User talk:Redwolf24

Please click here to leave me a new message.

^^^Stolen from User:Linuxbeak (I admit it)^^^

I'm Out!! talk:Redwolf24&action=purge (Purge Server Cache)

Welcome to the picnic! If you are a new user thanking me for the welcome, create the section with "Thanks from (your name)" or something similar, not just Thanks or Thank you. :)

When do I archive? Whenever the page is over 30KB. No sooner, and only later if there's an active topic.

• Enter the archives.

Your e-mail to me

Sorry, I don't understand your e-mail. I know what I did to Jackie Chan's page qualifies as vandalism so I figured you were warning me that I am about to be "blocked".

Otherwise I don't get your message, unless you are referring to the Irish and Croatian censors who refuse to allow painful truths on websites regarding the Ustase, Bleiburg Massacre, Michael Cusack, John Charles McQuaid, etc.

Eirelover@earthlink.net 01:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry you'd have to show me the email, I don't remember you. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the disambig fix on my user page

Like i said, thanks. CincinnatiWiki 22:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

glad to help :D Redwolf24 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A question

I think I saw your birthdate somewhere but I can't find it anymore. If you don't mind, could you tell me when it is? THANK YOU

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgul Fang (talk • contribs)

September 29. Two weeks to go! Redwolf24 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Morgul Fang

Thank you for the welcome message. ;).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgul Fang (talk • contribs)

No problem, but remember to type ~~~~ after your comments on talk pages. The software converts it to your user name and the time/date. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem on edge lately

so....

Here's a troll for you :)

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy, my very own troll. Thanks ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ask reference desk on Main page

1. · Browse by subject · Ask Wikipedia a Question · Article overviews · Alphabetical index · Other indexes
2. · Browse · Portals · Overviews · Ask Wikipedia a Question · Alphabetical index · Other indexes
3. · Ask Wikipedia a Question · Browse · Portals · Overviews · Alphabetical index · Other indexes

Redwolf24, first, congratulations on your concept (#1) for the Main Page Browse bar. I would imagine that the change was a little shocking to Trevor MacInnis and the other Portal enthusiasts. Here is a proposal (#2) to incorporate space for the Portal link on the Browse bar. That would allow all the previous hard work of everyone concerned, some space on the Main Page Browse bar. #3 would have its advantages as well, but perhaps the initial view source tab might make things feel less accessible to a newcomer. I would not object to #3 either. Ancheta Wis 00:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I went with option 2. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you in behalf of the Portal people. Ancheta Wis 01:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem... Redwolf24 (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Planning Ahead?

Heh. :) Are you going to put them all up on the same day? It would be a complete cabalian revolution if you did. :o Acetic'^Acid 06:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No... Who will be nominated October 1st... you'll be October 24th or so, and Toothpaste around October 30th. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Sounds good. Thank you for putting so much thought into this. The nominations look quite good. Acetic'^Acid 04:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Mickey

Hello again. I just saw your list of Mickey sockpuppets. MR LULZ and MR LOL are not linked to Mickey. They are sockpuppets of rn71989. I've never seen MRS LOL before. That one might be Mickey. Acetic'^Acid 07:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe that's just it, rn71989 is Mickey?? Redwolf24 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. Definately not. Ask me in IRC or MSN, and I'll tell you who rn71989 was. (I don't think it needs to be repeated onsite.) -- Essjay · Talk 23:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

k. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Toby

Please lift the protection:

1. The {{rejected}} tag is inappropriate, since castle-jumpers are monopolizing the discussion and excluding serious debate. This is a proposal, and a credible one, and obviously is going to take much more time to work itself into something useful to the Community. Nothing is gained by branding it as rejected, since unlike policy proposals, this is a design proposal -- it does not call for any editor action, cannot be cited to support or attack any editor's action. Toby does not attempt to set guidelines for editor's behavior; therefore there is no need to label the proposal in order to discourage editors from relying upon it. The only value of the tag is to attempt to strangle debate.

The tag should be removed and replaced with {{proposed}}, as before; or left untagged, as I wrote it; or tagged appropriately as an engine design feature request. In any case, intelligent discussion should be fostered, not suppressed.

2. There has been considerable debate, but the proposal itself has not been edited. I prefer to allow other editors to implement changes directly, but as they have not done so, I intend shortly to rewrite the proposal itself to take note of its greatly expanded scope. The page in question -- as written -- is less a proposal of any kind, and more the type of text I intend for Help:Toby -- at some distant future time.

At this point, there are actually three distinct variations of Toby under discussion:

• Simple Toby;
• Original Toby; and
• Custom Toby

any of which can be implemented as:

• Engine Toby; or
• Aftermarket Toby

This makes a total of six different approaches to a potentially questionable content display management solution. The proposal does need to be rewritten from scratch to reflect this.

