m →Protection of Bloods & Crips: typo |
→Protection of Bloods & Crips: reply, sorry, I was mistaken |
||
Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
I consider it not very civil since you haven't discussed anything about the edits disputes. You can refer to the creator of the article's talk page. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. |
I consider it not very civil since you haven't discussed anything about the edits disputes. You can refer to the creator of the article's talk page. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. |
||
If you wish to reply at this thread, please do so here. <b><font color="#002BB8">[[User:Tasc0|Tasc0]]</font></b> <sup><font color="#002BB8">[[User talk:Tasc0|It's a zero!]]</font></sup> 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
If you wish to reply at this thread, please do so here. <b><font color="#002BB8">[[User:Tasc0|Tasc0]]</font></b> <sup><font color="#002BB8">[[User talk:Tasc0|It's a zero!]]</font></sup> 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Would you prefer for me to protect the article or block you? I have no preference in the matter. Please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Tasc0_reported_by_User:Chubbles_.28Result:_Page_protected.29|the relevant AN3 request]]. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B#top|talk]]) 03:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
:<s>Would you prefer for me to protect the article or block you? I have no preference in the matter.</s> Please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Tasc0_reported_by_User:Chubbles_.28Result:_Page_protected.29|the relevant AN3 request]]. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B#top|talk]]) 03:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Is that a threat? I really wasn't expecting a reponse like that one from an admin. And I haven't broke that rule. Still, I hold my request to discuss the article protection. <b><font color="#002BB8">[[User:Tasc0|Tasc0]]</font></b> <sup><font color="#002BB8">[[User talk:Tasc0|It's a zero!]]</font></sup> 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
::Is that a threat? I really wasn't expecting a reponse like that one from an admin. And I haven't broke that rule. Still, I hold my request to discuss the article protection. <b><font color="#002BB8">[[User:Tasc0|Tasc0]]</font></b> <sup><font color="#002BB8">[[User talk:Tasc0|It's a zero!]]</font></sup> 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::I made no threat. I protected the article because it was the source of an edit war. This edit war was reported to [[WP:AN3]] with a request for administrator action. You made an excessive number of reverts in a 24-hour period, violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]]. I decided, though, that protecting the article to facilitate discussion would be more constructive than blocking you. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B#top|talk]]) 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
:::<s>I made no threat.</s> I protected the article because it was the source of an edit war. This edit war was reported to [[WP:AN3]] with a request for administrator action. You made an excessive number of reverts in a 24-hour period, violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]]. <s>I decided, though, that protecting the article to facilitate discussion would be more constructive than blocking you.</s> --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B#top|talk]]) 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::I haven't broke the rule because I only made three reverts in a 24-hours period of the edits of a single user. If I have, would you please show me. I'd appreciate it. <b><font color="#002BB8">[[User:Tasc0|Tasc0]]</font></b> <sup><font color="#002BB8">[[User talk:Tasc0|It's a zero!]]</font></sup> 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
::::I haven't broke the rule because I only made three reverts in a 24-hours period of the edits of a single user. If I have, would you please show me. I'd appreciate it. <b><font color="#002BB8">[[User:Tasc0|Tasc0]]</font></b> <sup><font color="#002BB8">[[User talk:Tasc0|It's a zero!]]</font></sup> 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::You're right. I apologize - I was mistakenly thinking of a different report. You are correct that you did not violate 3RR and I apologize for saying that you did. In this case, it was a slow moving revert war and I felt it best to protect the page rather than to allow it to continue. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B#top|talk]]) 04:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:27, 10 February 2008
Re: King fisher322 (talk · contribs)
This appears to be a much bigger problem. east.718 at 06:19, January 19, 2008
I've responded to your comment regarding Scientific Apologist where you posted it. - Revolving Bugbear 18:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you move the page so that the R in running isn't capitalized? I don't believe it should be, as it's not the first word in the article and it's not a proper noun.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually nevermind. This article was created after the one I created. I'll fix it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Clemson University football recruiting scandal
