Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I put Image:Gaussian-pdf.png up for WP:IFD since I obsoleted it with Image:Normal distribtion pdf.png. Cburnett 03:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks--you caught the mis-spelling before I did--must have been within seconds. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi, your bot was vandalazing contents of the aspartame table, changing [NH3+][C@@H](CC([O-])=O)C(N[C@@H](CC1=CC=CC=C1)C(OC)=O)=O into [NH3+][C@@H](CC([O-])=O)C(N[C@@H](CC1=CC=CC=C1)C(OC)="O)="O. Cacycle 23:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Guanabot created a bit of havoc on the page nn:Eple -- please review its user discussion page on Nynorsk Wikipedia (esp. concerning the skanwiki section, which Guanabot emptied) and after-edits on the article nn:Eple before continuing any work on nn:. Also, please provide a link from Guanabot on nn: to a user page (like, e.g., this one) where you can be reached if other problems arise. Thanks :-) -- Olve 03:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Guanaco, for your confidence in me. Your support vote on my adminship nomination is appreciated. — mark ✎ 22:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Evening. I noticed from User:Mike Garcia's userpage that you were one of two users to whom he was entrusted as attempts were made to rehabilitate him into the community following his ban. As this is so, and as he constitutes an exception to normal procedure I thought I should alert you first that in the past week the AMA has received two requests for assistance regarding him: the first regarding the Ned's Atomic Dustbin page, and the second regarding the a pair of System of a Down albums. I referred the user to you regarding the former case, with the hope that you might be able to intervene and settle the matter such that dispute resolution was not necessary. I will do the same for the latter; however, if another request for assistance comes in I'll have to ask for an injunction from the ArbCom. Please get back to me as soon as possible on this matter. Wally 23:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Garcia appears to be making trouble yet again, this time on the page for Mezmerize, where he is presently on a temporary ban for violating the three-revert rule in an edit war with an anonymous user over chart positions of that album (the anonymous user is also on a temporary ban for violating the 3RR rule as well). Garcia's position appears to be that the only valid source for chart info is allmusic.com, where you need to be a member to see that information (so nobody else can check its validity). The other user was posting information taken directly from billboard.com (where current charts, or at least the top portions thereof, can be viewed without being a subscriber). I know of no Wikipedia rule that says that allmusic.com is the only official source, but Garcia is acting like such a rule exists, and carrying on in a highly obnoxious and arrogant manner against all who take opposing views. I have to say that the experiment of rehabilitating Mr. Garcia seems to have failed, and a lifetime ban may be in order. *Dan* 15:19, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Just reverted your edit to Fictional Character & wanted to explain why. Any person in a fictional work acts as a fictional character, even if they are a real person (see the talk page for a previous discussion of this). I also reverted "any person in one or more works of fiction" to "any person in a work of fiction" since they mean the same thing and the second is more crisp. As a general rule, I try to avoid putting too many technicalities into the openings of articles as they can lead to sentences growing out of control (imagine: A fictional character any person, animal, robot, or other conscious entity existing in a play, story, poem, movie or other work of fiction...). Anyway, I forgot to put this in the edit summary and wanted to explain! Tom
I'm cleaning out Wikipedia:Cleanup/Leftovers, and I noticed a few articles that transclude this page. I'm changing it to make the nature of the factual dispute clearer, as I understand it. If you can shed any light on these three pages or know if they can be declared resolved, any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Beland 20:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Howdy, Topbanana here, back after an extended absence. I've decided to round up a few of my more useful reports into a project with the goal of converting as many "red links" (links to non-existant articles) into "blue links" (links to real articles). As you've been active in fixing similar things in the past, I thought I'd let you know in case you're interested in joining up. If not, I won't be offended - we've all got lots todo here :) - TB 11:37, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Hi - About a year ago (!) you did some stuff with the first image in the Monty Hall problem article. I nominated the article for FAC status and along the way swapped out an image used later in the article for two images based on the one you tweaked. Can I talk you into looking at the two new images and tweaking them in similar fashion? In particular, I couldn't figure out how to preserve the transparency with the image editor I was using (and one of them should probably be cropped a bit as well). The article made it to featured status without this, but I'd appreciate it if you could do this. Thanks -- Rick Block (talk) July 8, 2005 04:19 (UTC)
I saw your name on the WikiProject Pokédex rollcall. The Pokémon Adoption Center is improving, expanding, cleaning up, and reorganizing the Pokémon-related articles, and I wanted to invite you back to help. Some of the Pokémon species stubs still need to be adopted, and we're still building consensus on how to structure tools like categories and lists, designing new infoboxes, and writing a new Pokémon article style guide. If you're interested, take a look at our new Wikiportal, and come and contribute to the discussion at WP:PAC. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back. If you need any assistance bringing your bot into active status, please let me know. If your bot is inactive, please move your bot into the correct section at Wikipedia:Bots. Thanks! --AllyUnion (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I, V. Molotov, hereby give you this barnstar for being bold!
