Jump to content

User talk:Wisdom89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sbkbg (talk | contribs) at 17:34, 21 February 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives

Smallville

The page should be kept up to date.The other user is just vadalizing the page.Bleek25 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Smallville (TV series) for further comments. Wisdom89 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Iftimoaie article

I've added a comment about the deletion on its talk page. diego_pmc (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References help

BTW, can you help me with something. I'm an admin on another Wiki (a rather small one, related to a game - Gothic). Lately there's been a need for references there, but I can't figure out how to implement them. By looking at WP, I see they consist of a series of Templates. Can you help me with this. Or do you know another admin, that could help? diego_pmc (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your current RfA

Hi Wisdom89. I'm really sorry as I appear to have created a bit of a pile on in oppose and neutral, and the issues are only a few out of your thousands of good edits. I must say that your calm and cheery responses are an absolute credit to you. If this request fails please understand that maybe now was not the time, but that in the future you will be a great admin. It's only some recent slip ups and 10-12 weeks or so demonstrating you have learnt from them will throw me into full support. Again, sorry and very best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  08:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Bushey deleted

Hello, Wisdom. Just a quick note, I did not think this net the nonsense criteria, but I felt it did not assert significance. Dlohcierekim 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Dlohcierekim ! Wisdom89 (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith

FYI - When I tried a straight rv of the earlier Rush edit the Wiki Spambot wouldn't let me save because the petitiononline link is on Wiki's Spam blacklist. Bearing that in mind.... the statement is a valid one... and should have a different source added inplace of the petitiononline link. Not all IP's are as noble and perfect as me :D . But there are very honest 'on/again/off/again' anons who edit Wiki. And if any one of them try to do something as simple as a spelling/grammar/date correction on the Rush page... they won't be able to save it because of the Spambot lock. You are "the man" when it comes to the Rush page... so I just thought you might want to follow-up and make the Rush page follow Wikipedia's "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" motto. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, Oh I know you were acting in good faith, don't be confused by the revert (I hope you weren't) - It was just that earlier I wasn't able to rollback or revert the other IP for some reason, I think the system was lagging. I would have liked some explanation from the anon as to why he/she removed the reference so I dropped him a message on his talk page. Thank you so much for letting me know that the petitiononline link is on the Spam blacklist! I'll try and find a better source for the statement in question. Cheers! Wisdom89 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!

He's Funny :P. I AIV'd Him and have an eye on him. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh, indeed he is. I never tire of the outbursts! Wisdom89 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. Awwww he got blocked :D Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging

A number of images you recently tagged as not having source information (such as Image:Aerial jordan.jpg are actually images on Wikimedia Commons. Tagging them here on Wikipedia does nothing, because the images aren't actually here, and no Wikipedia admin can delete them. --Carnildo (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I learned this from my recent WP:RfA - Thank you for giving me the heads up though, much appreciated. Wisdom89 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA was unsuccessful

I am sorry to inform you that I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful. I hope you are not too disheartened and will take onboard the concerns raised by those opposing and will consider running again in the future when you feel you have addressed them. Best wishes, WjBscribe 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV and IP users

Howdy. When you reported 74.128.58.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to AIV, you described it as a vandalism-only account. Even though all the edits from that IP are vandalism, it's really not an account. I don't think we indefinitely block IPs the same way we might block a user, so perhaps it would be better to leave as your reason for block something like "edits to Rob Levin beyond final warn". Keep up the good work. MKoltnow 04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I know that - By "vandalism only account", I meant just what you said - that the anon's contributions were all vandalism. Thanks for the compliment and cheers! Wisdom89 (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Help

Hey, no problem, glad I could help out. Oh, and in regards to your RfA;

File:Resilient-silver.png The Resilient Barnstar
For coming out of an RfA unsuccessfully and still going on strong, I award you this Resilient Barnstar. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very much appreciated - thank you for the recognition. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Fighting

You're off to a good start. --Sharkface217 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, what was I thinking? You have been vandal fighting for some time and appear to be doing a great job. I would love to do a more in-depth analysis but unfortunately I am currently pinned down by real life obligations. I can only hope that you continue such vandal fighting and I apologize that I cannot devote more time to reading of your exploits. --Sharkface217 02:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UAA reports

I've removed your reports of Fdfsdfsdfs and Cstass from WP:UAA. It seems to me to take a huge stretch of the imagination to consider these to be violations of the username policy in any way.

