User talk:Enigmaman

If you leave a message here, I'll reply here. Also, I've archived some of my older messages in Archive 1.

Congratulations

1YRThe user, Sallicio, congratulates Enigmaman on his ONE YEAR WIKI-ANNIVERSARY

Happy Anniversary!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, happy anniversary! Uhh, anyway, I'm not really sure what to do when someone mass redirects like that. I just looked at your contribs and I'd say you're doing the right thing by bringing attention to them so someone who knows exactly what to do can take care of it. I can only suggest you keep doing that. Sorry I couldn't help more with this one. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

2,000 EDITSCELEBRATION!

I'll be there soon, I'm close to 1,400 in 3 months!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 22:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Something went awry with your celebration box, but good effort nonetheless. :P It's taken me a long time to get here, because I've only been very active the last few months. Enigma ^msg! 22:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do u use Firefox Mozilla? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I use Mozilla Firefox. Used it for several years now. Enigma ^msg! 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you should install WP:TW. It really helped me. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this message. I'll give it a look, thanks Enigma ^msg! 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I used for a week and then gave Huggle a try. Both very helpful and makes reverting much quicker. Enigma ^msg! 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kick(off) returner

Yo Enigma, what do you think about this? Talk:Kickoff returner, funny huh? Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw it when RC left it on your Talk page. I'm not really sure where I fall on the issue. I'll think about it. Enigma ^msg! 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you mean. Yeah, I'll read it. It certainly exploded. Enigma ^msg! 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you might like this userbox,

vn-3This user talk page has been vandalized 3 times.

.

Here's the code, {{user talk vandalized|3}}. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I actually have that exact one on my user page. I added it earlier. I guess a separate one for my Talk page would be appropriate. Enigma ^msg! 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little uneasy about it, so I decided not to add the box to my Talk page. Among my other userboxes, it's fine, but I don't like the idea of sticking it at the top of my Talk page. I actually wanted a combined userbox to put on my userpage saying "This user's userpage and Talk page have been vandalized X times..." or something to that effect. Enigma ^msg! 02:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats ok then. I think I might have seen the userbox you're talking about though. Let me check... Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this one work? This is the only one I could find along those lines. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

vn-6This editor's user page, talk page, or subpages have been vandalized 6 times.

Yeah, that's fine. Color is a little odd, though. I'll use it. Thanks. How did you know my Talk page has been vandalized three times? Enigma ^msg! 02:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw you subtracted three from the other user page only userbox and said in your edit summary it only covers your userpage. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that's not gonna work. I'm going to check the history of my Talk page. What AllStarEcho did counts as vandalism too, so it should be interesting. Enigma ^msg! 02:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eagle Eyes!

That made me chuckle! Believe it or not, that actually was me that made the IP changes on my user page (it had timed me out and logged me off). But, I've always wondered how others notice such discrete changes. I've never been able to do anything with (anti)vandalism. PS: I really do appreciate the look out, though! Thanks, again!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually wasn't certain whether I should revert it (atypical vandalism), but since it was an IP, I decided to revert it. Sorry about that! I'll be more careful in the future. Enigma ^msg! 07:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about it, I'm glad you're looking out for me!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 07:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scarian

I popped back to Scarian's RfA page, realising I hadn't updated the tally, and noticed you already had. (Thanks, BTW :-) However, I also noticed your unusual edit summary ([1])—might I enquire what you mean? Cheers, AGK (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean anything by it. I was just running out of things to say! Anyway, I'll let you update the count if you wish. I was just doing it because I didn't see anyone else keeping it updated. :) Enigma ^msg! 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're curious where that line was from, it's from Slide Away. Enigma ^msg! 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah :) Thanks for clearing that up. On "I'll let you update the count if you wish"—not at all! I express my gratitude (once again :) for your sharp-sighted editing... I was simply curious about what you meant by the edit summary ;) Regards, AGK (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hooah! Thank you for the support and subsequent updates, friend :-) - I really appreciate your comments and everything. If you ever need anything please don't hesitate to contact me on IRC or message me or e-mail me or whatever :-) - And thanks for the stats too! Certainly interesting ;-) - Take care and thanks again! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bryanqwert

he's already been blocked. But before he was, he vandalized my page. It was just funny. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He deleted the block message, so I didn't see that he had been blocked until after I added the messages. Enigma ^msg! 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. That guy's just... special. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, that's too bad. Does your laptop have a touchpad? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess they do. That was a lack of thought n my part. Big news (to me anyway), I almost racked up 1,000 edits today!!! YAY!!! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In one day!? What do you mean? You're at 1770 overall, I think. Enigma ^msg! 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're going to hit 100 edits on the day! :) Enigma ^msg! 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on hitting 2,000 edits! Thats another big milestone. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

YAY!!! CONGRATULATIONS!!! WHY AM I TYPING IN CAPS??? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You know why I typed in CAPS? I hadn't check my edit count since yesterday, and then when I went to look at it, it was 1,999. Remarkable coincidence. IT'S SO EXCITING! :P Enigma ^msg! 21:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As burner would say, "YEA" RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 22:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He's probably a guy from my school. As you can see I'm not very popular. LOL. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 22:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Warning vandals

Darn, how could I forget! When I find other people have reverted vandalism, I usually check to see that they warned the user and I issue a warning if they didn't. I'm disappointed when other people don't issue warnings and even more disappointed that I forgot to do it myself. Thanks for the reminder. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

re:vandals

Well, being a Bible reader I can tell you right now that that isn't the KJV (King James Version). But yeah, that is interesting. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, does look like NIV. What denomination are you anyway? Cuz I'm a baptist. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do talk to burner alot. What we do is we get on the phone then get on WP. LOL RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Brehm Ip

yes i attend —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and. (On McCain in the News)

Thanks for the general message, Enigma.

As for my adding "incorrect information" to the John McCain article, I respectfully disagree. While it has since been reverted, my sentence, "Neither have denied it [an alleged romance]," corrected the sentence "Both have denied [an alleged romance]." Iseman has not made a public statement yet (as best I know), and McCain, while criticizing the article as in some general sense "untrue," did not state whether any of the facts asserted in the Times story (or the Washington Post or New Republic or Associated Press) are true or false.

Blair71 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Well, the McCain wikipedia article notes McCain's denial, and I won't remove it. As for Iseman, it appears according to this site that Iseman is considering making a public statement, but has yet to: [2]

Though you've probably already seen it, I've added mention of the independent reports from Washington Post and The New Republic about the Times article and its allegations. I added them because these separate reporters claim similar facts in their articles, thus belying any notion, should it exist, that the NY Times is, on their own, publishing obviously false reporting.