A proposal has been made at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move TLAs from AAA to DZZ and other related pages to Wikipedia namespace. Please visit Talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ for the related discussion. -- Francs2000 | http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit§ion=new Talk 00:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
Please notice the above project. As a wikipedian interested in physics, you might be especially interested in List of publications in physics
I’ll appreciate any help. Thank, APH 09:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with the way Mike Garcia has been acting lately, and I'm afraid your mentorship hasn't been sufficient to stop the less than pleasant parts of his behaviour. I've requested arbitration on him here, your views on the matter would be welcomed. --fvw* 01:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Your bot just put Thomas Bushell in Category:Executed murderers, but he was not a murderer. It was no big deal to fix, but I thought I'd give you this feedback so you can improve it if you want to. Snottygobble | Talk 04:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to tell you that it may be polite/nice/adviseable to outline your changes in the discussion pages. It's not immediately obvious that you've moved article information to new articles and some people may interpret your mass removal of information to be threatening. Especially the guys I'm currently debating with in the talk section. I don't disagree with the edits you've made, but fill everyone else in on the method to the madness. Thanks. --Waterspyder 22:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Prompt attention beyond the call of duty! Huzzah for you!! Zora 01:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This template is a bit large, so can you it smaller. First try to make it span the whole page legnth so it doesn't seem so intrusive. Other than that, I like it, Wikipedia is losing credibility to vandal crap, so its about time we stiffen up a little. I already follow a two stikes vandal rule. You might be interested in the George Bush talk page; we are deciding what to do about it incessent vandalism. Thank you.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately your nomination for adminship was not successful. Wikipedia uses UTC, so it has now expired. I hope that you will consider standing again in future and will continue your excellent contributions to Wikipedia. Warofdreams talk 01:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a few reasons why I removed the WoW image from the WoW pages, some of which I believe that other people would tend to agree with:
I feel these reasons stand well enough...what do you think? Adam Rock 18:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:16
:) Exploding Boy 17:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I have tried to eat shellfish when I was a kid, but that was enough to put me off them for life. I do enjoy battered squid rings however. - (Aidan Work 02:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC))
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
No way, homosexuality is far more abominable than eating battered squid rings.The Book of Leviticus says,'Man shalt not lieth with mankind as with womankind,for that is an abomination.Whoever does so shall be put to death'. - (Aidan Work 04:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC))
My change forces jumping to old revisions? Only if you're viewing the old revision. If you're viewing the current revision, it should jump to the current version. The current revision ID of this Talk page is 1160103802. (SEWilco 15:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC))
Your change sometimes caused it to jump to old revisions from the current version of Westboro Baptist Church. I'm going to test it some more in my sandbox and try to find the cause of the problem. Your change should work properly. Guanaco 15:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Template talk:Islam-stub AnonMoos 17:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Guanaco,
I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 02:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Image updated and upgraded. --tomf688{talk} 05:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The photo was released by the Twitty family for purposes of publicity. The previously-used license template may have misstated the realm of public domain (See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/August 2005#Template:PD-awio) but I believe this would still be covered, as with other publicity photos, by the doctrine of fair use. --Dystopos 17:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that both of the entries being debated were placed there by you. Perhaps I should have discussed things with you before taking action, but the realization came late. I hope you will not mind too much the comments I made regarding singling out such editors. I think we can all carry on our work as well, if not better, without roiling the waters needlessly. Have a great New Years'! Haiduc 15:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The redirect that you created from McPaper is listed under redirects for deletion. Please vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#December_29 here--Akako|☎ 20:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Why do you want it changed? You don't even use it. Please discuss it on the talk page or bring it up for deletion if you have a problem with it. It's the older of the two and more people use it. --Elliskev 02:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hola Guanaco:
Felices fiestas de final de año. Le envío este mensaje debido a que el bot Guanabot, ha hecho tres contribuciones insatisfactorias en la Wikipedia en español (es.wikipedia), teniendo un pequeño bug en su ejecución, colocando un especio en blanco en los paréntesis (), generando una enlace como sigue:
es.wikipedia.org Wikipedia en español
(español)
Además notamos que no poseía un flag autorizado en nuestra wikipedia.
Esperamos su pronta respuesta. Saludos
Superzerocool 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (sysop en es.)
Hi Guanaco! Thanks for changing my userpage to alter an image from one format to another (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Redvers&curid=1253507&diff=33278557&oldid=32774335 this diff). You didn't say why in your edit summary, or mention it on my talk page. Either would have been common courtesy. I'm not offended at all, but I'd be interested in the reasoning for the change. Would you let me know? Thanks! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your Guanabot changed the flag image on User:Hyacinth's page from PNG to SVG. I don't think it's appropriate for a bot to make edits like this to user pages, even if this is a relatively neutral change.
Also I think that the technical motivation behind these changes is questionable. PNG is an older and better-supported format than SVG, and the flag image has no curves that would render better when scaled in SVG. I say keep PNG for this image. NTK 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi! After participating in some discussion about userboxes, I've decided to create a userbox specifically for people who are interested in LGBT issues. I like this userbox a lot because it doesn't force people to take a stand on LGBT-related political issues or declare a particular identity, but just expresses a common interest in editing LGBT-related articles on Wikipedia. I saw your name on the list of people who are interested in this kind of thing at the LGBT notice board, and saw when I visited your userpage that you are pretty comfortable with userboxes, so I thought I'd let you know about this one in case you want to list it on your user page. I am hoping that people will see it, click the link to the notice board, and become more involved in editing LGBT-related articles on Wikipedia. The userbox is at Template:User LGBT interest. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Much improvement over that ugly huge box that used to be on the GW Bush article. Thanks for being bold and just implementing it. Shanes 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering where do I put requests for your bot to do stuff at? Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 08:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I'm Redwolf24 and I'll be the first to welcome you to the medcom :)
I have to rearrange some of the cases now cause of the overflow, but when I'm done you can pick from the available cases. Or I can assign you one, as I normally do to the first available mediator.