UAA isn't just for names you don't like, it's for recommending that admins place an immediate block, so please only use it for problems that are serious enough to require blocking. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not require a lecture on how to use WP:UAA since I have over 200 contributions. You don't see how "Fdfsdfsdfs" should be blocked under UAA? That's a shock to me. It's an obvious random sequence of characters that falls under confusion - difficulty in identifying users. This is not about what I do, or do not "like". Cstass (if you read my nomination) was a name I wanted immediate admin eyes on for possible vulgarity issues. Please reconsider your comments. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the user was blocked after I reported him/her. I suppose you just didn't agree - and that's fine. Cheers. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Fdfsdfsdfs vandalized and got blocked is tangential to this issue. A short name with a repeated set of three characters may be lazy but is not confusing. Cstass, meanwhile, is most likely an abbreviation of someone's name -- if you look at what he's edited so far, he may not quite get what Wikipedia is for (I've left him a note about conflicts of interest), but he's certainly not the kind of juvenile editor who's saying "huh huh, ass, I wrote ass on Wikipedia". Fixating on the fact that his name contains the word "ass" is totally unnecessary, and making a UAA report out of it dilutes the effectiveness of UAA.
Some other editors and I have talked to you before about UAA on many occasions, as I can see from looking up on your talk page, so I do believe you are missing the spirit of the username policy. This is clearly a real issue, so I don't appreciate the way you brushed me off in your response. Ending that kind of response with "cheers" is just patronizing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fdfsdfsdfs wasn't blocked due to vandalism, but for a user name violation - as I clearly spelled out in my report. Another administrator felt it warranted an indefinite block. It wasn't a matter of "lazy" alias creation at all, it was a BS arbitrary username the individual typed out using common left-hand keystrokes. I do not consider this tangential in the least. In fact, it bolsters my initial position. I find it rather cynical of you to point out 1 or 2 other incidents were my UAA nominations might have been misinterpreted or in error, and then use that against me after the fact. I'm not denying the concerns, but after 215 reports I feel that I have a good grasp of the policy. Also, with regards to Cstass, yes it crossed my mind that it might have been an individual's name, however searching turned up nothing substantial, and I filed my report with the caveat that it was questionable or borderline, but wanted admin eyes on the name. That's what UAA is for. Another administrator agreed with me if you check the history, but they decided to leave it open for other interpretation. Also, accusing me of patronizing you really is in bad faith any way you slice it. I didn't mean to "brush you off", I simply took exception to your comments, which I felt carried admonishment and condescension. That's all. I sign nearly all of my posts with cheers to show that there are no hard feelings. That's all. Honest. Wisdom89 (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S Please do not hyperbolize things to strengthen your position - you and "others" (one other editor) have not talked to me on "many occasions" - In fact, as indicated, it was twice at the most.. Wisdom89 (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that there are hard feelings, and that's why I objected to your use of "cheers". But I'll drop this issue now. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no hard feelings on MY end - I was merely explaining myself. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Smallville

