User talk:TFOWR

In a perfect world I'd keep threads in one place; in practice if you post here I'll probably reply on your talk page unless you ask me to reply here. If I post on your talk page I'll almost certainly add it to my watchlist, so reply where-ever you'd prefer.

Other than that, you know the drill - add new messages at the bottom, and sign your posts with ~~~~

Welcome

Greetings...

Hello, This flag once was red, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Randomtime

Happy editing! RT | Talk 11:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu

The website you mention for Jewbuntu states at the top that "This isn't real. There is no Jewbuntu yet, and this site is a great 'what if'." So Jewbuntu is clearly not an existing linux distribution (or if it is, you need a better source). Ubuntu for mixed marriages and Jubuntu appear to be only mentioned on the Jewbuntu site, so these are also invalid additions. The Satanic edition seems ok, and I've readded it. Andareed (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gen Y

I was looking at the vandalism on the gen y page and you reverted the last one done. I took a far more radical approach and undid a lot of versions (including your undo), could you cast an eye over it and see if you agree with the changes I made (and whether others need making)? Thanks, BananaFiend (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've got a couple on my watchlist that have been vandalised repeatedly - and this is my second significant rollback in 2 days. Once the first few go unnoticed, it's often only the first that gets rolled back, ho-hum! BananaFiend (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

SUCI page regarding

Dear Editor, this issue is being dealt in the edit war administrators section. You must notice that Suciindia is only reverting to the agreed versions by reputed editors like User: Soman. It is a puppet of User: Kuntan who was banned from wiki, who is causing trouble. This puppet is also abusive as you may see in the comments that he has made. Please refer to the edit war administrators page for the ongoing discussions. You will notice that most other editors have agreed to the stand of User: Suciindia regarding the issues dealt with. --Suciindia (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Marmion Academy

Since this is your discussion page, what is your personal take on Laughingman78 and his 'vandalism'? Beyond that what got you looking at the Marmion Academy website? I'm interested to hear your perspective. I find the Indian organization your page links to to be interesting, FWIW. DavidMSA (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK well I'm glad to hear your conflict ended in a truce. I'm assuming a Truce has been reached on the Marmion thing as well. The parties involved have better things to worry about than wiki edit wars and old personal stuff, I know that. Take care DavidMSA (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adam Susan

Hi. Sorry about that. I haven't actually read the graphic novel of V For Vendetta but I have seen the film. I was of the impression that the role of High Chancellor was a combination of monarch and Prime-Minister. I assumed Susan (or Sutler) was the undisputed ruler of all Great Britain and as such an emperor. Oh by the way, I like cats too. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good good. Yes I mean to read the graphic novel. I've read the article on Susan and he seems a much creepier character than Sutler. On an unrelated but geeky note I must say that Sutler seemed quite introverted himself. I got the impression he was very self-centred (then again aren't most dictators). --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to see the ol' sabokitty in these pages, fellow worker

I'm a Christian syndicalist, and a long-time Wob. (Milw. General Organizing Branch; I.U. 660). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

Why are you calling me a banned user? I'm not. Mastcell is simply claiming this. Smockroker (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

V

I put V in this category because his face is never seen. Wilson from Home Improvement is in this category because his face is never seen even though he appears in every episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco13 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

Sure V for Vendetta is in Category:V for Vendetta, which is in Category:Vertigo titles, which is, of course, in Category:DC Comics titles. I don't have my TPB on-hand, but I don't recall it being published under the Vertigo imprint. Either way, it would be redundant of the self-titled category, even if it was moved up to DC Comics titles. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Immediate update I added the Vertigo category, since the V for Vendetta category is about all kinds of media associated with the story. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Lyme

I've already warned Blakeusa, and others have dropped notes, so I've removed your 3rr warning to avoid a pile-on. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article! Acroterion _(talk) 02:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Norsefire

Hi, just letting you know I have replied. ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 09:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I have changed the infobox to Template:Infobox Fictional Political Party and made the necessary changes. I would appreciate it if you would check what I have changed is accurate. Cheers ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 13:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warrior at Leo McGarry

Our IP edit warrior at Leo McGarry is back. What should we do about it? I'm leaving a message on his talk page urging him to stop, but can we take steps to protect the page and somehow get strong administrator intervention to make this user stop once and for all? --Hnsampat (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Page redirecting

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page, Cheers Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Scotland issues