- Comment - Can I get the abridged version? --B (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Sure. Here it is from above: This is a confessed attack article, may meet the provisions of WP:CSD, but can also go to WP:AFD otherwise. Article has false (fabricated?) info intended to disparage its subject, is not otherwise notable, is inadequately sourced, has multiple problems relating to Wikipedia policy, and was generated by a newly registered account with significant history of edit wars, harassment, and disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet edit history.--Thör hammer 07:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Plus there is the issue of the 1300 copyrighted words on individual infractions from the NCAA report. Probably the worst article that I have seen on Wikipedia. Good catch on the copyright.--Thör hammer 07:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I read over and over in the AfD discussion, it makes no difference WHY a person writes an article for Wiki, or WHO writes it, only that it be notable and well-sourced. This article is both. Public reports like the NCAA one excerpted in the article are NOT copyrighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperNerd (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- As for copyright, you are just flat wrong. Every creative work is inherently copyrighted. Only if it were authored by the US Federal government, which explicitly disclaims its copyright, can we use such a report. This report is copyrighted by the NCAA. We can use portions under a claim of fair use, but that's it. As for your motivation, you really need to stop and ask yourself what you are doing here. Your edits from your account aren't bad, but if you are the IP that Thor mentions, your bias is flagrant and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is about building an encyclopedia, not about furthering your rivalry. If you push the line and don't obey our core content policies like WP:NPOV, you will be blocked - Wikipedia is not the USC or Clemson message board. --B (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the exact same argument I made in an AfD discussion involving the USC steroid scandal article written by a Clemson fanatic in response to the mere MENTION of probation in the Clemson-Carolina rivalry article. What was the motivation in that case? Why don't you go warn CobraGeek the same way you just did me? Like I've pointed out already, double standards have no place in an encyclopedia either. ViperNerd (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't see the other AFD while it was going. This isn't like a message board where every admin sees all or substantially all content within their area of interest. I rarely pay attention to AFD discussions and I don't really care one way or another about the two schools. I saw this issue because I am one of several admins who patrols WP:AN3 and your behavior was reported there. So I looked at contributions to see what the dispute was about. --B (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the exact same argument I made in an AfD discussion involving the USC steroid scandal article written by a Clemson fanatic in response to the mere MENTION of probation in the Clemson-Carolina rivalry article. What was the motivation in that case? Why don't you go warn CobraGeek the same way you just did me? Like I've pointed out already, double standards have no place in an encyclopedia either. ViperNerd (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- As for copyright, you are just flat wrong. Every creative work is inherently copyrighted. Only if it were authored by the US Federal government, which explicitly disclaims its copyright, can we use such a report. This report is copyrighted by the NCAA. We can use portions under a claim of fair use, but that's it. As for your motivation, you really need to stop and ask yourself what you are doing here. Your edits from your account aren't bad, but if you are the IP that Thor mentions, your bias is flagrant and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is about building an encyclopedia, not about furthering your rivalry. If you push the line and don't obey our core content policies like WP:NPOV, you will be blocked - Wikipedia is not the USC or Clemson message board. --B (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I read over and over in the AfD discussion, it makes no difference WHY a person writes an article for Wiki, or WHO writes it, only that it be notable and well-sourced. This article is both. Public reports like the NCAA one excerpted in the article are NOT copyrighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperNerd (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Plus there is the issue of the 1300 copyrighted words on individual infractions from the NCAA report. Probably the worst article that I have seen on Wikipedia. Good catch on the copyright.--Thör hammer 07:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Sure. Here it is from above: This is a confessed attack article, may meet the provisions of WP:CSD, but can also go to WP:AFD otherwise. Article has false (fabricated?) info intended to disparage its subject, is not otherwise notable, is inadequately sourced, has multiple problems relating to Wikipedia policy, and was generated by a newly registered account with significant history of edit wars, harassment, and disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet edit history.--Thör hammer 07:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Returning
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve.
PS:On those Free Republic blocks you did, I notated it on the logs part of the case page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah everyone has their views. As an admin who regularly makes blocks, I suppose you're eventually going to come across someone who disputes your block. Anyway, I'll be watching that user. Hopefully the nonsense edits will stop. Spellcast (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
IP attack
Hi B - I believe 207.237.228.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has taken over where 74.73.106.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) left off - they appear to be the same person, making the same accusation against Happyme22 about Nancy Reagan, in the same manner - almost exactly. The IP has been warned about personal attacks, but more may be needed, and I think an admin should keep an eye on it too. thanks Tvoz |talk 09:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok ... I'll keep an eye out ... if he gets over the top, we can block the IP for an arbitrarily long amount of time. --B (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Virginia Tech massacre an FA?
