User:Redwolf24/Archive17

Your e-mail to me

Sorry, I don't understand your e-mail. I know what I did to Jackie Chan's page qualifies as vandalism so I figured you were warning me that I am about to be "blocked".

Otherwise I don't get your message, unless you are referring to the Irish and Croatian censors who refuse to allow painful truths on websites regarding the Ustase, Bleiburg Massacre, Michael Cusack, John Charles McQuaid, etc.

Eirelover@earthlink.net 01:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry you'd have to show me the email, I don't remember you. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the disambig fix on my user page

Like i said, thanks. CincinnatiWiki 22:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

glad to help :D Redwolf24 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A question

I think I saw your birthdate somewhere but I can't find it anymore. If you don't mind, could you tell me when it is? THANK YOU

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgul Fang (talk • contribs)

September 29. Two weeks to go! Redwolf24 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Morgul Fang

Thank you for the welcome message. ;).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgul Fang (talk • contribs)

No problem, but remember to type ~~~~ after your comments on talk pages. The software converts it to your user name and the time/date. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem on edge lately

so....

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy, my very own troll. Thanks ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ask reference desk on Main page

1. · Browse by subject · Ask Wikipedia a Question · Article overviews · Alphabetical index · Other indexes
2. · Browse · Portals · Overviews · Ask Wikipedia a Question · Alphabetical index · Other indexes
3. · Ask Wikipedia a Question · Browse · Portals · Overviews · Alphabetical index · Other indexes

Redwolf24, first, congratulations on your concept (#1) for the Main Page Browse bar. I would imagine that the change was a little shocking to Trevor MacInnis and the other Portal enthusiasts. Here is a proposal (#2) to incorporate space for the Portal link on the Browse bar. That would allow all the previous hard work of everyone concerned, some space on the Main Page Browse bar. #3 would have its advantages as well, but perhaps the initial view source tab might make things feel less accessible to a newcomer. I would not object to #3 either. Ancheta Wis 00:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I went with option 2. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you in behalf of the Portal people. Ancheta Wis 01:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem... Redwolf24 (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Planning Ahead?

Heh. :) Are you going to put them all up on the same day? It would be a complete cabalian revolution if you did. :o Acetic'^Acid 06:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No... Who will be nominated October 1st... you'll be October 24th or so, and Toothpaste around October 30th. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Sounds good. Thank you for putting so much thought into this. The nominations look quite good. Acetic'^Acid 04:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Mickey

Hello again. I just saw your list of Mickey sockpuppets. MR LULZ and MR LOL are not linked to Mickey. They are sockpuppets of rn71989. I've never seen MRS LOL before. That one might be Mickey. Acetic'^Acid 07:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe that's just it, rn71989 is Mickey?? Redwolf24 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. Definately not. Ask me in IRC or MSN, and I'll tell you who rn71989 was. (I don't think it needs to be repeated onsite.) -- Essjay · Talk 23:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

k. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Toby

Please lift the protection:

1. The {{rejected}} tag is inappropriate, since castle-jumpers are monopolizing the discussion and excluding serious debate. This is a proposal, and a credible one, and obviously is going to take much more time to work itself into something useful to the Community. Nothing is gained by branding it as rejected, since unlike policy proposals, this is a design proposal -- it does not call for any editor action, cannot be cited to support or attack any editor's action. Toby does not attempt to set guidelines for editor's behavior; therefore there is no need to label the proposal in order to discourage editors from relying upon it. The only value of the tag is to attempt to strangle debate.

The tag should be removed and replaced with {{proposed}}, as before; or left untagged, as I wrote it; or tagged appropriately as an engine design feature request. In any case, intelligent discussion should be fostered, not suppressed.

2. There has been considerable debate, but the proposal itself has not been edited. I prefer to allow other editors to implement changes directly, but as they have not done so, I intend shortly to rewrite the proposal itself to take note of its greatly expanded scope. The page in question -- as written -- is less a proposal of any kind, and more the type of text I intend for Help:Toby -- at some distant future time.

At this point, there are actually three distinct variations of Toby under discussion:

• Simple Toby;
• Original Toby; and
• Custom Toby

any of which can be implemented as:

• Engine Toby; or
• Aftermarket Toby

This makes a total of six different approaches to a potentially questionable content display management solution. The proposal does need to be rewritten from scratch to reflect this.

