User talk:Enigmaman

Hello Enigmaman! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Just Heditor review 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Queens College, City University of New York

I somehow missed your last note on my talk page, Enigmaman, so I just removed the warning here now. Good to see you again, I'm glad that the questionable editing at Queens College, City University of New York has died down. I'll keep the page on my watchlist, let me know if you need any help. Cheers, Iamunknown 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Enigmaman, why did you delete "Queens College" redirects here. For other uses, see Queen's College (Disambiguation). from Queens College, City University of New York? I have added that line twice and it has been removed twice, and I'd like some sort of reasoning behind the removal. I think that it is necessary because "Queens College" can mean so many things but it redirects there without referencing all the other meanings. The disambiguation page referred to here doesn't just talk about colleges spelled "Queen's" but also those spelled "Queens." Awbeal (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You say "There is no other major institution called Queens College." Who decides what is a major institution? And I think the existence of the Queen's College Disambiguation page proves that there are other well-known institutions of a similar name. Awbeal (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There are places called Queen's College, yes. There's a difference between Queen's College and Queens College, and that is why it is unnecessary.

But the first line of the disambiguation page clearly says "Queen's College, Queens' College or Queens College is the name of more than one institution." Awbeal (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever put together the disambiguation page apparently decided to group everything together for some reason, but there is only one Queens College, and I think it's easily distinguished from Queen's. Enigmaman (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reporting vandals

Try the administrators' noticeboard; to report the users, use the template {{vandal|username}} (replace "username" with an actual name or IP of the vandal). Regards, Mike Rosoft 21:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• In general, we don't block for the first act of vandalism (unless the edit makes it obvious that we are dealing with a vandalism-only account). In the cases you have reported, a message on the user's talk page would have been enough; see this page for useful templates. Regards, Mike Rosoft 21:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• You mean the IP address, 149.4.115.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It's a school IP, shared by many people, so there's little point in blocking it today for something that has been done yesterday by somebody else than who is sitting at the computer right now. (If abuse continues, anonymous editing from the address may be blocked for a longer time, even for several months, and a complaint to the staff may also be made.) - Mike Rosoft 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ping

Hey, Enigmaman! Sorry for the late reply. I've responded on my talk page.  :) Cheers, Iamunknown 05:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed your other message

Enigmaman, I'm really sorry I've been so late in responding. With regards to your other message on my talk page (I somehow missed it...), you can report IP addresses and usernames at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV for short). That page can be kind of confusing, but just click the bottom-most "[edit]" button, and type your report like

*{{Anonlinks|127.0.0.1}} - Repeated vandalism on [[Lorem ipsum]] after final warning --~~~~

for IP address, or

*{{Userlinks|Example}} - Repeated vandalism on [[Lorem ipsum]] after final warning --~~~~

for usernames. Hope this helps.  :-) Feel free to ask other questions. I'll try to offer a more prompt response this time.  :-) Cheers, Iamunknown 05:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ProFootBallTalk.Com

See Talk:Profootballtalk.com for why I think "the site was released" is more appropriate than "the site was created." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

AIV removal

Hi Enigmaman. It appears that the first IP you reported was removed because it had already been blocked, and the next IP address that you reported was later removed due to the article being vandalised being semi-protected. Hopefully this makes things a bit clearer. Thanks, Spebi 04:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AIV report

So not to clog up Spebi's talk page, lol, I'll just reply here, Ember of Light removed the second report, and a bot removed the first IP once it was blocked by another administrator, but no biggie! And if you'd like to read up on the intricacies of Recent Changes patrol, and how to report (for instance, the last IP had not received a proper set of warnings in succession, and no final warning was given explaining the problems), so it may be helpful for you, if you are planning on getting into vandalism fighting. Anyway if you wish to review these issues, policies and see some examples of templates you can use, take a look at the essay I've written, here. And if you ever have any questions, feel free to ask, I'm happy to help! Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The "December 2007" section up a ways

Hey, Enigmaman. Long-time no-see.  :) I occassionally check out WP:ANI, so I saw Wikipedia:ANI#Incivility on talk page. I'm not sure I agree that your edit is uncivil, and I appreciate your humor, but I think it would be fair to him if you somehow noted that the current message is not the one he left. (I imagine just adding a diff to his original message would be fine.) That said, feel free to use my advice at your discretion.