B, I was looking through FA articles, and saw that Virginia Tech massacre is a featured article! Congrats! When will it be featured on the main page? miranda 15:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Goodness, I hope we have the good sense to do it on 4/16 (the 1-year anniversary). --B (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests it has to be scheduled not more than one month in advance, but I hope we have the good sense to pick that date. --B (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I never thought a Wikipedia page would make me cry. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Freedom
My point was that opposing free culture because it allows people to promote thing you disagree with is promoting a lack of freedom. Think of the children! Should they all be raised in a world where information is proprietary and controlled or raised in a world where they and others are all free to express themselves? Freedom of speech is about the freedom to communicate and promote what we don't wish communicated and promoted or it is nothing - there is no need to protect speech everyone supports. Freedom is the right for people to be free to act the way they want to act. The free culture movement is about enabling people to create, modify, and distribute information as text, sounds, images, or video by providing copyleft software tools and content for modification and redistribution. It is not free if the uses are legally restricted to the original content creator's desired purposes. For that, you need to use a non-free copyright license. Wikipedia and WikiMedia have a mission of maximum worldwide free distribution of freely re-editable educational content. If one does not want content that they create to be legally free to be modified and redistributed for causes one does not personally endorse, then they should not contribute them to a free culture site such as wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to you or anyone else trying to get Wikia to only promote good things. What I object to is attacks on the legal tool of copyleft copyrights which is needed in the fight for freedom. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Uh huh. You need to step back from your ... umm ... ideals ... and live in the practical world for a minute. We're talking about the privacy rights of children here and their right not to have their likenesses used on a site that advocates child abuse. There's no such thing as absolute freedom - as the adage goes, my freedom to swing my fist stops when it impacts your nose. You are free to use Rlevse's photo in any way that is compliant with the GFDL and which does not infringe on the personality rights of those involved. This clearly does. If you are advocating this stuff, then we really don't have a common ground on which to have a meaningful discussion. Child abuse is wrong, period. --B (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are several issues involved. *I* was solely talking about people badmouthing the GFDL because it is able to be used to promote bad things. My interest was to defend the GFDL in spite of its ability to be used to promote bad things. Like some people defend gun ownership even tho guns can be used to do bad things. Defending the right to own a gun is not advocating murder. Defending copy left is not advocating bad things that can be done with copy left content. Advocating freedom to speak is not advocating that Wikipedia or Wikia allow anyone to say anything on either of those sites. I am for the right of people to legally advocate bad things on their own site (not Wikia or Wikimedia sites) using copyleft content. I am for people protesting the advocacy of bad things. I am against making either the advocacy or the protest illegal. I believe that freedom of expression is the best way to identify what in fact is a good thing versus what in fact is a bad thing; and in laws that outlaw doing bad things while retaining the freedom to advocate a change to those laws. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The right to freedom is not absolute, check any of several supreme court rulings. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Youth images
Is there any other way to protect images of youth other than the personality rights tag on commons? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I really think the solution is don't upload them. I don't know if every council is like this, but our's won't even put an identifiable photo (in other words, zoomed in enough that you can see the face) of a youth on the website at all without signed permission from a parent. We shouldn't be more willing to put a photo on Wikipedia that we wouldn't put on our own website. Unless or until Wikipedia is willing to accept under-18 photos under a more restrictive licensing scheme (ie, never) we should stick to low-res photos of large groups where you can't pick out a single youth or photos that are public domain by age (and everyone depicted is old or dead). --B (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is what I figured. I have a draft guideline at User:Gadget850/Sandbox4 and am bringin it up on the Scouting talk page now. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Why?
