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. |
|
---|
1:28/04/2006-25/06/2006 |
Page archived. The most recent discussions are in archive 5. Viridae Talk 08:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I have not vandilised any pages, well I vandilised User Talk L's page after he vandilised mine (he spammed DESU), over a disagreement about editing. I hope he's been warned aswell. He did start this...Sorry and all. But i never did anything wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnubis ( talk • contribs)
Thats fine, to be honest i should'nt have responded to him. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Robnubis (
talk •
contribs)
That wasn't my final warning, but duly noted. I had mistakenly presumed this editor may have removed any other prior warnings as he had been reverted twice before for unconstructive edits. --健次( derumi) talk 08:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
RE: The wiki on Charlene Downes' murder which was deleted at the behest of a gaggle of partisans wishing to make a political point, the original deletion debate made this very clear which was why Wikipedia succumbed to the desire to cover their ass and delete the whole thing i.e. deliberately trying to make the deletion decision itself difficult to challenge. Your further actions could also be regarded as supporting the rather corrupt (for want of a better word) actions of Wikipedia who are supposed to share information not keep it hidden to appease a few partisans. What say you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.44.146 ( talk • contribs)
Why was this page deleted? Cableguytk 05:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked Betacommand per his request. He said he had accidentally set the bot to run from his account, and this has been fixed and won't happen again. In addition, Betacommand is no longer a sysop, so the risk of an adminbot is not possible. Hope this is ok with you. ^ demon [omg plz] 04:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Its here you have to specify the Wiki when searching- i.e. User:Betacommand@enwiki, it won't find it if you just look for User:Betacommand. WjB scribe 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. / Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Viridae. This is a good picture, [2] I recently moved an image out of the taxobox, perhaps that one should go there. I must try and expand the article one day. Regards, Fred ☻ 13:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi; regarding this revert, would care to have a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD R3 expansion, and maybe leave a rationale there? I do not understand what makes it non-redundant, or what it's supposed to add to the original version. — Piet Delport 15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought you had restored the text he deleted and I thought I was re-deleting it. It's late at night and I'm clearly more asleep than I am awake. Nonetheless, my advice to you is to let this one go. My prediction is that you will get no mileage from this quixotic quest and waste much energy in the process.
-- Richard 07:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I did notify the uploader of those nonnude photos per IFD rules, and added the notification template to all of the captions. One of the people who had it on their protected userpage, I notified on his talk page. ← Ben B4 08:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, have we met? ( Mind meal 11:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
Please see WP:Deletion#Deletion_discussion paragraph two, sentence one. Nothing controversial, as consensus already exist that voters should refer to policy. Just saying delete per WP:NOT is not enough, for WP:NOT has a lot of information on it. Users need to demonstrate they know specifically what part of WP:NOT it violates, otherwise it becomes nothing more than a canned response deletionists use. Self explanatory addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind meal ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for closing this, but I didnt really get a consensus on whether the user would be able to have a latin userpage redirect to his - ie: have user:B-113m redirect to user:Ψ-113μ, sort of like user:Jimbo does to user:Jimbo Wales. Is this something that can be allowed, because i am about to send the user a message, but i'm not sure whether to advise him to do the preceding. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting this little diadem. It was intended for a user talk page and even there it was pretty off-topic. -- Tony Sidaway 02:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind, could you please give me some advice on how to deal with what you said is a warrantless RFC, and the larger issues? -- NE2 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Viridae, I was going through your archives when I noticed you told someone you liked Invader Zim, when I thought to myself "Wow, someone actually likes something I like". I'm amazed...
but...
To business. I want to become an administrator (they get all kinds of cool abilities!). I was thinking of how I could when I remembered that you were an administrator. If you could tell me how or at least tell me how you became one, I would be forever in your debt. Also, do you think of me as a friend or as an enemy. If you could respond to me on my talk page (so I'm alarmed when you respond), that would be great. P.S. What is my "rank" in Wikipedia?
-- TimySmidge 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge
Everyone I've ever heard say "lol" out loud says it as 'el oh el', so it would follow that it's an ElOhElCat, not a Lullcat. Wikipedia should assume it's a combination of lol and cat, and lol is widely pronounced as an acronym (which it is) and not a word (which it probably will be within this decade.), and An would be the correct prefix in front of lol (the acronym). I'm gonna take a look through WP:LAME, this has to have come up somewhere before -- L i e! 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I just saw your comments on the JOG arbitration, and I wanted confirm that the deletion log did not appear when you recreated his page. Here's the bugzilla entry for the fix, which wasn't committed until June 2nd, and it looks like it went live somewhere on or before June 3rd. You can see some on-wiki timestamps about it here on my talk page. Hope that helps! William Pietri 04:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey mate. Just a quick note of thanks for your help in resurrecting the Golf Australia wiki. Here's hoping the moderator in question heeds your comment. I'm more than happy to provide further justification for why it should exist and/or edit the page so it is appropriate for inclusion.
Cheers!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair85 ( talk • contribs)
It's an in-joke. I'm surprised someone who has knowledge of lolcats doesn't know about desu or pools closing due to aids. Have you considered lurking moar? -- L onging.... 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You must have closed the recently, thanks. Your closing remarks included: "one condition of this article being kept is that a more neutral title is rapidly agreed upon, and the article moved per the suggestions of several of the people participating in this discussion." I assume that I am one of these people. BTW, are you allowed to say any more about your judgment. For instance, whether you found persuasive this argument (1) "The Title may be POV because naming guidelines call for article titles to reflect the self-identification of entities like Cuba or the Cuban government." Or this (2) "In addition, 'apartheid' and/or 'allegations' may be loaded, biased terms." Thanks for your time on this. Please reply to my talk if you don't mind. HG | Talk 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey--why did you delete the Don Schrader page? Don Schrader is a local celebrity in Albuquerque, NM known for his public access TV show and frequent letters to the editors of the Daily Lobo and Weekly Alibi. Seriously, he's a local institution. I used that page whenever I wanted friends in other parts of the country and the world to know about Don, as I know many other people did.
How can we get our Don article back?
I'm not quite sure how to sign this but I'll give it a shot: Tochariana 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Did I do it right? Melissa/tochariana
Yes, the page should be undeleted. Google Don Schrader and you'll get a sense of how renowned this guy is. He's just part of our identity. Thanks! Tochariana 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and placed a notice on the two users, but I guess my question would be, if the user contributes, ignoring the request for a shorter name, what action would be taken? And, am I supposed to remove the report, or does the monitoring Admin for RFCN do it? I don't want to overstep my bounds. Thanks for your help letting me know it is okay for an editor to let a user know about policy violations with regards to usernames. Ariel♥ Gold 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Schrader. - Crockspot 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{ inactive}} and/or {{ historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You and your kind are cowards that hide like soulless roaches...Wikipeida is a lie farm where orwell's words ..all Animals are equal, but the pigs are more equal are no truer words said.
Now you can debate me here or I will fine other forums to continue the fight...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.187.189 ( talk • contribs)
You aren't replying to my above question (Hey). Answer it please. -- TimySmidge 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge
....it didn't need admin attention in the first place.
So what you're saying is that a biased editor, who repeatedly restores a POV link, and who does his damned to hide that fact when caught, is not a problem???
Sounds like this whole site needs to be wiped clean and started over with fresh people as admins.
Psycho Samurai 10:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Viridae (
talk ·
contribs) is absolutely right and I'd add that you may want to step away and calm down a bit
Psycho Samurai (
talk ·
contribs) before pursuing
dispute resolution. You just got off a block which appears to stem from personal attacks over the same content edit warring. You might want to back off a bit.--
Isotope23
talk
13:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that closures are supposed to be grounded in relevant policy, or indirectly in relevant policy by way of policy-based arguments in the debate itself, perhaps you can elaborate for me why the debate was closed on the issue I presented when no policy based counterarguments had been given in the debate, and there were none in the closure. If "cultural references" and things that are "hardly supposed to be serious" are excepted from the user name policy, perhaps you can instruct me where I am to find those exceptions. I fancy I can find "cultural references" and joke user names aplenty that would be blocked nonetheless. Deranged bulbasaur 11:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey I noticed you seem to be the most common closer there so I thought I'd ask you. Are the dicussions archived? There is an archive page, and it says it's updated by a bot, but it has not updated since May. I was wondering if they are archived, and where. Thanks! i said 04:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw your name then looked at your edits. You have many edits but they are nearly all administrative edits. You must have made editorial edits (mainspace) in order to become administrator. Have you exhausted all your knowledge? This isn't an insult but I'm curious if people transform and change personalities upon becoming administrator. I have been on WP only 3 months so I'm learning about the culture here.