3. I will not belabor the fact that you and I have a personal feud going on -- nor do I wish to open that here. But this means it is inappropriate for you to take action in this matter. Having done so, I urge you either to step out of this conflict of interest, or do right. — Xiong熊talk* 22:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You make a powerful argument, and I agree with a lot of it. But that doesn't matter, consensus has ruled against you. There's a slow edit war between you (who is minding 3RR) and several others. I think at one time Nickptar was for Toby, but he seems against it now. Now, let me tell you the truth: I thought Zap was one of the stupidest things I've seen, but I don't mind Toby anymore. I know that it doesn't apply to anyone cept those who want it. But I think the reason so many are against this is that they can't think of anyone who would even use Toby. I have no opinion on Toby nowadays, and I protected it from a neutral view. If you get a conensus of some sort, I'll be watching its talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No, consensus has not spoken at all on Toby; consensus does not equal a lot of loud, ignorant shouting. Read over the talk carefully and you will see that early on there were a few legitimate comments; but the great bulk of it has been ranting from extremists who consistently ride their biases and misconstrue facet after facet of the concept. This is not consensus formation -- not in any way. Not one single word from these ranters has gone toward discussion of the real Toby at all; let alone exploring or including other viewpoints.

Since you understand that Toby does not affect those who do not choose to participate, then perhaps you will recognize that grounds for objection are even slimmer than they might be in discussion of some other proposal that affects all. Toby-bashers are screwing with the right of free choice of those who want or need Toby's help. They simply have no right to be heard at all, without showing how their rights or our core principles are infringed. It is absurd for them to claim consensus.

No, you have not protected Toby "from a neutral view" -- you have locked it in the deprecated state, thus taking sides with the rabble. Worse, you have condemned it to death, since now improvement is forbidden. Far from neutral, your action is as biased as anything could be! Your statement of intent is irrelevant; you're doing damage. Better to delete the whole thing -- page, talk, demo, and all the rest -- and I'll just start over.

Mentioning Zap in this context is indirect attack ad hominum. It does not matter if I have been wise or foolish in any of my many other efforts. Toby is the subject here. Either be a neutral trustee, or discard that pose and be a partisan combatant.

I dislike long-winded debate; I dislike angry contention; I dislike heavy-handed authority; and I dislike most of all escalation of conflict from one court to a higher one. Please do the right thing now, and save us all the unpleasant stink of this fight. — Xiong熊talk* 00:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

From what I have seen, I haven't seen too many Toby supporters. And locking the page as is is the protected policy, I'm just trying to stop an edit war, really. If you wanna work on improving Toby, copy the source to a subpage of your own and edit it, and the result will be added when its unprotected. There's a straw poll being taken on toby's talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Straw polls are bullshit. The outcome is rigged, since there's already a well-packed group of detractors standing around waiting to vote. You should not even permit that.

I say your actions are wrong. You're acting out a personal grudge against me that has nothing to do directly with Toby. I've stayed firmly within 3RR; I've justified my edits soundly. You want to lock the page "as is"? Then lock it the way it is when it's right, not when some juvenile penis-wavers have fucked it. "When it's unprotected" doesn't mean too much to me, since there is no time specified -- you failed to document the protection in the first place.

It does not matter how many users are totally opposed to Toby, because they are automatically not affected. Therefore, they have nothing to say. I grant that this is a new situation, but there it is. What I put in my coffee is none of his or her business. Is that clear? I've already spent far too much time explaining over and over again to people who can't be bothered to understand. If you do understand, then you have even less grounds than most, and they have essentially none. — Xiong熊talk* 06:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Here was my intention of the poll: if one person, just one respectable editor, who's not you, thinks its proposed, I would change the tag to state as such. If we had just one person willing to use Toby, I would not mind. However, you are alone. You are the lone wolf posting {{proposed}} vs. the many posting {{rejected}}. I know about Toby and I know that it doesn't affect those who don't want it. But no one wants it! So find a respectable editor willing to use Toby, and we will make Toby {{Proposed}}. And sorry for taking so long to respond, my power was out. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka's RfA

I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I'll try my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks for caring about what's best for Wikipedia, and thanks specifically for not letting those who play fast and loose with the truth batter you down. Regards, Nandesuka 00:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Best wishes

Here's to hoping that whatever the Troubles are, they soon blow over.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 04:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that you're going through a hard time, and I do hope things get better soon. Ambi 05:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you are having a problem. Take care, and I hope things are resolved. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Stay strong, my friend. Acetic'^Acid 06:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. Let us know if you need anything. Nandesuka 11:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope things aren't as bad as they seem. Keep in touch. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry things are bad for you right now. Please come back when you are up to it. Maltmomma ^(chat) 12:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

All the best to you and yours. Stay amazing. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)}

I hope everything is well. I look forward to your happy return. ∞Who?¿? 03:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, it really is appreciated :) Redwolf24 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you look into this?

