User talk:Yngvarr

The ongoing saga of Lamborghini man (or is it??)

So, Lambo Boy has come back to start crapping on about how the templates still don't fit his vision of them. Given a little peeking at his contribs I do reckon now we do have a multiple user account on our hands and as we know, it's a no-no and a blockable offense. So, we have one person with an interest in public transportation systems in and around Washington, one with an interest in cartoons. Both use the account and there's usually a few days lull inbetween the uses switching. Except for a few irregularities where the switch happens within hours and on occasions minutes its usually a case of buses, buses, buses, lull then TV, TV, TV, lull and the circle of life is complete. The fact one knows how to sign whereas the other patently doesn't know or doesn't want to sign is sending off five alarm warnings for me, it's either two people or a split personality case. Any idea what to do? It's almost as if whatever we've told him he's ignored and is proceeding as if he is still right in a sorta truthiness way. I'm not going to respond to his "idea" over at WT:TOON, it isn't worth my effort doing so because I really dislike repeating myself but it's possible this one has forgotten. treelo _radda 04:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe I can throw him a carrot or something. The templates issues are a dead issue, and we won't go there anymore. Hopefully. As for his Sybil phenomena, it'll be a tough nut trying to dig up some sort of concise report to ANI about the no-sharing thing. As my experience shows, you can either be verbose and be ignored; or be concise and be ignored. It's just a matter of what phase the moon is in at that point. I will see how to work it out. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of contacting a friendly neighborhood admin instead of ANI, we all know that's got you nowhere since you first did it although it has worked for me the two times I've used ANI. I think getting him off this template fixation would be good although I do reckon we're being read as he's started signing again just after I mentioned it so something is up. My evidence is vastly circumstantial but I think I have a case. treelo _radda 16:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dredging this up from a semi-quiescent state. I'm sure by now you've seen the most recent spate, but if not, seems to show he's still at it. I kind of feel better that he's warred with someone fairly disassociated with us; for me, at least, it only reinforces the questionable behavior he exhibits, but which I can't quite put in to words. Anyways, enough flowery oration. Just because he goes into sleeper mode doesn't mean the problem goes away, which I was kind of hoping. Do you have any idea of a "friendly neighborhood admin" we could ping? Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not until August, for now you'd be better off giving him yet another final warning for edit-warring (he's recieved one before from me regarding the template issue) and then hitting up any admin with whom you've spoke to in the past, preferably one who's a bit loose with the banhammer when it comes to disruptive editors and multiple user accounts. For me that's either User:Gogo Dodo or User:PMDrive1061, both should be able to do a solid. treelo _radda 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What happens in August? The world won't end until some time in 2012. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quiet, young padwan, August is around the time Chowder will be accepting RfA noms again. treelo _radda 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The first time I made some edits back in December I understand why you all were mad about that. I just edited the articles without no discussion. Didn't know how things were back then. I apologized for that. And the situation that happened in March regarding the Co-Productions thing, didn't completely know how it works until know. The reason Why I haven't discussed anything or edited anything since that incident and before yesterday is because I didn't see anything wrong. But when I stumbled upon the "Cartoon Network Studios Article" I noticed that there were lots of errors. So I thought it was OK to correct them without discussion because it really needed corrections, badly and nobody seemed to corrected them. I thought every thing was right until It was reverted it was back by somebody else. I was about to ask you or treelo about the whole thing, but I though it was OK because it obviously needs corrections. So if the sources for the changes I did are not reliable then I apologize for it. But something has to be done about the article because there are lots of errors on it, like Teen Titans. This show is placed in that article when it shouldn't be. Its Warner Bros. Animation, not a Cartoon Network Original or Co-Production. I already removed that because I know that should be that there. And a source is provided. So what can be done about the article? Once again I do apologize about before and I completely understand why you all were upset about this. ALSO, I DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT HAVE MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS. Where exactly did that even come from? And I didn't have any knowledge of this discussion you've been having about about me until this morning EST, when I clicked on your user name in the History of the Cartoon Network Studios Article. I hope you can forgive me, because I'm really sorry about this. Lamborghini man 1:55 April 18, 2009