About another topic, I have visited Australia twice. I enjoyed Melbourne very much ! Polounit 09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you close a good number of the RFCN discussions, I thought you might be interested in this. Per some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Questions, I have started to alphabetically archive recent RFCN reports at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Index. I have also put a link to the archive on the main RFCN page. Feel free to comment either on the archive talk page or at WT:RFCN. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd be more than willing to help with this, if you can give me a couple tips, such as how to know when to "end" a discussion, and any special tags or procedures that need to be done to get the archive done correctly. Let me know if you'd like to teach me! Ariel♥ Gold 00:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the offer. because of the lengthy reply, I will send you an email, if you have no objections. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As you have expressed an interest I'm letting you know that I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did you blank Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Internodeuser ? -- Golden Wattle talk 10:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Viridae, posting a link to an attack site can be reverted by anyone, and repeated posting is blockable. Any valid WP evidence can be posted, in principle, but not external links to attack sites. Thanks, Crum375 01:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Be advised that WP:NPA#External links is a core policy. - Crockspot 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Question 1:Where do you go to see someone for an article review?
Question 2:Can you tell if there's something wrong with the article in the headline? AR Argon 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Article review? Not sure what you mean? And I can't see anything wrong. There is characters my browser can't display - but that is the name in japanese. Viridae Talk 08:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to just thank you for reminding me, at least, that RFCN isn't a "vote" page. (And, okay my ignorance may be showing here, but what does it mean when people put exclamation points in front of things, like !vote?) I will admit that when I began taking part in the RFCN process, that just happened to be the way people were formatting things, (similar to AfD, RfA, etc) so I followed along assuming (without researching, my mistake) that was how things should be done. Now that I have read your comments, I'll change my methods. I do think that I brought at least a little bit of clarity to the Handiarts issue, so I'll stand by my contributing there, but I will be sure not to make it appear as if I'm "voting" in the future. Again, thank you for that advice! Ariel♥ Gold 09:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind using 4 digit years? It's somewhat confusing for me to look at now. I'm not going to ask you to use ISO 8601, but at least having "20XX" would be appreciated. Looking at your box right now is like a tongue twister for my eyes :)-- lucid 04:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Here. You told me you wanted to know when it begun, so it has. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Omg, I just went to your userpage to grab a link for something I wanted (and knew you had), and I saw the gray banner ad at the top. I sat through the whole thing, lol. That's too cute! Ariel♥ Gold 00:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
am i banned from having a wikipedia entry for life because i was unaware that a "banned" user made an entry for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.196.195 ( talk) 13:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Viridae, do you have the ability to show what the article about "Liz Cohen" said, before it was deleted (for a second time)? I am curious if this is about the performance artist Liz Cohen or the autism author Liz Cohen (BBB AUTISM GUIDES: Strategies for Parents by Parents). -- Form990 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Socks 01 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Happy Birthday, Viridae!!
“It takes a long time to grow young.” -Oscar Wilde |
Ariel ♥ Gold 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a happy Birthday message to you, Viridae, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:05, 07 September 2007 (UTC)
Pat Politics rule! 12:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
...i'm new to this. yes, i, liz cohen, asked the question about banned users. thanks for the responses and support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.196.195 ( talk) 02:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Viridae. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
Blast him /
Follow his steps
20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I hadn't noticed it was you who protected. Makes sense, and fair enough. I wouldn't worry about it too much, though; only someone scratching the surface might not realise I think, really... Anyone taking a look at the history would see it's pretty obvious. Cheers. AllynJ ( talk | contribs) 07:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- Warthog Demon 20:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
On http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lolcat I recently added a link to http://lolcatz.net, a site which contains over a thousand categorized and searchable lolcats. However, you removed the link again. Would you care to tell me why?
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasse Houmøller ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet you don't mind having a link to http://www.macrocats.com which is inferior to the other sites linked. Could you elaborate on this logic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.2.209 ( talk) 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[3] - huh? -- Cat chi? 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well, that's what I get for subst-ing a template I've never used before. Harrumph. Don't you have a thesis you should be working on or something? :P Glass Cobra ( Review) 03:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I was just wondering if you still remembered me. You know, you were the first user I ever talked to. -- TimySmidge 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I did ask Fred Bauder on his talk page at the time, even though it upset the other parties of the case because they feared retribution from Fred Bauder. Fred Bauder's answer was that his vote in the AFD to Keep was perfectly appropriate as he thought the article by Rosencomet on himself should be kept. I guess what you are saying is that Arbitrators can do what they want and there is no recourse. -- Mattisse 13:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. You need not bother to answer as your talkpage is not on my watchlist. -- Mattisse 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right that the shortcut should be redirected. That said, in order to reduce confusion, Wp:ub and WP:ub should also be redirected.
See also [ this list of shortcuts]. - jc37 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Netmonger ( talk · contribs) has requested an unblock but since I have no idea how you came to the conclusion of sockpuppetry, I can't answer it. Can you either direct me to the evidence or checkuser or point the unblock request out to someone who does know what is going on? Viridae Talk 05:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
My summaries always refer to the vandalism itself, not the person committing it. Are they blunt? Yes. Are they true? Yes. Am I going to stop doing them because HIEV styles him/herself the edit summary police? No. If that gets me banned, more the worse for the project. I'm not going to be pushed around by HIEV on this one, though. K. Scott Bailey 21:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I am relatively certain that all concerned save one (the unnamed pettifogger) would have agreed that the AnI in question was a PRIME example of pettifoggery. Why remove it from my userpage as a "personal attack", when I left the pettifogger in question unnamed? K. Scott Bailey 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that he not only put it back, but now he's added a whole section on "Pettifoggery" too. This taunting is obviously directed at me and probably you as well. (sigh) -- Hi Ev 01:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
After blasting me on my page about a whole host of bullshit, you were totally wrong about this loser, per this edit. A much better admin, indefinitely blocked him. Get real dude. So, let's see, you accuse me of a whole host of nonsensical issues, and yet you fail to support a block of an anti-semitic pedophile. Hmmmmmm. What are we going to do here? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the comments I left at [ [4]]? Thanks. I doubt FM will be taking up any of my complaints. Tstrobaugh 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Heres a better one. Your recent edits have shown a clear lack of equality when warning people about civility. Who appointed you the arbitrator of civility? You warn all or you warn none. Since I noticed you and Crock share a common interest, I am hardly surprised by your actions. Stay off my talk page unless you have something relevant.
In addition to this, you have shown that you are willing to allow yourself to be manipulated by someone who is obviously canvassing for support (see above section). Get off your high horse. If you want to be the arbitrator of civility, lets use some common sense. Baegis 21:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What the heck? Why did you close my page? I said I might come back, you retard! God, why doesn't anyone ever pay attention? User:HyperSonicBoom 04:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting that talk page, and for the fast block of that name. I can't figure out how that name got by UAA since September, lol. What do you think of this edit, should that be removed? And this one? Thanks again for the lightning fast reflexes! Ariel ♥ Gold 05:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Is a virtue. Turtlescrubber 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
He seems to have been encouraged by your remark, and has reverted again, as well as his incivil remark on ANI. I'm taking a wiki break, you're welcome to his wonderful editing style. - Crockspot 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You have mail. - auburnpilot talk 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Viridae, I'm retired, but I am just dropping by to let you know that it may be a good idea to delete the talk page of FullOfRabies and KKK LLS. I am the only contributor of their talk pages, and I left to each of them because I was concerned their username may borderline with the username policy. But neither of them edited(the last I checked), and nor are blatant violations to warrent an immediate block at WP:UAA(correct me if I'm wrong).-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
you aren't exactly being sugar and spice yourself. If you calm down and cool the language I am sure you will get a better response.
Really. You actually believe that "cool[ing] the language" will have the slightest effect on someone who told me (pay attention now, it was right there on the page) "fuck off, you wikipedia nazi", who has a multiple block log demonstrating his impulse-control problems, and who has had a long-term history of looking for excuses to get me banned? You might just as well wish for that and a pony, too.
Speaking of which, I'm sending you a full copy of his latest message to me, via e-mail. Some redacted highlights:
Lemme know how that lollipops-and-rainbow philosophy works out for you. Meanwhile, a good dose of common sense would work out better here on Wikipedia instead of carrying water for trolls. --
Calton |
Talk
13:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you little user! Er... Chinzilla? Kawaii! bishzilla ROARR!! 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
And because my attention was drawn to it :) There is a reason my early edits looked a little advanced and you'll find it here. Equally I would now look on those early edits with great suspicion, indeed I have drawn attention to new editors for very similar reasons on other wikis. A new en wq editor created a template, suggested an IP was editing incorrectly, put the template on the IP page and reported it to the admin board - a "new" editor..... Hopefully you are ok with me now - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Viridae---I've got no problem with you deleting my draft because of a lack of references. I noted this deficiency in the dicussion page. So a question to a novice. What is the appropriate forum to work with drafts --- read not a final -- where the focus can be on content and not form? This seems especially crucial in an article that is contentious.