Well, I know that the music section needs to be expanded upon (I have some things about Mark Snow and their use of pop music throughout episodes). The "Seasons overview" section I think should be trimmed and turned into a "Series overview" section. I think it should be summarized to represent how the series has evolved over all of the seasons, instead of simply summarizing each season itself. There's a bit more for the cast that needs to be added regarding the departure of Eric Johson, Jensen Ackles, Sam Jones, and John Schneider (...and I'm sure Annette whenever that season 6 book comes out). We need some more reviews of the series as a whole, for the reception section. The Awards section is fine, it's something that is easy to just add the current season's awards, since it's already up-to-date. I know that I want to rewrite the "Other media" section to represent all of the other media they have, which includes the novels and comics. That's what I think it needs before a nomination (also a good copyedit, but that's probably better left till all the sections have been finished).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for the barnstare. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help Me Understand

I posted an article titled Southern Resorts and it was deleted because the company did not assert significance. I looked up what it meant according to Wikipedia to 'assert significance' and I couldn't really get a difinitive answer on how that was decided by you based on what I read. Do I need to list more accolades, history, community contributions? I'm new to all of this and having a lot of trouble navigating around but I'm trying to figure it out! Please advise. Thank you! Mermaid Maritza (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have more questions

I feel like I am really computer saavy and I also feel very lost on this page. I can't find anything easily and even though I know html, things continue to not work for me. I ran across some instructions on how to post an article once but then it launched me into posting an article and I couldn't figure out how to get to the next subject. I can't figure out how to hyperlink. I feel so retarded!

btw, thank you for being so nice. I use wiki all the time and I really want to learn how to do all of this right.

Mermaid Maritza (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Help

Confused as to why my challenge is considered vandalism, and was reverted. I am not a vandal. ??? Doku29 (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you

Thanks. Doku29 (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol

Hi Wisdom 89,

I've been doing some new page patrolling and have seen your tags, if you are also patrolling please mark the page as patrolled when you are done. You have to go back to Special:New Pages to do that but then others won't have to check the page twice. Thanks.Awotter (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Jon Surfpark

Just letting you know that I rewrote Ron Jon Surfpark (note that "surfpark" is indeed one word). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the page is much better now and establishes the importance and notability that it so desperately needed. Nice job. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Cook

Please come here to give your opinion.--VS talk 08:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for High Schools

Hi Wisdom. While I disagree with another editor's assertion that all high schools are inherently notable, I offer something to chew on. I have in real life met only one other serious editor. When we found out we were both Wikipedians it turned into a meetup of two. :) Anyhow, he mentioned something which I found quite compelling. I agree with you that these school articles are bad--many of them really bad, but in some cases it is through a school article that younger editors find Wikipedia in the first place. Yes, some of them are vandals and never outgrow that phase, but some got there through intellectual curiosity and are going to be great contributors. We certainly need more of those. So my friend suggested that even if he believes that many schools are not notable, that (perhaps an ignore all rules argument) they may well have a greater good for the project. We'll never be able to get rid of all the bad articles, so I have taken his suggestion to heart and don't pursue deletion for school articles. Perhaps you could consider tagging it for cleanup and improvement if that is a reasonable compromise. Again--you're not wrong--these articles are often crap about something totally non-notable, but maybe they serve as magnets to attract editors to the project. Cheers. MKoltnow 16:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good point you make there - definitely something to think about. Every single High School article I have ever encountered here (bar the ones with obvious prestige and notability) have been downright awful. I always try and conduct a thorough search to see if the school has been mentioned in sources which aren't linked or related to the school itself - frankly, this usually doesn't turn up anything eye-opening. However, something to ponder. Do they attract a younger generation of editors? Are the schools just in the early stages of development and importance has yet to be uncovered? I'll take your advice to heart. Thanks dude. Wisdom89 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, stop removing the bloody template!

