User talk:Via strass

Welcome!

Hello, Via strass, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! NickelShoe 16:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote won the Math COTW

Polynomial identity ring

The current Mathematics Collaboration of the Month is
Polynomial identity ring.

Please help to improve this article towards featured article standard.

Last month's collaboration was Group (mathematics)

If you have time, please help this article! Meekohi 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Needham

Hi, via strass. You recently reverted some edits at Roger Needham; however, the changes you reverted weren't vandalism, but the placement of the {{sprotected}} template and the removal of some redlinks. I've restored the sprotected template (since the page is semiprotected, due to a persistent vandal) and removed one of the redlinks (the other had a few other articles linked to it, so might turn blue someday). I'm just wondering what made you think that the changes were vandalism? No biggie, just curious. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josiah. Sorry about that. I was reverting some other pages edited by 193.122.47.130, and I noticed his edit on that page. But i didn't realise it was not the most recent edit; the page had already been reverted, edited further and protected.. Oops. I'm used to seeing diffs from my watchlist where you always get the last edit I guess. Via strass 06:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As I said, I was just curious. See you 'round the 'pedia! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 08:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Bantown deletion

cross posted from User talk:NickelShoe

Hi there Nickelshoe and thanx for the nice welcome you gave me. I have a question the answer to which i haven't been able to find on the help pages so I thought I would ask you. An article of mine has been nominated for deletion. I've looked at the policy and stuff for how the discussion should go and so on. What I haven't been able to find out is what happens at the end of 5 days. Ie can any admin delete the article based on their judgement of whether there is consensus, or what? Who actually makes the decision? You see I think that there is no clear consensus to delete, and that I have addressed the issues people have raised about the article. But it was nominated by an admin that I am worried will go ahead and delete it based on his own judgement. This seems a little unfair, it would be better if it was someone who'd never seen it before.. The article is Bantown but i'm not complaining about anything in this specific case. It's just the making of the final decision didn;t seem to be covered on the help page. Thanks in advance, Via strass 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yeah, basically any admin can close the discussion based on their judgment of whether or not there is a consensus. But if it gets deleted and you think the admin misjudged the consensus, you can bring it up at a deletion review. NickelShoe (Talk) 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your speedy help, NickelShoe! Take care. Via strass 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting userpages

How do i delete a subpage of my user-page? Via strass 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it with {{db-user}}. Ryūlóng 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx a lot. Via strass 23:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weierstrass function

Hi, via strass. I was wondering what your thinking was regarding your changes to Weierstrass_function. In particular, since almost everywhere and except on a set of isolated points are not equivalent, I was wondering what your motivation was for the change. At the moment, I favor the original wording, so I thought I'd ask you to explain. Thanks. Doctormatt 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as Weierstrass pointed out in the preamble to his proof, it had previously been generally believed that the stronger statement 'continuous -> diff. outside a set of isolated points' was in fact true. This also avoids the awkwardness of pointing out that nullsets were not thought of at the time. Via strass 20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll have to check out Weierstrass' paper. Cheers, Doctormatt 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopy edit

Yes, there is a reason, and I gave it in the edit summary. Please give a justification on Talk:Snoopy why this reference, out of certainly hundreds of comic-strip allusions, should be included. —Chowbok 14:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Page Vandalism

Please do not target one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking, as you did with User:Samuel Blanning. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. StoptheDatabaseState 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not target one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mytildebang 01:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User:Samuel Blanning, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a fourth warning?? I vandalized your user page twice, by mistake, as part of an editing/sandboxing error, and was warned for it twice above by users StoptheDatabaseState and Mytildebang. Then you warned me again, without my having done any further vandalism (!?), supposedly as 'Warning 4' and a 'final warning'. This is a mistake on your behalf. Please explain. Via strass 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say it's a fourth warning, it says it's a last warning, and continued blatant vandalism does not require working through all four messages that we have. You already know better than this, so what do you need 4 warnings for? "Editing/sandboxing" error indeed. Who did you mean to call a rampant homosexual and an Asperger's sufferer, then, if not me? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sam, you are mistaken or deliberately equivocating. The history page to this page clearly says

"21:29, 29 December 2006 Samuel Blanning (Talk | contribs) (Edit to User:Samuel Blanning - warning 4)" with regard to your edit. I do not understand the reason for this obfuscation. Via strass 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template user warnings go in levels - 1 assumes testing, 2 is warning, 3 is warning about blocking, 4 is final and 5 is notification of block. The templates are named along the lines of {{test1}}, {{blank2}}, {{spam3}} accordingly. They have no relevance to the number of incidents or warnings. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sam ,thank you for your help Via strass 23:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not target one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking, as you did with User:Samuel Blanning. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. feydey 17:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated.

Reverting many abusive edits

A whole bunch of edits have been made which I think are inappropriate and need to be reverted. In fact all but one page was removed from the category [[Category:Racism in Australia]]. I think that these pages need to stay in that category. I have reverted a few, but isn't there a better way of changing back the rest than to go through them one by one??

Well, for one, you could read the discussion at WP:AWNB, find out why they are being removed, and contribute to discussion there. michael ^talk 08:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your unhelpful input, michael. It appears from the discussion that they are indeed being removed abusively, by someone who has chosen to preempt the outcome of a deletion nomination. It's unclear to me why you have referred me to a 'discussion' when it seems you have decided to act unilaterally and empty the category regardless of what others might 'contribute'. The question remains, how do i put them back? Via strass 11:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blanning

Please stop adding attack text to Sam Blanning's user talk page. Thanks. Consider this your only warning. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've issued a 48 hour block for trolling. Despite what you may think, this and this are not legitimate comments. This is simply trolling.--Isotope23 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon repetition of your behaviour immediately after being unblocked, I've extended the block. You can be a productive contributor if you want, but that doesn't mean you get to troll and harass. If you promise to stop wasting our time, then I'll unblock; as long as you insist on disruptive behaviour then you will be prevented from editing. Simple as that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Bagramyan

File:Bagramyan1938.jpg

Bagramyan in 1938.

Please unblock me

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Via strass (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

BLock was abusive and put in place by an admin who harbours a grudge against me and alleged without evidence that edits I made to his talk page were vandalism

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=BLock was abusive and put in place by an admin who harbours a grudge against me and alleged without evidence that edits I made to his talk page were vandalism |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=BLock was abusive and put in place by an admin who harbours a grudge against me and alleged without evidence that edits I made to his talk page were vandalism |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=BLock was abusive and put in place by an admin who harbours a grudge against me and alleged without evidence that edits I made to his talk page were vandalism |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}