing a trailer that is not a teardrop trailer and has the link farm spam as Liftarn was warring over. If you look at the major history of the page it is apparent. Wikiwerks ( talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to get the protection lowered/removed? Brothejr ( talk) 10:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm absolutely aghast that an admin would so blatantly violate the protection policy. Do it again and I'll take you ANI. YOu know involved editors may not remove protection, and there has clearly been no solution or compromise made on the talk page, therefore, the reason for protection still stands. Your reason for removal is bogus since people can't edit war on a protected page because it is protected. Bottom line...you violated the policy, and refused to even try to solve the problem. This is not behaviour we expect from admins. pschemp | talk 12:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Seicer, would you consider helping us on cold fusion again ? There is a dispute brewing. Thanks. Pcarbonn ( talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. The edit you restored on the article does not coincide with the sources provided. I'm going to restore the last edit with the correct one providing that is what the sources support. Webster121 ( talk) 06:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There is an interesting discussion playing out at User talk:Prester John. If I'm reading it right, PJ has been evading your 3 month block by use of the sockpuppet User:C.Marsh b.Lillee. But I could be wrong. Hesperian 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm requesting that you amend the Block user log entry to indicate that there was a misunderstanding between us regarding the Star Trek reversion issue. I reverted a deletion of content I created that imncluded two references and found it deleted summarily twice rather than finding efforts to rearrange the information or have any discussion or diplomacy. I was not engaged in malicious activity and removal of vandalism (which is what I thought it was) is not subject to the reversion rule (there is an exception stated for that.) Another admin has pointed out to you that the timing of warnings vs. block were not what is customary on Wikipedia. I think it is reasonable, therefore, to amend the block entry. Since the block, I've added the references (sources) to the companion article and assisted in the Talk page by initiating a discussion of what is or isn't a fan movie. Thank youfr your consideration. Raryel ( talk) 22:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words at Orangemarlin's talk page. FWIW, the answer to this is, yeah, probably. I recently changed my mind, since I am finding that not being an admin is occasionally limiting my ability to mediate at WQA and ANI (not so much because I don't have the mop, but more because occasionally people will say, "You're not an admin? Piss off then!" heh...) I put in a request for admin coaching, as I am worried that my current relative lack of article-building and reference-finding contribs would torpedo an RfA. Anyway, I was flattered. Thanks for the kind words :) -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed this page from Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Consensus is needed to put a page into that category. If you want to have a list of your images, you could just have links to the non-free ones instead of displaying them, for example Image:Example.jpg instead of actually displaying it. Listing it is ok (if it were fair use) while displaying it on a user page is not. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You need a bigger smiley face. :) I just sent you an e-mail, but probably won't see your answer until the end of the workday. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
...is asking for an unblock, seemingly claiming ignorance of the concept of copyright. I've declined the unblock, but take a look anyway, let me know what you think. – xenocidic ( talk) 02:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
He says in his latest request he agrees. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)