Blair71 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So far I'm unimpressed with the reporting as well. Blair71 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cavaliers Wikiproject

You wanna join this? User:Burner0718/WikiProject Cleveland Cavaliers. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 23:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I'm not from Ohio!

lol. Nah, I'll pass. I only casually follow the NBA, and I'm not a Cavs fan. Thanks anyway Enigma ^msg! 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, door's always open if you change your mind. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

IP vandalism.

User likes blocks, user gets blocks. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 09:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot

Thanks for keeping me in the loop as far as discussions about BetacommandBot. I've lost energy for trying to reason with people about this. However, I am trying to spread some truth about explicit use rationales: User:Remember the dot#About use rationales. If there is interest, I could make this section of my userpage into a template and allow others to place it on their own userpages. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So much irrationality. Beta, Hammer, and Lara Love refuse to see the points others make about the bot, and all attempts at reasonable discussion deteriorate. I gave up. Enigma ^msg! 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that "BetacommandBot is ruining Wikipedia" userbox had been deleted (too bad I didn't realize there was a deletion discussion otherwise I would have contributed). I've replaced it with my own "userbox" of a sort. 23skidoo (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to keep track of all of them. If you want, I can notify you when I see a new one. There are two going on now, I believe. A different one was also archived, along with an MfD. Also, if you don't mind, I'm going to borrow/steal what you wrote to replace the deleted userbox. :) Enigma ^msg! 21:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your one-year anniversary! (Well, now I suppose it is a one year and 3–4 day anniversary...) Good to see you writing articles—I have a few I'd like to write (I'd need a lot more spare time). I finding writing more pleasant than administration, though I guess both are necessary. ~ Iamunknown 08:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Travis Grant

The default sort will allow you sort by someone's last name instead of the first easily. Without the default sort, all the categories categorized Travis Grant under 'T'. By doing a default sort on Grant, he is now categorized under 'G'. I'm not sure what the difference between Reflist and Reflist2 is. Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

re:hey

Go to preferences and click on the watchlist tab and adjust the number. You might wanna enable the expanded watchlist tab. How ya been doin'? Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

fine, thanks! Enigma ^msg! 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) I found it because the vandal that got your page also got a Talk page on my watchlist. Must've been mad at the people who warned him. Enigma ^msg! 19:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:HUG.

I'll send you the latest version by e-mail, but you'll have to e-mail Gurch (who is inactive, at the moment) if you want to receive updates. · AndonicO ^Hail! 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll e-mail him and I guess he'll see it when he sees it. Enigma ^msg! 20:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandal warning

I generally warn vandals, but if I feel limited in time or I am not using VP, then I will just revert without warning the editor. When using VP I think I have at times been too strict (it did not matter the degree, I just issued a first or second level warning); when not using VP I get a little lazy in posting warnings given the amount of steps required in the process. Thanks for the question, Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:TWINKLE

Yep, twinkle is a great tool :). I think about 3 of us kept beating each other to the punch on reverting that user :P. I know I got beaten to the rollback twice. Gotta love them high traffic articles, eh? SexySeaBass 05:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

apology

Alright, I'm very sorry for being so disruptive, but I feel compelled to tell you that the comments were made by someone else using my account. I know it doesn't make your job any easier when things like this happen, and I apologize on behalf of my son (he does not know any better; and kids will be kids) and myself for leaving myself logged in. So sorry again, and I hope that this does not happen again. Regards. 203.129.56.249 (Talk)

re:questions

About the archives, I never bothered setting up a bot to do it so I really wouldn't know. I've always done it manually. Anyway, if you go here, you can make your userbox. I use that with the userboxes page in another window and use that as my directions. If you want, you might want to organize your userpage into sections like I did, I had the same problem. Hope this all helps. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 05:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

I note you have been adopted by Burner0718 but do you mind if I make a suggestion to you on your edit summaries? --VS ^talk 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Do you mean I should fill out the edit summaries more often? You're right about that. Also, Burner isn't around much. :) Enigma ^msg! 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing is that on Talk pages, I'm not really sure what to put in the edit summaries. I could just say "reply" or "response" each time, I guess. I wish there were a shortcut. Enigma ^msg! 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• (EC) Thanks - Yes & I thought this might help you (if you ever go for Administration this type of thing is scrutinised). So if you go to your edit count you will note that some is in green (that is with edit summaries completed) and some is in red (without edit summaries completed). To help you automatically fix that click on the My Preferences tag at the top of your screen, then click on the Editing tab and check the last tick box which says "Prompt me when editing a blank edit summary". By doing this every time you go to save an edit the system will first remind you there is no edit summary and will allow you to do so before you click on save again. Hope that helps. BTW if you can't find Burner please ask me if you want a tip or help at any time and I will see what I can do. Cheers - keep up the great work. Oh and to add because I read your second reply during our Edit Conflict just now - your system should keep cookies like Reply and Respond so that as you type in the edit summary it will "short-cut" for you in so far as all the things that you have recently typed will come up much like a prompt.--VS ^talk 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've actually participated in a few RfAs, and I've seen that there's a link to the tool so that voters will know whether a candidate uses edit summaries. I don't see an RfA in my immediate future, but who knows. I have seen my overabundance of red, but I wasn't sure of an easy way to fix it. I do use the "shortcuts" (I often update different counts, so when I type U, "updating count" appears), but I don't really consider those shortcuts. Thank you for the suggestions and I'll try to fill out the edit summaries in the future. It's just another step.
• Finally, I'll take you up on your offer and approach you with questions. Cheers, Enigma ^msg! 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I might also just quickly add that as informative (but short) an edit summary as possible will always get you kudos. :)--VS ^talk 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I like pointing out typos, so I'll point out that you added a D to "an". :D As informative as possible about the edit, but also short. Gotcha. Enigma ^msg! 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm all green for March. :) Enigma ^msg! 03:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I had to think about that for a second - thought you were going all early St. Patrick on me. Well done! BTW interesting form of wiki-break you are taking?--VS ^talk 04:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's kind of like a partial wikibreak. I'm not on here all day, but people keep leaving messages, drawing me back in. Every time I come back, there's a new message, so then I check my watchlist to see if there's any vandalism that needs reverting or vandals that need to be warned (as you might see from some other messages on my talk page, reverts-without-warns is an epidemic I'm trying to fight). Enigma ^msg! 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the wikibreak because the whole thing was a sham anyway. I never intended to be on a wikibreak, and it only started because of things beyond my control. As for St. Patty's Day, you were the first one to bring up green! It ain't easy being green, my friend. (if I can be privileged to refer to you in this manner) Enigma ^msg! 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• You can - and you should also note that my respect for Sarah as an editor is absolute (she helped in your last question to me) - so I am always happy her for to come to my talk page and to assist when I am away (unlike one or two others who have come recently). Cheers--VS ^talk 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We should always welcome users who came back