Add yourself to the mailing list at WP:ML and Improv or I or Anthere will confirm you.
Hi Guanaco. Thanks for your even-handed and sensible moderation at the NAMBLA page. It's very much appreciated. Cheers Natgoo 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did you change the infobox pope layout to one that has a consensus behind it to one that has none? I've reverted. The page is the way it is because there is an overwhelming consensus to have that information, in that order and structure. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if 68.102.184.79 is actually your bot not signed in. The edits appear very similar. If sometimes editing while signed out is a bug that you can't figure out how to fix (I've seen this happen), perhaps you should add your name to the edit summary. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:41, Jan. 23, 2006
Hi. I have reverted your edit on template:Infobox President. There is no buggy html on the html produced by MediaWiki because we use HTML Tidy which strips illeagal attributes like classXXX from the html (please have a look at the actually produced html source). Actually it is much better to have only "hiddenStructure" instead of random class names like "hiddenStructureThe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" (or whatever). Please also have a look on the doc at User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/Conditional expressions with CSS. Thank you for your careful consideration. There is also a discussion of that CSS hack at MediaWiki talk:Common.css and WP:AUM (warning: long stuff). --Adrian Buehlmann 09:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello. We are wondering why you removed three Bisexual organizations from the Category "LGBT organizations"?
While we are aware that the inclusion of bisexual people in the queer community is a delicate (& to some controversial subject) we are not sure why their should be a problem with including them in their own community. However, the same three organizations were also removed from the Category "Bisexual community".
We are actually trying to build that Category up into a robust and useful one. We know we are new to Wikipedia, but we are truly confused about this. Are we violating a rule we are not aware of here?
Thank you CyntWorkStuff 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&action=purge#phpBB_entry_dispute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.30.121.23 (talk • contribs)
Hey, you just removed my last line of defense against ceaseless, silly arguments on Wikipedia! -- Simonides 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Guanaco, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.
Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to Wikipedia:Blocking policy with the following summary: "rv - The trolling poll doesn't reflect current opinions". Two queries. First of all, could you explain why you feel that this does not reflect current consensus? Secondly, what do you think does? Has it been superceded by a second poll? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright.. this is long and sordid, and generally involves Cantus (talk · contribs) being weird. Some time ago he uploaded Image:Lock-icon.jpg under the GFDL. It got deleted when it was moved to commons (see the deletion entries http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Image%3ALock-icon.jpg here). It seems it was commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Image%3ALock-icon.jpg deleted from commons as a copyright violation (Cantus, a short while ago, was going around claiming it wasn't a GFDL image (see Template talk:Protected#Change_icon). He's never offered up any explanation for this. Please don't encourage his activities by helping him along... I have reverted your edit to Image:Lock-icon.png, and also reverted Image:Lock-icon.jpg. He can't upload something as GFDL and then change his mind (unless he's saying he lied originally, and in that case, I think a block is in order for deceiving us in the first place). </rant> —Locke Cole • t • c 06:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the hard work on being a recent changes patroller. I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coroner&diff=38718652&oldid=38718613 my edits to the article were mistaken as vandalism. I was merely changing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28China-related_articles%29#Characters Chinese characters to Unicode. 199.111.230.195 04:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Rainbow_Monkey.png. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You have returned from the green room. By now I guess you know what to do, and what not. ;-) -- Cecropia 05:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, welcome back, and all the best. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As your nominator, let me be the first to say congrats on your adminship! Now, go get some champagne! Essjay Talk • Contact 05:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if you have any insight on how technically to deal with something. I think semi-protection should be used massively more than it is; but that's probably not going to happen. Anyway, I mentioned this certain vandal that I seem to have attracted to my talk page via maintaining the Ward Churchill page. The thing that was most troublesome about the vandalism is that this person (under ever changing usernames, but often related names along the lines of "fighterforfreedom") would blank the page and replace it with, e.g. 14,000 copies of a picture of Bush.
The result, unfortunately, of this change is that I can never seem to load the diff to see specifically what the change is, presumably because the WP server times out before sending all that graphic data. Some other editors rolled back the vandalism of this type to my user page or user talk page, but I don't know if they had actually seen the diff, or just assumed the worst. The thing is that I can view the diff: "Vandal->Reversion" (because the page itself, below the diff, is reasonable); I just can't view the diff: "Good->Vandal".
I just found an example of the same thing on the Churchill page. A user, "Mr.trezon" (but it'll be a different name next time), made this change, with the edit history comment like "minor spelling fix" or something innocuous seeming. I simply could not load the diff to see if it really was a proper change or if it was vandalism. As it happened, the same username had made a comment on the talk page that made me fairly sure (overtly claiming to praise Churchill, but obviously meant sarcastically). So I rolled back to the last version, but with less than perfect confidence I was reverting an actual vandal. Once I made the reversion, I could look at the prior diff, which proved my guess correct. But I don't like reverting blindly.
