User talk:Enigmaman

If you leave a message here, I'll reply here. The same applies to you. If I leave a message on your page, I keep it watchlisted and I'll see when you reply.

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)

Also, here he claims to be a manic depressive. Enigma ^message Review 02:18, 10 April 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)

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! [1] 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)

co:Adopter

I felt like anwering since I'm your co-adopter. There is no place where you can find the redirects you created. I am 99.9% sure.--RyRy5 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: See this tool for new redirects created. It doesn't count existing articles changed into redirects, however. Enigma ^message Review 01:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So, when do you plan to become an admin? I have really nothing to do this late so I might as well talk to someone.--RyRy5 talk 06:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to plan to become admin? Heh. I actually didn't have any specific plans until I was approached by two editors who suggested it for the future. I figure it's at least six months off. I need to do some more article-building and undergo an editor review before I get anywhere near the process. Anyway, I have to wake up in 4 hours, and I only slept 3.5 hours last night, so... Enigma ^msg! 06:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You ought to be an admin. I'd support you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to say. Some day... <- remember the dots! Enigma ^msg! 13:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my userpage

In thanks for fixing the vandalism/blanking on one/some/all of my userpages I reward you this bootleg CD of your favorite band/musician.

Enjoy! ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yay!!

Thank you so much for having the courage (and the flamethrower) to help with this vanity issue and 3RR mess I'm currently involved in. This should never have gone to AfD and the user should have been blocked a long time ago. Thank you, thank you, thank you! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

No problem. I'm here to help. I saw the report on AIV and decided that someone else needed to step in. The csd tags should've stayed. AfD is not the appropriate locale, because it would take far too long to get deleted. Definitely a good speedy delete candidate, and hopefully the offending user will be blocked shortly. Enigma ^msg! 06:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfect timing. This sort of abuse of this site just burns me up. So, I made a new article at Earp, California to ease the tension. I figured if someone is going to write something, it might as well be worthwhile to a much broader audience.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have such an itchy trigger finger that I have the urge to nom your article for deletion! Just kidding. Thanks for adding something constructive to the encyclopedia! That self-promoting editor could learn a thing or two from you. Enigma ^msg! 06:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Step 1 completed successfully. Crufty self-promoting article was deleted. Step 2 is pending, as the AIV report still sits there unattended to. Enigma ^msg! 06:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Well, I admit there is nothing to see in Earp. Really. On the other hand, Lake Havasu is just a hop, skip and a jump up US 95. Laughlin, Nevada isn't much farther.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the user was not blocked. Anyway, I'll have to take a closer look at your article tomorrow. G'night! Enigma ^msg! 07:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, but it's lacking in detail about the actual townsite. Enigma ^message 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

blocking a user

Can you take a look at User_talk:Aimar120? He has taken some liking to me and to my user page, and I suspect that he is the same IP that you blocked two days ago. His account has been used only for vandalizing and for building a half-assed user page copied from mine, and his edits on IPs seem to indicate that he doesn't intend to make anything constructive, and that he is ready to use proxys to go around blocks --Enric Naval (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Some admins don't put block notices on talk pages, so I clean up for them. If you think the user is a sockpuppet, go here. Enigma ^msg! 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on the user for you, however. Enigma ^msg! 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He's becoming a bit daring, I have to say that, see User:Depaultivo. Let's see if I can make sense out of the sockpuppetry denouncing process and call his crap out --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done and done Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Aimar120#User:Aimar120 --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Enigma ^message 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA for fun and profit

That. That... was awesome. Huzzah! Tan | 39 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank DHMO, although I did make my own small contributions. :) Enigma ^message 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats on hitting 7000! Thats a big milestone. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Enigmaman! Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a test to see who had my page watchlisted. :D Thanks. Enigma ^message 23:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I did, from when we were having our lively debate about Torts. Besides, my talk page isn't nearly as interesting or lively. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching your page! That's how I always respond to your comments.--RyRy5 talk 00:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To Lex: Yeah, I'm the same way. Every page I edit normally is watchlisted, and thus I must have something like 300 talk pages watchlisted (most are of blocked vandals. Need to start removing those). But I also get to see a lot of interesting conversations this way. :D

To Ry: That's good. I prefer to keep discussions on the same page, so that's how I operate. Enigma ^message 01:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: 7,000!

Congratulations on surpasing the big 7-0 (0-0)! You had over 4,400 edits so far in this month alone! You must be on wiki-crack! It appears that you have done some massive vandal-fighting. Has anyone nominated you for an RfA? If not, I will; and I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find an admin to co-nom! The only thing I can see that the opposers will harp on is the (relatively) short time that you have amassed the edits. People tend to forget about WP:DEAL and that an RfA is not an RfB! Let me know and I'll start the proverbial ball rolling!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, please don't. I intend to wait a while before pursuing an RfA, if I do at all. It's been suggested, but I would be much better off staying at a high level for a few more months, and making more significant contributions to specific articles of interest. I'm pretty familiar with AfD, CSD, AIV, and RPP, so that's good. Thanks for the offer, though. :) Enigma ^message 01:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, whenever you decide, I think that it will be a benefit to the site! And I'm sure we'll get more than one co-nom! Cheers!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine so. :) Thanks. Enigma ^message 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll co-nom if you want :) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Jason Kidd

How many times have you had to revert vandalism on Jason Kidd? It's been a hard hit night, anyhow. Basketball110 04:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably at least 15, if I had to guess. Enigma ^message 04:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I warned the one I've mainly been reverting. He hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since. Basketball110 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I only saw one by you, and that was on a persistent vandal that just got blocked. Enigma ^message 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

About Lake Mathews

Hi, I was actually trying to call attention to what's an obvious biased opinion on an issue on the article. You may want to look at it.