I am slightly shocked when you posted this comment on Coloane's talk page[3]. Even though I agree that Coloane is being disruptive, we should always welcome those who came back to the community. From what I am interpreting, you are blaming Coloane for coming back and disrupt. This kind of attitude not welcomed in the community, and eventually turning them from (slightly POV-pushing yet productive) editors into vandals (which express their displeasure by vandalizating because they're being outcasted by the community). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

He claimed he retired in January. He only came back to disrupt the community, and then restored a false message stating "he permanently retired" in January. If he had permanently retired, the number of people that were affected by his latest ridiculous attempt at drama wouldn't have had to deal with it. I have no sympathy and the community would've been better off had he stayed "permanently retired". I'm not the only one who feels this way. Enigma ^msg! 15:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to go with enigma on this one. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I find your conclusion over-summarizing. Yes, I admit most of his edits are disruptive. However, I did find some of his edits are constructive, especially articles related to Macau.[4][5][6] Had he decided to leave permanently in January, I think it will take a long time before someone else add such a large amount of information on Macau into these articles. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not worth the headache. As I discovered yesterday, IPs can be blocked for weeks even if they do make useful contributions, based on a few bad edits. Sorry, the disruption was significantly more than any of the contributions you mentioned, and I find it insulting that he's now lying about when he left Wikipedia. It's not necessary. Enigma ^msg! 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

re:yay

Nice to hear from ya! I've been on a short "unofficial" wikibreak myself. Anyway, thats an interesting experience. Sounds like fun. :) Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 21:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

personal attacks

your getting almost as popular as me!!! YAY!!! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. While your gone do you want me to watch your userpage and talk page? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. So have you reported this sockpuppet? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Citybest section

Thanks a bunch pal

So I make personal attacks do I? Well, you have insulted me now. First you victimise me by deleting my redirects (which are referenced in the article), then you threaten me. Well, I'm not having this. I will report you to Jimmy Wales if you carry on. Don't bother replying to this message because I have requested my user page and talk page be deleted. After I have left this message, I am going to change my password and I'm not going to remember it and I'm not coming back. You have driven me away. Thanks pal. I'll never forget this and I will tell all my friends not to edit Wikipedia and besides, everyone knows that Wikipedia has no real value as a reference because of idiots. Citybest (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to Amateur pornography

Why do you think this is distasteful? These subjects are referenced in Amateur pornography and creating these redirects was an attempt to prevent creation of articles on what would be a non-notable subject by itself. Citybest (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you support the idea of censorship? If so, get back to the 1950s where you surely belong! Haven't you realised we live in a liberated world now? Citybest (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I Apologise

I want to apologise. I do stupid things sometimes. I suffer from bi-polar disorder and go a little nuts sometimes. I've taken my pills now though so I'm all right. So I'm sorry. Please accept my apology. Citybest (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hello. I'm a consultant psychiatrist working in the Birmingham area and have just found my way to this page. If this guy really does have bi-polar disorder, you might want to consider removing this section. It seems a little unfair to me. Kind regards. Dr Amer Latif.

81.152.149.79 (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Riiiiiiiiiight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.61.99 (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. I'm glad you caught on so quickly. Enigma ^msg! 01:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject The Office (US) March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of The Office WikiProject newsletter has now been published. By following the link provided, you may view the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification. Thank you. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

your application for the 42nd Cabal

Your application for the 42^nd Cabal has been approved! Congratulations for answering the questions acceptably (the number one answer is always 42) you will be added to the member list shortly. Just wondering, how did you stumble across it?--Pewwer42  Talk  08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 42

Probably the same way most of the people are finding it! Posts on other Talk pages. I once commented on AndonicO‎'s Talk page, and it's been watchlisted ever since. I saw your post there. Enigma ^msg! 08:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, well I do have one more comment, 1+1*2=3, check your Order of operations but I usually get just about anyone I ask with that one because it seems so simple:P (It's really 42)--Pewwer42  Talk  08:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

All I remember is PEMDAS. Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction. So yes, I got fooled again, because I naturally just go left to right unless there are parentheses. Enigma ^msg! 09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed all the spelling you corrected, thanks!--Pewwer42  Talk  15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

there fixed it User:Pewwer42/cabal accept

any of my spelling or grammar you want to fix is fine by me(you think a college student could spell, but I'm a math and science guy)--Pewwer42  Talk  20:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to fix what I can on my own and if I see anything I don't know how to fix, I'll let you know. Sometimes people get annoyed when I fix their stuff but I'm very detail-oriented and I like everything to look perfect. :) Enigma ^msg! 20:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Uga Man

Thank you for the support of Uga Man's joke on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uga Man/presidential campaign, 2008. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 18:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get how someone nominates it for deletion or votes delete. It's just a humor page on someone's own userspace. It's not masquerading as an article. Anyone voting delete wants to scrub Wikipedia of all jokes and humor, I guess. Enigma ^msg! 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your words taken out of context?

here--VS ^talk 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I'm trying to understand what he's saying, but I really can't. My solution was based on something you might be familiar with and something I've seen used in the past. In that case, the editor was constantly getting involved in edit-warring (among other things), so ArbCom's solution was that he wouldn't be blocked (for the conflict that went to ArbCom) as long as he held to a 1RR limit in the future. Any time the editor exceeded the 1RR, he would be opening himself to blocks of increasing length. I thought a good way to resolve it would be Igor agreeing to a similar condition. Enigma ^msg! 01:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read through it again, and it's pretty clear what's going on now. He would link to it in the future, and thus will simply not agree to a condition that would lead to a block if violated. So you're right. The only possible solution now is outright deletion. Enigma ^msg! 02:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes deletion is the only solution. BTW I understood your point - and supported your proposal with some qualifications. Igor is a difficult editor to support (I have tried for a long time) but he is always trying to duck and weave on these things - because he appears to have an agenda related to his own company interests. Anyway that part is at ANI thread because I just posted it and it looks like we are all moving to delete this miscellany rather than your/my proposal. His response on his talk page to this is the sort of thing that I can't understand - because he says that he will remove the business links which state that they are authenticated by Wikipedia but despite being asked he won't post that agreement to ANI. I appreciate your interest.--VS ^talk 02:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yep. I first got into it via your talk page. I read the back and forth exchange earlier. Enigma ^msg! 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy Moss reply

I was trying to add the link but the words right below it wasnt showing, and I dont really care whether it helped you or not--Yankees10 00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry I just hate when people undo edits just because they didnt here about it, I mean its been breaking news on ESPN for an hour now, I am actually pretty surprised no one else has noticed the re-signing and has edited his article.--Yankees10 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

do you think you can add this reference to the end of what I put in the Trade to patriots section, whenever I do it the controversy section doesnt appear--Yankees10 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Enigma ^msg! 00:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

northampton

but they are shit

I'm not an expert so I can't speak of whether they are in fact good or not, but we're trying to keep a neutral point of view here. :) Enigma ^msg! 09:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:HUG.

