Jump to content

User talk:Caknuck/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 4    Archive 5    Archive 6 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  ... (up to 100)


2/5BZ

That user just recreated it. I've already put the speedy tag on it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, you got it before I could save the message! JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, now he recreated it again! Wow, they're persistent. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been salted now. caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 04:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


DELETION OF OPEN IPTV FORUM

I would like to get the page on the OPen IPTV Forum unbvlocked. IT is an interesting subject and I have beed requested by mnany people to create ir. I am aware that the text was avaiable elsewhere but it was not copyrighted and I had the authorization to use it. I will create a shorter original text and the appropraite links if someone unblocks the page for me. What can I do?—Preceding unsigned comment added by CdEsclercs (talk • contribs) 07:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Responded on CdEsclercs's talk page.) caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi, I noticed you were an admin, and I was just wondering if you could put a short semi-protect on this users talk page User talk:NawlinWiki It is currently being vandalized by IP's every couple minutes. A block would be pointless, because somehow the IP changes ranges each time. Thanks, Landon1980 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's already been done. caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 05:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? The page is still being vandalized. Landon1980 (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Landon1980 (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NP. I saw NawlinWiki had move protected it earlier today, but that doesn't help against redirects. Cheers, caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 06:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Talkback

Hello, Caknuck. You have new messages at Livitup's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your user page was vandalized

I was patrolling Recent Changes and noticed that User:Happyheadhappyday blanked your page. I reverted it and reported it. You should follow up. Chexmix53 (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert! caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 03:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Hello. I thought I would say hello to someone I never met. I chose you because your name is just below Cailil and I know Cailil. Need I introduce myself more? Chergles (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Responded on Chergles's talk page.) caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your welcome and call for questions. I have to admit that I am a bit peeved at wikipedia. The level of maturity, ethics, and customer service by administrators is sometimes very poor. Some people in wikipedia have also learned that you can attack others just by calling them a sock. Even some checkusers are not honest because if they want to help someone, they will just say you are a sock and nobody can verify the information.

A few months ago, there was a bad editor (Anacapa) that made a legal threat. A community ban was proposed based on the legal threat. Others, who didn't like him, started to say how bad he was. My opinion was that if the proposed community ban was based on legal threats, then we should examine the legal threat and see if it was a threat. That's a very rational approach. I never said the guy was good.

In retaliation, I was accused of being a sock and the checkuser agreed even though I am at least 1000 miles (1600 km) away from the other user, was not defending the other user, and my syntax was determined to be completely different (in the opinion of the person proposing the community ban as well as an administrator assisting that person).

This type of malicious behavior is not new. Researching the internet, it appears that the checkuser has god-like power and will use it even if there is no IP relationship. After all, I was not defending this other person but others wanted to stamp out all opposition.

I have lost enthusiasm to contribute to a place where these type of people manipulate the website. This could change if I knew a core group of admins who are mature, aware, and helpful. Such group must be willing to unblock without being in cahoots with other admins. I saw where one admin said he will only unblock if the blocking administrator agrees. This is collusion, not independent review. Chergles (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Responded on Chergles's talk page.) caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 00:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sammy j

hey sorry if i made ya mad, dude. I was bored and i wont mess with it again. however the second time wasn't me. i think i know who it was and i'll go tell him to quit so i dont get banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.45.64.73 (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like that doesn't make me mad. If I got stressed out over every vandal I reverted, I would have had a Wiki-indiced coronary a year ago. Cheers, caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism

Hi. I reformulated the Request for Comment in a more neutral tone with more accurate wording. I don't think it counts as vandalism. GreenEcho (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Responded on GreenEcho's talk page.) caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 23:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I reverted it back. GreenEcho (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 00:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Pixie (porn star)

Might be an idea to delete the redirect from Andrea Spinks as well Thanks 78.146.173.84 (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good catch. caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 16:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

I have replied on my talk page. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring with Ausonia

I have already apologized for my part on the edit wars. Ausonia reverted it again today, and I have chosen not to revert those edits now.

Why does he/she expect me to accept her edits if I have already explained that there was no consensus?

I can promise you that I won't continue those edit wars, but that doesn't mean that I don't like the fact that he/she likes to continue the same thing over and over again.

Do you have any suggestions? Thank you, ~ Troy (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it still appear that I am doing something wrong regarding the issue? It seems to me that my ability to respond to that revert-warring is impaired, lest I be blocked or scrutanized—or worse, as I really don't like to continuously contradict other edits even if there appears to be some sort of non-compliance. ~ Troy (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted

I have deleted the Brian Peck article, and have so noted on the ANI thread and Alison's talk page. As always, my administrative actions are open for review. Risker (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support your actions here. Thanks, caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Indef block

Hey, I conflicted with your "rather salt than block" comment and indef blocked User talk:Hearthstone lodge as a promotion-only account. Didn't mean to disregard your thoughts on this one; I didn't see them in time. I still think the block is justified, but if you think strongly otherwise, feel free to overturn. Tan ǀ 39 20:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Responded on Tanthalas39's talk page.) caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

