User talk:Only/Archive 5

Welcome to my talk page! I tend to reply to messages directly on here, so I suggest watching my page if you're looking for a reply. I watch user talk pages I comment on so we can keep conversations organized.

Archives
I − II − III − IV

Ill Mitch

Please forgive my ignorance, but how long should I wait before requesting restoration? Also, the other admin who deleted it JPS said on the deletion review "Deletion review isn't the place for such discussions,", so I am very confused as to what I should do next. Please help a newbie out. Jellonuts

The closing admin of the DRV will handle that, not you. Metros232 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response (seriously) and thanks for the warm welcome and patience (sarcastically) Jellonuts 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for speedy delete of user talk pages

I created many user talk pages after tagging new pages for speedy delete. Now I am trying to clean up these pages. The users never created user pages, so these user talk pages appear only in my contributions log and nowhere else, as far as I know. What is the right tag to put on these pages? Paul 02:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the criteria for speedy deletion exempts user talks and talk pages of images on Commons (see WP:CSD#G8). Metros232 02:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] There isn't one, because there isn't a reason to delete them. Just because a user hasn't done anything with their account doesn't mean that they won't at some point; I registered this account on December 14, 2005, but didn't make my first edit until February 2, 2006.

Ideally, you wouldn't be welcoming users until they've actually done anything, but that's a personal opinion that is irrelevant to the fact that you can't arbitrarily decide what to do with another editor's talk page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see, and I agree that user talk pages are exempt from speedy delete - my mistake. My thought was that these users would not return as their edits were not made "in good faith." And if they did return, then why not give them a clean slate? Or free up the user names for someone else? Paul 02:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the user talk pages do not free up the usernames. If someone really wants a clean slate, they can just register a new account. Furthermore, if they do return and continue making less-than-productive edits, it is nice to have all the notes they've already earned right there, since administrators can't readily find contributions to deleted articles (and, while we can see the deleted version of the talk page, it speeds the process a bit if we don't have to do extra hunting). Basically, just tag the talk pages and feel free to remove them from your watchlist; if they remain inactive, you won't have anything coming up on your page, so they aren't doing any harm. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can live with that. These pages aren't on my watch list, just by contrib log, where they stay. Paul 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wawesh image

Please could you explain why you deleted the image 'wawesh2.jpg'. I earnestly hope that i am missing something here and that you removed it for good reason. I gained express authorisation from the owner of the image, as well as his manager to use the image, as i explained in the notes when uploading and this is the second time it has been deleted! Any info would be very gratefully received!

You uploaded it under a license that doesn't allow for correct use on Wikipedia (I'm not sure what license you selected). But when you do that, it causes the image to be listed for speedy deletion automatically. Metros232 13:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete request (sorry)

WikiThanks

I'm sorry, I flagged my blank userpage for speedy deletion. However there was an item in its history that I would like to keep track of... is there any chance you could undo the deletion, if this would restore the history, then delete the speedy deletion tag? Sorry to be such a bother. Rawling4851 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) means more to me than it might seem. Rawling4851 15:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I removed the tag and left it blank as it was before you added the tag, Metros232 15:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

You just deleted Image:Xunhua mosque china.jpg which was tagged as a CSD G12 copyvio, but the image was uploaded as {{promotional}} with a source... but the applicable CSD criteria says: [Delete a] blatant copyright infringement which meets these parameters: ... Uploader does not assert permission ... or fair use - in this image fair use was asserted so it does not seem to fall under the CSD G12 criteria. I'm asking just to cover my ass in the future. Thanks if You have an answer. feydey 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concern was the watermark on the image mostly. It clearly said the website on it. We try to avoid having watermarked images regardless of the tags associated with the article. It also falls under the "no assertion" clause of the CSD: "For images: no assertion aside from tags". Hope that helps, Metros232 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think watermarks itself denote deletion by CSD (as distracting they are), perhaps CSD G11 could be applicable weakly as the image in question had the website's link at the bottom. And "For images: no assertion aside from tags" or fair use — means cases like I) an image is clearly copyrighted, but is released to PD (deletable as a blatant copyright infringement G12) and II) image is copyrighted and is assigned a fair use tag (contest the fair use in IFD or similar way, but not a CSD G12)? "Uploader does not assert permission" cannot be applied to properly tagged ({{albumcover}} etc.) copyrighted images since fair use itself means that permission doesn't have to be asserted from the copyright holder. Am I totally wrong? The image in question was uploaded as {{promotional}} (fair use) and had a source. I'm just bothering You to avoid accusations of wrongful deletions in the future. Thanks, feydey 18:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Festinger

