User talk:Mo0

Archive 1 -- October 20, 2004 - November 9, 2005.
Archive 2 -- November 9, 2005 - January 4, 2006.

As a note, I tend to reply to messages here on the talk page of the person sending them. If you'd rather I reply here, let me know. Thanks!

Oh no, I'm scared!!

So you're gonna ban me. Oh no,I'll just die! I've been sent over on a secret mission from Uncyclopedia! FUCK FUCK YOU MOO_ASS!

User:Janos

Hi; I got an email from User:Janos. I think he has learned his leason. He says he won't remove the tag anymore. Would you consider unblocking him so he can take part in the vote? I think he also has a request to provide copyright information on some pictures he took. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favor, please?

MoO, could you please take care of Candidates for speedy deletion? Nobody has emptied the "recycle bin" for hours, and the garbage is beginning to stink! Thanks in advance, and cheers! -- Phædriel 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, MoO, and thanks! You rock! ;-) Cheers, -- Phædriel 05:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting AfDs for a 'clearer consensus'

Hi Mo0. You're doing a great job, but I wonder if you could try and reduce the number of AfDs that you're reposting, as if this continues, things will get really, really clogged on AfD. For example, you reposted 'Princess Nathalie of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg', which had 2 keep votes, and no other votes - be bold, and close that as a keep. 'Adnan mohammad' was a pretty obvious delete, and the people that did vote agreed. 'TWEN' had two votes to merge and redirect - if nobody else had disagreed, then it should have just been done. Obviously if there's no votes, or a handful of votes that don't agree, then it would need relisting. It's not like anything that gets done on Wikipedia cannot be undone, and you seem sensible enough to make decent judgement calls! Proto t c 12:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. Keeping AfD clog free is one of my personal bugbears, you're not the first admin I've poked with a stick about it :) Just remember anything you do can be undone, so never worry, and you'll be gravy. All the best! Proto t c 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingjeff

I don't care if there are any issues. Please delete my account and all my contributions. Kingjeff 14:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I'm not interested in any policy. I want my account deleted. Kingjeff 23:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal faith

Want to bet it gets recreated? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh. 06:53, 6 January 2006 Mo0 deleted "Metal faith" (Patent nonsense)

I'll ask something that I hope won't offend: did you click on what links here before you deleted this?

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Mountain Dew always has that effect on me. Looking at the AfD, experiance shows that the same guys who are making random comments there will re-create the article, and probably drop some abusive comments on talk pages. Probably my talk page because I closed the AfD.

Which, I forgot to remind you, is another reason to check what links to a speedy page. If the AfD isn't closed, AfD bot won't report that day as closed when it's time is up, so admins looking to tie up loose ends will have to look at that day's afd. Someone will have to close it eventually.

Oh, and I'm going to ask another potentially offensive question. Since you didn't know I was the one who tagged it, did you look at the article's history before you speedied it?

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More of a gentle pat than a kick, I hope! It has been known to happen that a valid article will be vandalised into a CSD candidate and then tagged. A quick look at the history usually makes that pretty obvious. I always check the history before I tag something, so that hadn't happened here.

While I'm nagging... The Left End per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Left End. Why did you delete this and re-create it as a redirect? When people say "merge" we have to use some caution about complying with GFDL, and by deleting the redirect source we loose the contribution history.

You sure you don't mind me saying all this, bearing in mind that my RfA was soundly rejected?

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might want to get a ~~second~~ umm, ~~third~~ err, fourth opinion on that one after this. A normal, unqualified "merge" just means a redirect. Where any actual information or prose gets copied we have to make some tip of the hat to GFDL. A delete and redirect is normally used only where nothing from the deleted page is put into the target page, and if people want that in AfD they need to say so explicitly.

As to #wikipedia-en-vandalism... I know that it's very popular, and the people who frequent it are very close, but for admin advice the regular #wikipedia-en channel is often more reliable. There are almost always people there with more admin edits than you've had hot dinners.

I'm logging off now, but I'll have a look over your other stuff to see if there is anything else that sticks out at me. Keep up the good mopping!

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superfan tracking

Thank you for your help with the latest Superfan incarnation. I have recently created Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Superfan and was wondering if you might be able to assist me in identifying and weeding out other probable socks. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf ^melmac 09:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Pgk's RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk^(talk) 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong user

You left your message about 3RR on the wrong user's talk page. I was not the one who left that. Also, someone deleted the vandal entry that I did leave, but did not take any action on it (yet). ~~Was that you? Was this just a mistake?~~ I see that it wasn't you, but would you mind taking a look at User:64.107.53.2. He/she has already had {{test4}} warning, and today vandalized the featured article of the day. Failing to block him/her sends the message that the test4 warning is an empty threat. Not a good idea.--Srleffler 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you missed what I was saying. I didn't write anything about Emo (music) or 3RR. That was User:Kefs, who didn't sign his contribution. Despite the lack of signature, it was pretty clear that it wasn't my text, though, since there was another vandal submission in between. You must have just looked at the page too quickly or something. Anyway, I copied your message to his talk page. --Srleffler 22:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

My friend lightdarkness said that you were the one who removed the indefinite ban on my university's IP address. Thanks for taking the time to do so! I look forward to editing again. - Chardish 07:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking 192.195.225.6

Reading over the talk page just now, I hope you don't mind that I've blocked this IP for a very short time to deal with the high-speed random page blanking. There are only 2400 students at the school anyway; it is highly unlikely anyone but the vandal will notice the blocking in this brief interval.--Pharos 07:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi there - I was the guy who nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorchester Town footballers - thanks for sorting out the deletion. However, there was one additional article - Andy Harris - that I left out of the original nomination by accident, but later added (if you read the AfD there's a short paragraph labelled Additional which I added afterwards explaining). It was listed on exactly the same grounds as the others - would it be OK to delete that as well? Qwghlm 11:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon you just blocked

I think you were too kind! It looks to me like the same guy, not a shared IP. You could have blocked him indefinitely and I don't think he could complain. James James 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I just checked the policy out. Yes, it looks like you can only give up to a month for a static IP. I suppose it's fair. People change ISPs and some poor sod might be stuck with it without knowing how to fix it. James James 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Probity when deleting articles

Mo0: I would be very grateful if you would not delete my articles: e.g.,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_in_fact_for_a_URIE

The notion of the Attorney in Fact as it applies to the special trustee powers granted the AIF at a reciprocal inter-insurance exchange such as California's Farmers Group or the Automobile Club of Southern California, or Texas's USAA, are very arcane. Very little has been written on the subject.

I can not believe that the world and Wikipedia are not large enough to handle this special bit of information: and I question your motivations in deleting the article in the first place and I'd like to know your motivations - or more properly - who put you up to it. Please respond.