Look, I've tried to add this three times. The lead is too bloody short and you'd have to rewrite the guidelines to deny that. Twice it has been removed from the talk page, despite my warning not to, without any discussion with me, and any reason given. I moved it to the article page initially, then some other (self described 'asshole') removed it from there because 'it doesn't look nice'. So now I've put it back on the talk page. And now you remove it. *Unceremoniously whacks you over the head*

Excuse me, but be civil or I will consider your attitude and terminology a personal attack. Now, first of all, templates for articles do not belong in the talk page. If you feel the lead is too short and you find that other's unilaterally disagree, make a section dedicated to it on the talk page so that we can all converse like civilized editors. Your approach is simply abrasive, condescending, rude, and petulant. I don't want this crap on my talk page. Just settle down dude. Wisdom89 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to forgive my half joking/half serious suggestion of whacking you over the head... I'm just very fed up with this issue. Anyway, as I've just informed the other editor, who insists these templates do not belong on the content page, you are both wrong. These templates can go on the content page or the talk page. Some don't like them on the content page, fine, move them to the talk page. Some don't like them on the talk page. Fine, move them to the content page. Sometimes there is conflict over this. Fine, pick one and move on, but don't just delete the template, which is what you've all been doing. The first guy just thought it was an accident, but your and the other editor's insistence on deleting them is extremely annoying. I don't even watch this page and every time I see it the template is gone without any good explanation, and the lead is always still too short. As for making a section, I don't need to (and if I did that every time I placed such a template I'd never do any other editing (except perhaps having mindless disputes like this)), because it is evident to anyone familiar with the lead section guidelines.
It looks like you've expanded the lead a bit yourself, which is good. I was considering doing it myself by now just to resolve the issue. This is the sort of article that should have a 2, maybe even 3 paragraph lead at current length. Having said that, the paragraph is pretty long now, so I'll take the template down - there are certainly a lot worse cases out there and we should reserve {{too short}} for those that need to be twice as long or more. Richard001 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable AIV nominations

You recently nominated a string of new users for blocking at AIV as vandalism only accounts. In most of these cases, these users had only made a few "test edits" and appeared to have either stopped after receiving a warning, or went to the sandbox, or began editing properly. 3-5 edits is often not enough to call an account "vandalism-only" unless it is stuff like racist screed or swearwords or the like. Also, please see that a user is given ample opportunity to edit after receiving a warning (give them a chance to see the warning!) before nominating at AIV. If they do one edit within 1 minute after receiving a warning, they likely didn't see the warning before hitting "save". Fighting vandalism is good work, and we appreciate the job you are doing, but frivolous reports only serve to clog AIV and waste admins time as we investigate what turns out to be a new editor testing things out rather than blatant vandalism. Treat the newbies gently and save AIV for the really eggregious stuff. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just came here to say the same exact thing. I just removed two of your reported users who haven't edited past their final warnings. In the case of one, he hasn't even been issued a final warning yet. Metros (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you guys are saying, and I appreciate you coming to me civily like this, but I always understood that it's not exactly set in stone that a user HAS to receive 4 warnings or even a final warning before being reported to WP:AIV - it's more circumstantial. For instance, if a user registers an account and vandalizes 7 times out of 7 edits, but only received two or three warnings, that user should be reported. Then again, you my concession on the meaning behind "vandalism only account". Regardless, I'll be more careful from now on. Cheers fellow Wikipedians. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you are doing good work. There is no set-in-stone rule, and it is circumstantial, but that's why you have to get a "feel" for it. AIV criteria are quite strict, and there is little harm in making sure the person really has no good intentions before reporting them. Its very easy to clean up if they vandalise 2-3 more times while you are making sure they really are a vandal, but there is no easy way to get back a potentially good future editor because they were scared off while making the classic "can I REALLY edit anything" test. Taking the conservative path is sometimes the better path to take. Just keep looking for the vandals, and you'll get a better feel for it. Good luck and happy hunting! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look more carefully at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/header, the top of the AIV page. It says specifically that a user must have "sufficient recent warnings" and that they must have edited after those warnings. Metros (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UAA

Hey, I just wanted to say well done over at UAA tonight. Keep up the good work, take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dude, will do! Wisdom89 (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Blau