Hello. Why did you delete the image of Leon Festinger I uploaded? It is widely used on the internet and seems to be in compliance with the following policy:

As a general rule of thumb, Wikipedia allows low-resolution images of copyrighted material if they are unlikely to affect the potential market for the material, are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism, and for which there is no alternative, non- or free-copyrighted replacement available.

Thanks, --Jcbutler 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it was uploaded under a license not allowed on Wikipedia. The license you uploaded it under only allows for non-commercial and educational use which is not an appropriate license. Take a look at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags and see if you can find a more appropriate tag. Based on the image {{promotional}} might be the most appropriate, Metros232 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, could you check it to make sure it's kosher... image:festinger.jpg --Jcbutler 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Just make sure you add a fair use rational to the page (i.e. why you think it's okay to use the image for Wikipedia). Metros232 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland, Maryland

I'm sorry that we could not find any middle ground on the Cumberland, Maryland page. I honestly tried. It upsets me that someone who recieved a barnstar for making Wikipedia a "stable, comfortable environment for all users" has made this user very uncomfortable here. I hope in the future that you can find middle ground with others. SVRTVDude 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't really any middle ground to achieve, what you wanted was against policy. Metros232 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

promised land

The officially recognised version of the borders of the promised land is that which was declared by theodor herzl, in effect the founder of israel as we know it today, in collaboration with the rothschilds, and which version was presented by rabbi fischmann to the United Nations. You do not get any more official or credible and informed than that. I will post the corrected version of this article once more in seven days' time unless I have received compelling information to the contrary before then. In the meantime I would request that you refrain from publishing the grossly misleading and deceptive article that appeared here previously. In future I will report you and anyone else who outrageously deletes an edit without first resolving the disputed information, and I'll thus have your IP blocked from ever accessing this resource again. Rikridgeway ^(talk) 17 January 2007

.........run that by me again? Metros232 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV comment

I just double checked after I noticed your comment being removed with my block - The IP vandalised again after your comment. Agathoclea 14:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Page Help

Hello, Metros232! Since you were in Category:Wikipedians requesting help improving their user pages, do you need any help? Please reply on my talk page. Happy editing! S .D. ¿п? § 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really looking for help per say...more like an overhaul :) Haha, I'm not a very good person when it comes to ascetics and design (especially of the web variety). If you have any help or suggestions, it'd be appreciated. I don't even know what I want to see on my user page...just an improvement on what exists right now, Metros232 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I renovated your user page. I left a comment in the code saying "your information here," where you can put down real life information, languages you know, things you are interested in, what you do on Wikipedia, an image, a selected quote, milestone, or anything of the like. Cheers! S .D. ¿п? § 23:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits

In my RFA, you said it was interesting that the IP I used was also used by Willy on Wheels.... well, I was editing from a public terminal then. I had no idea who Willy on Wheels was back then. Hope this helps as an explanation. --SunStar Net^talk 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't mean anything by it, I just found it interesting. Metros232 21:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you know it's a public terminal IP! Oh well, I'll try harder for my next RFA, this one'll probably fail as it is...