I looked at Vondort ( talk · contribs) and didn't find a single good-faith edit in over a year here. That is quite literally a vandalism-only account. — Wknight94 ( talk) 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you edited the Fellowship of Friends article in the past. There is an issue with Conflict of Interest (COI) at the moment and the article has been stubbed and protected and I thought that it would be nice if you could voice your opinion on the Talk page. If you are too busy, that's OK. Thank you in advance. Love-in-ark 05:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You give hope to Wikipedia's future. A crippling virus that disables the typing hands of a specific crew of about 40 admins is the only additional ingredient needed. - Applyabout 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You stated "It's rather a rock and a hard place being stuck between a self proclaimed "wikipedia investigator" who has shown herself to be rather vindictive at times and a banned user". Durova is acting in ways that benefit Wikipedia both here at this site and in real life lectures/columns (whether or not she is paid). Greg has bragged that he was paid to give a lecture on Wikipedia's COI policy and I believe he is trying to take out someone he sees as a commercial rival by harassing her until she leaves the market to him. Any "new" Wikipedian or IP harassing Durova with innuendo needs to be dealt with. Durova has a long history of helping Wikipedia. Greg has a long history at wikipedia of caring about nothing but money. I dealt with Greg from the time of his first announcement in online news about his wiki-business. I tried to find a way that he could usefully contribute. I fought for his right to create user subpages that other wikipedians could then do with as they saw fit. Greg repeatedly mis-characterized (in on-Wikipedia discussions) what Jimbo said (in on-Wikipedia discussions) until he had no more credibility and we were forced to exile him from Wikipedia. His word is worthless. He does not outright lie so far as I have seen, but he misrepresents and misleads and tells half-truths. I told him that I could no more believe him than I could believe Essjay. He seemed ok with that comparison. WAS 4.250 21:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
I see you have protected (albeit on an self admitted "wrong version") Wikipedia:Sock puppetry after commenting on the matter previously... [5]...and editng that page as well [6]...you also did this on WP:NPA...protecting that policy not long after now indefinitely banned editor Miltopia had edited it [7] on a version you had argued in favor of previously... [8]. I'll be offline most of this day, but will check back here later to see what your response it. I believe that anytime someone has been involved in an article or policy discussion or has edited said pages, they should ask a completely neutral party to protect pages via WP:RFPP.-- MONGO 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Viridae! I'm sorry, but I've had to revert your changes to Morelia spilota and Morelia spilota spilota. Allow me to explain. When the first new subspecies is added to a species, a subspecies for the original form is created automatically: the nominate subspecies. This name is used to distinguish between the original form and the new subspecies. Therefore, the convention here at Wikipedia is to use the species page, in this case Morelia spilota, to describe the nominate subspecies, M. s. spilota, which includes the characteristics common to all of the subspecies. Separate articles are created only for the subspecies that were described subsequently. Ideally, the subspecies articles should describe only how these forms differ from the nominate subspecies (in the main article), lest we start repeating (and contradicting) ourselves. (PS -- You can answer here if you like, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). -- Jwinius 12:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Compare this to Canis lupus, which is the ancestral species from which multiple species are recognised: [9]. Whereas the diamond does not have that ancestral status: [10]. Viridae Talk 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm Abbott75 from APS. I used to be a keen Wikipedian, but don't have too much time for it these days. Anyway, just thought I'd say hi, good luck with your pictures. Abbott75 ღ 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I permitted to add two more names to parties on that case you filed?-- MONGO ( talk) 06:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Viridae. How would you feel about adding the second MONGO RFC to the list of other steps in the dispute resolution process? The more I look at it, the more this looks like a continuation of the same sort of behaviour. Adding me as an involved party would extend the issue well beyond the NPA dispute.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted
here with explanation. I'm telling you about it because Tony seems not to have taken the seven-removals point of objection at
Tony's Oct 4 RFCU #4.
I don't know Grue. He joined the spoiler notice debate fairly recently.
User:Grue/howto subpage lines #4 and #7 have some charges that are probably too metaphorical to prove, but if he gathers proof or adequately softens them, his page would have improved chances of retention. His page does fairly reflect the substantial to outrageous abuses of process that the pro-spoiler editors have repeatedly faced over the past six months, such as
manufacturing consensus with circular reasoning (45,000 mass-removals by willfully uninvestigated misuse of AWB
[11]; WP:Owning the spoiler guide; deleting spoiler template additions by many more editors; then claiming that the template was unused as proof of consensus; and most recently getting the spoiler template deleted for supposed disuse). This was perpetrated by a group of six-some known as the spoiler police, of which Tony is the chief (see
User:Tony Sidaway/spoiler bot). The six month debate over this hijack of consensus and process has reached 1,850,000 bytes and is still growing at
WP:Talk Spoiler.
If you are not already aware, you may be unsurprised to learn that Phil Sandifer was the architect of the May 2007 mass-spoilers removal without wiki-wide advance consensus for a wiki-wide irreversible change.
In COI disclosure, Tony deleted one of my posts
Nov 5, Nydas reverted it, Marc Shepherd deleted it again, Nydas reverted it again, Farix took it to ANI, where Tony apologized, and I accepted his apology.
Milo
04:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
See here, and herefor all the List of Nairs discussions. I will say this once and want to make this absolutely clear. Now you can tell me there is biased edits and works Tn pillai 05:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Obviously a bit o a delicate situation going on there, so I would like to proceed and actually help people, rather than give the impression that there is some kind of cabal. I've requested an admin to unprotect the page for me, and I've already emailed Slimvirgin about her edits. When I tell people that wikipedia is an open system, and that we discuss things and share information and keep as little secrets as possible, please don't make a liar of me ^^;; -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm only just now noticing that it was you who banned me for a year from editing at Wikipedia. [12] We know how that turned out. ;) Just a couple of questions. Tell me, what exactly was your basis/justification for doing so? In hindsight, would you have made the same decision today that you made then? If not, then why not? deeceevoice ( talk) 15:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's good you recognize and admit your appalling lapse in judgment. You're absolutely right it shouldn't have happened: a one-year ban for nothing -- and nothing said in the way of even a reprimand to the offending party at all. But, of course, he's an admin. Your apology might have meant something had it come earlier -- and had I not come to your talk page with this question first. Is it any wonder there is so little respect or regard for admins on the site? No hard feelings, Viridae, but just damn. deeceevoice ( talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It had already turned into a "drama fest" with me having been unjustly banned from Afrocentric. You just smacked me with a year's suspension and then left others to sort it out? Nice. I'm done here. deeceevoice ( talk) 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Cberlet just reverted your revert of Brandt's statement on Doc's user talk page. Cla68 ( talk) 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I have seen enough...you are editing protected pages and now aiding banned editors...enough. Please stop misusing your admin position.-- MONGO ( talk) 04:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
My rational for reverting that was quite clear, it was very obvious that Doc was conversing with Brandt on the subject of BLP, and therefore it should be up to him (Doc not Daniel) to remove the post. People with BLP issues need to have some method of communicating with admins, and as that is the route Brandt chose, and Doc had not removed the post, but had instead carried on the conversation, it was up to Doc and Doc only to remove the post when he felt the issue had been dealt with. Viridae Talk 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
<<<<<An anyone can edit venue necessarily forces judgements to be based on content rather than authorship. Wikipedia is based on that. Deleting content based on who said it is unworkable and only causes problems. It has become a major source of disruption at wikipedia that outweighs any good it might theoretically do. Face it, the enemy has adopted and is using your strategy against you. Blindly following rules, instead of doing whatever is best for wikipedia, allows the enemy to out-strategize you because the enemy can know in advance the response of our side. The solution is IAR. It's there for a reason. Use it. And your mind. Mindless obedience to rules is a losing strategy. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't watchlist Viridae's talk page so I was surprised today to see the discussion that took place a week ago. Cautious about igniting further drama, I e-mailed him. He invited me to say a few words here. He made the right call in full protecting my user talk for one hour. There was a serious problem there and his solution worked. Things have become far too polarized. Let's remember we're doing our best here and try to come together. Durova Charge! 02:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I went back to that page that had that article that was talking about bad admins and someone asked me for the stuff that shows what I was talking about and I went to go get it and I started copying it and I went back and the discussion was not editable anymore... All I did was say I would go and get it, i didnt mean to break it. If they just read that stuff they could see. But it says don't edit anymore... I'm sooo sorry Benjamin Kenobe ( talk) 06:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Protection is inappropriate. Please undo. Tony has made a single reversion. The other parties have had amicable discussions on the talk page. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 00:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you reverted my edit; without bothering to give an explanation. I am not a party to that dispute and I do not want to be dragged into that dispute. I do not know what the dispute is about, nor do I want to know.
Please look at the log and you'll see for yourself that I'm not a party to that dispute. Itzse ( talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Good move. That discussion was going nowhere. - auburnpilot talk 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Viridae, would you mind investigating the AfD above please? There's a user removing tags and other people's comments from the AfD, and I've been reverting them; but I'm afraid that blocking them, if it came to a block, would be abuse of the admin tools on my part. I've warned the user, however, and they did create an attack page against another user. Can you please take a look? Thanks?