Any thoughts? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Any user whose name closely resembles "Mr. Treason" should be blocked on sight, and all the user's edits should be reverted. Mr. Treason is banned. —Guanaco 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
What, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&curid=3414021&diff=39235363&oldid=39235297 you don't think that he's the hottest man alive? ;D – ClockworkSoul 19:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help reverting adspam in the External Links section of the article Digital Signage. It's nice to know that I am not alone when dealing with this anonymous IP (who has some snappy things to say, mind you) Kareeser|Talk! 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I was really losing faith in both the dispute resolution process and wikipedia as a whole. I feel like hopefully I can put this behind me and go back to making actual contributions. Thanks again. McNeight 22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guanaco, I noticed you changed Template:test et al to use {{qif}}. This was discussed recently on Template talk:test and there were good arguments against it based on new users seeing "qif" on their talk page. Did you see that discussion? —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-11 23:37Z
For some reason everything but the sections I was editing were deleted when I saved. (gay) 24.224.153.40 18:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Why did you blank User talk:64.66.99.69? tv316 21:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I would expect that you would be aware that removing tfd notices out of process is a pretty extreme offense no matter how ridiculous the nomination was. Please don't do it again. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
How do you know this is a Mike Garcia account? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You originally indef blocked this as 203.186.238.0/24 for Squidward vandalism, I narrowed it down later to 203.186.238.128/25. However, it appears to be a Hong Kong ISP (see User talk:Rayleung2709).
I've reset the range block to expire in under 40 hours. The reason is because it seems to affect at least one genuine user, but also because each such address was only used to make one vandalism edit (or in a couple of cases two or three), whereas the open proxy IPs each made numerous vandalism edits... so even though numerically almost half the Squidward vandal IP addresses were in the 203.186.238.128/25 range, a much smaller fraction of the total vandalism edits (less than 10%) were made from this range. It would be nice to contact the ISP to ask them to warn their client (or secure their IPs against outside abuse), but I'd prefer to leave that up to someone who could actually speak in the name of Wikipedia, so I asked David Gerard if he wanted to get involved with that (I'm not sure if he does). -- Curps 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
CSD T1 was established by Jimbo Wales, and re-established by him when someone removed it. It's not for negotiation, and certainly isn't for removal. -Splashtalk 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Although I disagree with the speedy delete of that (and pretty much any) userbox, I want to know if what you did actually removed the article as a canditate for deletion or if it only removed the notice. If the latter is true, it should be reverted so that people know it is up for speedy deletion. I don't really know how it works, so if you do, can you tell me? Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It only works if the origional block was to "64.12.0.0/16", otherwise you'll have to unblock each ip by hand--205.188.116.11 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
(IP list blanked —Guanaco 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC))
not to mention, if you're not using a bot, and are actually doing it by hand, that would be pretty tedious--205.188.116.11 23:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. The rollback button is reserved for vandalism. I contest strongly that tagging that template T1 is vandalism. What are you doing? Mackensen (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring so many of the templates. You're one of the good admins. Kudos. Эйрон Кинни 22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you are one of the few ppl here that still respect the process. Could you take a look at the Deletion Review Page? Mark Sweep has unilaterally declared all GWB templates deleted and has blanked the discussion at DRV. He then proceeded to threaten all the users trying to revert him with blocking. I put this up at WP:ANB, but in their blind rage against userboxes they have ignored the principals of consensus and debate that wikipedia depends on and let his actions stand.--God of War 23:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks for giving it a try, anyway. -Seth Mahoney 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you are the one who uploaded the Food Not Bombs logo into the encyclopedia and it is labeled as copywrited. About a month ago Doc deleted the picture from a subseted userbox I made, which is understandable (unlike most of the admin userbox deletions going on now) since I didn't have any idea about the problem with policy at the time. Basically, I'm wondering why it is copywrited because I seriously doubt that logo would be copywrited (just look at what FNB stands for and does). Could you help me understand why you labled it as copywrite, and if there is a way to make sure it really is. Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 08:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I just want to tell you how much I appreciate your work in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates.
We need more of your kind!
Keep up the good work! --UVnet 15:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Good move. Now if some other admin indeed deletes it, I'll have a good fun seeing it go through WP:DRV. Lol! Thank you! Misza13 (Talk) 23:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Guanaco, User:Guanaco/Undeleted userbox watchlist is appearing in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Please review your page and any pages transcluded within it to remove what ever is listing it here to avoid confusion or accidental deletion. If you want this page deleted by someone else please blank it and put a CSD tempalte on it. Thanks, xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm amazed, Guanaco. I'd taken you on your word that you'd genuinely changed after the antics you pulled the first time around. I guess I was wrong to assume good faith, and to assume that you wouldn't just start the same old crap again within days of being re-sysopped. I guess it's time to rinse and repeat. Ambi 07:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw that you have reverted Template:User Jain. Can you revert the rest of the religion templates? --208.59.132.30 23:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (I am DotShell)
Just letting you know that the IP was TPGs proxy at (203.26.24.212 name = proxy2.tpgi.com.au). Probably going to cause a headache for a lot of TPG users. If you can unblock the IP, that would be good. Alex Law 05:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If you propose that an article be deleted, why don't you include a notice at the top of the article that has a link to the article's entry??? Michael Hardy 22:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I see that although you included the proposal for deletion at the top of omphalology, you did not actually list it among pages proposed for deletion. Therefore no one can vote on it. Consequently I removed your notice from the article. Michael Hardy 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
still doesn't work, you can't unblock like that unless the origional block was in the same form--205.188.116.11 05:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems Cyde deleted a userbox from my page and then hid the revisions from me. Just because a userbox was deleted in template space doesn't mean it can be deleted in user space. Can you please fix this for me? Link is User:God_of_War/Warboxen
User:Aim Here is vandalizing the article again, page blanking, and removal of content. Warned already multiple times. Waya sahoni 08:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I am going to block any account that makes legal threats similar to those made by Jeff Merkey. I will also block any accounts created to stalk other users or that violate 3RR. —Guanaco 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
User is attempting to expose another use to danger, social, and /or political attacks by falsely associating them with the subject of the article and attempting to reveal them. Also is a personal attack. Blatant WP:NPA. I have reverted once. Before I revert again, can you handle this one, or should I? Thanks. They are placing the content in the tag at the top of the page. SCOX traffic at Yahoo shows they are conducting most of their talking via instant messegner and not the talk pages of this site to coordinate their stalking and attacks. Waya sahoni 06:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Vryl is disregarding the discussion on this page and revert warring and vandalizing the talk page by removing project tags. I have warned him once and asked nicely once to stop -- he is ignoring the warnings. Probably SCOX role account Waya sahoni 06:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You are a strange fish, Jeff. What was with this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&oldid=41295696 Why isn't that vandalism? You pulled down all the embarrassing stuff about yourself, trashed the article, and put it unverified, flattering stuff. But you are not Jeff. Yeah, riiiiggght...
