User talk:FunPika/Archive/Jan-June 2007

C. S. Lewis

Hi, I noticed that you have failed the C. S. Lewis article's nomination for GA status. You give the reason that the article needs to use in-line citations, but the good article criteria state that "the use of inline citations is not mandatory". I had already established from ExplorerCDT on the talk page that the article's citation style was not an issue, so I'm a little confused. Could you please clarify? Martin 00:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RFPP - request

I have decline your request, out of courtesy the reason for declining this request is this policy Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Gnan garra 14:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Reverts to Avatars article

Could you explain why you are reverting MisfitToys's copyedits to this page? [1] They appear correct. WjBscribe 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just misunderstood why those edits were made. I need to find an article explaining "copyedits". Funpika 22:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Copyedit is really just another word for proofreading. As to the changes themselves. They'll be explained on one the manual of style pages. Probably WP:MOS-L. WjBscribe 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalwarning

I hope you do realize that there are a great deal of people helping work on reducing vandalism on articles featured on the Main Page. If I accidentally reverted over another version because the previous one was vandalized, then I apologize, but I don't think a warning is called for. Just a thought. --Steven 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the warning from your talk page right now. Funpika 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I'll take care to revert vandalism quicker from now on so I don't override someone else again. --Steven 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii

I noticed that you voted on the Wii's FAC. Being a Nintendo fan also and knowing rules of FAC, would you please mention that you are a Nintendo fan or abstain due to bias. Usually, it is good etiquette for people associated with the article to not vote, but rather improve the article. The Placebo Effect 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the vote. Funpika 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove it, just cross it out with your reason The Placebo Effect 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a single edit from Funpika in the Wii article. Being an aficionado of a certain topic doesn't de facto disqualify you from supporting an article about it. Funpika, if you honestly feel that the article fulfills the proper criteria, you should support it, and neither does one have to point it out in the support unless one really feels it is necessary. Placebo, I believe you should be more careful about handing out proscriptions like this.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crawdaunt

Am I allowed to remove this article from the PokeProject's Current Focus Section now?(It's a GA.) Vikrant Phadkay 16:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA was the goal? Fine with me. Unless you want to make sure it reaches Featured it should stay. Funpika 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Thank you so much! It's so nice to be thanked. I appreciate it. Will (aka Wimt) 22:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Funpika 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

142.214.60.130

Noticed you gave a last warning for blanking to this user who has blanked another page Computer networking. Inseeisyou 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you talking about? Funpika 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an only warning to him for a different page today. Funpika 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning to Leafyplant

You warned me for restoring Kings after it was blanked. [[2]]Leafyplant 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must have accidently clicked on the wrong user. Sorry. Funpika 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

archiving WT:PCP

while i appreciate your efforts, there were a couple discussions you removed where the last post was not five days ago. We have to assume that not everyone checks the page every day, and just because no one posted to a topic for two days (or in one case, one day) does not mean that the matter is over and there doesn't need to be any more discussion on the subject. You should retain at least any topic that had been posted to within the past seven days, and that's really only when the page is becoming unmanageable - usually due to several large discussions going on at the same time. I'd appreciate it if you restored any topics that had posts for this past week. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crawdaunt

Hi, I have just edited the nomination page so you might want to see before making major changes to the article. Vikrant Phadkay 11:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review work for Version 0.7

Hi Greeves, welcome to the Wikipedia 1.0 team (a little late)! You may be pleased to hear that our first CD release will be coming out in late March. Now I'm wanting to get reviewing fully under way at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations, and I see that you've signed on to help. To help new reviewers, I've written a reviewing FAQ page. Can you take a look at the to do list, and see if you can help us out? If you have any questions, please leave me a note. Many thanks, Walkerma 04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pitching in to help! Walkerma 01:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning on my talkpage

Hi. Administrators have to stay on top of vandalism using rollback, which occasionally results in a rolling mistake when vandalism is reintroduced, especially when a wrong link is clicked. I am removing your comment from my talkpage, including the warning, which was not necessary. In cases where administrators make mistakes, your best course of action is to leave a note on their talkpage stating "Hi, I believe you reverted the wrong IP during the confusion", and not issuing a test warning meant for IPs and newcomer editors who are fooling around, not those who are administrators who have been around for two years and have never vandalized. Keep up the good vandal fighting though! — Deckill er 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining that. Funpika 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, I can understand your approach to that issue. — Deckill er 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

It's a small world :) Thanks for passing the article. — Deckill er 23:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppetry

Having looked at the accusation I can see why you would think that, but I can assure you that Political Avenger is not a sock puppet, but merely a friend who agreed with me and at my urging registered so that he could vote with a user name rather than an IP address. However we had both read the page over a week ago and had been discussing what to do before either of us registered, me so I could start the AFD, and him so that he could vote in the debate. I understand how a quick registration and vote would look but the registration was done to make it clear that we were not going to hide behind IP adresses rather than to try to fool any one. Politicalwatchmen 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be safe I should at least request that Checkuser is used on you. It would give accurate results of if you were using a sockpuppet or not. However you mentioned that Political Avenger was your friend. Could this be a Meatpuppet? Funpika 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just checked the checkuser policy and until the vote has closed I can't checkuser. And that is only good if it even effects the outcome. Funpika 00:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure if it would be considered a Meatpuppet, he regularly reads wikipedia, and has edited from IP addresses before, and would have voted using an IP address, however I said that a registered name would look better than and IP, so I'm not sure if that would count. The request for him to use a registered name rather than an IP was a sincere one. Politicalwatchmen 14:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

poke portal

i've updated a lot of things and reimplemented sections that were missing (collaboration, dyk, news), i worte out more details at Portal talk:Pokémon. I noticed you wrote that the dyk would be updated every monday... well... it's monday! good morning! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pokémon RPGs

Just curious, why did you nominate the article if you would oppose it anyway? I find it a little strange, normally the nominator thinks it's ready. Please leave a message on my talk-page. TheBlazikenMaster 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further responde. Check my talk for more details. TheBlazikenMaster 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move page

I was wondering if you oculd use the "move" tab to archive WT:PCP and then just copy the old topics over. It looks really awkward to have some archives moved over (some by me, some by others) and some just cut-and-paste. At least we need to decide on a consistent method. Hbdragon88 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The time for a new archive has come (wow, 211k, we REALLY need archiving). I will use cut-and-paste as that is the last one used. I honestly hate how the moved archives always have talk page guidlines on them and no "this is an archive page" template. Funpika 11:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Click _remote.png

I have provided a statement of fair use rationale and removed the warning template. Please let me know if this is acceptable. Thanks. Jerry 00:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend using Template:Fair use rationale (or if a relevant WikiProject has a fair use rationale template you can use that) instead. I will allow you to do that. I will not replace the fair use warning. Funpika 00:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism

A lot of time when I try reverting the latest vandalism, I get a message saying there's an edit conflict, usually another user has reverted it. Since the featured article is heavily watched, I thought sending the warning was merely making the process more smoother. Spellcast 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, do you have popups? It makes reverting a lot easier. Funpika 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I actually used popups for the first time today on Scooby-Doo, although it tends to lag. Spellcast 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for warning User:87.186... to stop vandalizing the Immortal Technique article. No matter what I do (add categories, fix links, add a few words to the article), he keeps reverting it, and he also called me "stupid as fuck" twice. Can you block him if he does it again? I already told him to stop, several times. See here: User talk:87.186.32.37. However, blocking him might not be the solution, because, I don't know how this whole thing works but he always comes back with a different IP, but it is always with the 87.186 in front. Just look at Immortal Technique's history. --- Efil4tselaer

Your welcome! But I had to warn you because you launched a personal attack against him. The warning is on your talk page. Funpika 00:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... And when he called me stupid as fuck twice, keeps reverting all of my edits, and still is rude to me after I try to be nice to him, what is that? Nevermind that, I want to know what you are going to do about him if he does it again, since he always edits with different IPs? If you block him do all the other 87.186 users get blocked? --- Efil4tselaer (talk · contribs) 00:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only warn for one thing at a time. I chose vandalism in this case. If you wish you may warn him for his personal attacks against you. Also, I am not an administrator, I would have to report to WP:AIV and wait for an administrator to do so. The administrator will decide if a range block is needed. Funpika 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-warn

Nice work. Your edits certainly improved it IMHO. Rgds, --Rebroad 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to know that you like my improvements to the template. Funpika 18:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whatever turns you on, I guess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.186.188 (talk)

Thanks for protecting my archive

I think the anon IP might be related to a user who is edit warring on Mammary intercourse. Ronbo76 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gimme a break man. its my little brother who is all messed up with this wikipedia thing. i only use it for my projects, to get info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.178.104 (talk)

You should create an account if you don't want to suffer because your little brother is a vandal. Funpika 13:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging images with I4/I6