78.144.96.28

I fixed something that this user did on Glasgow, I see he (or she) has got a block. It looked to me like just adding images (in good faith). Forgive me I'm new here, but that seems a bit brutal Mcewan (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reponse - I appreciate the time you took to reply so comprehensively. Seems there was much more to this than met the eye (or my eye, anyway). Kind Regards Mcewan (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Scotland Infobox Flagsx2

Hi. Good work on this BTW - I wouldn't know where/how to start. I was surprised at how different things look depending upon the browser used. At work, (MS Explorer), the difference in margin was not so pronounced as on Firefox. I've captured a screen shot on my home PC, (Firefox), FYI. (The flags look as though they are both justified to the left of their respective cells, rather than being centred in each). Hope is of some use - keep up the good work! Regards Endrick Shellycoat 20:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Endrick Shellycoat 03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to your last, I'll likewise have a crack at equal scaled images, possibly as .png images if I can't get my own head around the .svg stuff. Appreciate your taking things forward to a successful outcome. Well done and thanks. Regards Endrick Shellycoat 20:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

He shoots

Looks like User:He Scores ? and another new one (User:Willy Blackwood) are sockpuppets of the Nimbley troll. I've blocked them. They have a distinctive tell. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to find the original case. I think all these accounts need to be tagged and categorised so as to help other users and admins spot the tells. The Amy Macdonald (singer) and Garbage (band) edits were the biggest ones, but ones to Irn Bru, reams of images to Glasgow and other various additions about Scottish inventions are also big give aways for Nimbley. The kid won't take a hint. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just tagged some more from the past. I really must get check user status sometime - I hate sockpuppetry, and it's always the same few goons who do it. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh

Can not see the relavance of a supporters forum match report [1] in a reference to an old name for the city, when added into an existing reference (yes the term is used in the web article, but but forums are poor references generaly). if a valid reference it should be a separate one then. It looking like a case of adding a external link to a forum rather than a reference, was my reasoning behind removal. I leave you to review its format/relavance then - BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rain543

Hello there! I hope all is well. I'm sorry that Nimbley struck again, but I commend you for maintaining WP:AGF and WP:BITE all the same.

This is an odd situation we're in. The kid (and he is only a child - 11/12 ish) just will not stop, and he has randomly generated ip addresses, which makes the blocking hard to sustain. Furthermore, I'm not sure there is any official word on how to deal with such an issue, but, from my experience alone, WP:RBI is a good one, and WP:TROLL can be helpful.

I'm reluctant to engage (again) with Nimbley as I've tried it in the past, but he just refuses to co-operate. I believe he may be somewhat congnatively impaired.</political correctness> --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm...

Dude, I'm the one at fault here? The anon has been blocked three times for edit warring, I have tried everything to gain consensus! I have had to ask for semi-protection again. I don't really see myself as the problem here. Surely I've been more than reasonable? The anon has made editing the article impossible. I should also note that I added an extra source to the MTV movie awards - which was reverted!

If you feel that I'm being unreasonable, then OK, I'll give up on that article and let the anon revert back to a crappy and unsourced article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I didn't see the extra comment, for some reason it got lost as it was in the if conditional [2]. The problem is: I have followed process, yet they are deliberately bypassing all reasonable means to edit the article.

In case you aren't aware, I was an admin too, so I know process. I also know WP:IAR, which for once I feel that this is a reasonable course of action! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I know... but it's fairly irritating to have done quite a bit of work (on such a minor article!) and have it all reverted just like that. It also gets me down to be peppered with abuse like I've been, although I know that to everyone else it seems unreasonable. It's pretty unpleasant! I appreciate your efforts though... this is just an exercise in frustration at the moment though :-) - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ex-Red Flag (sorry, easier to call you that...). I'm going to keep on doing what I was doing, which is basically to work on the backlog of trivia. Which was the reason I got involved in editing this article anyway! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's totally getting out of hand. See the contributions of Coberloco - that account is now reverting! I have a CU on the account, but that takes some time to get done. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'm going back to the trivia backlog. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a relief. Too much wikidrama - the reason I left for some time and created a new account in the first place! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Norsefire

ye, but moore states that if the labour government won the elcetions, it would disarm britains nuclear supply, so that is contradictiory. if labour won, the uk would not have a relation to the events in the sotry. Moore later mentioned that the conservatives won, which favoured nuclear weapons. if we leave the statement, we have to mention that the conservatives won in the end. they were the ones who made decisions that made any relavence to what the story was about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightandright (talk • contribs)

User:Bennet556/User:Nimbley6 and its collection of impotent socks

What wrong with the image i put in place of the dark one it shows the woman better than just her face and a mic --84.13.122.134 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP is a sock of two indef banned editors  This flag once was red  19:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What? Im just asking a simple question ? --84.13.122.134 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question can be found here.  This flag once was red  19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok im sorry i just think the other picture is better than the one just now. I Am stopping now. --89.240.245.159 (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please say what you like but i have thought about it and it HAS GONE TO FAR so i PROMISE YOU IM STOPING. --89.240.245.159 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I Am stopping now. Heard it before. You're an indef banned editor; You'll be reverted every time you play these silly little games.