(merp) How many times can I get edit conflicts? Right, I was going to give some good faith to your explanation right upto your last edit where you just took it away with the same aggressive tone you gave to Eugene Krabs yesterday. The problem here is you, it's always you and even though you seem to think you know how things are now it doesn't seem that way as its the same old shit just in a different place. This time you decided to do it for another list once again dealing with co-prods and once again in a nice display of being bold then saying "fuck that, I'm right" (or rather "FUCK THAT, IM RIGHT!!" as caps make your point more correct) upon being reverted in a small scale editwar. If you are consistently finding others aren't happy when it comes to your "fixing" things, the problem isn't everyone else. There does need to be a touch of cleanup on the article but you're not the guy to do it, leave a note on the talkpage if you get reverted about it but don't try and reassert your changes and move onto something less contentious. Read up on WP:BRD because you keep skipping the D part and cycle through B and R repeatedly when it comes to things like this. As for the accounts, not one person ever said you operated multiple accounts so I guess I came from yourself. What I said was that there's more than one person using the account and I'm yet to see any reason to figure otherwise and no, your saying there's only one person won't convince me. treelo _radda 14:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right I will. And you're right about the "I'm right, I'm always right" thing. I just want to apologize for what I have been doing. I promise you it won't happen again. I'll read up on WP:BRD. If I see something that I think needs attention, I'll bring it to the appropriate person. Or if I have a source that's really reliable, I'll automatically edit it. Also when you say, "What I said was that there's more than one person using the account", are you talking about different ip addresses on the account? That's because I moved. On January 30th, I moved to another apartment. I had to get another Cable Modem from Comcast and I got another Laptop too. The Comcast guy had to redo everything, he did something in Command Prompt I'm not sure what it was. Trust me nobody else is using my account, nobody. As far as Eugene goes, I'll admit I overreacted A LOT. I owe him a big apology. I hope all can be forgiven and we can start off fresh, you, Yngvarr, Eugene, and anybody else that may have been upset about this whole thing.Lamborghini man 14:55 April 18, 2009.

Start anew... hm. I'd like to but how do I or anyone else know that you won't end up pulling the same stuff again because I'm pretty certain you made with all the niceties with apologies and promises and all last time you were pulled up for this. I'm going to see what Yng says but for now I'm not considering anything of the good faith sort until such time you've proved you can keep your personal hellmouth closed and I don't mean for a few months until people have forgotten. If you're going to do this, don't bring it to any specific person, just add a new section to the talkpage of a given article and see what comes of it. When I say more than one person is using your account I mean more than one person is using your account, I'm still not sure if it is but if you can control your non-colaborative attitude nobody will care. What is so hard about adding four tildes? Learn to sign, sir. treelo _radda 15:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) To start with, I would like to reinforce the WP:BRD issue. The changes you've been making are controversial and have been reverted by three different people. I'm not necessarily interested in apologies, that's for you to discuss with Eugene. Disagreements are inevitable. How people deal with those disagreements is a good barometer. And I'm generally not a stickler for process of this nature. But so far, we're going in circles. What sources can you provide for the information which is in dispute? Wikipedia itself (in any language variant), wikias, and the pretty much any user-editable database is not considered reliable by the very nature of being user-editable. The article talk pages are usually a good place to start when you're considering making significant changes, and it is better to talk on article pages rather than user pages, so at least it can be peer-reviewed by any interested parties. Here is a good (recent) example of I how I see the whole thing coming together. I'll throw you some good faith, but we need an exhibition of your intentions, and so far, the Eugene Crabs interaction does not really fill me confidence. If you are serious in your claims, then again, we'll start at the beginning: use the talk page, bring forth something that we all can agree on. If your having a hard time with the reliable sources issue, there are a number of examples. If something is still unclear, then use the [Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]] and get an outside opinion. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Its all good between me and Eugene. I will use the talk page from now on.--Lamborghini man (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you also cut the shit in your summaries, they're really standoffish when you have something to prove. treelo _radda 17:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My summaries, what are you talking about?--Lamborghini man (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summaries, you've been here long enough to know these things. Boy do you ever need a slight personality tweak, everything seems to come across as if the person who dares questions you is wrong. There are better ways to ask what something is than "what are you talking about?" as if they're crazy for saying it. treelo _radda 17:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know what you were talking about. You just said "summaries" at first. Now I know exactly what you're talking about. You're talking about the things I've been saying in the edit summaries. They won't happen again. I just want to start of fresh and new; doing this the right way.--Lamborghini man (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Protoshield2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Protoshield2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been tagerooed now but the issue stands with just what sort of free they mean. The article the image comes from says all content is copyleft so I'm left to guess at if that means a public domain release or GFDL. I'm going to say GFDL but for certain it is free. treelo _radda 22:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised but happy to see that image on the Arduino page. I took it way back for Tony at NKC electronics- I designed that shield for him. Anyway, I have released the image into the Public domain, so no worries on copyight. Vancircuit (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Image attribution is always a pain (IMO), so I hope this wasn't burdensome on you. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Samurai Jack The Wild Thornberrys HBO channels Sam Register Doug Lawrence Stitch! The Movie WCWM Firehouse Tales Chris Savino Nickelodeon UK The Willy Wonka Candy Company George of Duklja Roz Weston Garfield and Friends Atomic Cartoons Urecco PBS Kids Jordan Fry List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors

Cleanup Alternate versions of cartoon characters Road Rovers HIT Entertainment Merge Mailing list Jonny Quest List of bombs Add Sources Sheep in the Big City A1 (band) Police rank Wikify Xfire Milton Bradley The Kids from Room 402 Expand Jetix List of British entomological publishers Dora the Explorer

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on...

Me and Otter Boy are having some stupid 4/1 fun and need you to make more obscure references and memes. We've already participated in the yearly fake AfD (I have already =!voted under your moniker) and need you over at his talkpage as part of an ongoing stupidfest. treelo _{squeedly spooch} 18:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• What, I'm not Chowder anymore? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you still are, just a good month or so hiatus of any new Chowder (not you) can do that to you... but you're also Otter Boy so it's not like I'm wrong. treelo _{squeedly spooch} 18:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of this Invader Mik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) character, so far it's just been trolling the Chowder article talkpages but not doing anything. In some ways that is good because the crap that kid would add... ahem, like I say it is good but I feel a certain touch of familiarity about him. treelo _radda 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

well, they're semi-prot, so he can't edit them until he has 10 edits, or something like that, so if I were suspicious, I'd say he's racking up minor edits in the interim. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh.