That user page you just deleted. User:MittRomney-something-or-other...'s page. Why? (I'm not stalking your contributions or anything; User:Bongwarrior's talkpage is on my watchlist and they contributed to it, so I noticed the link was blue but went red. That's not really fair, actually; it's their userpage, and a userpage is only the property of the user with that name, unless they say otherwise on it. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no, actually you don't own your user page. But regardless of that, he was using his page to make attacks on Mitt Romney. Attack pages may be deleted any time, not that he needs it as this was a vandalism-only account. --B (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Funny, but I don't recall anything saying that you cannot attack a celebrity; only that you cannot attack another IP user. And yes, you do own your userpage. It's the articles and the discussion threads that belong to everyone, not an individual editors' userpage. Their talkpage, on the other hand, belongs to the community, as it is where others must edit in order to deliver the user a message. But more importantly, when did the "Don't even attack celebrities" policy start? (I'm sorry if that sounded snappy, it was intended to be said in an upbeat but interested tone.) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:CSD criterion G10, WP:BLP, and WP:NPA. Any attack page, whether the subject is George Bush, George the editor, or George my next door neighbor, may be deleted on sight. As for ownership of pages ... well, you're just incorrect. Wikipedia is not free webhosting and if you misuse your userpage, it will be deleted or protected. --B (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Funny, but I don't recall anything saying that you cannot attack a celebrity; only that you cannot attack another IP user. And yes, you do own your userpage. It's the articles and the discussion threads that belong to everyone, not an individual editors' userpage. Their talkpage, on the other hand, belongs to the community, as it is where others must edit in order to deliver the user a message. But more importantly, when did the "Don't even attack celebrities" policy start? (I'm sorry if that sounded snappy, it was intended to be said in an upbeat but interested tone.) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Your Note
Hello B:
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I went back to the arbcom discussion page to see what I said.
I should have made myself clear that my "take some time off" note was general, to all the editors in that discussion. I didn't do that and I apologize for the misunderstanding. It was not specific to you, but I can see why you might take it that way.
Very sorry, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thank you for removing my block, but i need help
i never meant to vandalize anything, and i didn't understand how to operate the warnings. but i don't think the pages i were trying to make are for promotion, it was simply adding to another page. a lot of people have told me they were interested in seeing the pages i made to be brought up. but how is the best way for me to go about doing that? the pages are already made, what should i change about them? i made it the best way i could just to be informative for wikipedians and viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLICKFINGERS (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- If a page you create is deleted, the proper way to contest that action is to (1) discuss it calmly with the deleting admin or, if the result is not agreeable, (2) open a request for community consideration at WP:DRV. Recreating the article repeatedly is what got you blocked before. --B (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback
On the talk page, I supported this image's removal, though I contend it simply was mislabeled under fair use vs WP:NOR, so I am not quite sure what you are talking about. What can I do to convince you otherwise? — BQZip01 — talk 04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Non-free promotional discussion
Hello, B. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:Non-free promotional. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Riley Skinner
Thanks for the tip. The reason I left the vandalism template was because the article had been vandalized several times within the past few minutes by different people and I thought he/she was vandalizing as well. I'll try to find a message template showing the actual edit, etc. the next time I leave a message for someone in regards to possible vandalism or bad editing. About reverting the comment on my userpage...I did that because I don't want arguments to start on my userpage.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- CAT:UWT gives the full litany of warning templates that you can use. Also, if you use Firefox, you can install WP:TWINKLE, which gives you, among other things, a friendly menu that helps you choose the warning to leave. But if there isn't a warning that says what you want to say, it's always ok to leave a personal message. --B (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gracias.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to bug you, but is the message i left on this[1] user's talk page the most appropriate one to use? Sorry about bugging you again, but I've only been on this site for a little over 2 weeks and I've been asking alot of question to more experience users. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I could have sworn that there used to be a template specifically for that purpose (warning users who add themselves/their friends/their birthdate/other non-notable personal stuff to lists). I looked and couldn't find it, so the one you picked is as good as anything else I suppose. I fixed your signature, though ... it was missing a span tag. If that was from your signature and not the template, you may want to check and see that it is setup right. --B (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to bug you, but is the message i left on this[1] user's talk page the most appropriate one to use? Sorry about bugging you again, but I've only been on this site for a little over 2 weeks and I've been asking alot of question to more experience users. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gracias.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Feedback of Single-wing formation
Hello, I am looking for help on an article that I have adopted called Single-wing formation. I have expanded the article; however, now I would like to upgrade it to improve its quality. Thanks, Bill Spencer (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Profg
You were the main proponent of an unblock for User:Profg. You should be aware that he has been running a sock puppet, User:Goo2you since 12 October 2007, which is the very day that your editing restriction on him took effect. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indefblock reinstated, based on using a sock to evade the block on his main account + violation of terms of probation (1RR) with sock. --B (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Why change my Mike Hart?