I think you made a mistake to remove the delete tag from Jared Blau. Did you read the article? -- Dominus (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did - The article clearly did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion WP:PN - especially now that it has reliable sources. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't tag it no context; I tagged it blatant nonsense. Which it was. And the "reliable sources" were to New York Times articles about Dick Cheney. -- Dominus (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was speedy deleted as pure vandalism (i did it myself). The article was total bullshit, and the sources added had NOTHING to do with the article. It was vandalism plain and simple, and as such I deleted it under G3... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb

Hi there - you requested full protection based upon anon edits to this article. I just wanted you to know that I chose to do semi-protection instead, because that's all that's necessary to keep anons from editing, while still leaving the article open to editing by established editors. - Philippe | Talk 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh yeah, see my comment on the page protection page, just a slip of the mouse key. I was going for a semi-protection for anon vandalism, but thanks again. Wisdom89 (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington

Regarding your revert of the edit of the effective date of Washington's posthumous General of the Armies of the U.S. appointment, I believe the correct year is indeed 1976 and not 1776. See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_94-479. Thanks a lot for your due diligence, though! Best regards. Milnivlek (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

I'm sorry about the editing I've been doing, by not citing my changes with links, but with certain articles, like with the WIld Thornberry's, which, since its a nickelodeon show, I would think that it was not, in fact, cancelled for "graphic sexual content" and i just figured I wouldn't need a source to verify that. Thanks for setting me straight though, and next time when I make a change (even obvious vandalism) I'll be sure to source it. Sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.48.253 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, but I'm a little confused - could give me some diffs regarding your edits and where I reverted any of them? Do you have a dynamic IP address? If so, you might want to think about creating an account to avoid confusion and multiple warnings that maybe don't even apply to you. Cheers man, and no apologies necessary. If you want, get back to me with some links so I can be sure we're on the same page. Wisdom89 (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For taking the challenge and warning 100 vandals, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Good job! --Sharkface217 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For taking the challenge and making 50 reports to WP:AIV, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Good job! --Sharkface217 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For taking the challenge and successfully combating vandalism that has resulted in at least 20 bans/blocks, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Good job! --Sharkface217 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome. --Sharkface217 05:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LN-3 Seagull

Hi, you marked this as patrolled, would you check the link in the article and assess whether it is spam or nor? Subject is probably notable enough to qualify, but it does seem a little like it is promoting the maker. Maybe an advert tag?? Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the article with an advert tag, as that's pretty much how it reads. It does have significance, doesn't warrant a SD or prod methinks. Good catch though. Cheers. Wisdom89 (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Would there be a problem if I uploaded a pic of myself holding a large, wet piece of human feces for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantern Oil (talk • contribs) 00:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't WP:CENSORED, so no it wouldn't be a problem. In fact, that would be encouraged (despite the nastiness of the approach) since it would be a free image. I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but you'd have to make sure it had a source, license information etc..etc.. Wisdom89 (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think you got the wrong guy Wisdom :D

I rv'd some starry eyed "favourite fan" POV from the Dream Theater page earlier tonight. I didn't know that deleting fanboy POV was worth a POV reminder headed my way... but... oh well :D. You may want to send the proper npov message to the IP that I rv'd... they'd probably be better off learning about the policy. I have been very familiar with it for almost 4 years :D . Have a nice day! 156.34.213.177 (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I checked the history - sorry about that. That must have been left over POV from another anon. When I reverted your IP version, it seemed like yours was the one that contained the "nearly every album by Dream Theater" statement. : ) Wisdom89 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes DT rocks. But they don't rock with the same perfection that Rush does :D . Many Wikipedia editors consider them to be the greatest band of all time :D . Ooops... where'd that weasel come from? 156.34.213.177 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