I hope you have been well! I'm out for a while, so if you leave a message, I'll probably respond later this weekend (barring one of my disappearances, which seems to happen lately). Later, --Iamunknown 08:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays! :)

The Holy Family with a Little Bird

Enigmaman, I hope that you have happy holidays, whichever holidays you celebrate.  :) Cheers, --Iamunknown 23:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You too. Enigmaman (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Petrino

Hi Enigmaman. There was nothing wrong with the information that I included on the Bobby Petrino page:

"The decision and the manner in which it was executed was highly controversial, with Petrino assuring that he wasn't planning on leaving, right up to the day before accepting the position with Arkansas. Angry Falcons players became aware of the decision through a four-sentence letter from Petrino which the coaching staff posted in the locker room. The same day, Petrino flew to a pep rally for the Arkansas Razorbacks to publicly announce his decision, further enraging his former Atlanta players and coaching staff."

The descision and manner that it occurred WAS very controversial, and was discussed at length in all forms of media for a month after the decision. The Falcons players WERE angry (even enraged), he DID leave a 4 sentence letter as a goodbye, and the flight to attend the Razorbacks pep rally immediately after quitting DID happen. I also included a source which included the letter to the Falcons players and how the players felt about the decision.

There's nothing POV about what I wrote. However your eliminating the information, even though factually sound and lacking weasel words, may show a bias on your part. Call it POV by eimination if you will.

I will re-edit the page to include the information. My personal feelings about Petrino is that he's a great coach who made a mistake in the way he handled the situation. That's all. I'm neither a Falcons fan nor wish any ill-will for Petrino. Viewers of the page will understand this from what is written on the page, while at the same time becoming aware of the situation regarding his departure from the Atlanta Falcons. Readers have a right to know, and then they can make their own decision. I apologize for not discussing it on the Talk page prior to the edit, but honestly I saw (and see) nothing controversial with what I wrote. It's factually sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinneytj (talk • contribs) 05:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is controversial and of questionable relevance to the section. POV by eimination? Don't know what you mean. But I'm as unbiased as it gets when it comes to Bobby Petrino. Enigmaman (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you are unbiased regarding Petrino. I am as well. However, it was the situation which was controversial, and not my comments. And they fit the section regarding his career in the NFL. By POV by elimination, I mean eliminating particular information in order to present a different biographical view of a person. In other words censoring. Anyways, like I said, I think he's a great coach who just made a mistake. That's why I had no qualms about the other comments such as saying "Petrino is considered by many to be one of the most innovative offensive minds in the college game today." Personally, I think that takes it a bit too far, but who am I to judge, and the editor documented accurately and verifiably. But as a biographical page, people have a right to know everything, including the less savory elements. He'll do well at Arkansas, I'm sure. He's a great coach. Take care!Kinneytj (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

dana jacobson page

Enigmaman, I would have sent e-mail but you have that turned off. Anyway, I posted a controversy section for this page because someone had just deleted it. I went back to edit it again because another party was writing things that weren't factual (namely that there were no anti-Notre Dame comments made by DJ). I supported all I wrote. I'm not trying to make trouble but just maintain the integrity of the page. Thanks. p.s. - Oops, I forgot to mention that clicking the link you directed me to (for discussion of the DJ page) just gave me an error. Beorach (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not libel idiot, she really said that, it really happened. Read a sports periodical or watch Sportscenter. I will continuously change it back EVERY time you delete it, you are wrong. --Sean O'Donnell (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There's zero proof. Please stop posting personal attacks. You are in the wrong here. Enigmaman (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope you're wrong. Go on google and search it AND I have periodicals that report it. Get your facts straight. --Sean O'Donnell (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already a referenced summary there. Several people who were at the roast insist she never said "fuck jesus", so how about you get your facts straight and stop edit-warring? Enigmaman (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

NEVER warn me again. You are wrong about it. You are probably some nerd like John Clayton who comments on football and never played it. Your abusing whatever wiki-nerd power you have. It will be changed back. Give up. You wont win.--Sean O'Donnell (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)