Acalamari
22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I addressed your concerns but a bot wiped them out to the archive. And see User talk:Nakon. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR echo 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
How is the 3rr block relevant? Unless the reverts were made by abusing a rollback script or undo or something, I don't se how you can loically use it as a reason to deny rollback. This isn't adminship and it carries no weight with it. John Reaves 07:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm totally confused. Why did you think this user had need of a user right that enables them to revert vandalism more speedily? WjB scribe 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you have edited my userspace. If you are not aware, me and admin User:El C has a gentleman agreement to keep the header as long as there is no racist implication (note that political statement is allowed). [ [13]] [ [14]]. admin User:Nlu also supports the presence of the header [ [15]] [ [16]]. While admin User:Jiang himself have offensive content on his userpage and talkpage targeting Taiwanese and Dalai Lama. (he used to have a picture of Taiwan=shame on his talkpage) I am going to assume good faith here, but please refrain from editing my userspace in the future. Thank you-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 05:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[17] see the image titled Taiwan=shame and on User:Jiang spreading Chinese expanionist propaganda and defaming Dalai Lama, Buddhism, and Tibet. Tell me if there is a parallel between Taiwan=shame and China=shame-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 04:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
copy from my talkpage...No I don’t know it. It’s not offensive at all. The supposedly offensive content was already removed after a lengthy discussion with El C (I already supplied with diff). There is absolutely nothing offensive about the China=shame header. Back In March, you actively patronized Ideogram in the past while deliberately persecuting me. Btw, Sumple is the main account of Palace (an abusive sock) who brought the issue to AN/I. He is Ideogram’s ally in the arbcom case. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 04:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm merely pointing out the fact that just because Jiang is an admin while I'm a powerless editor doesnt mean you can bully me about my userpage while turning a blind eye on Jiang.--
Certified.Gangsta (
talk)
04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Viridae. There is a risk that you will be thought to have misused the admin tools by reverting to your preferred version and then protecting that version. It doesn't seem a good idea to do that, especially when WP:DR and WP:RfC are still available; and especially especially when the consensus on the page as discussed at ANI isn't clear.
Please would you reverse yourself here? Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 08:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted to the preferred version because I was removing the offending comment. The protection was instated because CG had been taken to task about that several times and had always refused to remove it. Viridae Talk 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what all is going on, so I figured I'd just unprotect the page for the time being so that people quit shouting "admin abuse" and all that nonsense. If you want, I can re-add it, but I figure that if someone keeps adding the controversial comments/headers/whatever, we can just take it to WP:MFD and the issue will be over. :P Anyway, cheers =) -- slakr\ talk / 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Taking it to MFD would be more userspace harassment and Wikipedia:LAME. Admin abuse ain't no nonsense, it's real. The issue is far from over. Did you guys learn anything from this Wikipedia_talk:User_page/UI_spoofing? Maybe admins should be more concerned about the quality of articles instead of wasting time messing with userpages of established editors and accusing them of malicious intent.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 20:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Viridae. I have removed a claim you have made from the the above discussion. While I am sure it was not malicious, we should not make claims of such a nature anywhere unless it is reliabably sourced and even then we should be careful. Note, there has not been confirmation that he himself has been charged with anything. As the person is a minor, his name may be not be released throughout the trial process and beyond. Once again, I sure it was not malicious but we need to be careful. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[18] Lawrence Cohen 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks for rollback. cheers, Pete.Hurd ( talk) 04:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Palace Guard is a sockpuppet and you know it. Your revert seem very personal to me.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you understand why I’m pissed off? The stake is high here. Please restore the sockpuppet tag and stop accusing me of disruption-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 03:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and for letting me know - otherwise I might still be stuck on AN/I arguing with the air. This episode was a pretty valuable lesson for me - will do my best to keep out of C.G's way from now on. Thanks again, -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 06:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
be back monday Viridae Talk 06:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've unprotected WP:CON has both edit warring parties have agreed to behave appropriately. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure! If you're uploading to Commons, the category is Category:Vicugna pacos. Van Tucky 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, While I understand that canvasing is generally frowned upon, could you please explain why you deleted another editor's comments from my talk page? Thanks Hobit ( talk) 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes thank you. The user above you pointed that out as well. I've corrected it. JoshuaZ ( talk) 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You might have a point, but Guy doesn't need this [19] given his present situation. It can wait for later, or if you think it pressing then bring it to ANI for review. Thanks. - Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, query for you here. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.-- MONGO 19:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Viridae,
Of course my talk page can be a redirect, if I want it to be. I'm trying to avoid working on WP, because I need to work on my dissertation. I'm currently discussing one little issue regarding a map of Tibet, but I hope to drop out of sight after that. Thanks for your concern.. but I'm gonna change it back to a redirect. :-) Please don't revert me wishes about my own talk page. Thanks! Ling.Nut ( talk) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Well, first I'm gonna ask you to cite me the rule somewhere which says that's true, just so I'll have it for future rreference.. and then, regrettably, I'm gonna WP:IAR. But please do cite the rule first. Ling.Nut ( talk) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Please proceed to ANI, if you so desire.. But get replies from experienced admins rather than over-zealous newbies, OK? Thanks! Ling.Nut ( talk) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be overruling the consensus of three admins and a couple of other editors. -- Shelborne Concierge ( talk) 14:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been busy working on further evidence for the Samiharris/Mantanmoreland issue. Since you were interested in examining the evidence (and less focusing on the personality involved), could you take a look at The evidence I'm compiling to support a possible WP:DUCK test match and comment? SirFozzie ( talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for interjecting a bit of levity into the situation, to wit: random accusations of restaurant impropriety. It was much appreciated. -- SSB ohio 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to give JzG a chance to correct his mistake, but thanks. Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has the balls to close another DRV as trolling, I'm gonna give them a cookie. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Viridae. I noticed that you and Tony had a mini-discussion about biting of newbie academics in that ANI thread about Guy's blocks. So I thought you might be interested in the response I got from one of the blocked users (since unblocked). See here. Also see here. From that incident, I'm hopeful that three or four academics may hang around and become productive users. Of course, they might have done so anyway, and some might never have done so anyway. But I do feel strangely pleased at what I see as a really rather positive outcome. Even if some are too busy at the moment to contribute, they may do so in the future. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I started drafting an RfC on JzG here if you'd like to participate. Cla68 ( talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Might I ask if you had any other reasons for deleting User:HANDSOME RUDY apart from NOTMYSPACE? After a review of the deleted edits, I don't believe the deletion was covered under any of the speedy deletion criteria, and NOTMYSPACE is not a reason for speedy deletion. Can you please clarify? Acalamari 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have come across your name many, many times and you seem to be a fair guy who knows a lot about policy here, so I am intruding on your time to ask a question. Answer if you'd like, whenever you have the time. If I file a complaint at AN/I about user:whoever (made up name) is it then appropriate for user:whoever to mark the issue as resolved her/himself? Wouldn't that be a bad thing to do, or is anyone allowed to mark an issue resolved if they feel the issue has, in face, been resolved? I appreciate any answer you can give me. Thanks! 24.220.220.117 ( talk) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure of how to do much here, but the case is on the administrators incident board, it is in archive 365 titled "incivility User:Calton" I do know how to show diffs, so here is the diff showing that he was the one who marked it as resolved after the person who brought the complaint was blocked. [20] To be totally honest, the reason I have seen your name many, many times is because I have been one of Calton's targets in the past and you have also been involved in some of his conflicts, so I will understand if you don't want to get involved here. I just wanted to know if it was something a little fishy, and if so then I can just file the diff away. Thanks alot for answering the first question, and thanks for any additional help. 24.220.220.117 ( talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to shorten the protection as you see fit. To me it wasn't so much the amount of vandalism, but the fact that almost all of the edits in the last month have either been vandalism or reverts of vandalism, and also the vandalism was not blatant, and could possibly be hard to detect or take some time to notice. But like I said, if you feel that the protection is unwarranted than feel free to undo my edit. Cheers! – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's reasonably clear that guy isn't interested in interacting with you, regardless of the civility of the question (or the level agreement between the two of you.) It seems that you should both do everything reasonably possible to avoid eachother. PouponOnToast ( talk) 21:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I won't be contacting him over that paticular matter any more as heis behaviour doesn't warrant my time. Viridae Talk 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I frankly don't care who questions my motives (frankly there are certain people who will question them whatever I do because I post to a BADSITE (OMGZ KILL THE UNBELIEVER STALKER ADMINZ)) - for those whose vision isn't obscured by such matters, it will be quite clear that all I am doing is conducting day to day business on wikipedia in a sane and civil manner - i don't really care that guy is having a hissy fit every time I post on his talk page - its him that is causing the problems, not me. On the occasions that I feel it is necessary to post on his talk page I will do so - but i hardly do so lightly and will always endeavour to do so civilly. Viridae Talk 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The kind of behaviour that you, Viridae, are displaying would have been more than enough to have sunk any RfA. Do you really believe that it's appropriate for you to hold regular editors to higher standards of behaviour than you hold yourself? Should administrators not rather be setting some kind of a good example to the plebs? The question is, of course rhetorical, as the answer is very plain to see. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 14 February 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. |
|
---|
1:28/04/2006-25/06/2006 |
Page archived. The most recent discussions are in archive 5. Viridae Talk 08:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I have not vandilised any pages, well I vandilised User Talk L's page after he vandilised mine (he spammed DESU), over a disagreement about editing. I hope he's been warned aswell. He did start this...Sorry and all. But i never did anything wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnubis ( talk • contribs)
Thats fine, to be honest i should'nt have responded to him. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Robnubis (
talk •
contribs)
That wasn't my final warning, but duly noted. I had mistakenly presumed this editor may have removed any other prior warnings as he had been reverted twice before for unconstructive edits. --健次( derumi) talk 08:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
RE: The wiki on Charlene Downes' murder which was deleted at the behest of a gaggle of partisans wishing to make a political point, the original deletion debate made this very clear which was why Wikipedia succumbed to the desire to cover their ass and delete the whole thing i.e. deliberately trying to make the deletion decision itself difficult to challenge. Your further actions could also be regarded as supporting the rather corrupt (for want of a better word) actions of Wikipedia who are supposed to share information not keep it hidden to appease a few partisans. What say you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.44.146 ( talk • contribs)
Why was this page deleted? Cableguytk 05:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked Betacommand per his request. He said he had accidentally set the bot to run from his account, and this has been fixed and won't happen again. In addition, Betacommand is no longer a sysop, so the risk of an adminbot is not possible. Hope this is ok with you. ^ demon [omg plz] 04:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Its here you have to specify the Wiki when searching- i.e. User:Betacommand@enwiki, it won't find it if you just look for User:Betacommand. WjB scribe 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. / Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Viridae. This is a good picture, [2] I recently moved an image out of the taxobox, perhaps that one should go there. I must try and expand the article one day. Regards, Fred ☻ 13:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi; regarding this revert, would care to have a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD R3 expansion, and maybe leave a rationale there? I do not understand what makes it non-redundant, or what it's supposed to add to the original version. — Piet Delport 15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought you had restored the text he deleted and I thought I was re-deleting it. It's late at night and I'm clearly more asleep than I am awake. Nonetheless, my advice to you is to let this one go. My prediction is that you will get no mileage from this quixotic quest and waste much energy in the process.