It isn't really necessary to tag images with I4 or I6 - admins go through those categories even if nobody tags the images. HOWEVER, what is useful and helpful is to orphan them, meaning, to remove them from any article that they are in. Please only do this in an unquestionable case - in other words, there is no question that the image cannot be used under Wikipedia's policies. (If it is a pro forma requirement, like a rationale missing from a DVD box cover when the rationale is obvious, it's better to just add the rationale.) But if there is no copyright tag, no source, or the image is something that obviously doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies like a recent news media photo, a "fair use" image of a tree, a photo of a living person, etc, removing the image from whatever articles it is in can help immensely. So if you do tag something with I4/I6, please make sure that it is removed from all articles first. Thanks! --BigDT 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pokemon portal again...

i thought you were gonna help me with this thing? i guess you've been busy though. i was wondering if you wouldn't mind cleaning up Portal:Pokémon/Topics and the news sections? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh well i feel like an a*s now... just read your sick sign... hope you feel better soon! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now better. :) First we should return the portal to its original layout because our parent projects use that layout. I will revert to the last version where we were in that layout. Funpika 12:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!! Why??!?!?!?! If you really didn't want it that way, why did you let me go on for so long with it? It's ok if you've been sick... but i last left it up to you in March. you never responded, so i assumed you were ok with it. Over the past few months if spent a lot of time on this format. I don't want to butt heads with you on this... but I fail to see why we need to do what our parent projects use. Portals are meant to reflect an entire topic, not a specific project. As such, each topic will have it's own needs. There's a lot to pokemon, and i just thought it was better organized the other way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a lot less Pokemon related articles one the mega-merge has been completed FYI. And I look at multiple VG related portals and not a single one of them use the science format. Funpika 13:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i understand your reasoning, but i don't see why we need to follow what other portals are doing, no policy or guideline says that related portals need to be navigated similarily. it has nothing to do with how many pokemon articles there are, it has to do with the fact that to convey the same amount of information that there previously was would make the single page very long and crowded. To make our portal look something like say Portal:Nintendo, isn't a step foward but a step back... even worse is Portal:Sonic. Color scheme aside (magenta text on blue background?), they just crammed their templates into it. My point is that portals are like articles. An article on video games is not going to be set up like an article on Pokemon and neither should the portals be. The primary goal of a featured portal is ease in navigation, a huge long list with boxes that are placed in no real logical order doesn'r help people navigate. By reverting to the old format you've removed the news, dyk, reverted to a sparse listing of categories, and removed templates and related wikiprojects. I put this all in very slowly to allow for people to discuss things as i went. but you made a massive revert without any discussion, changing the format two months after it was implemented. rather than merely reverting you have the obligation of preserving implented material. the categories, sections from the old version of To-Do and the Portal:Pokémon/Pokémon news section need to be put back on the page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work now ?

Hello I am Barnie the purple stuffed animal! --213.207.178.104 14:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You signed correctly! However, I recommend going to the sandbox for test edits, not my talk page. Funpika 14:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i love you... you love me... lol, you made a friend!-ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Funpika! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits on the Sarah Connolly talk page? Was I breaking a rule? Isis4563 21:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put back the bold text. That is why I reverted. Vandalproof didn't bother to let me check your assessment of Sarah Connolly. You may remove the warning. Funpika 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know that I put bold text on the page. Sorry. Isis4563 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RAB article

You have reverted a version of the article containing blatant and unsourced original research (as was specifically stated in my previous edit summaries and in the long discussion there is on the talk page), including various spam external links.

Besides, I can't see Michaelsander's justification in his edit summary.Folken de Fanel 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I screwed up. I get it. Funpika 22:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's ok, I know it's not easy to get a clear picture of the thing when there are reverts and talks everywhere and from everyone...Folken de Fanel 22:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research. There is a reliable source there. Michael Sanders 11:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research and there is no reliable source there.Folken de Fanel 11:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source, there Folken. And would you like to specify why it is OR? Michael Sanders 11:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source there, Michael. It's OR because it's the original thoughts and theories (hence éoriginal research") of a wikipedia contributor, who has not reliably sourced anything'. That's his own reasoning in the article.Folken de Fanel 11:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is (or rather was, before the text was removed) a source, Folken. And, unless the contributer who sourced the paragraph to Langford was lying, it is the 'original thought' of Langford, and thus allowed by wikipedia rules. Or do you want to accuse wiki-editors of falsifying references? Michael Sanders 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No there was no source.

No contributor sourced the paragraph to Langford. It is only used in an unreliable way that some fans believe this, but the thought process, the speculations, deductions, suppositions, hypotheses are not sourced to anyone.

