User talk:Montgomery '39: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:49, 5 March 2009

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Feel free to make comments on this page. Sometimes, I will respond to your comments. ;)

Regarding Userboxes

Thank you user Montgomery '39, but no thanks. I do not curse and will not accept the userbox suggestion. However, you can help me find userboxes of airplanes or post airplane pictures in my Airplane section of my userpage. Anyway, Thanks, Douglas2.5 (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

You now have Rollback functionality. Please use it with care and only for fighting vandals. Please review WP:ROLLBACK before using the feature. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Signature

I recently attempted to revert some vandalism but failed because it turned out you had beat me to it. I noticed on the talk page for the user you reverted that your signature had no links whatsoever. That is a violation of the Wikipedia guideline on signatures and it makes life harder for other editors. (and could cause more serious problems if, for example, you were confused with another editor) Per the guideline just mentioned your signature must include at least a link to your user page or user talk page. Please see WP:SIGHELP for help fixing your signature or let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! --Jeremyb (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thanks. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC) (as you can see, i have fixed it already)[reply]

Sure. Looks good. --Jeremyb (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you add a tag

before you criticize me for vandalism on a page that says "HE IS THE REINCARNATIONF OF JESUS", please keep in mind that i did not add that, i just reverted some vandalism that was added right after that. This has also applied to many other edits. sry abt those. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you undoing my changes on the trepanation page.

We are just adding a link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.234.191 (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False positive

Just want to let you know that this revert was a false positive, and the editor was making constructive edits. Happy editing, Spencer^T♦^C 01:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Cheers, Spencer^T♦^C 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars 'R' U

		The Hidden Page Barnstar
		I award you one for finding Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you checked your mail? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I may owe you another 1. I don't have a "cluster" for it. Will this do? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good 'nuf. I've seen ribbons, but I can't recall where; if you can, or you stumble on 'em, give yourself a suitable 1 & let me know where they are? Thanx. Ciao. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of these ribbons, yeah. And didn't you visit the hide 2x? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a second visit:

TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it. (But do me a favor, don't go there again. I don't know what I'd give you! ;D) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of missinformation is not vandalism.

The sections I removed do not belong. One section is based on a deliberate misinformation campaign that was publicly identified as such while it was happening, and the rest is just silly and has almost nothing to do with Motorola. As far as I can tell, the original author was just trying to say stuff to make Motorola look bad. I see nothing about Motorola real operations. before you start screaming vandalism you should do a little fact checking, and maybe look at the edits from the viewpoint of a real encyclopedist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.25.142.225 (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx

I do not have my computer glasses and am having trouble doing the Wiki thing because I can't see. This is my first attempt to actually try to get involved in helping the community. Unfortunately, the communities behavior is less then I would have expected. I was assuming a little higher level of professionalism. I was involved with the Scottsdale mess so I know first hand what was happening. I have found an irrational anti Motorola bias in most articles here and when I saw this reemergence of a lie, I felt I needed to do something. How does one ask permission to remove deliberately misleading material?

BTW, Any professional encyclopedist would have removed the section that I did. Its only purpose was to try to make Motorola look bad. It contained nothing of relevance other then what can be implied through the application of fallacious principles created to deceive the public. Its rhetoric not fact. 192.25.142.225 (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovebug

Why did you revert some changes to Lovebug? Please explain in the edit summary in the future. Student7 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you might want to check out the other comments on the page of the user you reverted and labeled a "vandal". People are requesting his help on arcane articles. Student7 (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monster's BFC acronym

I'm not attempting to vandalize any portion of the site, but "BFC" does NOT stand for "big effin can". BFC != BEC. Excuse my ignorance, but is profanity not allowed on Wikipedia? I'd think quotes would be an exception, or a situation like this describing an acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.41.18 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Alvin Jabrica - where did author request deletion?

You tagged Mark Alvin Jabrica for speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7 (twice) although it was already tagged for speedy deletion. I don't see where the author requested deletion. Can you provide a diff, please? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just tried to revert the edit using HG, and since it was the first edit, I tagged the article. I did not choose what type of deletion tag. Sorry about any inconvenience. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Which edit were you trying to revert? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to hassle you, but can you respond to my question so that I understand what happened or what you were trying to do? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that the page was just created, so I tried to revert the edit, and that was when HG "suggested" that I tag the page.Montgomery' 39 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to revert which edit? It had just been tagged for speedy delete as nonsense, before you added the tag for speedy delete at author's request. Please reply here, not on my talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the article had been there a long time ago, and I thought that there were a few edits behind it.Montgomery' 39 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please just tell me simply and clearly what you were attempting to do so that I can understand what happened. Again, referring to your own words above, which edit were you trying to undo? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Hi, thanks for removing the vandalism from Talk:Provolone. I appreciate your efforts to help keep Wikipedia clean.