 This flag once was red  19:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is to recognize your diligence in reverting and reporting all the edits done by indefinitely blocked user Nimbley6. Thank you for all your hard work. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Thank you for keeping ahead of this. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both! The barnstar's appreciated, and it's good to know that other people feel the same way - there have been times when I've felt I'm being a little obsessive ;-)

Cheers,  This flag once was red  06:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Obsessive would be having someone's talkpage watchlisted, seeing something about a barnstar and dropping by to congratulate them. Good work by the way ;) ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 12:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RMS Queen Mary

I noticed that you reverted the image on that article. Was the revert due to your preference to the prior image, or due to what looked like an edit war?

I can help guide the user who added it over to the talk page if needed; but it's not really a case of edit warring. They first tried two times to change the image link, which mangled the format so that no image was showing - that's what I reverted, I had thought they were just playing/testing. They then returned and correctly made the change to a new image - which to me seemed just as good of an image (lower quality, but showing more of the ship - so a trade-off), so I didn't touch it or say anything further. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

An image change in which you were involved is being discussed at Talk:RMS Queen Mary#Infobox image. Please join the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Shared IP notice

Hi! I wanted to ask you about this edit. It's great that you can add that kind of thing, I didn't know regular users could do that... Would you mind filling me in a bit on how? Where do you check the IPs for comparison?

Thanks –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information :) –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 00:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

P90

Only two editors are butting heads, though. If he was debating the merits of whether to include the link more explicitly within the body of the article itself, I could work with that. Instead he's dismissing it as a continuation of previous debates (that I had no part in), and therefore not even worthy of consideration on its own merits. That's the problem I wanted a third opinion on. Thank you for at least considering my idea, even if you disagree, but I needed another editor to note that debate only works when we listen to each other. What would be a more appropriate venue to ask for help? Westrim (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately only the content dispute part falls under the remit of WP:3O - WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF issues would need to be raised elsewhere. Assuming that discussion via talk pages has been tried unsuccessfully, you could next try WP:Wikiquette alerts.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I had actually gone to wikiquette alerts first, but from the description it seemed too harsh a first step. I'll try to get through to Nukes one more time, and if they still refuse to consider my idea on its own merits, I'll go ahead and report them (they and them are singular, as I try not to assume gender). Thanks. Westrim (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback?

Can I tempt you with Wikipedia:Rollback? May make reverting those Nimbleysocks a little bit easier. Let me know if it would help. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! Any problems or questions, let me know. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Norsefire-flag-comic.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Norsefire-flag-comic.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Frickative and Gungadin

Hi, i noticed you have recently reverted a report i made with the edit summary "rv dispute, not vandalism", if you read here carefully and thoroughly it is clear to me they are playing fun&games. They are saying things such as "you are DodgeChris", i suggest they be blocked for 24 hours or so to teach them a lesson, i suggest first though you ask them yourself what they mean, this may also be helpful. 86.143.121.28 (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to Talk:Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara

Hi, thanks for the advice. I had a follow-up question at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#Follow_up_question_re:_sources. Any opinion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need be angry about this stuff.

If you look article history in last 100 changes you will find 15 puppets of banned users + 2 latter indefinite blocked users which has added lyrics. On other side you will find me and 4 administrators which are removing lyrics.

My points is that for this user or users nobody arguments are good enough for removing lyrics and we are going toward indefinite full protection of article--Rjecina (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

ROYAL ANTHEM OF SCOTLAND i am not vandalising wikipedia i am simply typing FACT God save the Queen is the nation anthem of the united kingdom and the royal anthem of scotland