524 Allstars

You "good faith" reverted edits by 71.116.165.8 on 524 Allstars sometime around 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC). Wouldn't it just be simpler to fix the edit (especially since he just came back and did it again)? E.g. what you did and what I did. I'm not praising myself here, I'm just saying don't always automatically revert. Thanks! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - I wanted to WP:AGF, but a part of me believed it was actually deliberate misinformation. I could have placed a [citation needed] tag, but that would have potentially left in a misleading and frivolous statement. Now, it might be true, don't get me wrong, I just felt it was better to ask in my edit summary for a reference for the statement. I don't always revert, don't worry. At least we were both acting in good faith. Cheers! Wisdom89 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't I feel stupid now. A quick look at the actual article says that it means "Bruce-Baker-Moore." Now I'll just add the information, take away the {{fact}} tag I added, and go hide under my covers.  :-) Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don't hide under your covers! I think we both had good points to make. As I said, I couldn't tell if it was right or wrong : ) Wisdom89 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar thingy

As it appears that Luksuh is taking a Wikibreak of some sort; I'll take the initiative and award you the barnstar in his place.


The Original Barnstar
For taking the time to welcome at least 1000 new users for Luksuh's Award Center Challenge, I, Sharkface217, award you this barnstar. Good job! --Sharkface217 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Enjoy. --Sharkface217 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agawan Base

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Agawan Base. The reason is:

not about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, so CSD A7 doesn't apply.

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Peart GA

I'm on board for that. (I should've known that barnstar was just ONE show, and here's the other. (i'm kidding.) ThuranX (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you make light of that barnstar. It was my first! Hehe. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

I replied to your question here. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 14:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A belated reply

Hi Wisdom89. Sorry for the late reply. I took a long Wiki-break and am just popping back in every now and then to look around. Rush page still looks good. I expect it's because of your ongoing diligence. Keep up the excellent work! You should be an administrator. Have to catch a plane soon. Airplanes have been my second home for the last year or so. I know every square inch of YYZ. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Don't be too hasty to tag for deletion. The article List of anarchist websites I started had a "underconstruction" template. I only started the article, you tagged it for deletion. Please wait a while before tagging for deletion. There is nothing promotional in the article. It lists notable anarchist websited in one place. Feeling good about your prod tag? I am just going to improve the article, you taggged it for prod. This is not going to build a collaborative encyclopedia. Please do such things with more judgements, give the editors time to improve the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't hasty at all - hasty or impulsive would have been nominating it for WP:AfD or falsely nominating it for Speedy Deletion. If you disagree with the Proposed deletion tag, then remove it and expand the article and address it on the talk page. Your job, and the job of other editors is to establish significance and importance. Dropping a note on my talk page about being "rash" does nothing to help the article. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete

I know how to do speedy deletions, I don't need lectures, thank you. Corvus cornixtalk 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be curt. I was polite, the least you can do is act the same. I don't doubt your ability to speedy delete. However, you tagged the article prematurely as it did not meet the criteria for A7. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me not to be curt. If you had just said, "I changed your speedy delete tag because I think the one I replaced it with is more appropriate," I would have said, "Fine, no problem." But the lecturing tone is not appreciated. Corvus cornixtalk 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I ask...if for you to open your heart.

Notice I didnt ask you to open your wallet. That would be stealing. (And it would be wrong)I dont need your charity. I need your understanding. I AM 6' 11", HAIRY, MALE, AND LOVE TO WEAR DRESSES (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is...odd. I think I'll leave it here though. It's amusing. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

One of my favorite pictures
 Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say...

And you're doing a great job with vandalfighting and everything else. Keep it up, mate! Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox templates

I noticed you reported someone at WP:AIV for vandalizing sandbox templates. Templates {{X1}} through {{X9}} are sandbox templates meant for experimentation. It's okay if you want to revert edits that are made to them, but I wouldn't spend time sending vandalism warnings to those editors and reporting them to WP:AIV. (Unless, of course, they're vandalizing other articles, or if they're doing something really problematic with the sandbox templates.) I've used {{X9}} myself for testing edits to infobox templates. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what the sandbox templates are used for. However, this particular user isn't experimenting, they are deliberating blanking and vandalizing the templates consistently. Another IP has already been blocked for such activity and a sockpuppetry case was opened. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well he deletes my aticles so il delete his stuff.