Yes, it's a very powerful tool. Sometimes I even feel bad for the vandals... ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 11:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. ;) The most useful shortcuts are the following (IMO, at least): Q, revert and warn; Space, next edit; [, previous page you were viewing (like "Back" for an internet browser); ], next page you were viewing (Like "Forward" in an internet browser); Z, previous revision in the history of the page you are viewing; X, next revision in the history of the page you are viewing. A few you may find useful on certain occasions are: W, warn only (use when a vandal was reverted, but not warned); R, for someone who added a test (ex. "hi") to an article that does not qualify as vandalism; B, report to AIV (block for admins, but it doesn't actually block: I think it does work for the reports, but you may want to double check). Hope that helps. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try them. Thanks again! Enigma ^msg! 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I signed on for only a few minutes, and then gave up. Something weird is going on. None of the hotkeys worked except for one time, and then at the end, I couldn't even get it to work by clicking. I clicked revert and warn 4 times for a vandalism instance, and nothing happened. I don't get it. It worked fine for me last night. I'll sign on again later and see if it works any better. Enigma ^msg! 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems it was a temporary glitch with Huggle. After 30 minutes or so, it started working again. Enigma ^msg! 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:I see Huggle is working for you too

Yeah, that was kind of weird. I waited a while and decided to try it again, and it was working normally. I wonder what happened?--Dycedarg ж 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That happened to me a couple days ago; I don't remember who it was but they were much faster on the buttons than I was. At least today there seems to be a steady supply of vandalism for everyone.--Dycedarg ж 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya. This is by far the best antivandal method I've used. VandalProof, when it worked (which wasn't often) was much slower and clunkier. Since that broke altogether, I tried IRCMonitor, which might have been useful except for the fact that it never worked at all for me, and I had to resort to a combination of Twinkle, rollback, and pop ups. This is so much faster it's not even funny.--Dycedarg ж 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry Engima for that i won't do it again.

Hey Enigmaman!

How's Huggle going for you? ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, thanks. Twice it had problems, but on the whole it's been very helpful. On an unrelated note, I have a question for you, and I'll leave a message on your talkpage. Enigma ^msg! 21:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. I was going to ask you for help in interpreting a message, but when I submitted my edit to your talk page, it resulted in an edit conflict and I thought better of it. Do you use IM? Enigma ^msg! 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I did it correctly the first time. Could it be because you're not on my friends list? I'm going to play around a little bit to try and figure this out. Enigma ^msg! 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be the program I'm using. I'm going to open MSN Messenger to see if that helps. I tried to add you as a friend and it gave me an error. Enigma ^msg! 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on MSN messenger... hey, just e-mail me with your MSN email addy and I'll add you. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry about that, I forgot to put up the wikiproject template. lol. A user can be co-adopted as an alternative if you would be interested in that. I honestly would prefer at least a co-adoption, but I'll leave it on your court. I am however back on here a much as normal now and If you still need any help, please feel free to let me know ASAP. On another note, whatcha ya think 'bout Brett Favre retiring? As a diehard Pack fan, I'm not extremely happy about it. Anyway, let me know what you're decision is and get back to me. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear your decision. I'll (really) miss Favre but I'm comfortable with Rodgers after the Dallas game. I'm glad I bought his jersey last season cuz they'll get hard to find now. I was really hoping Moss or Stallworth would sign with the Pack, oh well... I'm going to change my status indicator so everyone can be more informed. I got Ohio State Buckeyes football full-protected earlier today cuz there was an edit war going on. The person who kept it going is here. lol. Did you hear that Shaun Rogers signed with Cleveland? Julius Jones and Jevon Kearsh are in talks with the Titans. Talk to ya later. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone just vandalized you're talk page. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen if the Pack signed Culpepper? If that happened, he'd at least be surrounded with alot of talent. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have had days like that too, no problem. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't want him because of the injuries and the Minnesota thing. Moss was a Viking too but he's good, still. I heard about Lemon, woooooow. I think the Pack will draft another QB in the draft somewhere, probably in the later rounds. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 05:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!!!!!! Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Buddy

If you're an admin, can you please use your special admin powers at the talk page for The Buddy??? Many thanks. A little mollusk (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not an admin. I do agree that the page needs to be deleted, however. Enigma ^msg! 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, deleted now. :) Enigma ^msg! 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Two dollars/euros/pesos/a looney says that they'll try again! A little mollusk (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And then be blocked and then register a new account... The never-ending circle. Enigma ^msg! 05:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

<sings>The circle of Wiki!</sings> Say "Goodnight, Gracie."A little mollusk (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Took the user no time at all to use another account to recreate the page. Enigma ^msg! 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Can you block the IP 209.94.170.126? He/She continues to vandalice since for ever.--Damifb (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an admin, but I'll look into it. Thanks, Enigma ^msg! 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP was blocked. Thank you. :) Enigma ^msg! 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I lost my temper with him/her. How can I look at his/her "contributions"? --Damifb (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ into your browser, and just add the username or IP after the final /. Enigma ^msg! 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Did the Earth just move?

What the heck is happening? We agreed on something! [7] My grip on reality must be slipping! Help Help! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly the End of Times. I am preparing accordingly, and I suggest you do so as well. Enigma ^msg! 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Scrubs

You reverted something i changed in the Scrubs article. I changed the number of eps in season 7 from 18 to 12, this is because 12 is what is now expected for this season. While it is true that Bill Lawrence has stated that the 12th episode won't be the last, it is more likely that the remaining episodes will either be released straight to DVD or included as part of an 8th season, to air on NBC or ABC. I have now changed the number of eps to unknown, since that is the truth. It is highly unlikely that all 18 episodes will be broadcast as a part of the current season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.184.215 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not revert anything whatsoever on the Scrubs article except my own edits, which failed at restoring a reference that you damaged. So I didn't revert anything from you. Enigma ^msg! 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Enigma!