Vryl 07:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
See my page for definitve proof that Waya Sahoni is indeed Jeff Vernon Merkey. So, I am not "falsely associating" Jeff with Waya Sahoni. The term would be "correctly associating". So, what is the status of this blatant sock-puppeteering banned user? If he was banned as Gadugi, shouldn't he be banned as Waya Sahoni?
As for false allegations, Jeff, what the hell is the nonsense about Instant Messanger? Which "SCOX Traffic" shows this? Also, what the hell is a "SCOX Role Account". You keep saying that like it means something.
People interested in The SCO Group have a legitimate interest in the Jeff Merkey page on Wikipedia, as Jeff at various times inveigled himself into that dispute. They have a legitimate interest in seeing that it remains true to the facts and encyclopedic. Keeping an eye on that page cannot be equated with stalking or cyberstalking Jeff.
Vryl 11:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to see User:Waya sahoni has managed to get someone blocked for stalking. I am afraid that User:Why you so hawny? is correct that User:Waya sahoni is a sockpuppet of Gadugi (talk · contribs · email), although I do not approve of the way WYSH is going about it. Perhaps his chosen nom-de-guerre is childish, but I do advise you to review Waya's contributions, compare these to Gadugi's, and draw your own conclusions. Especially because makeing baseless accusations is Gadugi's specialization.
All WYSH did was revert a known sockpuppets edits, which is something I will also do, on sight. Also note that Waya sahoni went way beyond 3RR to keep his non-consensus version of the LKML article going, and WYSH was not the only opposing editor in that revert war. --MJ(☎|@|C) 16:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
Since I didn't say so explicitly, on your restored mop. You should write an essay on the last 18 months... +sj + 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That was a stroke of genius, and it made me chuckle a little. Thanks! -Seth Mahoney 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!!!--SMP - talk page (en) - talk page (ca) 13:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
His new name is inappropriate. What a joke, I am still hurting from my sides laughing so hard when I saw it. He is back to his old tricks of stalking and user page vandalism and harassment. Waya sahoni 16:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I have several responses to this dialogue. The way I understand Guanaco's statements, he wants you to locate inappropriate edits made by me, Waya sahoni, not Jeff or Gadugi. In response to his requests, I see the normal banter proffered by this group of "editors" and I use the term loosely, personal attacks, sockpuppetry accusations, and SCOX style message board dialogue. I see no discussion of an intellectual nature relative to why that article should not be restructered, why it does or does not meet the appropriate standards -- only meaningless chatter. You need to provide the requested content. I am also sick and tired of being accussed of being Jeff. Please stop it now.
Also, here are the proposed changes to that article to bring it into compliance with Wikipedias quality standards:
Given these matters, I plan to move the LKML content to the LKML article without deletions and use Jeff's article to be about him and his life, not Linus Torvalds problems. These editors can continue editing that content from there. The simple fact here is that SCOX and Linux folks want to POV push their ownership of their own actions and controvesies into articles and the press as a "look there's Elvis" tactic to divert attention away from their ownership of these issues. This is creating (by design) a distorted picture of the facts. Linus took code from IBM which was alleged to be stolen from SCO. SCO sued IBM. Groklaw reports that Linux infringes 300+ patents. That's 300 more potential Linux lawsuits at some point. Linus and SCOX responds by saying the Patent Office should not issue patents due to Linux people stealing other peoples patents and intellectual property. LKML needs ownership of its content, just as Linux needs ownership of its issues to create a balanced and accurate picture. The article is POV pushed to keep out content which discusses Linux controversies. In that article, this content is wonderful and really enhances it and paints LKML as a colorful place indeed. The LKML article is seriously lacking on content as it stands.