I did look at it, and I removed it. You could've simply removed it yourself. Be WP:BOLD. ;) Enigma ^message 05:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

[2], Much appreciated, them seem to be hitting me hard tonight. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't have to thank me. Just surfing for vandalism right now. I would've done your counter too, but I wasn't editing your page manually. Why don't you semi-protect your page for a few hours? Enigma ^message 05:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Being it is a talk page, I am gonna wait it out for a bit longer. Hopefully the will get tired. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Unconstructive?!?! I'll show you unconstructive!

Excuse me, Mr. "I'm big and tough with my large vocabulary and administrative powers"! I'll have you know that before posting my addition to the Adam Haluska page, I had my mother spell-check and grammar-check this page, to approve of its constructiveness. Even more, I called my grandma, who happens to be a former harvard professor of literary excellence, and faxed her the changes, just to make sure my i's were dotted, and my t's were crossed. And guess what? My i's were dotted, and my t's were crossed. Do you see the pain you have caused me? Thanks for destroying my dreams of someday becoming a serious professional writer of some serious professional writing career, like wikipedia editing or writing those novels that get sold for 50 cents at garage sales.

If you've an ounce of sympathy, I ask you please: Restore my article additions, as they were completely valid (and awesome.)

Thank you sir. Or woman. See, I'm not discriminative, like some people (you).

Have a good day (or night.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.235.195 (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I rest my case. Thanks for the entertaining rant, though. :) Enigma ^message 05:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said Enigma, Tiptoety ^talk 06:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind.

I changed my mind, you're the man. At least you appreciate my ingenious sense of humor and satire. I bow to you for rocking faces off. I expected you to accuse me of tasteless vandalism and poor humor, but you've realigned my misconception of all wikipedia moderators being humorless old men (that smell bad.) On the contrary, I'm sure you smell like flowers and expensive French cologne.

I salute you, noble editor of the pages. --12.208.235.195 (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)The guy that edited Adam Haluska's page.

Would I be out of line to say that it's edits like the above ones that make Wikipedia great? Yeah, I probably would be. But it makes my day to see this. Enigma ^message 06:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For anyone reading this, here's another good one from tonight. Enigma ^message 06:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AdminshiP?

When are you going to run for the RFA?--RyRy5 talk 07:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not anytime soon, like I mentioned above. First of all, one doesn't run for an RfA while in an adoption program. Second, and most importantly, there's no way I could pass an RfA with my current body of work. I need more experience in certain areas. Finally, my ultimate goal on Wikipedia is not to become an administrator. If it happens, it will only be because that is the community's will. You must understand that an editor has more freedom when they're bereft of any administrative responsibility. That's my take on it, anyway. Enigma ^message 07:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just wondering if you changed your mind about it, so that's why I asked. Cheers.RyRy5 talk 08:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're the second one this weekend. :) Enigma ^message 08:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That was quick

Well, that was pretty quick, removing my message because it was a "personal attack" but I don't know how else to say that the user was wrong and that I don't appreciate it. I come to wikipedia every day and it seems to me like I'm being targeted and harassed now.

You don't know how else to say someone is wrong other than calling them a "horrible person" multiple times? Really? Enigma ^message 07:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you belittling me?

I'm asking you a question. Enigma ^message 07:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't even know the situation. I don't know who that person is. Just someone who sits online all day and goes around deleting important information. I don't see how anything I did is wrong at all. How ELSE can I get this fixed? Emailing an admin? So you people have no power at all except deletion? How does this work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexhatesyou (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The first step would be leaving a polite comment on the user's talk page, asking why what you contributed was deleted. If the user does not reply to your satisfaction, there are other steps that can be taken after that. Enigma ^message 07:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I sent him a nice message, did you see it Enigmaman? What did you think of that nice message? Lexhatesyou (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. That's a definite improvement. Good job. Enigma ^message 07:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KnightLago

Enigmaman, just a brief note that I fully support your move here. Regards, Anthøny 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Enigma ^message 20:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA

So as I was investigating you to offer a nom for RFA, I saw User:Enigmaman/RFAurges. I'd vote for you now, and I think you'd be a sure-fire pass in say 2 weeks if you could create some stuff from WP:Requested Articles. Good luck though when you decide to run. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. I did a lot of work tonight on United States-Australia relations and I will heed what you said about Requested Articles. I once considered going through the backlog there, but it seemed like a daunting task. I'll try and pick out one or two over the weekend. Thanks again, Enigma ^message 03:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

One more comment: I'm really humbled by all the kind comments that have been left here recently. I just hope that I can make my contributions as good as the compliments I've received. That would truly be something to strive for. Enigma ^message 04:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sports

Well the first team name I see is Rockdale City Suns, which is a notable team, whose players would be notable. As is the Yagoona Lions. I'd say a nice welcome is in order, with many many tags to these stubs. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that one would get me all the time. I'd see some stub of an athlete of a team I'd never heard of, tag it for CSD non-notable, and have every fan of that sport swoop in. MBisanz ^talk 06:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry then, apparently none of the usual fans were on to jump you (I can jump you with warnings if you'd like :) ). Do you have WP:NPW? It makes tagging much easier. MBisanz ^talk 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, hand tagging, thats painfully slow, GET NPW NOW! jk MBisanz ^talk 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried, but it's days later and my request is still sitting there! Enigma ^message Review 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, its the Featured Article of the Day, which means its on the Main Page, which means we really can't protect it and abide our "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." tagline. Statistically, a guy did a study and found that almost no useful info is ever added to an article when its featured on the mainpage, but its a thing we put up with. MBisanz ^talk 16:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

zx2 chispet

Now i remowed the last lines that are referencing to the HP Copyright...