Just a quick note... thanks for agreeing with my assessment of the lead photo of the John McCain article. As a personal opinion, I have no clue how any person can see the current one as flattering. LOL! Also, I'm not really a newbie to Wikipedia, I just prefer using my IP (most times) as opposed to my username! Or, maybe it's because I am too lazy to log in! In any event, thanks again... I am glad to know I am not completely alone in my concern over the photo. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When lies are posted as "fact"

What can be done?

Also what can be done regarding a user who keeps editing truths when the truth isn't linkable to any articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schc (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend it discussing it on the Talk page. If nothing happens there, just remove what you consider to be lies and see what happens. Enigma ^msg! 07:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Challenge

For more information on the challenge, visit WP:AWC and go to the vandalism patrol challenge. It's the section of the page that has a ton of green checkmarks by Milk's Favorite Cookie. Please note that you must sign up there before you complete any parts of the challenge. Actions before signing up are not counted. Good luck. --Sharkface217 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just have to revert and warn, right? I'll get to work right away. Enigma ^msg! 03:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I'm guessing this was vandalism on your page lol ^8thstar 04:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure looks like it. Thanks. ;) If I'm a loser with no life, what does that make the guy who spends all day vandalizing Wikipedia? hmmm... Enigma ^msg! 13:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How did you happen to find my talk page? Enigma ^msg! 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain talk page ^8thstar 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Merging

Go ahead and be bold. I doubt anyone will challenge you. If they do: Come to me ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Move the song into the EP's article and condense that information. Just make a heading and add the info in there. Hail me when you've done/need any help. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks, sorry about that - I'm trying my best to get to grips with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxton 61 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Huggle

If I activate my e-mail account to my Wikipedia preferences, would I be able to use the Huggle program? Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You're basically approved, but I can't send you the program if you don't enable your e-mail. Enigma ^msg! 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will activate it momentarily. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. ;) Just leave me a message when you do enable it, so I'll know. Enigma ^msg! 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting. I am editing from an iPhone. I will notify you when I activate my e-mail account. Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Can you try now? Zenlax ^{T C S} 17:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Sending now. Enigma ^msg! 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Sorry for the long delay. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a dick, but may I please have huggle? I believe it will help me greatly when reverting vandalism. --Cheers, LAX 19:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The page you linked to doesn't exist. Why would requesting Huggle make you sound like a dick? With the absence of Gurch, the program's creator, we've been handling it here. Please look through that page.

• Z: I sent you an e-mail. Reply to it when you get it. Enigma ^msg! 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Never knew that page existed. Anyway, I have applied myself. --Cheers, LAX 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to you e-mail. --Cheers, LAX 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have received your e-mail and thank you for attaching the Huggle files. Maybe the reason my e-mail message was sent directly to your junk mail, was because I sent you the message with my iPhone. Zenlax ^{T C S} 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

warning vandals

Thanks very much for your message regarding warning vandals. You are right, of course; but one of the great frustrations is that most vandals are not registered users (or at least they don't log in while they're busy vandalizing), so they don't have a talk page, only a "special page". Because of this there's no place to leave them a warning, so far as I know. If there is a way to deal with these idiots, please let me know, because I would like to warn them (or smack them!). Thanks. MishaPan (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You can warn them on their Talk pages. If there is no Talk page yet, you simply create one with a new message (generally a level 1 warning). Most of the vandalism on Wikipedia is done by IPs. The only way to get the disruptive IPs blocked is to warn them first. The vast majority of the users I warn and then report to WP:AIV are IPs. Enigma ^msg! 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Erasing you

Hi... Sorry about erasing your comment. It was unintentional and resulted from an edit conflict. Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Personal attack

Thanks for taking care of that! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, will do. TrickyApron (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

I got rid of the rest of the vandalism on here. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This latest one is a rather strange vandal. Been using a bunch of different IPs to make the same weird edits. Enigma ^msg! 03:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks Steve. I appreciate you guys keeping an eye on my page for me. Enigma ^msg! 03:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, fun times, lol. No problem. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

As a recent changes patroller racing cluebot, do you have time to read what you revert before you revert it? I am concerned about the speed and carelessness with which you reverted my recent improvements to tort_law. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no carelessness involved. I looked at your edit, and it didn't appear to be constructive. If I was wrong, I apologize. Deleting the lead paragraph and replacing it with "A pedestrian is walking down the street..." did not appear to be a constructive edit. You should at least discuss it on the Talk page first. Enigma ^msg! 06:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I just went back and looked more in depth, and I'm even more convinced I was right to revert it. If you really think I was wrong, it must be a fundamental belief about Wikipedia policy, because it certainly had nothing to do with "speed and carelessness". Enigma ^msg! 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any grounds for reverting my edits other than the fact that I didn't include a summary, or discuss them on the talk page first? Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I believe that it's inappropriate to begin the article on tort law with an example. Wikipedia has established policies with regard to the way most articles are written. I can assure you I'm not the only one who feels that your edit was not constructive. If you still disagree, feel free to bring it up on the article's talk page or ask an unbiased third party for his/her opinion. By the way, you should not make major changes to an article without bringing it up first on the talk page, let alone not bringing it up on the talk page and not even including an edit summary. Enigma ^msg! 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One more note: If you disagree with me, that's fine, but I don't appreciate your impugning my edit style in general. I am very careful with what edits I revert. Enigma ^msg! 06:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I apologize if I appeared to be attacking the editor not the edit. That was not my goal. Nevertheless, I still believe you are mistaken in your edit, and I believe you should have read more carefully, and past the first paragraph. Substance aside - that is, whether or not you liked the way I edited the article, reversion remedies are deemed appropriate only for obvious vandalism and patently valueless additions. Even if you are right about the content of my edit being faulty, dealing with as you did is rollback-abuse.

Further, I defend the first paragraph as I rewrote it as . I replaced the purely fictitious hypothetical that had previously muddied the intro with a situation taken from a famous, celebrated, and well-known tort case that better illustrated the central concept, and I cited my sources in the process. By moving it to the lead paragraph, I did attempt something new, by leading with an example. However, as far as I know, there's actually no rule against it. Novelty is not a criterion for deleting someone's good faith edit, and it's certainly not a reason to wipe out my effort to add sources and better examples to the article.