It is not the original thought of langford, since he's nowhere mentioned in the speculation process, but only the original thought of the contributor.

I accuse wiki-editors to write their own theories and to ignore WP rules. Some have added unreliable and unrelated sources thinking it would excuse the blatant OR in the article, however it doesn't work like that.Folken de Fanel 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have realised that you stepped into a bit of a fight here. Folken does not believe that any online source of information about HP constitutes a reliable source, nor indeed that an established author whose business is writing about other people's fiction is a reputable source. I happen to disagree, as does Michael. It is entirely correct for us to report even the most crackpot theories about something provided they are from someone else, and we didn't invent them. In this particular case, the idea that the locket at Grimmauld place was quite likely the horcrux locket was widesprerad about 1 week after publication of HBP. It is just that Folken has decided to be difficult about it, for reasons best known to himself. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the revert that you did, nor is the material in question unsourced, and Folken knows it. Sandpiper 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. What I reverted was blatant OR, but you just kept re-adding it. You tried to use an unreliable source as an excuse for it, however it didn't change anything to the OR.

Where's the source for this ?

The article, as it is, presents the supposed location of the horcrux as fact extracted from the published book 7, while the "source" only backs up the fact that some fans believe this. To present the supposed location of the horcrux as fact, you need a (reliable) source.

And there is no source whatsoever.

We don't know where these allegations come from, we don't know who formulated them, what their reliability is...In short, we know nothing. And this paragraph is blatant OR, and that you add a ridiculous "source" saying "many" fans believe it doesn't change the fact that the formulation is utter OR.

It doesn't matter than threw an excuse of a source at the end just for the sake of claiming it was "sourced", the formulation was still OR stating the speculations of a contributor as if it were facts carved in stone. And there is no source for this.

Your source is here only to accopunt for the fact that there are people adhering to the theory, however the theory itself, as it is abruptly developed and asserted as fact in the article.

For the rest, the various policies states that a reliable source has to be relevant to the subject. The subject is HP, not "science fiction" in general, and the book you want to use is the very first book the author has written about HP, thus he cannot be a reliable source. He has not been published enough about HP, and he has not been enough quoted by other reliable external sources.

I have to correct you also: no it's correct for us to report even the most crackpot theories about something provided they are from someone else. The thing is not "it's not from me". The thing is that it must come from a reliable source.

Besides, such theories are not even relevant to the subject of the article, which is R.A.B. Stating the horcrux was kept at Grimmault Place is only a synthesis to advance a point, that Regulus would be R.A.B., which is still unknown.Folken de Fanel 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting tired of getting the "You have new messages" banner appear every time one of you adds to this discussion. I don't believe I am involved in this discussion other than for the fact that I mistakenly reverted an edit by Folken de Fanel. Can you please continue this discussion on Talk:R.A.B.? Funpika 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros GA

As I am the one who put it up, if you are still reviewing it please let me know. Thanks!Quatreryukami 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Thank you Thank You Thank You! This is the first art I have been able to promote, and it was also my first attempt at one. Thanks again. I welcome any further input to get it FA. Happy Editing. Quatreryukami 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Userbox page

Ok, I saw your comment on WP:TR took the liberity of creating the WP:RUBX, tell me what do you think of this page :)

Nevermind the draft, I just took and changed the words of WP:TR Af648 09:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need specifics. Look at my draft (link on userpage). Funpika 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, ok then. Af648 03:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy just redirect our WP:RUBX, i'm going to discuss this over with him on the WP:TR page... Af 648 09:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defcon

Sorry that you couldn't edit it because of my cascading protection! I was playing around with it as a test, but completely forgot to unprotect. Thanks for the kick :) Cheers, – Riana ^ऋ 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PokeDescription

I've never heard of Pokestart, much less seen it or what it does, so I can't say how they differ. From what i gather, though, Pokestart was a collection of incongrous information.--Tempest115 19:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was extremely similar to the pokedescription template. It was substed into the pages so the information it contained still exists on the pages it was placed on. Let me guess, seeing that 493 fictional species... thing is why you made PokeDescription. That information is the remnants of Pokestart. Funpika 20:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About my CheckUser request

I think that you misinterpreted the logs. The logs I cited are the records of the actions that the administrator turned vandal took, not the logs of what actions were taken against that user to deal with his or her damage. Therefore, I filled the User: field and left the Title: field blank. If I had filled the Title: field and left the User: field blank, I would have gotten the log of what actions were taken toward that user. Also, administrator actions do not generate diffs. They generate log entries. Since I thought that the logs were close enough to diffs, and you seem to disagree, I changed the code letter to G, though I think that code letter C is better. Jesse Viviano 21:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shuana Anderson

Belkwriter Funpika, why was my submission redirected to Doctor_IQ. The woman was inducted into the Smithsonian for cultural African American Food. You requestd a redirect to the Doc_IQ site. Can you please explain what one has to do with the other?