However, I declined your report of 131.191.64.130 (talk · contribs) on WP:AIV. He made the edit that you warned him for in November 2007, and he has not edited since March 2008. In the future, if you see vandalism that than a few days old, just remove the vandalism and don't bother issuing a warning, as the vandal has likely moved on and will probably not see your warnings. If

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle Feedback

Hi there. You reported a bug in huggle here. This has now been archived. If you are still having this problem please try the latest version of huggle. If the problem still occurs please add a new section to the feedback page (again). If you would like to reply to this message please use my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Level 4 warning

Um, what was that for? I just redirected Scyp, which was a clear copyright violation, to Ship. Care to explain? NawlinWiki (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, what the hell are you talking about? There is no Wikipedia policy that says pages can't be redirected without permission. By the way, I've been an administrator for over 2 years. Are you sure that you couldn't have just politely asked what I was doing instead of hitting me with a level 4 warning? See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no rule against templating the regulars, you really do need to understand what we consider vandalism before giving out warnings. As NawlinWiki says, there is no Wikipedia policy that says pages can't be redirected without permission. Even if there was such a policy it would not be considered vandalism unless it was done in bad faith. Chillum 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Montgomery for your quick response. Chillum 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback removal requested

Your inability or unwillingness to answer what is a very simple question (above) makes me think that you have no reasonable explanation for your actions. I see from the other conversations on your talk page that you have had other issues with inappropriate tagging. I have asked for your rollback to be removed until you can demonstrate that you understand WP policies and guidelines. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your rollback rights; please review the appropriate policies and consider the Undo function for the time being. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

I noticed the message you recently left to 64.126.25.9. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for NPWatcher

Montgomery '39, I'm declining your request for access to NPWatcher. I can't find evidence that you've tagged any articles for speedy deletion except for Mark Alvin Jabrica, which was incorrectly tagged as creator requesting deletion when you weren't the creator. Sorry. I encourage you to re-apply when you've gotten more experience with new page patrol, although I guess that depends on your dad giving you more Wikipedia time. Anyway, I hope you have a good labor day weekend.--chaser - t 02:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Huggle

I'm using the latest version, v0.8.1.

I know little about the causes of the problems, but if you were asking what doesn't work, it sometimes throws random exceptions that don't do anything if you just ignore them. If you block people with it, for some reason it automatically blocks their access to their talk pages, so you can't use it to block. Also, sometimes it won't actually undo if you tell it to.

Hope that helps! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irresistible

I accept. And Merry Christmas (or whatever ;D) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Year?

D;D;D (Ditto.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01: 31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you Just Falsely Warned someone

I think you just gave me a false warning because all I did was Experiment on the sandbox page.--Chase25 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make vandal edits in the sandbox. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a vandal edit that was experimenting. That is why is called a sandbox and i find totally insane that someone else did that same thing and were left off the hook. and Yes that was a False Warning--Chase25 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I am confused as to why this would be warnable. It looks like a simple test with nonsense in the test table... I am sorry if I am missing something.sinneed (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see the problem. Suppose I went into his table, and filled in profanity. *THAT* would vandalism, and revertable and warnable. :) His edit looks clean and appropriate. Entirely your call, but I would PERSONALLY remove the warning if it were mine. I've done a few. If you are using Huggle, you are recommended to turn off scanning of the sandbox, to avoid that problem. :) All the best.sinneed (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Wing on The Indiana Jones Wiki

I addressed your comment on The Indiana Jones Wiki on the talk page of the article in question. Per your request, I'm copying what I wrote here: I've not yet found a source that indicates that the model in question is a legitimate licensed product endorsed by Lucasfilm. So far, it just seems to be a generic flying wing model that some sites have suggested is "[v]ery similar to one seen in a famous movie. jSarek (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it at the current name, with the "nickname" template at the top, until we get something more technical. There's only one flying wing in the movie, so it's not like the current title is confusing or ambiguous. jSarek (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

open proxy

This ip is an op. Please block it; it has been used abusively enough. 70.42.75.46 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 149: / Line 149: @@
 I addressed your comment on [[wikiasite:indianajones:Main Page|The Indiana Jones Wiki]] on the [[wikiasite:indianajones:Talk:Flying Wing|talk page]] of the  [[wikiasite:indianajones:Flying Wing|article in question]].  Per your request, I'm copying what I wrote here: ''I've not yet found a source that indicates that the model in question is a legitimate licensed product endorsed by Lucasfilm.  So far, it just seems to be a generic flying wing model that [http://www.starshipmodeler.biz/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=1151 some sites] have suggested is "[v]ery similar to one seen in a famous movie.'' [[User:JSarek|jSarek]] ([[User talk:JSarek|talk]]) 13:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 *Leave it at the current name, with the "nickname" template at the top, until we get something more technical.  There's only one flying wing in the movie, so it's not like the current title is confusing or ambiguous. [[User:JSarek|jSarek]] ([[User talk:JSarek|talk]]) 10:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
+== open proxy ==
+This ip is an op. Please block it; it has been used abusively enough. [[Special:Contributions/70.42.75.46|70.42.75.46]] ([[User talk:70.42.75.46|talk]]) 22:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)