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Integrity has all of his links to zx2 chipset that are referencing to a car not to a chipset..

It's possible to adjust the situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luca buratti (talk • contribs) 07:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When you said, "It's like an NRA convention. But I'm faster than fast. I once got in trouble for a revert not because it was wrong, but because I did it too quickly! But seriously, speed doesn't actually help in terms of not getting beaten to a revert. Even if you hit Q or revert + warn immediately, you can still get beaten." you weren't talking about [3], were you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Non Curat Lex (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I have a long response to this that I have to write out. I'll post it in an hour or so. Enigma ^msg 01:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot to say here. I wanted to say I learned my lesson from what I did with you, and, at the same time, I have and I haven't. You'll notice from my talk page that I haven't made that kind of mistake again. While it's true that not every person wrongfully reverted will leave you a message, I don't really think I've done that since. However, the juvenile attitude of speed you rightfully pointed out a few weeks ago, which you see on Wikipedia both with vandalism and CSD tagging, I haven't managed to lose, as you saw from the discussion you referenced. While I still maintain that what you did was incorrect (there's no doubt it went against the way we encourage people to edit), what I did was also incorrect. Revert and warn in that situation is not the correct move. The correct move would have been for me to leave a polite message on your page asking about your changes and reminding you that it's encouraged for people to discuss major changes before making them, and to use edit summaries. I admit that wanted to always want to be the first is a major problem, and I still struggle with it. However, I have learned. I am not careless with my reverts. I don't believe I was careless with you, but it was a case of speed being a drawback. More research would have pointed me to a better approach. There's still more to say, but a lot is going through my head and I have to run. Best, Enigma ^msg 02:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman: What a thoughtful reply! First, I am sorry that you characterize what followed as "trouble" - I didn't mean to create any, because you're a good editor, good enough to have my support in a RFA. There's nothing wrong with being quick to edit out vandalism or genuinely worthless faith edits, as long as you're equally quick to back off that edit, if there's a good faith dispute and a substantial possibility of worth. In our case, I you were not wrong that my edit needed to be changed, and you weren't wrong to revert initially. I would have preferred if you had given me, as a somewhat experienced editor with no record of discipline, a little more leeway to pursue my "experiment" than reverting it a second time. But also, maybe I could have done better job in requesting that leeway than to leave a message that looked like a personal attack.

I learned several things from the "dispute" myself. For one thing, 1RR is a good policy! Also, it's probably better not to start articles with examples, better to start with definitions. Also better not to approach things in a way that maximizes the amount of high-volume discussion. My normal policy for defending my edits is "pick on people your own size," but that may be too controversy-rousing. So, we could have handled ourselves a little bit better, and we could have handled it a lot worse as well. I would consider it resolved without hard feelings. When I saw the message above, I just wanted to make sure that there were no lasting negative consequences. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no hard feelings. I consider you a friend. I'm in general impressed with your contributions. I just wanted to clear things up, because at the time I didn't realize why I was wrong. After reflection, I realized that if I had come across your edit in a different way, there would not have been great difficulty about it. However, maybe we wouldn't have the relationship we have now. Who knows? Maybe there was a positive about the way it happened. Anyway, I'm becoming quite dizzy as it's 5:18 AM, so I bid you a good night and recommend you get to sleep as well. :) Oh, and yes, I will archive my page shortly. Enigma ^msg 09:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Help requested

Hello! I'm unfamiliar with your opinion of me beyond your recent disagreement with some comments that I made at User talk:Hammersoft‎, but I'm hoping that you can be of assistance. Per Hammersoft‎'s wishes, I have no intention of continuing to post there. I am, however, very disappointed in my failure to amicably resolve the dispute. I'm also uncomfortable with the last few edits (in which my repeated attempts to honor his requests and sincere expression of disappointment and optimism for productive teamwork in the future led to me being reverted as a vandal). As you appear to be on good terms with Hammersoft‎, I’d sincerely appreciate any efforts on your part to aid us in mending this rift. The easiest thing would be to simply move on, but I don't want to leave things like this. No matter how strongly Hammersoft and I disagree with one another, I realize that we're here for the same reason (to build an encyclopedia), as I'm certain that you are as well. It's through mutual respect and co-operation (not anger and resentment) that we work toward this goal. Thanks in advance for any help that you're able to provide. —David Levy 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft and me? Well, we understand each other. I'm not sure how much help I can be in this conflict, but I'll try to do what I can. Nice job archiving your talk page, by the way. I was waiting for that! Enigma ^msg 01:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The confrontation you had with Hammersoft is not unusual. Forgive me for being blunt, but it's simply a case of two very stubborn people coming into conflict, and then being unable to resolve it due to sheer stubbornness. He says that you mistreated Ryan and caused him to leave. You admit that what you said probably had something to do with Ryan leaving, but refuse to admit that you mistreated him, and thus won't apologize. Listen, I've been the same way sometimes. I hate when someone insists I apologize for something when I don't feel that I did anything wrong.