3RR

I warned [[::User:Lee setters|Lee setters]] ([[::User talk:Lee setters|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Lee setters|contribs]]) for a possible 3RR violation. You're also in danger of violating it as it's not strictly vandalism. I do have some sympathy though because he's obviously trying to force his own PoV without discussion. Let ne handle any more reverts. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

well i wish you would stop reverting my edits. if you clicked on the link i provided you will see that God save the Queen is the royal anthem of the United kingdom which includes Scotland. I am going to change it back and hopefully you wont delete it this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee setters (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 Hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Jac16888 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied here. Executive summary is that as I had left for work I was unable to contest this block, however I do accept that this block was levied in the interests of scrupulous fairness. Had I be around to contest the block I may well have done so, as I had already given my assurance to another admin that I would let them deal with the vandal and would disengage from further reverts. Hence I consider the block to be punative, and not preventative. This experience leaves me uncertain how to handle vandalism going forward, however the blocking admin has offered to deal with vandalism on my behalf.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Best advice I can give is that if you're unsure if it's vandalism or a content dispute, lean towards treating it as the latter. Don't worry about having received a short block. Lots of other users have gone through the same thing before and it's easy to fall into the trap of getting too hot under the collar over wiki articles. Feel free to ask me as well if you run into similar problems in the future. An extra pair of eyes almost always helps. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's appreciated. I'm not too concerned about the block as it had no impact on me as I was at work for the duration of the block and blissfully unaware until I returned home, by which time it had expired! It's just annoying that the same old vandals, with the same old "tells", return time and again and our hands seem to be tied. I have previously sought admins' advice on whether it is acceptable to continuously revert vandalism - the advice I received was that it was - but it's easy to forget that while these patterns of editing are familiar to the Scotland regulars, they may not be so to uninvolved parties and may appear to be content disputes or good faith edits.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to but in a bit here, it is true that the block was in the interest of fairness, hence the reduction, from my point of view it did appear to be simply a content dispute, if its the case that I misread the situation and it was vandalism, then I am really really sorry. Having said that, please do not let it put you off any future vandal reverting, in fact i believe GraemeL's advice is excellently put--Jac16888 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver

Thanks for the heads-up. StaticGull and I spent some time reverting that IP this morning...I figured he was probably a sock puppet as I have run into the same edits from similar IPs before, but it's good to know that he's a known sock puppet and can be reverted on sight. Cheers, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This might be unrelated, but I just caught User:Stormy Ordos adding Scottish flags to a bunch of articles in a manner similar to Nimbley6. He was trying to be sneaky about it, though; at Montpellier he made some other edit to the same line, then undid himself, but during the "undo" he added the flag icon in...apparently hoping that people would just see "undo" and then not notice his insertion. Anyway, just a heads-up. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barack Obama, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Downzero (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barack Obama. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Nimbley6 socks

You might want to check out User:United Kingdom & Northern Ireland. He shares a few similarities with Cyrusmileyhannana (another sock you blocked), including copy/pasting the UK article to his userpage (similar to CMH's posting of the Scotland article) and editing CMH's userpage (an odd thing for a new user to immediately jump to). Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cyrusmilleyhannana hasn't been blocked. I've just reverted edits made on Wales and on England. Both articles say they are semi-protected. Not sure what that means, though. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles into userspace

To me, one of the key differences is that you've got the articles in a sandbox page. While a sandbox doesn't give carte blanche, it's there for being a testbed, to try stuff without messing up a live page. At various times, I've had exit lists on my sandbox page. If all else fails, put an edit summary of "copied the content of (article name) to test new (section)", and it's sufficiently attributed.

By contrast, User:United Kingdom & Northern Ireland was putting the content on his user page. Compound that with the username mirroring the name of the article, and I felt the content was inappropriate to be there. On reflection, the GFDL violation was probably trivial, since it's pretty clear where the content came from and how to check the contribution history there. It just made a stronger policy-based justification for deletion than it being confusing. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Different Beat

An article that you have been involved in editing, Different Beat, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Different Beat. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dancing To A Different Beat

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dancing To A Different Beat, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing To A Different Beat. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

2 previous AFDs speedy-deleted

The result of each was speedy-delete:Vandalism/bad-faith contribution, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Different Beat and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing To A Different Beat. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess who

Would you have a look at User:Ricky_Oliver. Disruptive pattern on Northern Ireland and a user page that looks just like Spainton with similar interests. --Snowded TALK 18:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Another one I think User: Closeupon recently created, scottish singers, deleted admin change on previous socks? Enjoy Bristol by the way - on holiday? --Snowded TALK 07:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh Really?=