If you had a problem with the content, you could have edited the page in any number of ways to address your concerns without subtracting all of the value I added to the article this evening, or raised the issue on the talk page for the attention of someone with greater expertise. I would like to request that you consider undoing your own undo, and pursuing one of these alternative remedies. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so it went from me being "careless" and "going too fast" to "rollback abuse". Not sure which is better. You really think replacing the opening of the tort article (which gives a clear definition) with "A pedestrian is walking down the street, minding his own business. Suddenly and seemingly from out of nowhere, he is hit by a barrel full of flour that has been quite accidentally launched into the air from a window above!" is appropriate? I certainly don't. That's not the way we start articles at Wikipedia. It just isn't. There's not much more to say here. Like I was saying, if you still think I'm wrong, post on the article's Talk page that you think the opening should be changed to what you suggested. Enigma ^msg! 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nothing has shifted. Your contentions are focused almost exclusively on leading with an example. But your reversion wiped out WAY more than just that. The fact that you still don't realize that, 12 hours later, is good evidence that you were indeed careless in using the reversion. Moreover, the use of reversion to deal with non-vandalism is highly questionable. Looking at how you rushed to revert the article, in combination with all of the information on your userpage praising yourself for the speed with which you revert, does suggest that you were more likely than not using the tool carelessly.

Further, it wasn't my idea to put examples in the lead paragraph; it employed an example before, but in the third sentence instead of the first. The difference is, the example before was "original;" mine was based on citing to sources generally-accepted in the field. I believe my way was more encyclopedia-like.

So, that being said, is the "leading with an example" style matter your only problem? Because I'm not stuck on that. I don't think it would be as accurate, but as a comrpomise, and to avoid edit-warring, I wouldn't mind putting the new content in the old order ("definition" first, example second). Will that satisfy your concerns so that I can go forward? Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm done talking about this. What you did was inappropriate. You don't make major changes without an edit summary, and you don't make major changes without seeing if others agree with them or not. Enigma ^msg! 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are "done" - could you please clarify what that means? "Done" could mean a lot of things. Does it mean that you've made up your mind, you're done listening, and your committed to your course of action? You're refusing to negotiate? You're going to block my attempts to edit this or other articles? Does it mean that if other editors like any or all of my changes, you're going to revert them too? Clarification would be appreciated so that I can gauge my response. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It means I'm not interested in discussing it with you because of your continued attacks against me. If other editors agree with you, then you can form a consensus to change the article to the way you like it. I'm not interested in edit-warring either. Enigma ^msg! 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to your characterization of this dialogue as a "continued" personal attack. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And I object to your unwarranted criticisms of me, based on the reversion of an edit that I think most people would agree wasn't constructive. I guess we're even. See WP:MOS. Enigma ^msg! 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not criticizing you. It is not a criticism of a fellow editor to ask, or assume, that his edits are a product of a stated, or implied personal belief. Also, if that is the case, you're hands are unclean, because you've made the same assumptions in this dialogue. Did you mean it as a personal attack? I didn't take it as one - was I supposed to have?

Also, I have no idea how you conclude that most people wouldn't agree my edit was constructive. No one else has weighed in on it; you didn't even give it a chance. If you mean that it's already foreclosed by some style convention, I checked and I don't see one. Do you?

Further, I'd like to ask if you would respond, yes, no, or conditionally, to my specific inquiry regarding a compromise, above. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Several people have weighed in on it. I did not make any assumptions in this dialogue. What I saw first from you was suggesting that I'm "careless" and that I don't look at what I'm reverting. When that wasn't enough, you accused me of abusing the rollback function. I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply said that I don't believe your edit was constructive, especially given the manner with which it was performed. Enigma ^msg! 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's exactly correct to say several people have weighed in; there is hardly anything resembling a consensus, or even awareness. At least two people have said that the introduction you restored is a problem. No one has any proposals on changing it except for me, so far.

As for my accusation of carelessness, I think you are wrong to take that as a personal attack, or as being without cause. It is not a personal attack, and I do have cause. You reverted three paragraphs worth of good-faith edits within less than a minute of my making the changes. It was perfectly correct for me to think that this was a "false positive" and that you were rushing. Your user page congratulates you on the quickness with which you revert vandalism. That's not a bad thing, but I inferred from that the possibility that you had rushed. You claim to have "reread" the edit to confirm your initial conclusions. But nothing you have stated indicates that your reread goes beyond the first line. So as far as I'm concerned, that confirms that your first revert was careless, as was the second revert. Still, I am not concerne with whether you are a careless person, I am concerned with the fact that you carelessly reverted my edits.

To be clear, I am not accusing you of being a revert-abuser. But I think that this use of revert is outside of policy, and an abuse. Do you see the difference between my attacking an edit as abusive, and an editor as being abusive?

I'm sure you are an excellent editor. Wikipedia needs vandal cops. I know I am not. I only have about 50 pages on my watchlist. I try to keep them free of vandalism, but that's the extent of it. Here's the thing though, reversion is meant for pure vandalism, not as a solution to disputes about content or style. Do we disagree on that? Is that "just my personal disagreement" with wikipedia, as you would say? I don't think it is. I'm pretty sure the conensus is, when in doubt, don't revert. Reverting three paragraphs worth of editing on an unprotected page solely because you don't like the way one sentence is worded is a very questionable use, and probably abuse of the reversion tool. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are accusing him of abusing reversion tool; whether intentional or not. Maybe you should take your changes to the articles talk page and settle this there. Kimu 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes - but not as some kind of a personal attack - as a defense of my edit. Anyway, I agree with you, it is a matter of the article's talk page. I didn't think it was at first, but clearly now it is, and it has been posted there. Thank you for the suggestion. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

background in law

I note that you have a background in law. Would you mind if I asked if you were deemed a member of the bar or licensed lawyer by any state, territory, or district of the U.S., or held comparable status in any non-U.S. jurisdiction? Not a personal attack - just general curiosity. You are, of course, under no obligation to answer. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not passed the bar, and as a result, I am not a licensed lawyer. I do intend to take the bar exam within the next few years, and I have several close relatives either involved in practicing law or attending law school. My brother-in-law attends Columbia Law School and I frequently converse with him about matters of law, especially torts and the wide variety of subjects covered by commercial law. Off-topic remark: one thing I have in common with you is that I'm particular about word usage. I frequently see people misusing words on the Internet and I frequently correct them, in the hopes of their becoming more proficient with written English. You might've noticed a small correction I made on your talk page. ;)

As for "personal attacks" and civility: As you admitted, many of your comments come off as attacks, whether you intend them to be or not. For example, on your talk page, you slurred me by insinuating that I'm uneducated in the matters you deal with and therefore "unfit" to revert your edits. Enigma ^msg! 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention a few things. My original law background came from working in the offices of a lawyer a few years ago. After that, I took several classes in law. I'll be happy to show you my transcript or refer you to my professors. I received exceptional grades, as if that means anything. Enigma ^msg! 01:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, appeal to authority between editors is irrelevant on wikipedia; it may sometimes be an issue when it comes to a source of facts. So, that isn't why I asked. Honestly, I don't doubt your knowledge. I don't remember what I wrote that that impugned your background on the content, but it would have been based on the content-blind justification for the edit, rather than any claims about your authority.