You must understand that whether you did something wrong or not is immaterial to this conflict. He's not going to bury the proverbial hatchet until you apologize. You don't want to. He isn't interested in continuing the discourse if you don't want to.

My advice to you would be to leave Ryan a message stating that you did not intend to insult him in any way or to hurt his feelings, and that your comments were meant in good faith. Additionally, express in your own words the desire that he come back to the project. Don't let a disagreement over something silly like April Fools Day turn him away from Wikipedia.

I'd love to assist in the matter, but really a third party can do absolutely nothing unless the involved parties are willing to be flexible.

Regards, Enigma ^message Review 02:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughtful advice! I've done my best to write an appropriate message on Ryan's talk page. I truly hope that it helps. —David Levy 06:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job, by the way. Just saw your message. Enigma ^message Review 13:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New Design

I understand why you decided to leave my program. So, what do you think of my newly designed user & talk pages?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 03:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't deal with the controversy right now. I would like to graduate your program, but given what went on last week... As for the new pages, I like it. Clean and helpful. Enigma ^msg 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's your lucky day, becuase I am willing to make you graduate. Do you accept?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. :) Enigma ^msg 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabals

Hi, could you possibly clarify what you meant by "so much injustice will happen without remedy"? Thanks. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You really want my opinion? I won't ever deny people the right to hear my opinion. :)

OK, here we go:

• I found your administrative actions in this case to be completely unacceptable, and as such, I cannot sit idly by.

• I cannot tolerate the ridiculous hypocrisy here. I read through the arguments at AN/I and the hypocrisy was astounding. Two of the recurring arguments was that anything that isn't related to improving the encyclopedia should be gone, and that the "cabals" were too exclusive. Applying that criteria, I could find you many more cabals to delete. Will you Ignore All Rules and delete those? I didn't think so. There is zero consistency here, and apparently it's going to be tolerated without remedy, judging from the highly unproductive RfC.

There you have it. Not that my opinion could possibly matter, but you wanted an explanation. Good night, Enigma ^msg 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I of course respect your opinion, thank you for being open and honest. Just by the way, I would support an RfA from you in the next month-2 months, you're on the right track. :) Keep up the good work. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That was rather unexpected, but I appreciate the kind remarks, regardless of our differences. Enigma ^msg 06:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinions such as this have little bearing on your suitability to be a great admin, if you want another voice to chime in with a co-nom please do give me a poke. :) Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many strong opinions can lead to excessive WP:WHEEL-warring. :o Just kidding. I think. I appreciate the offer, and I will keep it in mind. I wasn't familiar with your work in the past, but your ability to separate rather strong opinions in certain places from the user in question is very admirable and you should be commended for this. Enigma ^msg 06:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy editing. (I just assume we all want what's best for the project, and work from there. It usually turns out OK.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as I could be sure you would not have attempted to enforce your opinion re the cabal deletions with admin powers after the original deletion, I too would also support an RfA - in general I'm quite impressed. Orderinchaos 07:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just joking about that. I can assure you that I would never wheel-war. Trying to work it out with the admin in question is always the better option. Thanks for the kind words, Enigma ^msg 09:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :) Orderinchaos 10:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rf4-1-08-B

LOL!! I prefer if you would supply this diff -- Avi (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're hurting your own cause here, you know. I couldn't possibly hope to find one showing worse judgment. *rubs hands together gleefully* Enigma ^msg 15:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

By that I meant that accounts can do extra things like administration, voting in the RFA, ect. IP's can't do that. It wasn't to be mean BTW.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, registered users can do more things, but that doesn't make them more important. Same with admins. They have the ability to do more things, but they aren't "more important" than any user in good standing. Enigma ^msg 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. For the last two years or so I work as an IP and usually see anything from bad faith assumption to open hostility. It's rare that someone acknowledges that IPs can be editors too.

(I wonder where RyRy5 would answer this if he would want to. Here? On my /Talk?) --87.189.114.149 (talk)

I rephrased it wrong. Sorry.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone would have to acknowledge that IPs can be editors too, given Wikipedia's long-standing policy on this. :) Enigma ^msg 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Try it sometimes. I think it's quite an experience. --87.189.114.149 (talk)

Coaching

Well I gave you my RfA lookover. Right now I'd probably vote for you, but I do tend to be easy going. You've got some things going for you. You've had an account for a longtime, so people will worry less about you being a sleeper sock. You've got more than 7000 contribs and no blocks, other good things. But you're a bit weak in Article talk and Wikipedia space edits. Maybe some more WP:XFD edits or a DYK/GA article would help. Sorry, I'm a bit full myself, or I'd coach you personally. I'd say 1.5-2 months before an RfA, but thats just my opinion. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Gah, you've caught me, I'm an abusive shared role account :). I probably said 2 weeks, hoping you'd start a good number of short articles and what not, which could still work. And this version of my comments focused on GA/DYKs, which are harder to write. I tend to rotate my suggestions and what to emphasize there is no single path to RfA, and well I hit you twice without rereading my comments. Also, it seems like April will be a slim month for RfAs, with rather high standards being applied. When Keeper76 and I went up, we went up when RfAs seemed to have slightly lowered standards. So its sort of a market timing thing. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I resemble that remark....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nothing. You might've seen how 'crats were approved in 2004. "Hi, I've been an admin for a few months. I'd like to be a 'crat." A few supports, and then bang, promoted. :) Enigma ^message Review 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome back