Do you deal with Ben 10? I don't as you know, action series seem to attract bigger lunkheads than EEnE do and just dealing with the Transformers: Animated char list split annoyed the crap out of me. From what I see there's nobody who knows the difference between cruft and content to an acute enough degree to be able to tell the rest to stop adding the shit in, only the hardcore douches like yourself give a fuck. So, because of this I'd like to turn your attention to convincing the circlejerkers there to split the godawful rat king we call List of characters in Ben 10 (or rather List of Ben 10 characters because some fuck moved it against our own MOS) into more manageable chunks. I know, wrong venue but I figure here is good enough as most conversation will occur on the talkpage so no point drifting it out to WT:TOON. It's the single biggest issue for the Ben 10 archipelago as it requires some clipping and a spinout because of the length at a fairly hefty... wait... 114 kilobytes. That is more than both Ben 10 and Ben 10: Alien Force put together.

Problem is simple, a huge article with too much dross and that which is worth a damn needs splitting off so one list doesn't have to cover the whole Ben 10 Mythos. I'd suggest because of the way the series go to split out core characters to their own articles should content be found (sourcing is much heavier a demand on standalone articles so extra legwork will be needed, episodic references aren't any good) and split the rest down to heroes and villains or by series should enough content remain. Above all, make sure the title convention is adhered to and none of this List of Ben 10 villains or Ben Tennyson (Ben 10) bullcrap. treelo _radda 01:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have those on my watchlist, but mainly for blatant vandalism. I don't watch the show, so I can't really comment on content, but it should be kinda easy to spot the drivel from the rest. And while we're on the topic of "keeping an eye", I am about to step out for a bit, so if you have a chance, keep an eye on DVDfan12, he did not learn from his block, and now he's adding "Portugal air dates" to the episodes. After yesterday, I'm not of the mind to have a pleasant discussion with him on these things. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're leaving it to me to split the list up? It's a simple thing, just split it yourself and let them figure it out. I'd like to but I'm highly intolerant and will assume bad faith right away. I'll keep an eye on our over-enthusiastic kid editor here, I'm starting to doubt it being someone we know but is still far from being a good editor, young Mormon editors always seem very bull-headed and ignorant to a point to others. treelo _radda 20:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that wasn't what I said. I meant to say "Ok, let me look at the talk page and see what's up". Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn your lack of clarity, damn it to hell. You're not Chowder, you don't get to make little sense in passing like he does. Don't bother looking at the talkpage, you get one passing IP suggesting a split but also wanting additional cruft so it's as if this is the Ben 10 Wikia but actually popular. treelo _radda 22:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've not forgotten about this. I'm getting a headache looking at it, tho. It seems like Ben and the rest of major characters should be on their own article. I'm just pondering the rest, things like List of enemies in Ben 10, and so on. It's just so dreadful. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to my world, Chuckles. Let's face it, series like these will inevitably demand a presence here as rich as the universe it creates (see List of allies and other characters in Codename: Kids Next Door) but as we both know that's stupid fanboi crap. If the split as far as you see it seems like an issue then I'd say to tighten the threshold for inclusion or just use WP:TOONMOS as you could most likely get it below 50Kb that way and then consider what to do about a split but all I know is that one will be required even though if we were gonna be strict we could lower it down to one solo list of non-major primaries with a limit on how much goes in. I can see the headache, where do you split, how do you split, where should certain chararcters go, should certain characters even gain inclusion? Like I say, use the guideline the MOS establishes and try and work out just what sort of list setup would work, just don't let it get fragmented to the level of List of enemies and past allies in Ben 10: Alien Force (season 2). treelo _radda 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And there we go. I've also placed a request to move over the badly formed redirect. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, no loss of data from what I can see, bit of a shame as their inclusion standards are incredibly loose (two appearances are enough) and need a tightening. You realise they fixed that rd bug, right? I've moved it over to the correct title and yes, it should have been announced to a wider audience than the folk who read Wikipedia Signpost. treelo _radda 11:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of the redirect thingy, thanks for telling me. Maybe I should subscribe to the signpost. I'll probably plunk a note on the talk page, just for the sake of process, but also to mention the level of cruft. I'm all twitchy after skimming through that drivel. No wonder I don't even watch this show. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction and your use of my monobook script

Hi,

I am pleased to see that you have used my monobook script to remove the autoformatting or linking of dates or other functions; I hope you have found it useful.

This is to let you know that ArbCom has announced a temporary injunction against the "mass delinking of dates". You can still delink dates on an occasional basis; however, you may wish to be cautious and use the script only for its non-date functions until the issue is resolved by an RFC poll. You may wish to express your view on autoformatting and date linking in the RFC at: Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 17:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 05:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)