These are the changes I intend to make to that article. Waya sahoni 03:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
: If you vandalize the edits you may subjected to dispute resolution. That goes for your associates. Making statements you will revert edits for any reason indicates WP:OWN and possible stalking violations. You also referred to me as Jeff, for which you can be blocked for continued personal attacks WP:NPA. Waya sahoni 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Are the proposed edits allowed by Policy? Please advise, so I can proceed. I have other articles to complete as well. I want to close this one and move on to the others. This one is the hard one -- the others are easy -- no one fights with me on them. Waya sahoni 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, on the previous issue you raised regarding dispute resolution, I am a little confused. Perhaps you can explain. Stating dispute resolution is exactly what WP:NLT says to do in cases of WP:OWN -- I quote, Instead, first attempt to resolve disputes using the dispute resolution procedures. This will oftentimes lead to a solution without resorting to the blunt tool of the law. If the dispute resolution procedures do not resolve your problem then you can use the law in the knowledge that you have taken all reasonable steps to resolve the situation amicably. Perhaps it was the tone, and not the content. I think I have an idea, I'll fix the approach so this doesn't happen in the future. I can see why you would take it that way, but someone needs to update this policy to include "demands" for dispute resolution as a legalistic threat. It also needs to add this term, since it is not listed in the official policy so people don't make the same mistake again. Waya sahoni 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a serious disconnect with reality here. What do you think he is going to say? It's Jeff Merkey here. He is capable of anything. Read the Merkeylaw.com mirrors to get a sense of him. -Vryl 04:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Whatever happened to respect for process and consensus? Should a single administrator be unilaterlly deciding to ignore the results of two Arbcom cases? Does the ban pronounced against Mr. Merkey mean nothing at all? I can't believe that anyone who has looked at the evidence could doubt that Waya sahoni is Merkey. Surely you don't actually believe that a user in Texas would just happen to be sharing the same address range and even an email account with a banned user in Utah, whom he claimed :to know only slightly. When Waya sahoni first appeared, he became involved in a revert war with Bookofsecrets (talk • contribs) over Cherokee society. I helped defend his edits in that revert war because he was making useful contributions and he had promised not to involve himself in any dispute over the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article, even though I was fairly sure even then that he was Merkey (see Talk:Cherokee_society/Archive2#This_Page_is_Bunk). Perhaps that was my mistake and I should have pressed to have his ban enforced at that time. If so, then several others made the same mistake. How bad will his behavior have to become before his ban is enforced? — MediaMangler 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Couple of things:
Thanks. Waya sahoni 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Bookofsecrets has not edited Cherokee society, to which Waya has made significant contributions. Waya, do you plan to take legal action against Wikimedia or any Wikipedia editors? —Guanaco 04:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is one of the best things to hit the internet. Jimbo Wales is a saint, and a true internet pioneer.
I have no intentions of ever taking legal action against Wikipedia or Wikimedia, other than perhaps the legal action of having transferring a very large grant and funding source to help them and setting up a foundation to raise money for them. I have no intetions of ever taking legal action against any editors of Wikipedia based on any matters pertaining to Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Jimbo Wales or anyone else. If one of them smashed into my car at a stoplight, or something, then I would probably call the police to make a traffic report if my insurance did not cover it, but that would not be wikipedia related. Waya sahoni 04:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
How a talk page can be tagged as a Wikiproject and the upstream article is not tagged? Once again Waya sahoni is adding tags to a talk page without adding them to the appropriate article. When the tags are reverted, the usual threats are posted. I will revert one more time, and I expect Administrators to do their job. --Jerry 05:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Bookofsecrets (talk • contribs) is a self-confessed sockpuppet of Bumpusmills1 (talk • contribs), see User_talk:Bookofsecrets/Archive_5. He was using multiple sockpuppet accounts to revert Cherokee society before apologizing and abandoning that behavior. He has behaved impeccably since then, so I regret being forced to mention his sockpuppetry just to prove to you that a revert war had taken place on Cherokee society and that I had helped defend Merkey in that instance. — MediaMangler 05:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This is too much. Vryl has placed a large section claiming I am Jeff. This is intolerable. I want this content taken down and this user dealt with. This goes way over the line of attempting to expose a user (falsely I might add) and associating me with Jeff. And his "proof" are postings from the SCOX message board. ENOUGH!!! What more evidence do you need? These people are SCOX trolls here at Linus Torvalds bidding to harrass anyone who goes near this article -- they are not editors. Waya sahoni 06:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that it was. WHOIS shows it was not. If all you have is an SCOX post from an anonymous user, you don;t have any evidence of this.
tjarcher@comcast.net is my email address -- Thomas Jerome Archer. About 60% of all Cherokee's from Oklahoma have a last name of Archer (derived from You Are Cherokee (ArCherokee) from the Dawes Rolls. Thomas is a common name also among Cherokee -- Thomas Jefferson, herro of blacks and Indians).
Jeff and Gadugi have never posted from those addresses. CheckUser verified this.
I am putting together his Cherokee Nation info (which I have already) and all his native projects and moving your POV smut where it belongs, to LKML. Since it is POV pushing, unverifiable, and relegates that artcle to B-CLass status forever (because the editors that wrote it are not really editors).
--Vryl 06:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Waya sahoni 06:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Also from the ARBCOM, - Exabit has pointed out to me (thanks, Exabit!) that Merkey has withdrawn his legal threats, leaving only his threat (vide supra) of "going to the press with this." None the less, since we arbiters are entirely unable to help Merkey defend himself and his family against the alleged death threats he has allegedly received, I strongly encourage him to contact law enforcement or hire an armed security force. My decision remains to reject this case. ➥the Epopt 14:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, the arbitor stated that Jeff should get armed guards to protect himself from the editors of this article. Waya sahoni 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User_talk:Why_you_so_hawny.3F_and_User:Waya_sahoni. I have already indefinitely UsernameBlocked User:Why you so hawny?. I was wondering if you objected to me blocking the other sock. Superm401 - Talk 06:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The evidence that Waya sahoni is actually Jeffrey Vernon merkey seems very strong. User Gadugi (Jeff Merkey) was indefinitely blocked. Waya Sahoni is an apparent attempt to circumvent that block. When do these rules get applied?Vigilant 07:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
When you violate 3RR, you will certainly be blocked. I know. :-) Waya sahoni 08:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Really appreciate the links!