Hello, thanks for the welcome back! --Kyoko 16:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just happy you've returned. :) Enigma ^message Review 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Dean Mumm

On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dean Mumm, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bencherlite^Talk 22:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This was one you created through WP:AFC, so extra points for that! Bencherlite^Talk 22:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I seem to have left this message in the wrong place earlier, but it made its way here anyway, so all is well....Bencherlite^Talk 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're a dangnabbit thief, Enigma. Pat sulks... Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Congratulations Enigma - I will also begin work on your GA shortly - watch that space and chip in so that you get enough credits to claim the badge. (PS don't tell Scarian or he will try and pinch it of you as a payback :) )--VS ^talk 03:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?

I think it's good-faith editing, personally. Just a user who is new and not familiar with the rules. I do not think it's vandalism (but I could be wrong). --Sharkface^T/_C 03:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that page is the user trying to create some sort of template for general editing. I'd run it by a mod if I were you. --Sharkface^T/_C 03:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I only noticed this today. Thanks! FusionMix 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. Enigma ^message Review 01:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey, I noticed you had commented on my RFA standards page. I the found out that you're not an admin and have, in fact, been "almost nominated" about a million times, as indicated at User:Enigmaman/RFAurges. If you ever want to run, I can nominate you, or at least !vote support. Let me know. Useight (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and your offer. Eventually I'm going to have to listen to the people, huh? I expect to go up for RfA within the month. As for nomination, there seem to be a lot of people interested in nominating me for some reason! :) If you have any other comments, be sure to let me know. Thanks again, Enigma ^message Review 01:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic park

Thank you for reverting the page, it is something I probally should have done instead of what I did do.

I did not think it was nessecery to repeat the information on the page again as I was the user who had originally expanded the "diffrences" section to include specific major plot diffrences, including this one.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliric (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It suffered from several bad edits, and your edit didn't really help. ;) No worries. Happy editing. Enigma ^message Review 06:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial request for comment

Hey wikifriend, I see you're on a wikibreak. I haven't had much time for substantive edits in a while but I have been patrolling my watchlist daily for new changes (it's up to 80 articles). It came to my attention that an editor was adding links about subpoenas to the see-alsos on the antitrust law articles (Robinson-Patman_Act, Clayton Antitrust Act, Federal Trade Commission). It also seems that this editor worked contributed heavily to those articles. It's understandable that he would want to attract attention to them, but this isn't the way. Whether that was his goal or not, I thought they cluttered the articles, so I went ahead and removed the new wikilinks from those articles and left the editor a message explaing why. Do you think I made the right call? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. You made the right call in removing them and also the right call in leaving the editor a note so he knows where you're coming from. Also you did well with the edit summaries. :) Enigma ^message Review 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but I just noticed an interesting coincidence. The Motto of the Day regards wikibreaks. I just got back from one. :P Enigma ^message Review 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I misread the editor's intentions. He wasn't just publicizing his articles. He had a rational reason for wanting to include those links. We're discussing whether or not it's best for wikipedia. Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. Let me know if there's anything I can do. Good luck! Enigma ^message Review 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dormant admins

Great minds think alike, what can I say.:-)--Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my User page. With all of the vandalism I've been reverting (and all of the vandalism-reporting I've been doing, thanks to your suggestion) lately, I'm shocked that my Talk and User pages aren't being spitefully vandalized constantly. But I usually only look for vandalism in articles, so thanks again for keeping an eye on some of the other stuff too.  ‑ MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM  (talk)  01:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, such is the burden we vandalism-fighters carry. Enigma ^message Review 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking

Just seeing how your doing. Looks like your doing great. Remember, you can always keep in touch with me.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

yep. Did you see my message about redirects? Enigma ^message Review 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean our last conversation on my talkpage?--RyRy5 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. I replied on this talk page and on Burner's talk page. Remember when I asked whether I can view redirects I've created? Enigma ^message Review 04:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes I do.--RyRy5 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

re:[1]

I was just interested in what they would say. In case, in the future, they come up for another Rfa. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt we'll see another RfA from this individual. If we do, the questions can always be asked then. :) Enigma ^message Review 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted

I've reverted you. That AfD is not protected and you shouldn't make it appear that it is. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favor and next time check before reverting me. It is semi-protected and I don't appreciate being reverted when you haven't even looked. Enigma ^message Review 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey now, thats a simple mistake. Take it easy and don't get all worked up. Nothing a revert can't fix. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is intended for obvious vandalism. You treated me like a vandal without even looking whether the page was semi-protected or not. Whether the notice should be there or not can be discussed, but using rollback on my edit without even asking me first and then telling me I was misrepresenting the article was rather rude. I'm not worked up. I'm simply informing you that what you did wasn't the proper way to handle the situation. Enigma ^message Review 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can use it any way I wish actually. But for your information, I hit it on accident (which is why I was surprised when I was not allowed an edit summary). I'm not concerned with whether the template remains, it was a mistake the lend me to assume it was not protected. You're tone came off being upset. Any way, no worries. See you around. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is not to be used any way you wish. It has a narrow application. Please see WP:rollback. Also, everyone makes mistakes, but I'm still confused how you thought the AfD was unprotected. When you edit it, there's a notice there. There's also an ongoing discussion on the talk page about the semi-protection. Enigma ^message Review 04:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you really wish to go further with this? The rollback feature is available to administrators and users with the rollbacker permission on Wikipedia as a fast method of undoing nonproductive edits, usually vandalism. I ignore the vandalism (note the word usually) part of the sentence since I assume good faith when reverting. To make it more clear, I have never edited the AfD in quesiton, and I've had a long day at work and while looking over the history I hadn't noticed that it was semied since you a) weren't an admin and b) there was no sysop-protect in any edit summary close to the template inclusion. Like I said though, simple mistake. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You stated that you can use rollback any way you wish. I'm trying to correct a mistaken impression. If you don't believe me, ask someone who you respect more. I often add semi-protection templates even though I'm not an admin, because some admins don't bother with them. Sometimes I go to WP:RFPP and check that the protected articles received templates. The last instance of semi-protection on the AfD in question was here. As for whether I wish to go further with this, I'm willing to go as far as is necessary. No more and no less. Enigma ^message Review 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm sorry, I don't feel I have it wrong with respect to using rollback, as I've copied the first sentence and I'm sticking by my reasons. I'm going to opt out of the conversation now. Until next time. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, feel free to request an outside opinion on whether rollback was warranted in this instance. But beyond this instance, I'm a little surprised by your attitude regarding rollback in general. "I can use [rollback] any way I wish actually." I bear no ill will towards you, but you may wish to investigate that further. Enigma ^message Review 05:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

di Stefano

Regarding [4] edit summaries like that aren't very helpful for defusing a serious, tense situation. I've certainly made similar edit summaries in the past so I'm not claiming I'm perfect but in general please don't do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke, replying to the !!!IMPORTANT MESSAGE!!! that implied that anyone who edited the article is exposing themselves to a lawsuit. I realize that it's a serious situation, but I find the ridiculous legal threats by Giovanni and his alleged son to be somewhat humorous. Enigma ^message Review 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you probably should archive your talk page. It's a little foreboding. Enigma ^message Review 05:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that makes more sense. The edit summry looked almost like you were challenging him to sue the foundation which isn't good. Anyways, thanks for the heads up about my talk page. Archived now. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sig fix

Thanks for fixing my sig on the AfD, I've been forgetting to sign recently for some reason, thanks. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I had to add sigs for several editors tonight. Must be contagious. :) Enigma ^message Review 05:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Maldivian companies

Feel free to add {{prod2}} MBisanz ^talk 06:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins

Is there an easy way to tell if a user is an admin? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If they're an admin, it will say so on their userpage on the bottom. Check the bottom of a userpage and see it lists categories. If one is Wikipedia administrators... There's also a list of administrators. Enigma ^message 23:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ta. So, testing the theory, Enigmaman is not an admin. Correct? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Anyone who becomes an admin has to be included in the category and they are as soon as they pass their WP:RfA. Enigma ^message 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that some admins refuse to add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators. Thus, the only sure way to know if someone is an admin is to check WP:list of admins. Enigma ^message Review 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sure that will save me some confusion. Good of you to follow up on it - most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship?

Revision as of 21:53, 22 April 2008 A. Exeunt (Talk | contribs)(→Warning: Blanked section; personal attack.)

I'm a little bemused by Exeunt's action. Clearly, from your response to it, the original post didn't bother you. To me it seems inappropriate for a third party to remove both it AND your response. Had you not responded, perhaps it fits into the class of reverting vandalism, but reversion of both seems like censorship to me, perhaps even vandalism.

In any case, I found your response entertaining and revealing of your attitudes, and hence important data for an edit review.

Your thoughts?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I considered undoing his edit, but I decided not to bother. It's in my archives anyway. I don't even get how he came to this page in the first place. Enigma ^message Review 13:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re recently blocked vandal

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I've now extended the block to 6 months and protected the user talk page as requested. Waggers (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal warnings

Hey there. Could you please ensure that you warn vandals before reporting them to AIV? This guy, for example, had made only one edit before your report, and hadn't been warned, and I noted a couple others before that with no warnings. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It was an account created explicitly to vandalize Colorado Avalanche. Please see article history. Enigma ^message Review 17:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just posted a note at WP:ANI. I believe my reports to AIV were rightful. Enigma ^message Review 18:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to ensure we follow the formalities. Apparently I'm wrong, judging from the quick blocks by other admins. My bad, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't normally report without warning, obviously. I happen to be familiar with Wikipedia's vandalism policy. This was a unique situation. Enigma ^message Review 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense meant here. My error in judgment all the way. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Tangbot Failed

Hi there,

I'm not quite sure what the problem is with the bot, I looked and it appears that it has been inactive for over and hour. Tangotango might be doing some type of update on it, but I haven't found any information regarding this anywhere so far. I'll see if I can find out more information and I'm sorry that I don't know what's wrong!