Let´s just walk through a simple scenerio shall we? John or Mary doe of 13 years of age are doing a school report on an idea that came from their discovery that by placing "kinks" in their garden hose they can make water shoot out much faster. They go to wikipedia since their parents allow that content as its "ok" an ecylocpedia. They enter the words "kink" and arrive at the kink.com wikipedia. Then as the page was before they are invited to a whole different subject than kinks in hoses and make a click on "ana cruzes" link and arrive at a explicit porn page with the title "Im the bitch that your mother warned you about...", well you know with nice pornographic pictures that show and tell all. His/her father happens to be a badass attorney and is quite offended when john/jane doe shows what they discovered in wikipedia. So under many laws, not withstanding, the "Communications deceny act" or the "contemporary community standards" laws or "corruption of a minor", a case is launched agaisnt wikipedia and its editors. Turns out since the editors have the ability to "speak for wikipedia" by approving or disapproving changes etc to content that they themselves not only represent wikipedia but also are not free from personal liability in this matter end up forking the bill for a 100 million plus lawsuit. It seems there is a strange US law that states that all "indecent" material as porno that is hosted on the web on US servers, has to have a simple warning on the home page that the person who is about to visit this site must be over 18 years of age.. etc.. Strange but I didnt see that in any of the 100 plus porn star wikipedias. So the 6 million dollars that wikipedia is trying to raise may not be enough to withstand the lawsuits that will come from the open and blatant access to porn to minors which the wiki "porno portal" path is embarking. All the cute and bold phrases that "wiki doesnt censors" and "they are notable" probable wont mean a whole lot when this "porno portal" of wikipedia ends up exposing wikipedia and its editors to all kinds of civil (oh and criminal) liability from the jane and john does that unfortunately end up on porn pages by doing simple research projects etc.. Dont forget that wikiporn, like any other porn will run agaisnt really ugly laws in the US and about 50 other countries world wide who really dont jive on minors having access to graphic porn. Good luck. [User:webman1000|webman1000]] (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)<sig>webman1000</sig>

Sorry, I'm not sure how this is remotely relevant to me. The only prior contact you and I have had was when I asked you not to remove other editors' comments from talk pages - I'm not sure how that qualifies me to receive your thoughts on pornography? So, to answer your question ("Let´s just walk through a simple scenerio shall we?"), my reply is: "no, let's not."

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

There's no more drama on that article's talkpage, 'cause I no longer post there. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCU

Hi. The best thing to do is to file it under the case of the suspected puppeteer, in this case ikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nimbley6. However, I left a note for a clerk to merge them, so hopefully it will be taken care of soon. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: my ears are burning!

Haha, yeah, I'm in pretty much the same boat...I don't care too much either way and I don't even really understand the political stuff surrounding this, but I've just gotten the impression that we should revert any of these trolling edits. I also thought this might be Nimbley6, but I figured I should AGF it for now (mainly because in my other run-ins with Nimbley6 I don't remember him/her using edit summaries at all) and if this user starts again then maybe I can get a little more stern. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree; after seeing the diffs you mentioned at that user's talk page, it's pretty clear that it's another sock. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland lede

I've given it another tweek to clarify it a little better. What do you think? Titch Tucker (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Leon Jackson Template

The current article doesnt exist so im replacing it with the original page. --89.243.104.75 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Leon Jackson

Hi there. I noticed that you removed the link to the When You Believe article, because it's not the same song. Well, I did some Googling and discovered it's actually a cover of that song. And the When You Believe article does have a section regarding the cover, so I think it's fair to link to the article, but more specifically to that section (which is something I did recently, if you'll look through the history). I wanted to explain why it was linked though, as I had the same question myself, and the IP editor who keeps putting it in, hasn't really explained most of their edits, nor do they use edit commentary, so I know it's confusing to try to figure out what they're doing. Have a good day! Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And now what I said earlier today is no longer applicable, because the user (or an associate, I dunno) has now copy/pasted that section into a new article, entitled When You Believe (Leon Jackson song). Which is fine in and of itself, but I took it on myself to remove that section from the When You Believe article, since it doesn't need to exist redundantly in two separate articles. I'm beginning to see what you meant about the IP's edits being pretty limited in topic matter at the moment. Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know that there is indeed now a separate article for this song, which is okay I guess, as it was making the When You Believe article a little long with all of the details about his cover. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 05:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

78.150.158.199

You marked him as a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user. According to his contribution history, he also made an edit to Template:Michelle McManus which I reverted for unrelated reasons. The alleged puppetmaster was known for editing articles related to Ms. McManus under alleged sockpuppets. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Leon Jackson Sales :!

It states on the X Factor wikiepdia page and his discgraphy page and pepople are saying that the album has sold 260,500 copies in total --78.151.74.102 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)