Mike Hart (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Why did you change my Mike Hart? I put my sources in there. They are the one from the Detroit Free Press and the Michigan Daily newspapers. What do I need to do to get it fixed and keep it on there? The sources are listed at the very bottom they just need to be added in with number, right? Its a pretty big news subject. Just go ahead an search google "Mike Hart" "Little Brother" and it has close to 8,000 hits. This isn't a rant about some rival school, its an actual noteworthy fact about Mike Hart.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lions4superbowl (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia requires all content to adhere to a neutral point of view and for all content in biographies of living persons to be well-sourced. The content you added was neither. Every controversial statement needs to be directly cited with an inline citation using "ref" tags. --B (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The viewpoint was very neutral. I explained how the comments were said which angered head coach Mark Dantonio. Mark Dantonio responded by taking a shot at Mike Hart about his size, all of which can easily be referenced. The fallout from the comments are now the little brother and little sister comments between the two colleges, which can also be easily referenced. If the problem is referencing, that can be fixed. How can the "neutral view point" be fixed? All I am doing is reporting history, which I don't understand how you can claim it isn't a neutral viewpoint.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lions4superbowl (talk • contribs)
- It started out with "Mike Hart infuriated college football fans across the nation". 95% of college football fans probably didn't even hear about it and if they did wouldn't have give it a second thought. Dog fighting and steroids infuriates fans. Barbs at your rival are on every message board every day. We don't give undue weight to minor events and make it sound like it's a defining moment in his life - this section is nearly as long as the rest of the content on his time in college. If anything, it's worth at most two well-sourced, inline-cited sentences. --B (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that the above statement may be considered a bit biased, but I think its doing a disservice to the wikipedia community to not to talk about it. If this doesn't count as noteworthy, then you need to evaluate every page such as Mike Gundy and take off the portion about his rant. This obviously is a big enough news story to be mentioned in the Mike Hart wikipedia article. LIke I said, if you google "mike hart" "little brother" you get 8,000 results. His comment has sparked a huge uproar between the two colleges and all of it can be referenced. ESPN talked about it. It doesn't matter if that portion is larger than what he did in college, this is actual news event. I think that taking that off would be a shame. This isn't about covering up his college and high school achievements its about reporting news and spreading knowledge. So what is so wrong with what I added? Let's clean it up, reference it, and let the world see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lions4superbowl (talk • contribs) 19:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then give it one or two neutral well-referenced sentences. It doesn't need everyone's reaction. It doesn't need righteous indignation from the entire college football world. Optionally, I can look into it tonight and come up with something neutral to put in there. --B (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
My RFA
Those comments about Gagne were for humor. Thanks for voting! HPJoker Leave me a message 18:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- That may be, but it's still inappropriate for something in project space. --B (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- JJ and them didn't seem to mind. Most of the things I type that are humorous they seem to enjoy. HPJoker Leave me a message 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Super Bowl XLII
I didn't know you were rooting for the Giants. Burner0718(Jibba Jabba!) 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't care one way or the other - I'm a Virginia Tech Hokies fan and rarely pay much attention to pro football. I usually root for the underdog if I don't have any interest either way, but it really doesn't matter that much to me who wins. I just want to see an exciting game, not a 62-0 blowout. --B (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've rooted against the Pats all season except for the Dallas and Cincinnati games, so even though I'm a Packers fan, I'm rooting for the Giants. BTW, My college team is the Ohio State Buckeyes, although I like a few other teams, including Virginia Tech. :) Burner0718(Jibba Jabba!) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kalee Carey
You recently prodded the article Kalee Carey. I have moved the discussion to AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalee Carey. You are invited to join the discussion there. AecisBrievenbus 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Request for Review
I've got a couple of Tech football game FACs in progress and upcoming, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to review and/or support them when they come along. The first is 2007 ACC Championship Game, which is in the review stages right now. The second is 2008 Orange Bowl, which will be put up for review once the ACC Championship Game article passes and I perform whatever changes need to be made based on the input from the first review. The third one that I'll be putting up for review in the next couple of weeks is 2005 ACC Championship Game, but it needs to still go through the GA review process first.