-- Richard 07:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I did notify the uploader of those nonnude photos per IFD rules, and added the notification template to all of the captions. One of the people who had it on their protected userpage, I notified on his talk page. ← Ben B4 08:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, have we met? ( Mind meal 11:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
Please see WP:Deletion#Deletion_discussion paragraph two, sentence one. Nothing controversial, as consensus already exist that voters should refer to policy. Just saying delete per WP:NOT is not enough, for WP:NOT has a lot of information on it. Users need to demonstrate they know specifically what part of WP:NOT it violates, otherwise it becomes nothing more than a canned response deletionists use. Self explanatory addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind meal ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for closing this, but I didnt really get a consensus on whether the user would be able to have a latin userpage redirect to his - ie: have user:B-113m redirect to user:Ψ-113μ, sort of like user:Jimbo does to user:Jimbo Wales. Is this something that can be allowed, because i am about to send the user a message, but i'm not sure whether to advise him to do the preceding. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting this little diadem. It was intended for a user talk page and even there it was pretty off-topic. -- Tony Sidaway 02:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind, could you please give me some advice on how to deal with what you said is a warrantless RFC, and the larger issues? -- NE2 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Viridae, I was going through your archives when I noticed you told someone you liked Invader Zim, when I thought to myself "Wow, someone actually likes something I like". I'm amazed...
but...
To business. I want to become an administrator (they get all kinds of cool abilities!). I was thinking of how I could when I remembered that you were an administrator. If you could tell me how or at least tell me how you became one, I would be forever in your debt. Also, do you think of me as a friend or as an enemy. If you could respond to me on my talk page (so I'm alarmed when you respond), that would be great. P.S. What is my "rank" in Wikipedia?
-- TimySmidge 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge
Everyone I've ever heard say "lol" out loud says it as 'el oh el', so it would follow that it's an ElOhElCat, not a Lullcat. Wikipedia should assume it's a combination of lol and cat, and lol is widely pronounced as an acronym (which it is) and not a word (which it probably will be within this decade.), and An would be the correct prefix in front of lol (the acronym). I'm gonna take a look through WP:LAME, this has to have come up somewhere before -- L i e! 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I just saw your comments on the JOG arbitration, and I wanted confirm that the deletion log did not appear when you recreated his page. Here's the bugzilla entry for the fix, which wasn't committed until June 2nd, and it looks like it went live somewhere on or before June 3rd. You can see some on-wiki timestamps about it here on my talk page. Hope that helps! William Pietri 04:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey mate. Just a quick note of thanks for your help in resurrecting the Golf Australia wiki. Here's hoping the moderator in question heeds your comment. I'm more than happy to provide further justification for why it should exist and/or edit the page so it is appropriate for inclusion.
Cheers!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair85 ( talk • contribs)
It's an in-joke. I'm surprised someone who has knowledge of lolcats doesn't know about desu or pools closing due to aids. Have you considered lurking moar? -- L onging.... 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You must have closed the recently, thanks. Your closing remarks included: "one condition of this article being kept is that a more neutral title is rapidly agreed upon, and the article moved per the suggestions of several of the people participating in this discussion." I assume that I am one of these people. BTW, are you allowed to say any more about your judgment. For instance, whether you found persuasive this argument (1) "The Title may be POV because naming guidelines call for article titles to reflect the self-identification of entities like Cuba or the Cuban government." Or this (2) "In addition, 'apartheid' and/or 'allegations' may be loaded, biased terms." Thanks for your time on this. Please reply to my talk if you don't mind. HG | Talk 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey--why did you delete the Don Schrader page? Don Schrader is a local celebrity in Albuquerque, NM known for his public access TV show and frequent letters to the editors of the Daily Lobo and Weekly Alibi. Seriously, he's a local institution. I used that page whenever I wanted friends in other parts of the country and the world to know about Don, as I know many other people did.
How can we get our Don article back?
I'm not quite sure how to sign this but I'll give it a shot: Tochariana 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Did I do it right? Melissa/tochariana
Yes, the page should be undeleted. Google Don Schrader and you'll get a sense of how renowned this guy is. He's just part of our identity. Thanks! Tochariana 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and placed a notice on the two users, but I guess my question would be, if the user contributes, ignoring the request for a shorter name, what action would be taken? And, am I supposed to remove the report, or does the monitoring Admin for RFCN do it? I don't want to overstep my bounds. Thanks for your help letting me know it is okay for an editor to let a user know about policy violations with regards to usernames. Ariel♥ Gold 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Schrader. - Crockspot 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{ inactive}} and/or {{ historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You and your kind are cowards that hide like soulless roaches...Wikipeida is a lie farm where orwell's words ..all Animals are equal, but the pigs are more equal are no truer words said.
Now you can debate me here or I will fine other forums to continue the fight...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.187.189 ( talk • contribs)
You aren't replying to my above question (Hey). Answer it please. -- TimySmidge 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge
....it didn't need admin attention in the first place.
So what you're saying is that a biased editor, who repeatedly restores a POV link, and who does his damned to hide that fact when caught, is not a problem???
Sounds like this whole site needs to be wiped clean and started over with fresh people as admins.
Psycho Samurai 10:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Viridae (
talk ·
contribs) is absolutely right and I'd add that you may want to step away and calm down a bit
Psycho Samurai (
talk ·
contribs) before pursuing
dispute resolution. You just got off a block which appears to stem from personal attacks over the same content edit warring. You might want to back off a bit.--
Isotope23
talk
13:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that closures are supposed to be grounded in relevant policy, or indirectly in relevant policy by way of policy-based arguments in the debate itself, perhaps you can elaborate for me why the debate was closed on the issue I presented when no policy based counterarguments had been given in the debate, and there were none in the closure. If "cultural references" and things that are "hardly supposed to be serious" are excepted from the user name policy, perhaps you can instruct me where I am to find those exceptions. I fancy I can find "cultural references" and joke user names aplenty that would be blocked nonetheless. Deranged bulbasaur 11:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey I noticed you seem to be the most common closer there so I thought I'd ask you. Are the dicussions archived? There is an archive page, and it says it's updated by a bot, but it has not updated since May. I was wondering if they are archived, and where. Thanks! i said 04:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw your name then looked at your edits. You have many edits but they are nearly all administrative edits. You must have made editorial edits (mainspace) in order to become administrator. Have you exhausted all your knowledge? This isn't an insult but I'm curious if people transform and change personalities upon becoming administrator. I have been on WP only 3 months so I'm learning about the culture here.