3. I will not belabor the fact that you and I have a personal feud going on -- nor do I wish to open that here. But this means it is inappropriate for you to take action in this matter. Having done so, I urge you either to step out of this conflict of interest, or do right. — Xiong熊talk* 22:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You make a powerful argument, and I agree with a lot of it. But that doesn't matter, consensus has ruled against you. There's a slow edit war between you (who is minding 3RR) and several others. I think at one time Nickptar was for Toby, but he seems against it now. Now, let me tell you the truth: I thought Zap was one of the stupidest things I've seen, but I don't mind Toby anymore. I know that it doesn't apply to anyone cept those who want it. But I think the reason so many are against this is that they can't think of anyone who would even use Toby. I have no opinion on Toby nowadays, and I protected it from a neutral view. If you get a conensus of some sort, I'll be watching its talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No, consensus has not spoken at all on Toby; consensus does not equal a lot of loud, ignorant shouting. Read over the talk carefully and you will see that early on there were a few legitimate comments; but the great bulk of it has been ranting from extremists who consistently ride their biases and misconstrue facet after facet of the concept. This is not consensus formation -- not in any way. Not one single word from these ranters has gone toward discussion of the real Toby at all; let alone exploring or including other viewpoints.

Since you understand that Toby does not affect those who do not choose to participate, then perhaps you will recognize that grounds for objection are even slimmer than they might be in discussion of some other proposal that affects all. Toby-bashers are screwing with the right of free choice of those who want or need Toby's help. They simply have no right to be heard at all, without showing how their rights or our core principles are infringed. It is absurd for them to claim consensus.

No, you have not protected Toby "from a neutral view" -- you have locked it in the deprecated state, thus taking sides with the rabble. Worse, you have condemned it to death, since now improvement is forbidden. Far from neutral, your action is as biased as anything could be! Your statement of intent is irrelevant; you're doing damage. Better to delete the whole thing -- page, talk, demo, and all the rest -- and I'll just start over.

Mentioning Zap in this context is indirect attack ad hominum. It does not matter if I have been wise or foolish in any of my many other efforts. Toby is the subject here. Either be a neutral trustee, or discard that pose and be a partisan combatant.

I dislike long-winded debate; I dislike angry contention; I dislike heavy-handed authority; and I dislike most of all escalation of conflict from one court to a higher one. Please do the right thing now, and save us all the unpleasant stink of this fight. — Xiong熊talk* 00:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

From what I have seen, I haven't seen too many Toby supporters. And locking the page as is is the protected policy, I'm just trying to stop an edit war, really. If you wanna work on improving Toby, copy the source to a subpage of your own and edit it, and the result will be added when its unprotected. There's a straw poll being taken on toby's talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka's RfA

I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I'll try my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks for caring about what's best for Wikipedia, and thanks specifically for not letting those who play fast and loose with the truth batter you down. Regards, Nandesuka 00:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Best wishes

Here's to hoping that whatever the Troubles are, they soon blow over.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 04:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that you're going through a hard time, and I do hope things get better soon. Ambi 05:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you are having a problem. Take care, and I hope things are resolved. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Stay strong, my friend. Acetic'^Acid 06:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. Let us know if you need anything. Nandesuka 11:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope things aren't as bad as they seem. Keep in touch. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry things are bad for you right now. Please come back when you are up to it. Maltmomma ^(chat) 12:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

All the best to you and yours. Stay amazing. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)}

I hope everything is well. I look forward to your happy return. ∞Who?¿? 03:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you look into this?

Related to this [1] comment of yours made here. I reverted this page [2] back to its former self and the user was the culprit uploader of the not so pretty picture. It's this ok? I'm fairly new around here. Thanks! Northernstar79 06:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Dylan article

You have a very teenagerish tone for a sysop. How old are you? The Dylan page will be protected shortly. JDG 22:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

1) This project needs to tighten up on qualifications for admin type positions; 2) No, I'm not very familiar with adminny tags and procedures. Long ago, years before you'd ever heard of Wikipedia, I made a decision to steer clear of adminny stuff. The soul of this project is researching and writing. Everything else is less than secondary, except maybe software development; 3) The Dylan article was blocked for reasons you should have known (read the Talk page and the RfC on Monicasdude). Are you really going to make me flag down people to revert you or are you going to be big enough to just say "my bad" and reprotect it? JDG 00:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Please chill on both sides. JDG was certainly unaware that the template itself does not actually protect a page. I once made the same mistake myself, on a completely different page (and was also accused of malice and bad faith, rather than of simple ignorance, as was actually true). It's not obvious to non-admins what is technically required for a page protection.

On the other hand, a protection tag does not belong to the particular admin who first placed it. I'm sure Redwolf24 was also acting in good faith in thinking that the protection had passed its relevance. Unless you've carefully followed the RfC, the talk page, the page history, and all, an outside editor won't really be clear on the status. For that matter, even someone who has followed it all could come to various opinions on when protection should/will be removed; there's no simple rule.

I do think it's too early to unprotect this particular page (and see that it has been reprotected by Redwolf24). So let's all smile, and leave the protection for a bit longer. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

I think it would be fine to unprotect this article so that we can see if the RFC had any effect on his behavior before RFAR is considered. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)