Related to this [1] comment of yours made here. I reverted this page [2] back to its former self and the user was the culprit uploader of the not so pretty picture. It's this ok? I'm fairly new around here. Thanks! Northernstar79 06:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked him after about 3 edits. Don't worry about him. Redwolf24 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Dylan article

You have a very teenagerish tone for a sysop. How old are you? The Dylan page will be protected shortly. JDG 22:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

1) This project needs to tighten up on qualifications for admin type positions; 2) No, I'm not very familiar with adminny tags and procedures. Long ago, years before you'd ever heard of Wikipedia, I made a decision to steer clear of adminny stuff. The soul of this project is researching and writing. Everything else is less than secondary, except maybe software development; 3) The Dylan article was blocked for reasons you should have known (read the Talk page and the RfC on Monicasdude). Are you really going to make me flag down people to revert you or are you going to be big enough to just say "my bad" and reprotect it? JDG 00:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Please chill on both sides. JDG was certainly unaware that the template itself does not actually protect a page. I once made the same mistake myself, on a completely different page (and was also accused of malice and bad faith, rather than of simple ignorance, as was actually true). It's not obvious to non-admins what is technically required for a page protection.

On the other hand, a protection tag does not belong to the particular admin who first placed it. I'm sure Redwolf24 was also acting in good faith in thinking that the protection had passed its relevance. Unless you've carefully followed the RfC, the talk page, the page history, and all, an outside editor won't really be clear on the status. For that matter, even someone who has followed it all could come to various opinions on when protection should/will be removed; there's no simple rule.

I do think it's too early to unprotect this particular page (and see that it has been reprotected by Redwolf24). So let's all smile, and leave the protection for a bit longer. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

I think it would be fine to unprotect this article so that we can see if the RFC had any effect on his behavior before RFAR is considered. ⟳ausa کui ^× 11:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I find your string of prejudgments in this matter offensive. You still have not identified any areas where, as you claimed, I insisted on my text in defiance of consensus -- and, as the comments of the RfC should make clear to an unbiased observer, the disputed text that user: Lulu has insisted on including is neither factual nor undisputed, with a clear majority of those commenting opposing it. It should also be clear from the comments on the RfC that there are clearly two sides on this dispute, and that singling me out as the principal cause of the editorial dispute simply casts a blind eye to the clear misbehavior of others. Monicasdude 15:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Between Monicasdude's below comment and his one edit during the brief unprotection, I definitely tend to think we're not ready for unprotection. Specifically, in [3], Monicasdude removes a perfectly good change by an anonymous editor stating "NPOV recent addition". The change by User:138.88.200.36 itself is probably unnecessary, since readers can follow the George Jackson link themselves. But the change is also definitely not POV. To my mind (which is suspicious on this matter, by this point, I admit), it is a slight hint of the same pushy editing pattern that utterly disrespects other editors. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Saying George Jackson was simply "killed in prison" without mentioning the claim that he was killed while armed and attempting to escape from prison obviously fails to comply with Wikipedia NPOV policy. Monicasdude 16:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, I was trying to clear out some backlogs and all this happens. Ryan Delaney can protect and unprotect as he pleases, I'll not clear out any logs for a while. Redwolf24 (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Bmicomp's RFA

I want to thank you for your vote and your support of my adminship! I promise you I will not let you down. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Mop and bucket

Rw, I just wanted to tell you I'm so glad someone is relieving Lucky 6.9 from the thankless job of mopping up after Wiki brah. I have watched this saga from the beginning, and, although it is at times very amusing, I would not want to be in your shoes. Thanks for your hard work. paul klenk 23:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Now go sign [4] then? Redwolf24 (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. paul klenk