Tomremostom187 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to user:Master of Puppets? No, don't take that approach or you will be blocked indefinitely. Take it up with him on his talk page or review WP:SD. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

151.49.43.85

Sorry about this. I should've got to it sooner. Anything happens again, drop me a line. :) Regards, Rudget. 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem, thanks for the help. Cheers! Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Bite

Re note on 66.100.163.146's talk page: What constitutes biting? I ask sincerely, not to argue the point. I reverted spam linkage, placed a warning msg on the talk page, another user reverted the same spam link and he/she left a second warning, and then I did third revert with third warning template (a fourth person reverted the rest of spam after me). You characterized as content dispute and tiff to remove spam link and leave warning msg template...so my question is what should I have done? Looking at the history on the article Corn Mo, it looked like several attempts to get the spam link right before I made first warning. Again, I am not trying to be argumentative, and I don't want to be all bitey, but I sincerely want to know what I did that was wrong or different than other editor who issued warning to 66.100.163.146 so I don't make same mistake again. Thanks Jacksinterweb (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to Zoporific

Hi Wisdom,

I think you might have meant this warning for someone else [1] --barneca (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! I could have sworn he was the one. Ok, I have to remove that. Damn it. Thanks for the catch. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I removed the template from Zoporific, and the real user has been warned about WP:BLP at level 1.
Cool. I would have fixed it myself, but I doubt I'm welcome on that page right now. --barneca (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought

Hi Wisdom. As you no doubt remember I opposed your last RFA (and caused an element of those horrible "Per Pedro" comments - sorry!). Now, I think that you really would benefit from admin buttons, but it's too soon to run again. Can I help at all in a bit of coaching towards your next RFA? You are doing a great job, and I really admire your work. Let me know, either way. Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk. Pedro :  Chat  00:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Peart

I picked Neil Peart as the first selected article in the new percussion portal. Your work is appreciated (by me, anyway :)) Kakofonous (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the compliment, I'll visit the portal and take a looksy. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

If you are interested, I answered the question on my RFA concerning the username reports. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best pic I've seen

Re: Speedy deletion

Thanks for the notice. I will keep that in mind (and sorry for my ignorance. I'm new here so I don't know too much). --On the other side Contribs|@ 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

afd's

Hi. I noticed your recent afd nominations and I would like to suggest that you nominate the album articles of the band and singer articles that you nominate. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I was planning on doing that, thanks though. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rules and Regulations is an album by Roll Deep. So maybe nominate them together per WP:BUNDLE? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.
File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg
 Thanks for !voting!

Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral.
Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed
without shouting, "No mop for you!"

Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me.
I am deeply grateful.

File:39 marches (2).png
The 39 Steps
Wisdom89

Thank you for casting the 39th vote in support.


     "The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler


Doczilla RAWR! 07:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Home Page
Home Page
Talk Page
Talk Page
Joke Alert
Joke Alert
Presents
Presents

RFA Card

My RFA →→→

Nousernamesleft

Hi, Wisdom89, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, tough feel free to drop a line! Best wishes, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't even vaguely resemble a mop, but I couldn't find a picture of one.

I'll try to participate more in things you mentioned from now on. Thanks for the advice. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it! I forgot to make a remark about the wisdom of your oppose. ;) Thanks for the congrats. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HeroineVirtual deleted...