--SunStar Net^talk 21:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Johnson (artist)

Hi, you voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Instance. I was wondering if you could also weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Johnson (artist) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ExtraLife_(2nd_nomination), as they are also up for deletion. Thank you. - Ocatecir 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNPROTECT

Un protect my talk page so the new message ber will go away

Debito Arudou

I kind of liked the cool looking box quotes in the Criticism section. Why did you take those out? They're both accurate and verifiable, actually.J Readings 12:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add them back with sources then. None of them were sourced (though a couple were credited but not sourced). Metros232 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Mitch Images

Metros please tell me why you deleted the images from the talk page version of Ill Mitch I am working on. I sourced them and tagged them. Please tell me what I did wrong and I will correct it. I have added immediate source, description, fair use rationale, and tags.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellonuts (talk • contribs)

Fair use images, by copyright law, can only be used for illustrative purposes in encyclopedic articles. Your "article" is a write-up on your user talk page. If it was in the article space, everything would be fine, but it's the fact that it's in the user space that led me to remove them from your user talk page. Metros232 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I was told by BigDT that I should recreate the page in my user space so people on the deletion review page could see it. Should I remove it from there. Oh, wait, I see you already removed the pictures again, sorry, I thought I did the right thing. Should I NOT have it on my talk page like I was told? Did I misunderstand BigDT? I really AM trying to do things the right way, and this is actually beginning to seem like a hostile environment for a new contributor. I just want to contribute my page, and the right way, and I have all these different ADM's telling me different things and deleting my contributions. What should I do? I am getting VERY discouraged.Jellonuts 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I've spent too much of my time on this. I tried to contribute, and it is obvious neither I nor my contributions are wanted here. I am tired of being judged and wasting my time on an article that obviously nobody wants on their wikipedia. I'm frustrated and I'm done. I truly hope you treat future new users with fair intentions better than I've been treated. If you make us all feel unwelcome and driven away, wikipedia will not work as it was intended. You lost an educated and well-intentioned contributor today, and for what? Is wikipedia better off now without this article? How? You may think so, but I think not. There was an entry here about a silly rapper guy who has a weird cult fan following, odd but noteable. Granted, not on MTV or Time Magazine, but among many people and among several independant, reliable, highly circulated sources. (I can't believe you don't consider Stuff Magazine a mainstream publication? You better delete Stuff's wiki article too becasue it is not notable, right?) Now, it is deleted and anyone who ever wanted to seek information about it on wikipedia is SOL, and I am discouraged and disappointed. Congratulations, you win, but the wikipedia project loses. Jellonuts 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM?

Tell me how WikiSheboygan is SPAM... Asher Heimermann 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind about it. It's Beautiful Day! Asher Heimermann 03:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's your own personal wiki, basically enough said. Metros232 03:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! I totaly agree with you. Asher Heimermann 03:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Just go and delete the images I upload. Asher Heimermann 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Last Edit

Hey, your last edit... the redirection dos not work. You want to tell me why it does not work. It seems like you don't like to reply to my messages. Huh? Asher Heimermann 20:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me, it's going to Sheboygan like the redirect is set up to do, Metros232 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Sadly, Metros232, I'm not the same as any former user: don't assume that just because I know people who have edited (and introduced me to) Wikipedia, that I am the same as them: I am not. Hope this explains it all. --SunStar Net^talk 01:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Charlie Brown man

You fellers ever heard of Ockenbock? --Charlie Brown man 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why? Metros232 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Boob Question

Hello, I noticed that you had made a comment about a page I contributed, 2 Boob Productions, on Lucky 6.9's talk page in regards to the speedy deletion criteria used to delete the page. I felt that the page was wrongly put up for speedy deletion, and no debate was allowed to discuss the merits of the page in a normal deletion debate. I am still new to the process here, so I come to you asking how I can ensure future pages I contribute are at the least given a fair opportunity for debate and discussion? You seem very knowledgable and involved, so any info you offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance... Suzy77 23:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the reverts to my userpage yesterday. Always appreciated. Gwernol 13:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to WP:ANI

The thread you closed here... you called it trolling. I think the descriptive may be a bit inappropiate, and may be construed as slightly NPA. Please forgive me if I have mis-intrepeted. Regards, Navou ^banter 02:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is ASKING to be blocked for 12 second with a ridiculous block summary. He also requests that his thread be added to BJAODN to glorify his post, basically. I don't see it any other way. Metros232 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misintrepeted. It all appeared in jest to me. Regards, Navou ^banter 02:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mind your business

yeah hey u put that i erased someones comments but i didnt so could you please mind youre business? thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrestlinglover420 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

ok jerk listen. stay out of my business. he is a triple crown champion. so leave me alone.