The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject Matter Expert

I created a page in my sandbox to show an idea I have for creating a Page or project to identify wikipedians as Subject Matter experts or near experts on a given subject. Right now its just one big page but if it takes off it could be multiple pages and or projects. The basic concept is that if I am knowledgable about Math, Science, Wikipedia policy, speaking greek or whatever I can put my name under the category or categories I am interested in participating in and if someone has a question or needs help relating to that subject they can go to that page and contact one of them on their talk page. Obviously its more useful for popular or obsure subjects but in general I think that it would help to improve the public perception that Wikipedia content can't be trusted. Plus it will give new users or users who jsut need help. Its still a very rough idea and right now I based the page on the Logistics page of the Military history project but I see this changing into somethin much bigger. If you don't mind take a look and let me know what you think. I know that there were a couple of things similar for designating an expert but I believe that last thing that WP needs is another voting pool. I am going to leave this message on a few other talk pages of editors that I work with frequently to get some general opinions or ideas before I try and sell it to the WP as a whole. Please let me know what you think.--Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't help you much there, but I like Keeper's ideas. Enigma ^message 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nothing444 2

I don't think this close within eight minutes of it being transcluded was particularly appropriate; WP:SNOW should be saved for newbies, not established contributors. -- Naerii 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially as you yourself opposed. -- Naerii 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, that was my mistake, but I'm not sure if you're familiar with the history here. I think it was entirely appropriate for a SNOW closure, whether by myself or by someone else. Enigma ^message Review 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't agree that WP:SNOW closures are only for newbie applications. I think they can be applied in other extreme cases, and this is an example. I guess I shouldn't have opposed if I was going to close it, but that can't be helped. I could strike my oppose if you'd like. Enigma ^message Review 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not 'only', no, but it had been eight minutes and there have been RfAs which have turned around even with such a poor start - my point is that Nothing is an editor in (reasonably) good standing and should at least have been given a chance to respond. He's been around for long enough that he's aware of how the process works, I'm sure he would have withdrawn if he felt it necessary. -- Naerii 00:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I am familiar with the candidate and he's not aware of how the process works. There's not really much more I can say to you here. I suggest you speak to User:Friday or a few others I could recommend. Enigma ^message Review 00:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm not going to argue the point at length (it's not worth it). Can you at least please make a note on his talk page? Thanks. -- Naerii 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that immediately. It was my mistake not to add it to the category and leave a note, as procedure dictates. Thanks, Enigma ^message Review 00:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for being brusque (it's 2:30am here :P) -- Naerii 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In case you forgot, I have added the RfA to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/N. Please remember to do this, and also notify the candidate that you have withdrawn the RfA. For what it's worth, I don't believe there was any chance of the RfA passing, and therefore was a good closure. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. If I close any RfAs in the future, I'll be sure to do that. Thanks for cleaning up after me! Enigma ^message Review 00:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to drop a comment. I've known Nothing444 for a while now, and I agree that Nothing444 is not even close for adminship. 1.) He has been blocked many times 2.) He edits in his userspace too often. 3.) He has not shown any or much good contributions to wikipedia. 4.) I noticed that since he lost rollback, he has (almost) never reverted vandalism 5.) He is too enthusiastic and thinks that Wikipedia is just a play place and a social place. 6.) He has wanted t be an admin ever since he joined wikipedia and concentrates to much on that. He was almost forgot why we are all here.

I know some of these are details, but if he continous this, there will be no way he will pass an RFA. Comments?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My Edit

I was looking at the article's name. I read through and didn't seen any other instances of the di being spelled with an uppercase. So I just lowered it. Forgot to mark as minor so sorry for that. Well I am not complaining you do as you please. I was just running through. Rgoodermote  00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm it appears that it is lowered and raised at random. Not counting beginning sentences. Well..before this makes part of my head explode I better stay away from there. By the way..no...not a chance will I bring that type of discussion to a talk page. It just has the potential to become a huge problem that could potentially worsen the situation with that article. Rgoodermote  01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How many did you get? I tried..and failed (Openoffice doesn't seem to be working today). Rgoodermote  01:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Openoffice (long story), I count 14-15 lowercase not counting references and article name. Rgoodermote  01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. I will be there in a little bit. I just need to finish with some thing offline. Rgoodermote  01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you

for the feedback. i appreciate it. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. If I can be of further assistance, let me know. By the way, I went back and reverted numerous edit-warring attempts by John celona. It's clear that his sole purpose here is to add articles to a category, and then edit-war endlessly over them. Enigma ^message Review 01:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have not "added" a single article to the category while it has been on a RFC. I have reverted others repeated attempts to remove LONG STANDING articles from the category. You have falsely filed a 3RR complaint against me and been shot down in an appropriate summary manner. Please stop harrrasing me, stalking me and filing false complaints against me. John celona (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You have edit warred on numerous articles. It is irrelevant whether you think you're re-adding information or not. See WP:edit war. You are in violation of Wikipedia's policies. Enigma ^message 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:

That's not a veiled threat. You need to read WP:Rollback. If you continue to use it in such a way, it will be removed. Also, WP:AN/3 is not for general block-shopping, it's for reports of violation of WP:3RR. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you wanna look it in that way, then I guess it was. I have a duty to remove rollback from those who misuse either purposely or through non-comprehension of WP:Vandalism. Also edits like this look like block-shopping. It wasn't a 3rr violation, plain and simple. What else were you after? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to chill, seriously. WP:AN3 is for violations of WP:3RR, and it wasn't a 3RR violation. Simple as that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen, you filed a bad 3rr report, then complained that I issued no block even though you knew (by that stage) there was no 3rr vio. You reverted his edits, misusing rollback in the process. I've pointed these things out to you, and you're demanding an apology for it? It doesn't make any sense to me honestly. You need to take some chill-out time here I think. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This constant posting of hysterical language is getting a wee bittie tiresome. Mischaracterization? Let's talk about that. Suffice to say, here you've got the chronology all muddled. I posted no vio, you posted [this, i said out of goodness I'd review it, noticed his reverts were actually quite limited over the past week, read the RfC, saw your misuse of rollback, and then (not earlier as you stated) responded pointing out your own reverts ("both at it", which you've interpreted as an accusation of revert warring), and warned you about misuse of rollback. Your response was the series of hysterical messages starting with this, where you choose to characterize to my doing of my duty regarding rollback use as a "threat". Please gimme a break. This convo is finished as far as I'm concerned. You want the said editor's behaviour to be checked, then take User:Irpen's advice and bring it up at the appropriate channel. Take to WP:AN/3 only that which AN/3 deals with, namely 3rr violations. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had simply reviewed his contributions instead of trying to escalate this, there would've been a much more amenable conclusion. Enigma ^message Review 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

additionally, I don't intend to take this to another noticeboard. I took it to AN3 because it was blatant edit-warring, unaware (this was my first report) that it didn't fit the requirements. I wasn't expecting such theatrics. Enigma ^message Review 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This does not bode well. If done by Giano would get him blocked, btw. You have shown an extreme lack of comprehension of wiki policies regarding the proper forum for reporting and regarding rolback. Your own response is nothing but an escalation. You persist in misunderstanding policies, misrepresenting the events and went one step further turning to use unhelpful language. That this takes place during your editor's review (which suggests where you are heading) worries me more rather than less. I suggest you step back and write a page or two. Regards, --Irpen 04:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not headed anywhere, and I'm not Giano. I would appreciate if you'd stop harassing me, because you clearly don't understand the sequence of events. Regards, Enigma ^message Review 04:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR vs general disruptive edit warring vs blockshopping

I saw the thread at Deacon's talk and figured I should address it. The 3RR board is for reporting 3RR violations. You post a report with the first revert on the 20th and the fourth one on 23rd. This is either a mistake or an outright misuse of the board for general blockshopping.

Now, no one denies that blocks for general edit warring are sometimes in order even if 3rr is not actually broken. But those are discretion blocks and to call for that you go to general admin-boards, not to 3RR which has a specific goal stated on top. This project suffers from the misuse of dedicated boards, both intentional or not, at the wrongful report simply does not belong there.

The rollback issue is a separate one. I, for one, don't see the point of rollback at all but those who want to use it, should, per policy, restrict it to vandalism edits. Edits you reverted were not vandalism clearly.

I think you should accept that the report was outright wrong, the use of rollback was a mistake, draw some conclusions and move on. --Irpen 02:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I already accepted that the report was wrong. I didn't read the instructions carefully enough. I'm just waiting for the other party to admit he was wrong. I was not block-shopping and I was not edit-warring. I really wish someone would actually review the situation without throwing around various accusations. Enigma ^message Review 02:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe the use of rollback was a mistake. The user continuously edit-wars, and at a certain point, you realize that the user is vandalizing the articles and not attempting to constructively contribute. Enigma ^message Review 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: The evidence you requested

LOL. Well, I'm not one of those fans. If I were, I wouldn't have done this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're fighting against your own fanbase! For shame! :) Enigma ^message Review 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to leave my POV at the login screen... - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation with User:A E Francis

Enigma, he's still added it. Not counting ones I've reverted, he's added links to these articles to 18 articles. I don't think this is wrong, but it's highly unusual, and I'm concerned it have a disruptive edit, but I'm not sure. I want someone uninvolved but educated to weigh in before the proliferation continues, without alienating a brilliant editor who could have much to contribute. Any advice? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Requests for Editor Assistance? I don't want to edit war with the guy, and he seems to be disregarding the notes you leave him. Enigma ^message 14:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RFPP

Regarding your comment here. I'm going to relist the request, and would appreciate it if you let an admin handle the request. Dorftrottel (ask) 09:32, April 24, 2008

Frankly, I'm not that much interested in your judgment. Dorftrottel (canvass) 16:16, April 24, 2008

Thanks

....for this. Prashanthns (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, could you tell me how to get the latest version of Huggle? I have a 0.6 and would like to upgrade, but I am not on the email list as I got it from another user. I have emailed Gurch about it, but I guess he is busy. Any ideas? Prashanthns (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll e-mail you. Enigma ^message 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you tried e-mailing Gurch? Enigma ^message 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Help

I seem to be a glutton for punishment, as I can't figure out my archving code, I have created a new archive (#3) but can't seem to get the bot to automatically archive them. I want all threads older than 2 days to archive as well, but that doesn't seem to be working either. Can you help? Dusti^{complain/compliment} 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You read the How to? I wish I could be of more help. Enigma ^message 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

vicious personal attack

updating counter after vicious personal attack

Go and see all the vicious personal attacks this user made against me before you start branding! TheProf07 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the user has attacked you or not. Even if he has, that's not an excuse to vandalize his userpage. Enigma ^message 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was just a parting gift, i assure you. This is my last hour on wikipedia. The "vandalising" is over, so relax bro! TheProf07 (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)