TroyVaughn 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see discussion on why we keep on reverting it to older versions. We are not vandalizing the article.
No To Frauds 08 March 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for reverting th damage to my user page from MarkSweep.
My personal feeling is that while userboxes may/may-not be a problem, categories are a diffeerent thing.
I feel that (self-)categorising of users is important, in that it allows potential biases to be explicitly exposed for discussion and consideration. I have written and edited a number of articles on Christian groups, and feel it is improtant to put myself outthere as non-christian.
The other issue with categories is that they allow meta-communities to form, potential small scale project recruiting to happen etc.
Alex Law 00:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to add my thanks for fixing my warboxen userpage. Keep up the good work.--God Ω War 02:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Another thanks for rv'ing the "work" of MarkSweeps... only now he reverted it back. Any idea what we can do to desysop him or something similar? --SuperNova 03:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks here too for the same reasons noted by Alex Law (above). MarkSweep's admin actions have caused me to reconsider my level of participation. Rklawton 04:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, just saw you efforts, and dropped by to thank you! I'm going to snag your T1 userbox now. StrangerInParadise 20:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Checkout Special:Contributions/MarkSweep, he is at it again (emptying and deleting categories). He needs to be blocked for much longer! StrangerInParadise 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see CSD criterion T1. I'm not making any judgement of its rightness or wrongness. I do think it's arguable though. The template is not designed to help build an encyclopaedia.
Why encourage organised shitstirring, Guanaco? Selina can link her trollboard from her userpage. I don't have any problem with that. I was linking it from mine until recently. But templates are supposed to be a way to help edit the encyclopaedia. I don't really support the MarkSweeps and other crusaders, but I can understand their POV. How does it help that people whose purpose is destructive can round up other destructive trolls, using Wikipedia's own mechanism? How does it help to have people promote anger, "anti-ness", bitterness? Grace Note 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Since you took the semiprotection off my talk page, will you at least be sure to watchlist it? I get a whole lot of vandalism from anon and brand new sockpuppet accounts. Very often this exact same really problem vandalism of adding many thousands of copies of an image (usuablly of George Bush). What makes it particularly problematic is that I cannot ever load the diff even, since the page size of the vandalized version is far too large for WP servers to deliver before timing out. I'm still gotten some of that same thing from accounts that exist for the few days needed to avoid semiprotection, but not quite as much.
Of course, better still would be putting the semiprotection back on... the people I need to chat with have been on WP at least a couple days, and have usernames. But since you sort of invite a problem for me, I beseech you to monitor it :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like your thoughts on a brainstorm I've tried to articulate here: User:Leifern/Adminwatch idea. And feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 16:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Action at WP:AN/I#User:MarkSweep
FYI,
StrangerInParadise 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I saw that the DRV had been closed on these boxes here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archive#Wikipedia:Userboxes.2FRegional_Politics. It seems to have been closed as a Keep. However, I seem to be missing something as this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional_Politics&oldid=38295467 shows hundreds of red links. Can you tell me what i am missing here?--God Ω War 01:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You and MarkSweep are engaged in a destructive edit war on several Userbox templates. I find both of your actions to be disruptive, and am blocking you both for 12 hours. Please discontinue edit warring with each other, find somewhere to discuss your differences, and make some attempt to achieve consensus. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Guanaco, I've left a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarkSweep#regarding_the_reverts similar message on Mark's page. You may have seen me bitching on IRC, even.
I wanted to tell you that I mostly agree with the things you've done today. However, I disagree with the way you've done them. When Tony Sidaway says "fuck process," we rightly tell him that this is not an appropriate way for a member of our community (including admins) to act.
Some of your edits today were done without mentioning on the talk page what you were doing or why you were doing it. While we are all pretty busy, and sometimes this seems like a pain in the ass, it's important. Especially on some articles, like the db-divisive and db-inflammatory templates, where people will no doubt be watching them, waiting for a change they don't like.
We're trying to get to a consensus on the proposed userbox policy poll. By doing what you did today, and Mark responding the way he did, the two of you jeopardized the process of... well, healing the sort of community lacerations we have here.
I don't want to get involved in the conflict. I'm really not a party to it, except in a very tangential, accidental sense. I just want to try to get to the point where we can agree on a few precepts, and move forward with amendments.
We have to do this through consensus and compromise, and that means doing things slowly, tediously, and with lots of talking. But afterwards, because we will have agreed on where we need to be, we will have more time to edit our encyclopedia. And that's why we're all here.
Thanks for your time, Guanaco. I wouldn't have blocked either you or Mark. I prefer to talk things out. Hopefully the block won't make you bitter, or anything, and we can get back to Business As Usual in eleven hours and change.