wrestlinglover420 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The role of a Wikipedia administrator is to "mind other people's business", so to speak. It is their core duty to make sure that Wikipedia is not damaged by malicious, destructive, or useless edits. Even when editing in good faith, a user may have their article deleted or their contributions reverted. If you wish to contest the deletion of an article that you created, please go to WP:DRV and dissent the deletion there. However, even if you do contest the deletion at DRV, it is possible that your request will be declined. This is because articles must be verifiable, notable, neutral, and well-formatted in order to be kept. Keep in mind that an article that is well-formatted and otherwise desirable may be deleted if its subject is not notable. This decision is only strengthened by a lack of sources and/or content. I hope this answers your query. Thank you for inquiring. ~ Flame vip e r ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone blanked and vandalized your talk page

hey man, thought I'd let you know that i noticed some user blanked then vandalized your talk page, so I reverted it back. take care. Bmg916 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Creator of Light Horakti

I am currently using this image to gather information on the tournaments that took place over these cards. I request that this image not be deleted because it is being used for research purposes. I thank you for your cooperation. Big Boss 0 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images can only be used in articles, not on your user page. Metros232 19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using the image on my userpage but a hyperlink to the image. However, it has proven very useful here recently and I still need it. I wouldn't have half the information that I have now if this card wouldn't be on wikipedia. It still has sufficient use to me. Big Boss 0 14:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visit my talk page about the subject please. I hope we can work something out. Big Boss 0 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: James.Kelly01

Check the contributions of this user. He vandalized my userpage and usertalk page. I trust that I can get some help from you. Big Boss 0 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked about 10 hours ago. Metros232 19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page history is full of vandalism. What does this guy have against us anyway. Please reply on my talk page with this comment. Big Boss 0 14:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that he attacked me? Could you give me some answers. Big Boss 0 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I thank you for your input, but I don't believe you understand those edits. They were a joke, taken out of context. ~ Flame vip e r ^{Who's a Peach?} 17:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hahahaha. Metros232 17:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of amusement at a joke is not grounds to say that it's inappropriate. ~ Flame vip e r ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the fact that you're asking an admin to violate WP:BLOCK for your own bemusement IS inappropriate. Metros232 18:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I made a mistake. Seeing as I had just gotten off Uncyclopedia (where there is no blocking policy), I was accustomed to the guidelines there... ~ Flame vip e r ^{Who's a Peach?} 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image speedy

Hi Metros - I tagged the image Image:DSC00526 edited.jpg for speedy deletion but you removed the tag because the uploader uses the image on their user page. I'm curious as to why that doesn't show when I click "What links here" - that specifically says that no pages link to that picture.

Anyway the reason that I put a speedy tag on it was because the uploader had created nothing but joke articles that were speedily deleted, and I just assumed that the pictures were not going to be used in good faith. Cheers to you. SmartGuy 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shows clearly in the "file links" section of the image page for me. here's the user page. Metros232 15:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see. Cool beans. SmartGuy 18:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nagel12

Please block this account indefinetly, it was created just for vandalism. I know this person. Noha307 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Nu

Hey Metros232,

I noticed you removed something like 90% of this article due to copyvio. Before such major revisions, I would suggest posting about it on the discussion page -- or, at the very least, at least reading the page, which discusses why this is not copyvio.

Now, I will admit, that is not an entirely satisfactory copyright statement, and if you wish to argue with it, then please do so; however, removing hundreds of words and quite a bit of other editors' work without warning is not acceptable. Please join the discussion; for now, I have reverted your change. (Though I am hopeful we can rework the page soon to make this debate moot). --SuperNova |T|C| 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni of fraternities

I understand the need for references. In fact, it's very difficult to determine who exactly was a member of that fraternity at times which often leads to some lively debates. However, wouldn't it been a lot easier and more appropriate to place an "unreferenced" tag on the notable alumni sections than mass deletions? Many editors have contributed to those lists overtime and they should at least be given the chance to cite their sources. According to your broad brush of deleting notable alumni sections, almost all the fraternities and sororities who have sections should be deleted and not just the ones you edited. Moreover, articles such as Notable Sigma Chi Alumni, List of notable members of Lambda Chi Alpha, and List of Phi Kappa Tau people should all be deleted because none of them are directly cited. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Message

Metros232, I recently received a message from you stating a warning. Not only am I completely puzzled by this since I have never knowingly edited the Wiki, I also don't know what I've been warned for. Is there anyway you can track what I have supposedly done? I am at a loss for the moment.

Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.154.62 (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am amazed by your great manner and civility as an anonymous user! Bravo! And as for your query, I offer the explanation that you are using a shared IP. Each computer has its own unique IP address, but sometimes, when two or more computers are grouped together (like in a school or office), they will have the same IP, and thus, the same edit hitory for Wikipedia. Oftentimes, anonymous users are puzzled by the appearance of odd vandalism warnings on their talk pages for edits that they did not make. To eliminate the connfusion of a shared IP and better protect your anonymity, I reccomend creating an account. Thank you for your good manner. ~ Flame vip e r ^{Who's a Peach?} 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick and informative answer! Yes, I had hoped it would turn out to be a simple misunderstanding. I'm glad that's cleared up. I wasn't even aware you 'could' message anonymous users. I must say the treatment I have received here, merely as an anonymous user is quite commendable. Thank you, and good day!

Thanks

Thanks for semi-protecting Build God, Then We'll Talk, I was just about to go and request it. Seraphimblade 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Antonio Ribeiro Telles

An article that you have been involved in editing, Antonio Ribeiro Telles, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Ribeiro Telles. Thank you.--A. B. ^(talk) 04:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Vasco Taborda, Jr.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vasco Taborda, Jr., has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasco Taborda, Jr.. Thank you.--A. B. ^(talk) 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wrestlinglover420

Please watch him. He used the 'f' word in one article and undid my delete of it. Was I in the wrong? Mr. Asher Heimermann 21:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were. His use of it was to show what STFU stands for. Metros232 21:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT censored for minors. ~ Flame vip e r ^{Who's a Peach?} 01:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Could you please block User:58.6.40.187? Thank you. Corvus cornix 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV is a much better place to report vandals, as it is patrolled by multiple administrators (as opposed to one). You can still ask here, but bear in mind that you will probably get a slower response. ~ Flame vip e r ^{Who's a Peach?} 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at WP:AIV but nobody was repsonding, and the guy kept re-vandalizing with homophobic attacks on other people. I came here because Metros232 was the last person to block somebody at that point and I was hoping that he/she would be available at the time I made my request. Corvus cornix 02:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfeit Cards

If an image is of a counterfeit card. Does the card have a copyright. If so please inform me. Big Boss 0 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta?

Your nomination of User:Flameviper/Flameviper was quite bizarre and seemingly random. I would like to have some type of explanation? Flameviper 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not bizarre and random because I believe it violates the policies of WP:USER and WP:NOT as its using Wikipedia for non-Wikipedia related projects. You say it's a sandbox for your new Wiki, why not put the sandbox ON that wiki? Metros232 01:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Main Page isn't available on my wiki. ~ Flameviper 18:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, that doesn't really make any sense. Just create a Main Page and put it there. Or, put it in your userspace on that wiki. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia main page, with all its formatting? ~ Flameviper 15:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've successfully duplicated another wiki's Main Page on one of my own (in development) wikis. It is possible. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then I'd have to copy {{In the news}}, {{POTD}}, {{On this day}}, and {{Did you know}}. But that isn't the point. ~ Flameviper 16:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Heads Up

I will be uploading 3 Horakti images tonight. I will only need them for 24 hours for User: Exxod 6 to see and save to his computer. After the 24 hours is up do with them what you like and no need to contact me about them. They are expendable unlike the others and will only be needed a short time. I would e-mail them but my e-mail has been down since December. I thank you for your cooperation. Big Boss 0 02:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will be deleting those right away. See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a webhost for things like this. Metros232 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just have one question, and try to be honest as you can, how closely have you been watching me? Big Boss 0 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Your user page and user talk are on my watchlist if that's what you're asking about. Metros232 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AIV reports