Kdbuffalo

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo, could you explain to me what exactly is meant by the phrase, "Users certifying the basis for this dispute"? Is it a vote or a judgment, or just affirming the links and the issues involved? KHM03 23:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Its basically a vote. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...not sure what to do. I think Kdbuffalo means well, but he hasn't really been too respectful or "community-minded", in my view. I suppose we're all guilty of that at times, but he just seems so unwilling to compromise or gain consensus. If the vote goes against him, will he be permanently banned, or would/could he be assigned to an administrator to kind of "mentor" him? Or would he simply be banned from certain articles? I'm unclear...thanks. KHM03 23:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really know, if you don't like the view that's there, write your own ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I fear the view is essentially correct, I'm just not sure what to do. Thanks for your help...KHM03 23:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you should post at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo#Outside_view. If it's not the right place, someone will let you know where you should post. But by all means, post your impression of the situation. Guettarda 23:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm just wondering

My brother gave me his account since right now he's changing his life around, or some psycho babble like that. I'm going to make edits that are for the better, but if I'm not allowed to have his account while he's gone, then I'll just start up a new account, and then this account won't make any new edits for awhile since, my brother will be gone. So just tell me if I'd be blocked for using his account or not, its not like I'm going to vandalise or anything. The Fascist Chicken 23:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Create your own account or the chicken will be blocked. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay I created my own account which I'm going to use, so don't block my brother's account. Skunkwheels 01:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

K. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Charter

Yup, sure thing :-) --HappyCamper 02:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yay! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{02:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)}

Looks bueno! Glad you're back. Maltmomma ^(chat) 02:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ohh. Special. :) Who wrote it. Will I still stay in the gov, or be elected. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

JCarriker wrote it. We'll find that out later ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Esperantza (sp?)

Thanks for the note. I've joined the project, and look forward to seeing it in action. Meelar (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

My fault. I'm getting soft in my old wiki-age. Meelar (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Haha ; - ) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Charter error

"The number of Assemblians is number to the percentage set by the admin gen that can be evenly divided into the three tranches." Check that wording, something is wrong. Also, what are the tranches for?Voice of All ^@|E|Merit 03:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Direct all questions towards User talk:JCarriker. He wrote the charter, not I. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:User 1337

Hehe, δ33z, well first off, this should really be named "Hacker" or "h4x0r" (to be precise), although I know the article exists for Leet, but I think it's slightly wrong :) I was one of those 80's BBS geeks who used this, and you were l33t to use it, but it wasn't called that. Granted I guess I should really work on that article and get into a bunch of discussions there over it. But I still dont' have fulltime net acs, so o well. Anyhoo, now I'm waitin 4 Klingon, Elvish and Elmer Fudd language cats/templates, to name a few. ∞Who?¿? 03:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Klingon is already around. I invented the User 1337 babel thing saying hey, we have Klingon, why not 1337? And I chose 1337 in particular because its the most well known version ; - ) and hey, only about 13 days til your RfA! Redwolf24 (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I missed the Klingon one, oh well. Not complaining really, just thought it was interesting it was created, though I fear it will end up on Cfd :( ∞Who?¿? 05:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Category 1337? Theres 97 of us!!! Klingon, maybe, but IIRC there was about 15, which aint too shabby Redwolf24 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I like it. But there are a bunch of users who are against Wiki cats in general. ∞Who?¿? 05:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why, we have Category:User en and I can't picture anyone wanting to kill that... Redwolf24 (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza

Currently I am not an Esperanzian but I have been checking the page and it seems like a very worthwhile project. Perhaps when I get back from my slight wikibreak I will join, feel free to keep me updated, Derktar 05:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

I hope you join :) Redwolf24 (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Auckland Ferry Terminal photograph

I went ahead and added the photograph as you suggested to Auckland. The reason I had decided not to use it was that the section on Ferries doesn't have enough text to prevent the photograph from impinging on the following section (Landmarks and Places), whose header ends up beside the photograph rather than below it as I would like. I suppose this isn't a huge problem, but I'd rather that not happen. However, I'm a graphic artist and perhaps shouldn't get too hung up about such layout niceties. But take a look and see if you think it's OK. JShook (talk)12:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Is okay if the picture goes past its own section. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rachel Lamb

I'm really curious where you saw an assertion of notability on Rachel Lamb. Or do you just disagree with speedying anything that's on Afd? Friday (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a definite call and I didn't think a speedy would be adequete. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the speedy tag certainly does not compel any particular person to delete the article. Whoever doesn't want to delete it can and does feel free to not delete it. I can't see any reason to remove the tag when it's valid, though. Friday (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If I don't fully agree that it should be speedied, then I can remove it. Not like it matters, as the AfD will sort it out, and its not causing Wikipedia any harm that we have to kill it now. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)