My ultimate goal is to create a Featured Topic consisting of all of Virginia Tech's bowl games, but that's still a long ways off. Until then, I'd appreciate anything you'd be able to contribute to those three articles whenever you've got the time. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- How do featured topics work? What would it take to make all of Virginia Tech a featured topic or is that too broad? --B (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- It'd take a hell of a lot of work, I think. Featured topics basically (from what I gather) require a whole series of featured/good articles linked by a common category or infobox. Michigan State University had a featured topic, though, so I imagine that it can be done. The status of that topic is still kind of up in the air, however, and it seems to have been eliminated for not meeting the requirements. I think we could do a Virginia Tech featured topic, but do we even have a single Virginia Tech featured article beyond Virginia Tech Massacre? JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for the unblock. NiggardlyNorm (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
your recent user name block (I'm sure you know which one)
wow, your fast, I was just about to add {uw-username}. I salute you.
The Working Man's Barnstar | ||
For amazing speed in the protection of the wiki Pewwer42 Talk 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
block
If you think that editor's behavior is acceptable, feel free to unblock him. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
....umm, I was complementing him on a job well done(hence the barnstar) besides If I felt the user hadn't done anything wrong(which he did) I'm not an admin. Thats beside the point, I was giving B a Barnstar.--Pewwer42 Talk 08:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Née
I'm sorry that you don't approve of my using a universal term (née) that many more than tens of people worldwide use. I thought the entire point of Wikipedia was to educate the masses.CymHastings (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again
Thanks for the unblock. I appreciate your speed and discernment. I hope I prove worthy of your trust, should I remain active.Jrichardstevens (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Sometimes mistakes are made and that's why the {{unblock}} template exists - so that we can correct those mistakes. --B (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
UnclePaco
- UnclePaco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- MiGustaToto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 66.152.198.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 64.131.204.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
From the editing history, the IP appears to be UnclePaco. However, I'm confused by the actual edits. The IP essentially removed the entire violence section at Dominican Day Parade, and he removed the exact same content which UnclePaco restored on a number of occasions. I did notice some activity at Dominican Day Parade, and I think that 66.152.198.210 and MiGustaToto are UnclePaco's socks. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
ANI thread (blocks by JzG)
You commented on this earlier. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of three of the above blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Bakaman 3RR
With all due respect, this same admin who says he is trying to work this out with Bakaman also blocked me for a 3RR here without even blinking. I deem this as favoritism. Wiki Raja (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Protection of Bloods & Crips
I consider it not very civil since you haven't discussed anything about the edits disputes. You can refer to the creator of the article's talk page. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. If you wish to reply at this thread, please do so here. Tasc0 It's a zero! 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you prefer for me to protect the article or block you? I have no preference in the matter.Please see the relevant AN3 request. --B (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)- Is that a threat? I really wasn't expecting a reponse like that one from an admin. And I haven't broke that rule. Still, I hold my request to discuss the article protection. Tasc0 It's a zero! 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I made no threat.I protected the article because it was the source of an edit war. This edit war was reported to WP:AN3 with a request for administrator action. You made an excessive number of reverts in a 24-hour period, violating the three-revert rule.I decided, though, that protecting the article to facilitate discussion would be more constructive than blocking you.--B (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)- I haven't broke the rule because I only made three reverts in a 24-hours period of the edits of a single user. If I have, would you please show me. I'd appreciate it. Tasc0 It's a zero! 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. I apologize - I was mistakenly thinking of a different report. You are correct that you did not violate 3RR and I apologize for saying that you did. In this case, it was a slow moving revert war and I felt it best to protect the page rather than to allow it to continue. --B (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't broke the rule because I only made three reverts in a 24-hours period of the edits of a single user. If I have, would you please show me. I'd appreciate it. Tasc0 It's a zero! 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is that a threat? I really wasn't expecting a reponse like that one from an admin. And I haven't broke that rule. Still, I hold my request to discuss the article protection. Tasc0 It's a zero! 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)