Please report users only AFTER they have edited past the test4 or BV warnings. You seem to be doing it concurrently: warning the user and reporting them at the same time. I've had to remove and/or continue to check back on several reports you've made in the last hour or so to see if the user has vandalized again. In several cases, they haven't and were removed as inactive. Thanks, Metros232 14:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, sorry about that. I definitely wasn't warning them and reporting them at the same time. I think what's happening is I'm reverting one of their edits, giving them a final warning, then later on coming across an edit they'd already made, reverting that, and reporting them since they're already on a final warning. I realize that's not right; I guess I don't have a very good memory. I'll start double-checking the time of the last warning for each user, and only reporting them if they've edited since the time of that warning. Thanks for pointing this out – Qxz 15:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did this again just now reporting the user at 05:17 before the final warning was given at 05:18. The user hasn't edited since the final warning yet. Please wait until after they break the test4 before reporting. Thanks, Metros232 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... now I see what the issue is. I was under the impression that it was acceptable to report to AIV after a "third-level" warning, since it mentions the possibility of a block, if the vandalism is blatant and the user clearly isn't going to give up. See for example:

~~this recent comment from an administrator, taking this position.~~
~~this thread a few weeks old in the archives, in which this is also stated.~~

By all means correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm doing appears to be acceptable practise. (I leave a fourth-level warning in some cases, just not when it's obvious the vandal isn't going to stop until he's blocked; I get the feeling it's best just to inform admins as fast as possible in these cases). Thanks – Qxz 05:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I've had a closer look at a sample of recent reports to WP:AIV, and reporting only after a fourth-level warning seems to be more common, so I'll try to do that from now on. Just a note that this doesn't actually seem to be a hard-and-fast rule. Thanks – Qxz 06:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland

Are you going to start this again? Chill dude! - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start what again? You're making completely inappropriate edits to the article. You're replacing links that need to be removed. Metros232 20:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This little back and forth thing we had going awhile back here on this page....and I didn't make the changes, I reverted them. I have enough problems with Calton...I don't need nor want to deal with you at this moment. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...and you were reverting valid changes. So, yes, these ARE inappropriate edits that you made. Metros232 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is what I am talking about....tiny thing, becomes a big thing. I don't have the time nor the patience to deal with little minor things like this. You want to have an arguement over an edit, go right ahead and argue with yourself...I have much better things to do than discuss the finer points of "valid changes" with you. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 21:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well stop making inappropriate edits and you'll never have to deal with that again. Metros232 21:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor and go try and pick a fight with Calton and leave me and my "inappropriate edits" as you call them be. Thanks. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 05:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd, you complain about not having time for this, yet you keep coming back to respond to me...I suggest you take a breath sometimes and stop being so argumentative towards other users.

In the last several months you've been involved in squabble after squabble which can easily be avoided if you just take a step back and try to understand a lot of the functions of Wikipedia. The first Cumberland discussion could have been avoided if you took time to understand the external links policies and how creating the article just to contain those links was inappropriate. You immediately jumped on a user for adding foreign language categories but if you took some time to observe, you would have noticed the interwiki feature that adds the "in other languages" box next to articles. The same goes for this recent squabble. You reverted the bot removing the circular links and dating a template. If you just took some time to think about it, it would have made sense that removing a link to an article which is, in fact, the same article the link is in does nothing and is unnecessary. And much of what's been going on with A Man In Black could have been avoided if you took some time to read up on policies and observe.

So, please, take a deep breath the next time you have an impulse towards something that might spring conflict. As some of my friends say "whoo-sha". It means "I ain't gonna let shit bother me and I'm not going to fret" (basically :) ). Metros232 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 05:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore

Thanks for the fixes on the George Calvert article. I'm trying to work it up to FA, so any suggestions beyond the changes you've already made are more than welcome. Mocko13 05:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Signature

This is one of my typical mistakes: I forgot to check the "Raw Signature" box. I fixed it and here it is : -Steptrip⁽^talk^•^contribs⁾

-Steptrip⁽^talk^•^contribs⁾ 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks?