... aa:talk 07:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm somewhat neutral on the userboxes debate, I'm not a fan on bumper stickers. However, MarkSweep has done himself and his cause no good by extending the deletion war to user categories. I'm not sure what the solution is, perhaps move a lot of Category:Bigendian Users to Category:Users/Bigendian style category names would help?
I find categories useful (even whimsical ones) in form communities within wikipedia, in seeking others with similar interests (including looking for people to check my work for NPOV on controversial issues) and, with userboxes as well, for understanding the biases my fellow editors bring to articles.
Anthropology and Sociology are abandoning the myth of objectivity in favour of the idea of disclosure, surely following their lead will make Wikipedia a better resource.
Alex Law 15:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you look into the deletion of this template for me? Moe ε 17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have came up with a technical solution to the userbox problem that should make everyone happy. Please tell me what you think. Is this even possible?--God Ω War 22:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see my edit to the issue of MarkSweep subst'ing userboxes. There was also one template he blanked that wasn't mentioned and that was {{user review}}. The proof can be found in the edit history of my userboxes page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nathanrdotcom/Userboxes&diff=41865435&oldid=41856096. Thanks. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
as shown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Waya_sahoni#Is_this_account_a_sockpuppet.3F here. If you have a moment, can you please look at it? I think you are blocking users on his behalf, when in fact, you should be blocking the other party. --BWD (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#T1 & Jimbo. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between Guanaco and MarkSweep. You are being named as an involved party. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I just want to offer my thanks, my support, and anything else I can possibly offer to you. Thanks for all of your help. If there is ever anything that I can do for you please don't hesitate to ask AdamJacobMuller 03:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Things are shifting. Where'd your UB's go? StrangerInParadise 05:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Make stress the other guy's problem. You should stand tall on this: as you are an admin, others will look to you to see whether you have userboxes still. It is easy to think that admins are united against this. BTW, check out WP:RFAR#Amicus curiae statement by StrangerInParadise, though I am quite proud of this,
Statement by User:MarkSweep
In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that I've been removing superfluous categories from templates since at least February 22 without any major complaints. If it hadn't been for StrangerInParadise (talk • contribs) and "his" Template:User pro-cannabis, which is a particularly egregious example of Wikipedia-external advocacy, all of this would have proceeded quietly....
"...and I'd have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!" =)
StrangerInParadise 07:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
So if User pro-cannabis is so egregious, what was wrong with the Wiccan Wikipedians category? Which wasn't empty until MarkSweep emptied it. (OK, anyone? Please?) Alex Law 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Just thought you would want to know about this... User:MarkSweep is at it again and removed the categories from the following articles last night, I have reverted them all back to their prior state.
AdamJacobMuller 14:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Why did you unprotect this article? It was protected yesterday due to constant vandalism by dinamic IPs adresses, see its history page. --OneEuropeanHeart 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't me who requested that so not sure why the asking and response was done on my user page... –Adityanath 01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you also watch User:Hamsacharya dan (who is also User:128.195.111.122)? He and User:NoToFrauds seem to be in a bit of an edit war because the former is a religious fanatic who keeps trying to promote his guru at length in various related articles. So far he (Dan) has:
I'm losing patience with this guy and am going on vacation for a week tomorrow, so hopefully someone can get him to see what is wrong with his approach. I have kept modifying; but he does a lot of reverting...
Thanks! —Adityanath 13:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help there.--Jimbo Wales 03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Recently, in the CDBS article, you changed [[dh_make]] to [[dh make]], when the correct name was dh_make. If you are doing this in an automated fasion, you may wish to disable automatically getting rid of underscores, as it is at times inappropriate. Where (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox. |
Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Guanaco, what's this all about? Surely you didn't create it yourself? Just curious. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Welcome, Guanaco/archive3, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.
Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. Redwolf24 runs the spam to keep members up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.
In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.
I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of KnowledgeOfSelf, JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in February, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.
If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!
Why is my page move-protected?? --Sunfazer (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I responded to you on this talk page. In short, I really hope you reconsider your reversal of the block on Waya_sahoni for the reasons outlined in my response. Thanks. --BWD (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Guanaco: I would greatly appreciate it if you please reinstated the block made on User:Waya sahoni. I would have thought the comments that he made in response to the block on his talk page, User_talk:Waya sahoni (including legal threats) in addition to his combative editing on Cherokee related articles would have been sufficient cause not to do so. The RfAr has not even yet been accepted by the Arbitration Committee, and thus I do not see a necessity to unblock this user; he has in my view been actively disruptive. I might have perhaps appreciated it if you'd e-mailed me first, although I appreciate you informed me on your talk page it now places me in a position where I cannot reblock without wheel warring with you. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
In particular, if http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWaya_sahoni&diff=44311382&oldid=44311124 this edit doesn't prove he should be blocked, I can't think what else would. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Not wanting further to clutter the admins' noticeboard, I write briefly here to commend you for your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=3263874&diff=44433512&oldid=44432956 recent http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=44432303&oldid=44425800 levelheadness apropos of the Karmafist blocks. Joe 01:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Why did you unblock user:JarlaxleArtemis? Has he notified anyone of his apology? Has he fulfilled the other requirements of his unbanning? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=43781497#JarlaxleArtemis -Will Beback 02:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Pursuant to your arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has passed an injunction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco%2C_MarkSweep%2C_et_al/Proposed_decision#Guanaco_restricted_from_admin_reversals For the duration of your case, you are prohibited from reversing any other admin's action. Raul654 07:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.