About another topic, I have visited Australia twice. I enjoyed Melbourne very much ! Polounit 09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you close a good number of the RFCN discussions, I thought you might be interested in this. Per some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Questions, I have started to alphabetically archive recent RFCN reports at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Index. I have also put a link to the archive on the main RFCN page. Feel free to comment either on the archive talk page or at WT:RFCN. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd be more than willing to help with this, if you can give me a couple tips, such as how to know when to "end" a discussion, and any special tags or procedures that need to be done to get the archive done correctly. Let me know if you'd like to teach me! Ariel♥ Gold 00:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the offer. because of the lengthy reply, I will send you an email, if you have no objections. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As you have expressed an interest I'm letting you know that I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did you blank Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Internodeuser ? -- Golden Wattle talk 10:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Viridae, posting a link to an attack site can be reverted by anyone, and repeated posting is blockable. Any valid WP evidence can be posted, in principle, but not external links to attack sites. Thanks, Crum375 01:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Be advised that WP:NPA#External links is a core policy. - Crockspot 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Question 1:Where do you go to see someone for an article review?
Question 2:Can you tell if there's something wrong with the article in the headline? AR Argon 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Article review? Not sure what you mean? And I can't see anything wrong. There is characters my browser can't display - but that is the name in japanese. Viridae Talk 08:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to just thank you for reminding me, at least, that RFCN isn't a "vote" page. (And, okay my ignorance may be showing here, but what does it mean when people put exclamation points in front of things, like !vote?) I will admit that when I began taking part in the RFCN process, that just happened to be the way people were formatting things, (similar to AfD, RfA, etc) so I followed along assuming (without researching, my mistake) that was how things should be done. Now that I have read your comments, I'll change my methods. I do think that I brought at least a little bit of clarity to the Handiarts issue, so I'll stand by my contributing there, but I will be sure not to make it appear as if I'm "voting" in the future. Again, thank you for that advice! Ariel♥ Gold 09:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind using 4 digit years? It's somewhat confusing for me to look at now. I'm not going to ask you to use ISO 8601, but at least having "20XX" would be appreciated. Looking at your box right now is like a tongue twister for my eyes :)-- lucid 04:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Here. You told me you wanted to know when it begun, so it has. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Omg, I just went to your userpage to grab a link for something I wanted (and knew you had), and I saw the gray banner ad at the top. I sat through the whole thing, lol. That's too cute! Ariel♥ Gold 00:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
am i banned from having a wikipedia entry for life because i was unaware that a "banned" user made an entry for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.196.195 ( talk) 13:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Viridae, do you have the ability to show what the article about "Liz Cohen" said, before it was deleted (for a second time)? I am curious if this is about the performance artist Liz Cohen or the autism author Liz Cohen (BBB AUTISM GUIDES: Strategies for Parents by Parents). -- Form990 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Socks 01 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Happy Birthday, Viridae!!
“It takes a long time to grow young.” -Oscar Wilde |
Ariel ♥ Gold 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a happy Birthday message to you, Viridae, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:05, 07 September 2007 (UTC)
Pat Politics rule! 12:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
...i'm new to this. yes, i, liz cohen, asked the question about banned users. thanks for the responses and support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.196.195 ( talk) 02:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Viridae. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
Blast him /
Follow his steps
20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I hadn't noticed it was you who protected. Makes sense, and fair enough. I wouldn't worry about it too much, though; only someone scratching the surface might not realise I think, really... Anyone taking a look at the history would see it's pretty obvious. Cheers. AllynJ ( talk | contribs) 07:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- Warthog Demon 20:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
On http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lolcat I recently added a link to http://lolcatz.net, a site which contains over a thousand categorized and searchable lolcats. However, you removed the link again. Would you care to tell me why?
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasse Houmøller ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet you don't mind having a link to http://www.macrocats.com which is inferior to the other sites linked. Could you elaborate on this logic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.2.209 ( talk) 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[3] - huh? -- Cat chi? 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well, that's what I get for subst-ing a template I've never used before. Harrumph. Don't you have a thesis you should be working on or something? :P Glass Cobra ( Review) 03:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I was just wondering if you still remembered me. You know, you were the first user I ever talked to. -- TimySmidge 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I did ask Fred Bauder on his talk page at the time, even though it upset the other parties of the case because they feared retribution from Fred Bauder. Fred Bauder's answer was that his vote in the AFD to Keep was perfectly appropriate as he thought the article by Rosencomet on himself should be kept. I guess what you are saying is that Arbitrators can do what they want and there is no recourse. -- Mattisse 13:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. You need not bother to answer as your talkpage is not on my watchlist. -- Mattisse 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right that the shortcut should be redirected. That said, in order to reduce confusion, Wp:ub and WP:ub should also be redirected.
See also [ this list of shortcuts]. - jc37 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Netmonger ( talk · contribs) has requested an unblock but since I have no idea how you came to the conclusion of sockpuppetry, I can't answer it. Can you either direct me to the evidence or checkuser or point the unblock request out to someone who does know what is going on? Viridae Talk 05:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
My summaries always refer to the vandalism itself, not the person committing it. Are they blunt? Yes. Are they true? Yes. Am I going to stop doing them because HIEV styles him/herself the edit summary police? No. If that gets me banned, more the worse for the project. I'm not going to be pushed around by HIEV on this one, though. K. Scott Bailey 21:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I am relatively certain that all concerned save one (the unnamed pettifogger) would have agreed that the AnI in question was a PRIME example of pettifoggery. Why remove it from my userpage as a "personal attack", when I left the pettifogger in question unnamed? K. Scott Bailey 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that he not only put it back, but now he's added a whole section on "Pettifoggery" too. This taunting is obviously directed at me and probably you as well. (sigh) -- Hi Ev 01:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
After blasting me on my page about a whole host of bullshit, you were totally wrong about this loser, per this edit. A much better admin, indefinitely blocked him. Get real dude. So, let's see, you accuse me of a whole host of nonsensical issues, and yet you fail to support a block of an anti-semitic pedophile. Hmmmmmm. What are we going to do here? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the comments I left at [ [4]]? Thanks. I doubt FM will be taking up any of my complaints. Tstrobaugh 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Heres a better one. Your recent edits have shown a clear lack of equality when warning people about civility. Who appointed you the arbitrator of civility? You warn all or you warn none. Since I noticed you and Crock share a common interest, I am hardly surprised by your actions. Stay off my talk page unless you have something relevant.
In addition to this, you have shown that you are willing to allow yourself to be manipulated by someone who is obviously canvassing for support (see above section). Get off your high horse. If you want to be the arbitrator of civility, lets use some common sense. Baegis 21:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What the heck? Why did you close my page? I said I might come back, you retard! God, why doesn't anyone ever pay attention? User:HyperSonicBoom 04:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting that talk page, and for the fast block of that name. I can't figure out how that name got by UAA since September, lol. What do you think of this edit, should that be removed? And this one? Thanks again for the lightning fast reflexes! Ariel ♥ Gold 05:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Is a virtue. Turtlescrubber 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
He seems to have been encouraged by your remark, and has reverted again, as well as his incivil remark on ANI. I'm taking a wiki break, you're welcome to his wonderful editing style. - Crockspot 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You have mail. - auburnpilot talk 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Viridae, I'm retired, but I am just dropping by to let you know that it may be a good idea to delete the talk page of FullOfRabies and KKK LLS. I am the only contributor of their talk pages, and I left to each of them because I was concerned their username may borderline with the username policy. But neither of them edited(the last I checked), and nor are blatant violations to warrent an immediate block at WP:UAA(correct me if I'm wrong).-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
you aren't exactly being sugar and spice yourself. If you calm down and cool the language I am sure you will get a better response.
Really. You actually believe that "cool[ing] the language" will have the slightest effect on someone who told me (pay attention now, it was right there on the page) "fuck off, you wikipedia nazi", who has a multiple block log demonstrating his impulse-control problems, and who has had a long-term history of looking for excuses to get me banned? You might just as well wish for that and a pony, too.
Speaking of which, I'm sending you a full copy of his latest message to me, via e-mail. Some redacted highlights:
Lemme know how that lollipops-and-rainbow philosophy works out for you. Meanwhile, a good dose of common sense would work out better here on Wikipedia instead of carrying water for trolls. --
Calton |
Talk
13:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you little user! Er... Chinzilla? Kawaii! bishzilla ROARR!! 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
And because my attention was drawn to it :) There is a reason my early edits looked a little advanced and you'll find it here. Equally I would now look on those early edits with great suspicion, indeed I have drawn attention to new editors for very similar reasons on other wikis. A new en wq editor created a template, suggested an IP was editing incorrectly, put the template on the IP page and reported it to the admin board - a "new" editor..... Hopefully you are ok with me now - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Viridae---I've got no problem with you deleting my draft because of a lack of references. I noted this deficiency in the dicussion page. So a question to a novice. What is the appropriate forum to work with drafts --- read not a final -- where the focus can be on content and not form? This seems especially crucial in an article that is contentious.