These are no attacks...just truth. I have not attacked anyone and have no intention of doing so....I am just letting people know of a couple editors that I have had run-ins with and for them to avoid. Nothing but truth. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 11:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you might want to tell El C that too because one of your "editors who rock" just reverted you. See, if someone who isn't "an editor to avoid" agrees with me, I can't be all that terrible and power hungry. If I was, don't you think you would have been blocked a long time ago? Metros232 11:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he does it, then it must be right. So, touche. But if it is just you then I just don't trust ya. After the problems with the Cumberland, MD page and the 3 migraines I got trying to make it work with you....you and I will never get along. El_C has always been up-front with me, has always been helpful and has always listened to my side and took it under consideration. You, haven't and never tried...even when I tried to give the same consideration and respect that El_C gives to me. Sorry if you don't like being on that list (that is not floating around in cyberspace) but that is just the way I feel. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 11:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the revert. No need to apologize. That's a start, though:) Dude, honestly, I am the "ass" I am made out to be on here. I am really easy to get along with. I just want to add as much information to a page as possible (in the Cumberland, MD case) and when it gets messed up it upsets me cause I put ALOT of work into it. Now that is probably my Asperger's kicking in, but that is why I go into an almost defensive mode. It is not something I mean to do, it is just not something I can control. Not an excuse, just saying. I honestly try to get along, I try to edit pages to the best of my abilities, I try to add all the information I can confirm myself. So, I am not the "ass" I am made out to be and I am not the person who bypasses the WP rules I don't like. I don't agree with them, but I have to go with them. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 12:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRAJ

The page was brought back (not by me) and I updated the most recent update (earlier this morning) and it was deleted between 3am EST and 6am EST. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 11:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was deleted at 08:26 UTC by Firsfron (talk · contribs) as reposted material. If you or Liradio want to start the article again, you'll have to go through deletion review first. Metros232 11:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Stamp

Can you please undelete Talk:Dennis Stamp. This is currently under deletion review (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Dennis_Stamp) and the Talk Page is where the information and sources to support it's undeletion are being stored. Thanks. Jamestrepanier 18:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there was nothing obvious there that suggested it was on DRV. I've restored and added a template to it. Metros232 18:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE

By the way are you a fan of WWE. Big Boss 0 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Metros232 04:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-cartoon

Really. The Wikipedia vandals on the cartoon are the badguys, it doesn't promote vandalism. All cartoons have badguys, and the goodguys would always win at the end. It would be hilarious to have this cartoon, it could promote wikipedia, and show the stuff that the vandals do. As for how hard our contributors work to create the ultimate knowledge, and then have it ruined by senseless people; I really need some help on this. Retiono Virginian 13:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but if people read these cartoons and say "oh man, those vandals are hilarious!" or whatever, they might desire to imitate them and hope to be glorified themselves as the bad guys of the next story arch of the cartoon. Metros232 13:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the point that spoiling the work of others is wrong sad, and useless, will be placed into the cartoon, and besides, vandalism can't get any worse anyway. Retiono Virginian 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

If you are to delete my work please do inform me first. Considering what you did with my template. Retiono Virginian 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I informed you 30 seconds or so before you posted this. Metros232 13:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You informed me after I posted this. Retiono Virginian 13:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if that had happened, I would have gotten a "new messages" banner the second I posted to your talk page. I didn't get the banner until a bit after that when I returned to my watchlist. Not that any of this matters at all. Metros232 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we chat?