Can we discuss this on the talk page of Heroine Virtual? I have a lot of reasons why I want this article, and I'd like to hear why it should be deleted. I'm open to suggestions/criticism, but please be open to my reasons as well. Thanks Crh0872 (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the talk page of the article in question. The article is not deleted, I simply proposed deletion based on the criteria indicated in the template. It is your right to remove it in an attempt to establish the requisite notability per WP:CORP and WP:NOTE. If you cannot, then most likely a user other than me will nominate it for WP:AFD. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 09:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Kabbalah

Please tell me why you deleted the article Scientific Kabbalah. Have you read any of the article?Johnshoemaker (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally did not delete the page in question - I nominated it for WP:SD because it met the criteria for nonsense G1. Administrators have the ability to delete pages, not general editors. Scientific Kabbalah contains the deletion record for the page if you wish to bring it up to the admin. Also, you go always take it to WP:DRV. Cheers! Wisdom89 (T / C) 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can has thankspam?

Quick, let's delete the front page!

Template:X1...X9

Hey Wisdom,

I just found this out the hard way, after mistakenly blocking an IP for playing with these templates. Turns out, that's what they're for (read the text in the template). Since I saw you'd reverted and warned several IP's before me on these, I thought you could learn from my mistake. Better egg on my face than egg on mine and yours both. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was an issue before, however what the user is doing (and this is now the 4th dynamic IP) is blanking the entire template, removing the heading and everything - and doing it on purpose. This is vandalism. They know this proceeded to vandalize my user and talk page repeatedly: This is just one example [2]. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, happening to me too now. Would you like your pages semiprotected for a while? --barneca (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My user page is already semi-protect because of this user. : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before hearing from you, I asked about this at WP:AN (last thread, too lazy to link to section). What do you think about a resetting bot, like the sandbox has? --barneca (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I felt it more appropriate, I also copy and pasted the conversation to WP:ANI - I want to see what those admins have to say about the proper action. I don't want to keep unblanking or unnecessarily warning these vendetta wielding IPs. Reply there as well if you wish. Cheers. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to Wisdom89

For Cloverdale Elementary School I would say that it does not assert notability per WP:SCHOOL because it is an elementary school and not a secondary school. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, good point. I'll have to look into it a little deeper. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and nominate it for WP:AfD. I'll probably chime in once I've done some searching. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OhanaUnited's RFA

.: Thank you! :.

For you!

User:Pedro/Admin Coaching if you would like to add input under next steps or discuss anything you feel I've missed or wrongly identified. Pedro :  Chat  08:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yeah. I thought I had him, so I pressed revert about 20 times. And when it successfully loaded, I smiled :) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article building

I've been trying to decide how to measure this. What criteria do you use? Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally like to see moderate to heavy editorial contributions to articles (i.e consistently ranging in the double digits, or minorly in triple) when using the count tool. This is just one example. Additionally, I like to see a reflection of those heavily contributed to articles in the talk section. This convinces me that the candidate is dealing with potential issues, dispute resolutions, problems, and general consensus building for said articles. High mainspace edit counts (a 1000-1500 let's say) with extremely low contributions numbers under tools (e.g just a few articles where there's been at most 15-20 edits) usually means the user is reverting minor edits or undoing vandalism. This is why I often refer to my "balance" criteria. I hope that wasn't too convoluted. If you require further clarification, I would be more than happy to oblige. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sbkbg

People are allowed to remove warnings from their own Talk pages (unless it's an IP). It's considered that if they removed them, they've read them. Corvus cornixtalk 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but in this particular case the user doesn't appear to be acknowledging them. heh Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's learning, he's starting to dialogue with me. Corvus cornixtalk 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, i wasn't referring to "RASS", i was referring to "RAAS" which does re-direct to that article, see here. So, i believe the tag should be restored.-- LaNicoya  •Talk•  04:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it might be more appropriate to create a disambiguation page for the actual acronyms. I honestly don't believe anyone is going to mistake one article for the other. However, I will not remove the template again. Cheers. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverdale SD

Thanks for reinstating the tag: I suspected we could come to a meeting of the minds on that one.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 06:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question

WFAL so i think we haved solved COI and verifiablility. What is the difference to this article and the almost 400 others under the categoy of college radio stations. I have provided secondary sources

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wisdom89&oldid=193072878"