John Edwards paternity allegations

I just wanted to thank you for your suggested title for the article, which is roughly 17 gazillion times more encyclopedic than the title I came up with. :) Thanks again... Kelly hi! 01:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to be of service. Honestly, a lot of times I read through threads at WP:ANI and think either "This is giving me a headache." or "No need to waste my time by chiming in with a 'Me too!' here." This time, however, I actually had something constructive to contribute. And now, I have to go rein in my dogs, because now they're insisting on trying to make friends with the catdom of the area. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal Online

I just wanted to say thank you for protecting Cabal Online. Finally someone has done something to stop the vandals. :) --Loopy UK (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. Cheers, caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PP

I don't know if my request got over looked or what...but can you look at it Wikipedia:RPP#Peter_L.C3.B8venkrands_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Ctjf83Talk 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been protected...thanks anyway Ctjf83Talk 01:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone else got to it before me. Sorry I couldn't get on it quicker. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok!! :-D Ctjf83Talk 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for the double post I placed at AN/I.[1] I encountered the post originally on the reliable sources noticeboard and did not check AN before copying it over to AN/I. Vassyana (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oomf! I'm full of mistakes today! The signing was the result of accidentally adding a fifth tilde getting 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC) instead of Vassyana (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Ferris

Saw your message re unprotection at WP:RUP. I am still seeing the protection warning when I try to start the page - is the protection template still in place. I have purged my cache etc. Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up - when the page is clear, what is the approved method for us get the content from the creator's subpage, a move or a copy and paste? I have seen both methods suggested elsewhere. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the help and advice. – ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peltodoris nobilis

Hi Caknuck, how are you? I noticed the cleanup tag on this sea slug article. I went in to it this morning and tried to clean it up a little bit, but I thought it was not bad already as a stub article. WikiProject Gastropod has many hundreds of stubs in similar shape. Was there something in particular that you though made it not really good enough even as a stub? Thanks for your time, Invertzoo (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Back to make this heading in into a link. Cheers. Invertzoo (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Caknuck. Oh, I had no idea it was the images you had a problem with. Next time leave a note on the talk page and then I could have fixed it without bothering you. So anyway, just now I shrunk down the images and switched the one in the taxobox for a clearer one. I think it looks OK now. I study mollusks, and I think most people who study them would rather see three different individuals of one species than just one, because these sea slugs are really quite variable even within one species. How does it look to you now? Invertzoo (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gord, No problem, and thanks for the offer of help, I appreciate that. Invertzoo (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

(Extending protection to match range block of vandal) JAF1970 (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I set a three-month rangeblock to block their IP addresses, but because other legit editors use the same range, I could only block anonymous editors. I semi-protected the article for 3 months just so they can't simply set up a new account and start pulling the same crap without jumping through a bunch of hoops first. With persistent vandals, you can't fully stop them, but you can make it difficult enough for them so it loses its appeal. Let me know if the vandalism picks up again. caknuck ° is geared up for football season 04:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage from this block

67.236.248.254 is requesting unblock, and their edits look OK, so I am referring this to you to see if you want to find a way to except them from the range block or whatever. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Caknuck! I replied on my talk page. Also, regarding the collateral damage, I think you should specifically unblock that user and leave the rangeblock as it is unless other IPs are found to be innocent. I am not quite an "expert" on rangeblocks, but I can help with tracking what kind of contributions are made within a specific range, so I will tell you if I spot useful/non-"vandal" contribs. Hopefully there are not other innocent folks who were in the midst of that (I doubt it, but it is still possible). Peace, ~ Troy (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork

Hello,

I wonder if you would be willing to look into this, you recently protected the Azad Kashmir article from editing after a flurry of edits there. I am not contesting this action, however there now appears to be a POV fork on this article. If it's not too much trouble could you have a look at the Pakistan occupied Kashmir article? Or should I be going to third opinion for this? Pahari Sahib 01:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a centralized discussion thread WP:CCN#Azad Kashmir & Pakistan occupied Kashmir#here. Both articles are fully protected pending a reasonable outcome from that discussion. I will be monitoring the discussion to make sure it remains reasonably productive and civil. Let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns, caknuck ° is geared up for football season 05:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly a POV fork without a doubt. In the same way that an article named "Albanian occupied Kosovo" would not be tolerated, I suggest to be bold and deleting the fork. Any usable information would need to be merged with the main article. Having two or more separate entries for ultimately the same subject does not help at all to advance consensus. Regards, --Asteriontalk 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Kashmir

"Azad Jammu and Kashmir" would be the most appropriate title for this article since that is the name that the self-governing state calls itself. See the state's official website at http://www.ajk.gov.pk/main/. Also, the following sentence in the article is written in very poor English and should be deleted on those grounds alone: "Azad Kashmir is referred by India as 'Pakistan-occupied Kashmir' converseley Pakistan refers the Jammu and Kashmir as 'Indian occupied Kashmir'." Atelerix (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caknuck, this is a request for you to remove your protection from the article "Azad Kashmir" so that the major contributors to the article may continue to update it with new information. Please indicate your response to this request. Atelerix (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuperAntiSpyware

Hello Caknuck. Not sure why you protected SuperAntiSpyware against re-creation. Sure, spam should be deleted but (see my cmt on RFPP) it could and probably should be re-created in non-spam form. Protecting the page does not allow for that, whereas putting the page on your watchlist easily takes care of spammish re-creations. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a more lazy but pretty effective solution is this: we both put the page on our watchlist and just block the spammer. If at some point the page is re-created, we'll see if it's the same spam and block that user. I can't imagine that he'll try every other day to put the spam up. And of course, if some neutral stub is created well we'll just be happy! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm so lazy I'm not going to check! I'm sure you know what you're doing. In any case, I'll put it on my watchlist if the spammer returns. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP Vandal

Hi, it looks like the IP vandal you have blocked is back with a new IP: User talk:203.59.142.159 -- [2] (I don't know how to show this very well, sorry). I'll help out if you'd like but my skills are quite limited.

JeanColumbia (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that you warned User talk:207.237.242.26. This IP vandalized another article [3], which I reverted. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

HI, how on earth do I get a response for the reinstating of the OPEN IPTV FORUM Page, I have a real problem understanding the method... Please help, I have done all I was requested to do! Thanks CdEsclercs --CdEsclercs (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I make redirect for you

See Wikipedia:Dude, it's a frickin' online encyclopedia. Chill out, already! and Wikipedia:DIAFOECOA. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's frickin' awesome! caknuck ° is geared up for football season 08:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Azad Kashmir

I deleted a rant accusing you of being a pakistani propagandist (I think, it was rather incoherent). This is getting really out of hand, going to watch both pages. Zazaban (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Captain Spleen

Is it too much to ask for stronger language against this user? He was not merely editorialising: he was defaming an entire country with racist nonsense. BillMasen (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better?

Is this better way of handling new users User_talk:JonathanUSAJ#Rough_start? Nsaa (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle this

How can I better handle the edit war going on here Gotta_Kick_It_Up!? Nsaa (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For this. DocteurCosmos (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Could you please semi-protect again Ferdinand Magellan ? The semi-protection you made is no more active.
Thanks. DocteurCosmos (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reaction. DocteurCosmos (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor requesting unblock

Hello Caknuck. Please see the request for unblock at User talk:67.236.237.245. He is promising to not vandalize again, and you can decide if you want to take any action on that or ask further questions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another related request at User talk:Jwjkp. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response over at User talk:67.236.237.245. You said you would 'monitor all the contributions from this IP range for a relapse.' Inquiring minds want to know how you can do this. I am a newbie in range-blocking, but in the past it would have been helpful if I could have seen a combined contribution list for anonymous editors from the whole range to see if any good-faith IPs would be inconvenienced. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial

Can you take a look at Holocaust denial (It looks like someone tries to remove some categorisations [4]) Nsaa (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball 2K9 - No longer needs protection

I think you should consider unprotecting MLB 2K9. I was the only one who was vandalizing it and now since I have a valid account the protection is not even affecting me. No sense in leaving it protected since I was the only one doing it, and have since stopped.

Its probably in the best interest of the article to be unprotected, since this is a game being developed and will probably have tons of anonymous people wanting to add their knowledge of updates to it over the next few months. Jwjkp (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Aiken

If you're online, would you mind reverting yourself on the Aiken article? I'm asking you because the edit came in after the protection, so it's problematic for anyone else to make the change. You're more than welcome to add it back once protection is lifted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This may be resolved as soon as tomorrow. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of a template redirect

I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Content?

Hi there, is it possible to to view content from an article that's been deleted?

I should elaborate; I made rather a fool of myself here, now I like to think I've "seen the light". I'm writing about this "epiphany" on my user page, and wanted to include some excerpts of this article's hilariously appalling cruft. So is it possible to view this article's content, now it's deleted? Thanks for your help, Ryan4314 (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC) :)[reply]

AfC news

Dear AfC participant,

  1. Msgj and Tnxman307 are organising the AfC challenge! It's a little competition to help improve some of the articles created through AfC and we are hoping that everyone will get involved. For level 1, you just need to bring a stub up to Start-class. Level 2 is improving a Start-class article to C-class. And so on. To get involved or for more information please see the competition page.
  2. Those of you who haven't reviewed an article recently might not have noticed the new process that was implemented this year. Reviewing articles is now more enjoyable than ever :) You might like to give it a try. All articles waiting for review are in Category:Pending Afc requests. (Please read the updated instructions.)
  3. Please consider adding {{AFC status}} to your userpage to keep track of the number of articles waiting for review. At the time of writing we are officially backlogged, so help is needed!
  4. There is currently a proposal to bring the Images for upload process under the umbrella of WikiProject Articles for creation. The rationale is that both processes are designed to allow unregistered users to take part more fully in Wikipedia, and partipants in each process can probably help each other.

If you no longer wish to receive messages from WikiProject Articles for creation, please remove your name from this list. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caknuck/Archive_5&oldid=1141253254"