I looked at Vondort ( talk · contribs) and didn't find a single good-faith edit in over a year here. That is quite literally a vandalism-only account. — Wknight94 ( talk) 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you edited the Fellowship of Friends article in the past. There is an issue with Conflict of Interest (COI) at the moment and the article has been stubbed and protected and I thought that it would be nice if you could voice your opinion on the Talk page. If you are too busy, that's OK. Thank you in advance. Love-in-ark 05:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You give hope to Wikipedia's future. A crippling virus that disables the typing hands of a specific crew of about 40 admins is the only additional ingredient needed. - Applyabout 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You stated "It's rather a rock and a hard place being stuck between a self proclaimed "wikipedia investigator" who has shown herself to be rather vindictive at times and a banned user". Durova is acting in ways that benefit Wikipedia both here at this site and in real life lectures/columns (whether or not she is paid). Greg has bragged that he was paid to give a lecture on Wikipedia's COI policy and I believe he is trying to take out someone he sees as a commercial rival by harassing her until she leaves the market to him. Any "new" Wikipedian or IP harassing Durova with innuendo needs to be dealt with. Durova has a long history of helping Wikipedia. Greg has a long history at wikipedia of caring about nothing but money. I dealt with Greg from the time of his first announcement in online news about his wiki-business. I tried to find a way that he could usefully contribute. I fought for his right to create user subpages that other wikipedians could then do with as they saw fit. Greg repeatedly mis-characterized (in on-Wikipedia discussions) what Jimbo said (in on-Wikipedia discussions) until he had no more credibility and we were forced to exile him from Wikipedia. His word is worthless. He does not outright lie so far as I have seen, but he misrepresents and misleads and tells half-truths. I told him that I could no more believe him than I could believe Essjay. He seemed ok with that comparison. WAS 4.250 21:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
I see you have protected (albeit on an self admitted "wrong version") Wikipedia:Sock puppetry after commenting on the matter previously... [5]...and editng that page as well [6]...you also did this on WP:NPA...protecting that policy not long after now indefinitely banned editor Miltopia had edited it [7] on a version you had argued in favor of previously... [8]. I'll be offline most of this day, but will check back here later to see what your response it. I believe that anytime someone has been involved in an article or policy discussion or has edited said pages, they should ask a completely neutral party to protect pages via WP:RFPP.-- MONGO 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Viridae! I'm sorry, but I've had to revert your changes to Morelia spilota and Morelia spilota spilota. Allow me to explain. When the first new subspecies is added to a species, a subspecies for the original form is created automatically: the nominate subspecies. This name is used to distinguish between the original form and the new subspecies. Therefore, the convention here at Wikipedia is to use the species page, in this case Morelia spilota, to describe the nominate subspecies, M. s. spilota, which includes the characteristics common to all of the subspecies. Separate articles are created only for the subspecies that were described subsequently. Ideally, the subspecies articles should describe only how these forms differ from the nominate subspecies (in the main article), lest we start repeating (and contradicting) ourselves. (PS -- You can answer here if you like, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). -- Jwinius 12:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Compare this to Canis lupus, which is the ancestral species from which multiple species are recognised: [9]. Whereas the diamond does not have that ancestral status: [10]. Viridae Talk 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm Abbott75 from APS. I used to be a keen Wikipedian, but don't have too much time for it these days. Anyway, just thought I'd say hi, good luck with your pictures. Abbott75 ღ 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I permitted to add two more names to parties on that case you filed?-- MONGO ( talk) 06:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Viridae. How would you feel about adding the second MONGO RFC to the list of other steps in the dispute resolution process? The more I look at it, the more this looks like a continuation of the same sort of behaviour. Adding me as an involved party would extend the issue well beyond the NPA dispute.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted
here with explanation. I'm telling you about it because Tony seems not to have taken the seven-removals point of objection at
Tony's Oct 4 RFCU #4.
I don't know Grue. He joined the spoiler notice debate fairly recently.
User:Grue/howto subpage lines #4 and #7 have some charges that are probably too metaphorical to prove, but if he gathers proof or adequately softens them, his page would have improved chances of retention. His page does fairly reflect the substantial to outrageous abuses of process that the pro-spoiler editors have repeatedly faced over the past six months, such as
manufacturing consensus with circular reasoning (45,000 mass-removals by willfully uninvestigated misuse of AWB
[11]; WP:Owning the spoiler guide; deleting spoiler template additions by many more editors; then claiming that the template was unused as proof of consensus; and most recently getting the spoiler template deleted for supposed disuse). This was perpetrated by a group of six-some known as the spoiler police, of which Tony is the chief (see
User:Tony Sidaway/spoiler bot). The six month debate over this hijack of consensus and process has reached 1,850,000 bytes and is still growing at
WP:Talk Spoiler.
If you are not already aware, you may be unsurprised to learn that Phil Sandifer was the architect of the May 2007 mass-spoilers removal without wiki-wide advance consensus for a wiki-wide irreversible change.
In COI disclosure, Tony deleted one of my posts
Nov 5, Nydas reverted it, Marc Shepherd deleted it again, Nydas reverted it again, Farix took it to ANI, where Tony apologized, and I accepted his apology.
Milo
04:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
See here, and herefor all the List of Nairs discussions. I will say this once and want to make this absolutely clear. Now you can tell me there is biased edits and works Tn pillai 05:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Obviously a bit o a delicate situation going on there, so I would like to proceed and actually help people, rather than give the impression that there is some kind of cabal. I've requested an admin to unprotect the page for me, and I've already emailed Slimvirgin about her edits. When I tell people that wikipedia is an open system, and that we discuss things and share information and keep as little secrets as possible, please don't make a liar of me ^^;; -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm only just now noticing that it was you who banned me for a year from editing at Wikipedia. [12] We know how that turned out. ;) Just a couple of questions. Tell me, what exactly was your basis/justification for doing so? In hindsight, would you have made the same decision today that you made then? If not, then why not? deeceevoice ( talk) 15:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's good you recognize and admit your appalling lapse in judgment. You're absolutely right it shouldn't have happened: a one-year ban for nothing -- and nothing said in the way of even a reprimand to the offending party at all. But, of course, he's an admin. Your apology might have meant something had it come earlier -- and had I not come to your talk page with this question first. Is it any wonder there is so little respect or regard for admins on the site? No hard feelings, Viridae, but just damn. deeceevoice ( talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It had already turned into a "drama fest" with me having been unjustly banned from Afrocentric. You just smacked me with a year's suspension and then left others to sort it out? Nice. I'm done here. deeceevoice ( talk) 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Cberlet just reverted your revert of Brandt's statement on Doc's user talk page. Cla68 ( talk) 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I have seen enough...you are editing protected pages and now aiding banned editors...enough. Please stop misusing your admin position.-- MONGO ( talk) 04:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
My rational for reverting that was quite clear, it was very obvious that Doc was conversing with Brandt on the subject of BLP, and therefore it should be up to him (Doc not Daniel) to remove the post. People with BLP issues need to have some method of communicating with admins, and as that is the route Brandt chose, and Doc had not removed the post, but had instead carried on the conversation, it was up to Doc and Doc only to remove the post when he felt the issue had been dealt with. Viridae Talk 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
<<<<<An anyone can edit venue necessarily forces judgements to be based on content rather than authorship. Wikipedia is based on that. Deleting content based on who said it is unworkable and only causes problems. It has become a major source of disruption at wikipedia that outweighs any good it might theoretically do. Face it, the enemy has adopted and is using your strategy against you. Blindly following rules, instead of doing whatever is best for wikipedia, allows the enemy to out-strategize you because the enemy can know in advance the response of our side. The solution is IAR. It's there for a reason. Use it. And your mind. Mindless obedience to rules is a losing strategy. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't watchlist Viridae's talk page so I was surprised today to see the discussion that took place a week ago. Cautious about igniting further drama, I e-mailed him. He invited me to say a few words here. He made the right call in full protecting my user talk for one hour. There was a serious problem there and his solution worked. Things have become far too polarized. Let's remember we're doing our best here and try to come together. Durova Charge! 02:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I went back to that page that had that article that was talking about bad admins and someone asked me for the stuff that shows what I was talking about and I went to go get it and I started copying it and I went back and the discussion was not editable anymore... All I did was say I would go and get it, i didnt mean to break it. If they just read that stuff they could see. But it says don't edit anymore... I'm sooo sorry Benjamin Kenobe ( talk) 06:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Protection is inappropriate. Please undo. Tony has made a single reversion. The other parties have had amicable discussions on the talk page. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 00:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you reverted my edit; without bothering to give an explanation. I am not a party to that dispute and I do not want to be dragged into that dispute. I do not know what the dispute is about, nor do I want to know.
Please look at the log and you'll see for yourself that I'm not a party to that dispute. Itzse ( talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Good move. That discussion was going nowhere. - auburnpilot talk 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Viridae, would you mind investigating the AfD above please? There's a user removing tags and other people's comments from the AfD, and I've been reverting them; but I'm afraid that blocking them, if it came to a block, would be abuse of the admin tools on my part. I've warned the user, however, and they did create an attack page against another user. Can you please take a look? Thanks?