The reason I ask is because I'm a philosopher first and always, so I'm interested in ideas, and where ideas come from, not just facts, things or stuff. Consequently, I am always curious about what editors on wikipedia say about themselves.

I like how you say, "if that means anything" -- an enlightened attitude in my opinion. My thoughts on the matter, based on my experience as well as many friends are that (a) undergraduate or graduate law course grades have little to no correlation with law school grades; (b) law school grades (and for that matter, law school names) have little to no correlation with ability to practice law. Nevertheless, it's great for your brother that he's going to Columbia, it is a fine, fine law school.

Also, you may want to check the requirements for admission in your local jurisdiction. California does not require that you obtain a law degree before taking the bar exam. (That said, the overwhelming majority of those people who take the bar in California without obtaining a J.D. from an ABA accredited law school fail - about 80%). Although a lot of what you learn getting one is of little help in practice, it is a good idea, if not a necessity, to get a J.D. before attempting to enter the practice.

If you already know all of this, ignore me.

And now that you mentioned it, I checked, and I see the edit. Excellent. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I generally feel that grades and degrees mean very little. I just was arguing this earlier today. What matters is what you learn from a class, not how well you do on exams or papers. Obviously the goals of tests and assignments are to aid learning and measure learning, but I feel that they often do a poor job of measuring what is actually relevant. One can get lots of As and have a pretty transcript, but the practical application of that is limited. Enigma ^msg! 04:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree ;-). This is ESPECIALLY true of law school, which adds another dimension worsening the town-gown disconnect. Stop me if you know all this already.

Today's law school curriculum is largely unchanged from a paradigm shift that came to be in the closing years of the 19th century. Prior thereto, the practice of law was not universally a "learned profession;" as it is deemed in the western world today. Law school strictly was optional. (e.g., Abraham Lincoln had no J.D.).

A legal academic who had a bit of a chip on his shoulder, Christopher Langdell decided law should be a learned profession, and he knew best what the law was and how it needed to be taught. Langdell and his followers did a great job of organizing legal learning. They turned the Ivy league law faculties into great producers of case books and treatises, which prior thereto was a haphazard business. Langdell made anonymous grading a common practice for law schools, instituted the case method still used today, and basically created the curriculum that focused on contract, property, etc., as distinct subjects, that still form the standard 1L curriculum today. In fact, prior to Langdell's movement, "tort law" did not even exist as its own subject.

However, Langdell's approach had a lot of drawbacks. Langdell and his followers were adherents to what is referred to as 'conceptualism' by legal scholars, closely connected to legal formalism. It is based on Platonic idealism as applied to law. Their view was that actual cases and transactions were iterations of ideal legal forms that existed on some other plane. Law wasn't manmade, it just existed, in brooding omnipresence, and lawyers and judges had to "discover it." This is why they adopted the case method. Learning how to read cases taught you how to "find" the "real" law. This, they felt, taught lawyers how to "find the real law," like tunneling out of Plato's cave.

Of course, legal conceptualism, and a large measure of formalism, have been debunked and rebuked by scholars of the realist movement, which focused on law as manmade. Plato, for his part, associated the view of law-as-manmade with (a) "might-makes-right" ethics and the sophist Thrasymachus (see plato's republic) and (b) the barbaric tyranny that led to his own mentor being put to death for being unpopular (see Plato's Apology.)

Today, classic conceptualism is relegated to footnotes, although according to some theorists (see e.g., Joseph William Singer, and any of his numerous essays on legal pragmatism from a critical legal theory perspective) still crops up and has hidden influence in legal decisionmaking). But the way conceptualists teach law lives on.

Why? Well actually, there's still a lot of good from the case method and anonymous grading. Teaching students how to interpret appeals is very important in any system where any amount of judge-made law is a factor. Nearly all post-conceptualists are in agreement that it needs to be practiced, and still plays a role. Anonymous grading is fair. It speaks for itself. However, law schools, still following essentially the Langdellian method, make your ability to interpret appeals into somehwere between 51 and 99% of what you're graded on.

This is very out of touch. Law practice does not revolve around interpreting appeals. It is about serving clients. Serving clients may require the ability to draft transactional documents, identify and minimize tax liabilities, prove disputed facts before a tribunal, or persuasively argue an interpretation of legal authority to a tribunal or to a legislative or regulatory body, correspond with and counsel clients and correspond with third parties who may have similar or disparate interests, and a number of other tasks. Most of all, it requires a ton of reading and writing, and strict adherence to ethical standards of professional responsibility.

Most law schools have caught on to these last two points, with required courses in reading and writing, an upper division writing requirement, and mandatory professional responsibility classes. However, classes on discovery, trial practice, advocacy skills, and the like, are strictly optional. Fortunately, an increasing number of students take these classes. I wouldn't say law schools fail law students, but given the overbearing emphasis on "socratic" teaching, it's not surprising that most young lawyers agree that upon getting out of law school, they were still borderline incompetent to practice.

I think the theory is that if you can master the socratic method, you can teach yourself how to ask a leading question, or make a privilege log. You can take the straight A law-student and teach him what he doesn't know; you can't take an actor who knows how to act out a leading question in front of a law & order jury or the paralegal who's created a thousand privilege logs, and teach them to be a straight-A law student. Actually, I think you can, but that's another story for another day.

My skepticism about the converse claim aside, I believe it is true that any legitimate law school graduate is mentally resourceful enough to educate himself, it is fair to say that law schools aren't placing practical learning, or even practical thinking, at the top of the list. This is one of two reasons why law school graduates and practical ability are worlds apart.

The other reason is that greatness in practice depends as much on attributes which cannot be taught - discretion, charisma, and luck as it does on knowledge. You can take a guy with character and teach him what he doesn't know; you can't take a smart guy with no scruples and teach him character. People know this, and law is a people-serving business; people will more often flock to lawyers with proven character than proven smarts without character. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly instructive, and some interesting reading. Thanks. Enigma ^msg! 05:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there is a shorter way of saying it, but it isn't nearly as fun, and I haven't had a chance to expound on all of those subjects in a single comminiqué in a while. I'm making a guide to law school for my younger brother who is going to have at it later this year, so I'm willing to "get into" things, because these communiqués become the rought drafts of sections of that guide. Anyone who says, "Matt, how do I pass the MPRE?" or, "Matt, do grades matter?" becomes a guineau pig for the advice I plan to give my brother. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Extra Help, Just Incase