Thanks for you comment on the RCU page: would you mind filling me in on the history of the other puppets (if you know it)? Wikibooks is occaisionally used as a "retreat position" for people who have gotten into trouble on wikipedia... I assume they think things will be easier on a smaller project, but we're actually a lot tougher in certain respects, so we tend to see problems early, rather than allowing a history to develop. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this thread from July 2006 explains a lot of it fairly well. The basic gist is: a user, of some connection to WoW (SunStar Net has used the IP address attributed to WoW 195.188.152.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), basically glorifies vandalism by spreading around templates for indefblocked users and other related nonsense. I believe one of the socks, perhaps TheM62Manchester, was actually making sockpuppets to attack himself and then tag them after they were blocked. They all seem to possess an interest in cars and the Wikiproject on automobiles, an interest in UK location articles, and an infinity for templates of all arrays. That's the basic overview of it, Metros232 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. As for TheM62Manchester, well, I wouldn't know him from the hole of a ground. And as for making sockpuppets to attack yourself, that just sounds ridiculous. I only used 195.188.152.16 once, that's all. I'm here as a genuine editor, not a spammer/sockpuppet whatever. That's the truth. --sunstar net^talk 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros232, what have you got against him?? If he's here to edit encyclopedically and be harmless, why hassle him like this?? He's a good editor... just because he likes editing certain things doesn't mean he's anyone else's sockpuppet or whatever. I know him in real-life anyway... he's just someone who likes here... not a sockpuppet! --1qx 20:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry... i don't usually watch user talk pages because I've gotten used to people responing on mine. I don't think this is a WoW-related issue. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 21:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sockpuppetry allegations

Metros232, I am not a sockpuppet: I hadn't heard of those users before now, as per Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground.

Just because of my interests does not make me a sockpuppet, I am a genuine editor, not here to cause trouble or mayhem.

Thanks, --sunstar net^talk 01:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Boss 0

I sent him a message. I know that I'm not responsible for his actions, but I feel that I should apologize for the frustration that he has caused you. You have shown him far more mercy than he deserves, and that shows a great deal of maturity on your part. If he uploads another OFU image, just block him. That's equal to vandalism and he knows it. If he starts a war with his actions on Uncyclopedia, then I will act swiftly and mercilessly. He has worn out his welcome, and it is time for some tough love. 声援 -- The Hyb rid 05:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not blaming you or anything. I was just asking if you could try getting through to him because he seems to listen to you more than he does to me. I hope he realizes just how thin the ice is below him right now. Metros232 15:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so as well, and I know that you aren't blaming me for anything. It's just when I mentor someone so heavily and yet they still do this crap I can't help but feel a little bit responsible. I can't believe he's turned out like this. I'm so disappointed. 声援 -- The Hyb rid 20:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for deleting the List of University of Tulsa alumni page that I accidently helped create while attempting to create a similarly-named category, Category:University of Tulsa alumni. --TommyBoy 20:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack pages

The page Paul Sudhop is continually being re-created by one user as an attack page. Retiono Virginian 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At was an attack at first but he changed it so it wouldn't be deleted. Retiono Virginian 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Final Message

I'm not saying that I believe him, but Big Boss 2, aka Ockenbock has said that he would be leaving Wikipedia and remaining on Uncyclopedia exclusively, and he asked me to pass along an apology for his vandalism from him to you. Like I said, I'm not saying that I believe him, but he asked me to pass along the message, so... 声援 -- The Hyb rid 19:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Avery Trial

I am unsure why you keep on deleting The Avery Trial link. This website is owned by Appleton Post-Crescent. 65.43.22.232 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's actually owned and operated by you Asher, I'm not an idiot. Metros232 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I don't know who "Asher" is. 65.43.22.232 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then how come the Appleton Post-Crescent only has this section for the trial on their website and not that .info one? And how come almost every page on the website has copyright Asher Heimermann on it? Hmm.... Metros232 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not "Asher". I don't know who he is and I never heard of him. 65.43.22.232 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Got a bit of a problem. There are some of Clear Channel radio stations that are now under "BT Triple Crown Merger Co." (a private company that is pretty much still Clear Channel), should I put the merger company name in small italics under Clear Channel or just put Clear Channel and leave it at that? - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue. Isn't there a WikiProject on radio stations you can ask? Metros232 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it is not as updated as WP:TVS. I added it in small letters below Clear Channel, if someone wants to correct it, they can. Mostly the company is just under a merger name, but it is still Clear Channel, that is why I wasn't sure if I should add it at all. No worries though:) - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 00:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]