Acalamari
22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I addressed your concerns but a bot wiped them out to the archive. And see User talk:Nakon. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR echo 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
How is the 3rr block relevant? Unless the reverts were made by abusing a rollback script or undo or something, I don't se how you can loically use it as a reason to deny rollback. This isn't adminship and it carries no weight with it. John Reaves 07:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm totally confused. Why did you think this user had need of a user right that enables them to revert vandalism more speedily? WjB scribe 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you have edited my userspace. If you are not aware, me and admin User:El C has a gentleman agreement to keep the header as long as there is no racist implication (note that political statement is allowed). [ [13]] [ [14]]. admin User:Nlu also supports the presence of the header [ [15]] [ [16]]. While admin User:Jiang himself have offensive content on his userpage and talkpage targeting Taiwanese and Dalai Lama. (he used to have a picture of Taiwan=shame on his talkpage) I am going to assume good faith here, but please refrain from editing my userspace in the future. Thank you-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 05:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[17] see the image titled Taiwan=shame and on User:Jiang spreading Chinese expanionist propaganda and defaming Dalai Lama, Buddhism, and Tibet. Tell me if there is a parallel between Taiwan=shame and China=shame-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 04:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
copy from my talkpage...No I don’t know it. It’s not offensive at all. The supposedly offensive content was already removed after a lengthy discussion with El C (I already supplied with diff). There is absolutely nothing offensive about the China=shame header. Back In March, you actively patronized Ideogram in the past while deliberately persecuting me. Btw, Sumple is the main account of Palace (an abusive sock) who brought the issue to AN/I. He is Ideogram’s ally in the arbcom case. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 04:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm merely pointing out the fact that just because Jiang is an admin while I'm a powerless editor doesnt mean you can bully me about my userpage while turning a blind eye on Jiang.--
Certified.Gangsta (
talk)
04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Viridae. There is a risk that you will be thought to have misused the admin tools by reverting to your preferred version and then protecting that version. It doesn't seem a good idea to do that, especially when WP:DR and WP:RfC are still available; and especially especially when the consensus on the page as discussed at ANI isn't clear.
Please would you reverse yourself here? Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 08:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted to the preferred version because I was removing the offending comment. The protection was instated because CG had been taken to task about that several times and had always refused to remove it. Viridae Talk 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what all is going on, so I figured I'd just unprotect the page for the time being so that people quit shouting "admin abuse" and all that nonsense. If you want, I can re-add it, but I figure that if someone keeps adding the controversial comments/headers/whatever, we can just take it to WP:MFD and the issue will be over. :P Anyway, cheers =) -- slakr\ talk / 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Taking it to MFD would be more userspace harassment and Wikipedia:LAME. Admin abuse ain't no nonsense, it's real. The issue is far from over. Did you guys learn anything from this Wikipedia_talk:User_page/UI_spoofing? Maybe admins should be more concerned about the quality of articles instead of wasting time messing with userpages of established editors and accusing them of malicious intent.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 20:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Viridae. I have removed a claim you have made from the the above discussion. While I am sure it was not malicious, we should not make claims of such a nature anywhere unless it is reliabably sourced and even then we should be careful. Note, there has not been confirmation that he himself has been charged with anything. As the person is a minor, his name may be not be released throughout the trial process and beyond. Once again, I sure it was not malicious but we need to be careful. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[18] Lawrence Cohen 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks for rollback. cheers, Pete.Hurd ( talk) 04:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Palace Guard is a sockpuppet and you know it. Your revert seem very personal to me.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you understand why I’m pissed off? The stake is high here. Please restore the sockpuppet tag and stop accusing me of disruption-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 03:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and for letting me know - otherwise I might still be stuck on AN/I arguing with the air. This episode was a pretty valuable lesson for me - will do my best to keep out of C.G's way from now on. Thanks again, -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 06:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
be back monday Viridae Talk 06:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've unprotected WP:CON has both edit warring parties have agreed to behave appropriately. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure! If you're uploading to Commons, the category is Category:Vicugna pacos. Van Tucky 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, While I understand that canvasing is generally frowned upon, could you please explain why you deleted another editor's comments from my talk page? Thanks Hobit ( talk) 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes thank you. The user above you pointed that out as well. I've corrected it. JoshuaZ ( talk) 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You might have a point, but Guy doesn't need this [19] given his present situation. It can wait for later, or if you think it pressing then bring it to ANI for review. Thanks. - Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, query for you here. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.-- MONGO 19:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Viridae,
Of course my talk page can be a redirect, if I want it to be. I'm trying to avoid working on WP, because I need to work on my dissertation. I'm currently discussing one little issue regarding a map of Tibet, but I hope to drop out of sight after that. Thanks for your concern.. but I'm gonna change it back to a redirect. :-) Please don't revert me wishes about my own talk page. Thanks! Ling.Nut ( talk) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Well, first I'm gonna ask you to cite me the rule somewhere which says that's true, just so I'll have it for future rreference.. and then, regrettably, I'm gonna WP:IAR. But please do cite the rule first. Ling.Nut ( talk) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Please proceed to ANI, if you so desire.. But get replies from experienced admins rather than over-zealous newbies, OK? Thanks! Ling.Nut ( talk) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be overruling the consensus of three admins and a couple of other editors. -- Shelborne Concierge ( talk) 14:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been busy working on further evidence for the Samiharris/Mantanmoreland issue. Since you were interested in examining the evidence (and less focusing on the personality involved), could you take a look at The evidence I'm compiling to support a possible WP:DUCK test match and comment? SirFozzie ( talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for interjecting a bit of levity into the situation, to wit: random accusations of restaurant impropriety. It was much appreciated. -- SSB ohio 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to give JzG a chance to correct his mistake, but thanks. Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has the balls to close another DRV as trolling, I'm gonna give them a cookie. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Viridae. I noticed that you and Tony had a mini-discussion about biting of newbie academics in that ANI thread about Guy's blocks. So I thought you might be interested in the response I got from one of the blocked users (since unblocked). See here. Also see here. From that incident, I'm hopeful that three or four academics may hang around and become productive users. Of course, they might have done so anyway, and some might never have done so anyway. But I do feel strangely pleased at what I see as a really rather positive outcome. Even if some are too busy at the moment to contribute, they may do so in the future. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I started drafting an RfC on JzG here if you'd like to participate. Cla68 ( talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Might I ask if you had any other reasons for deleting User:HANDSOME RUDY apart from NOTMYSPACE? After a review of the deleted edits, I don't believe the deletion was covered under any of the speedy deletion criteria, and NOTMYSPACE is not a reason for speedy deletion. Can you please clarify? Acalamari 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have come across your name many, many times and you seem to be a fair guy who knows a lot about policy here, so I am intruding on your time to ask a question. Answer if you'd like, whenever you have the time. If I file a complaint at AN/I about user:whoever (made up name) is it then appropriate for user:whoever to mark the issue as resolved her/himself? Wouldn't that be a bad thing to do, or is anyone allowed to mark an issue resolved if they feel the issue has, in face, been resolved? I appreciate any answer you can give me. Thanks! 24.220.220.117 ( talk) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure of how to do much here, but the case is on the administrators incident board, it is in archive 365 titled "incivility User:Calton" I do know how to show diffs, so here is the diff showing that he was the one who marked it as resolved after the person who brought the complaint was blocked. [20] To be totally honest, the reason I have seen your name many, many times is because I have been one of Calton's targets in the past and you have also been involved in some of his conflicts, so I will understand if you don't want to get involved here. I just wanted to know if it was something a little fishy, and if so then I can just file the diff away. Thanks alot for answering the first question, and thanks for any additional help. 24.220.220.117 ( talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to shorten the protection as you see fit. To me it wasn't so much the amount of vandalism, but the fact that almost all of the edits in the last month have either been vandalism or reverts of vandalism, and also the vandalism was not blatant, and could possibly be hard to detect or take some time to notice. But like I said, if you feel that the protection is unwarranted than feel free to undo my edit. Cheers! – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's reasonably clear that guy isn't interested in interacting with you, regardless of the civility of the question (or the level agreement between the two of you.) It seems that you should both do everything reasonably possible to avoid eachother. PouponOnToast ( talk) 21:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I won't be contacting him over that paticular matter any more as heis behaviour doesn't warrant my time. Viridae Talk 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I frankly don't care who questions my motives (frankly there are certain people who will question them whatever I do because I post to a BADSITE (OMGZ KILL THE UNBELIEVER STALKER ADMINZ)) - for those whose vision isn't obscured by such matters, it will be quite clear that all I am doing is conducting day to day business on wikipedia in a sane and civil manner - i don't really care that guy is having a hissy fit every time I post on his talk page - its him that is causing the problems, not me. On the occasions that I feel it is necessary to post on his talk page I will do so - but i hardly do so lightly and will always endeavour to do so civilly. Viridae Talk 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The kind of behaviour that you, Viridae, are displaying would have been more than enough to have sunk any RfA. Do you really believe that it's appropriate for you to hold regular editors to higher standards of behaviour than you hold yourself? Should administrators not rather be setting some kind of a good example to the plebs? The question is, of course rhetorical, as the answer is very plain to see. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)