I am a wikipedia friend of your adopter, Burner0718. I was just going to tell you that if you need help and Burner0718 isn't online, you can ask me a question. You can tell if I'm online by just looking at the top-right hand corner of my userpage. I have made over 850 edits and I am also a very experienced editer. Burner got his idea of his userpage formatting from me, like he said on my talk page. Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's good to know! Thank you. Enigma ^msg! 02:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your permission, I am on wikipedia everyday. Also, I'm going to change the red link. That link was kinda intentional because when I edit that page, I can't tell which link is red or not because it is all black.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hah. It's almost like a challenge. "Find the red link." Unfortunately, it's not much of a challenge because of how much it stands out. Enigma ^msg! 03:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Barney the Barn Star!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For keeping the wiki alive when I'm dead through exhaustion. Great work! Keep it up :-) ScarianCall me Pat 12:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I deserve this one, but I'll do my best to justify your confidence in me. :) Enigma ^msg! 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: warning vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Paul the Apostle: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Enigma ^msg! 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was the one who reverted the vandalism on Paul the Apostle, and I usually warn vandals, but I didn't warn that user because I thought you already did. I have been here on Wikipedia for a year already, my first edit day is coming soon, which is March 19. NHRHS2010 19:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Anyway, your revert was before my revert. I was thinking if you had warned the vandal first, we could get the vandal blocked faster. No worries. Enigma ^msg! 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: Most of the vandals who target the handful of pages on my watchlist whose edits I revert before cluebot are not registered users, and are identified only by IP. Is there any point in sticking a warning template on the talk page assigned to an IP? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Most of my warnings are to IPs. Most of the vandalism on Wikipedia comes from non-registered users. Put warnings on the talk pages of the IP address, and then after the final warning, you can report them to WP:AIV. Enigma ^msg! 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar!

Thanks a lot! Although, I'd like to mention that you've beaten me before as well. I'm quite happy that Gurch fixed Huggle; that unstable previous version was really starting to get on my nerves.--Dycedarg ж 23:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you

I can has mop?

Hi Enigmaman! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Diffs?

You posted on AWC saying that you already completed the 20 blocks/bans and over 100 warns. Can I get the diffs for the blocks/bans? Thanks. --Sharkface217 17:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Any idea on how many warning you gave out during that period? A rough number will be fine (I'll take your word for it). --Sharkface217 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I didn't keep count. I'd say over 300, at the minimum. Enigma ^msg! 01:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Adoption offer 2

Hi Enigma. I'm pretty sure you remember me as Burner0718's friend. I am willing to adopt you as your second adopter. Please visit my userpage for more info. Please respond on my talkpage.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's no reason not to. Why are you so eager to co-adopt me? Heh. You don't need to officially adopt someone, unless you want to be on the adopters list or whatever. :) Enigma ^msg! 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been wanting to tutor someone for a while. Today, I actually found someone who will 99.9% accept my offer of adoption. I can be your backup tutor if Burner isn't around too. So I'm your co-adopter now right?--RyRy5 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Why not? It's a little bit of a strange dynamic though, because I've been around much longer. :) Enigma ^msg! 02:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been around longer than me. :D Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

True. Hey, one can never have enough adopters, I suppose. I can learn things from both of you. Enigma ^msg! 02:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm trying to clear out more time to get back on here more often than here recently. Much thanks to Jj137, I now have a new, working, status indicator. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with my situation

Hello, I'm sorry I'm writing to you but i feel without friends and I hope you might be sympathetic. Its a stupid little thing but I'm annoyed with the whole user box situation you commented on recently. I've modified the box to make it completely un-offensive to anyone and administrator's are deleting it without any discussion. Is that fair? No i'm being threatened with being banned for expressing a really generic opinion. Do I have any recourse or must i give up it the face of such unfair wielding of power? (new page) --Bleveret (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You might try WP:RfC. Honestly, I don't know. I'm not convinced that there was a consensus to delete your userbox, but the closing admin felt there was, and the admins deleting it now are relying on that. Enigma ^msg! 16:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Award for my page

	The Hidden Barnstar
	This user has found Basketball110's secret hidden sub page! Can you find it?

Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Template

You are welcome to swipe whatever you want from my home page. I have updated the section under "User warning templates" to describe how I use that stuff. You are welcome to use, lose, or abuse that information. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

meetup message update

I fixed it at the city project level but haven't gotten it on the state one yet. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's updated now. How does it work? There's a central point where someone inputs meetup dates? Enigma ^msg! 22:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha

Yeah, it is pretty rare for Kurt Weber to give a different comment, but if anyone should get the "Kurt Weber Stumper Honor", it should be Ruhrfisch. Useight (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not bad, but the one I might point to is the one where he supported a clearly unqualified candidate to get back at people for criticizing his opposes. Sorry, don't have a link at the moment. By the way, was it just me, or was Wikipedia down for like 20 minutes? Enigma ^msg! 01:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was down for a while. I don't know what happened, just that I couldn't edit. Useight (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Very strange. Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites on the Internet, and it being down so long means something strange happened. DOS attack? What I also couldn't figure out was why I couldn't find any information on it being down on Google news, or Wikipedia forums. Enigma ^msg! 01:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Alright, thanks. Just a bit curious. If he's the only one that does that, then that's alright. Problem is, I'm pretty ambitious, and would like to become an administrator someday. If I feel I'm ready, but nobody's nominated me, I figure in this case it would probably be best to self-nom instead of canvassing. But then again, I might just decide it's best to wait until somebody notices and decides to nominate me. But I don't have to worry about that now. I'm quite a ways away from being ready. — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 01:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: IP

Sorry about that, I was at work for a bit. I'll keep an eye on it, in any case. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just trying to get immediate attention to it. Oh well. Enigma ^msg! 02:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

by the way, any idea why it was ignored on AIV? It looks like an open and shut case. Enigma ^msg! 02:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're around (and since Scarian's taking a break) - fr. Libs

Could you do me a favour? I am about to turn in soon. But I am seeing "the falsifier" (see Scarian's talk page) very active this evening. Tonight he is a new IP... 66.143.119.148 (talk · contribs). Could keep a check on this one and rv anything that he does. He is switching between Kiss/Foo Fighters/Van Halen (his usual haunts) and childrens TV shows (which I mention on Pat's talk page earlier about how similar this editor is to the "toy town vandal"... a veteran thorn in Wiki's side) Much appreciate any assistance you can provide. Reporting "the falsifer" isn't easy. Many admins like Alf and CambridgeBayWeatherman are familiar with him. Former admin's like KOS are too. But trying to explain it over at AiV or ANI to some green admin who doesn't know the history... I'd rather just follow behind the guy and rv all his junk. I am about to leave. Good luck protecting Wiki. Libs 156.34.210.47 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)