It was not. A separate request (DR IQ) was redirected. Funpika 00:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belkwriterthanks.

User:Gwernol

Hi there; just for the record, my intention was to totally protect this userpage, and looking back at the record it would appear that I had done so. I am happy to be educated: what indication have you that I failed to fully protect? --Anthony.bradbury 23:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I am not an administrator, and can edit that page. Funpika 23:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a very fair answer. I will attempt to find out why.--Anthony.bradbury 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the logs show if it is semi or full protection actually. That could explain why you did not notice it was semi-protection applied. Funpika 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it shows as fully protected. Would you be so kind as to attempt to make a (harmless) edit now?--Anthony.bradbury 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did so and reverted my edit immediately. Funpika 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that you have uncovered a bug in the system, which we are working

on. Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 23:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, also, you may want to put the full protection template back on. The semi-protection template I put on that page when it was only semi-protected is still there. Funpika 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: irrelevant comment

Did you notice the paragraph

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

in the 3RR policy? —Ruud 19:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you're support

I've been unblocked! I just wanted to thank you for helping me, and knowing that I was innocent all along. You're friend,--Kk rou ni 19:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your name

Just thought I'd share, your name is similar to my cat "Pika", short for "Pikachu". We wanted to wait for an orange tabby, but a tricolor tabby girl was just as good ;-) CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slumgum

You're absolutey correct, and I apologize for that mistake. I added the neutrals in the wrong place, and I thank you for fixing it. Please accept my apologies.--U.S.A. cubed 01:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Funpika 01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA

Cheers for your help with this, but is there any chance you could revert yourself for a day? I think it's best to wait just a little longer. :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional parameter in the "usernameconcern" ("uncon") template

{{subst:usernameconcern}} takes a single optional but very strongly recommended parameter: one or more sentences expressing the specific nature of your objection to the username. Please say it as gently but clearly as possible, while assuming good faith and presuming the possibility of innocent error or another reasonable explanation. For instance, {{subst:uncon|I think this name too closely resembles the obscene word "xxxx" in the "yyyy" language.}}; or {{subst:uncon|I worry that this name might be taken to imply an official role on Wikipedia.}} If provided, this objection will be cited in the warning, as a new paragraph following "could we discuss that concern here?" -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-bite

Please see my comment about the template at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-bite. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you agree since you just g7'd the template. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 01:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am commenting on WT:UTM. Funpika 01:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my page

Thank you for fixing my userpage. And FYI 84.9.229.240 (talk • contribs) is not my IP address. Thanks again! Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read my watch list wrong... but thanks for warning the user! Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 11 AFD page

Hey, Funpika. I was adding two AFD tags at once, and apparently this isn't a good idea because you put a vandalism warning on my page ;) I'll try to be more careful next time. Sartan 00:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a test warning, not a vandal warning. You should have the afd discussions created first before placing them on the tag. If they are created it is fine to place them both at once. Funpika 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal booth

Thanks for the heads up. I was not involved with editing it as such, I only copyedited and wikified it. Anyways, I have put my vote. --soum (0_o) 02:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usertalk Harassment by User:HalfShadow

After an honest mistake during recent changes patrol which involved reporting what at first glance appeared to be a username violation, User:HalfShadow has left person attacks (in violation of WP:NPA) on my usertalk. Afterwards, he has assaulted a harassment campaign which now culminates sending other users to comment on my user talk page. So far I have taken a policy of ignoring the harassment, and weeding out unwarranted comments on my page. Wikipedia's policy is clear (WP:VAND) that the removal of personal attacks (including harassments), and archival of comments at the user's discretion are not vandalism, contradicting claims by User:HalfShadow. Stoic atarian 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, let's see, shall we? You label pretty much any comment put your page as 'vandalism' or 'harrasment', you post a false vandalism report against me, and now you're trying to say I'm siccing people on you. Paranoid much? HalfShadow 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did not do so to my comment. Also, [3] and [4] did not get counted as vandalism. You do not appear to be assuming good faith. Funpika 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, neither is he. HalfShadow 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith is an important principle, but user User:HalfShadow is probably correct not to do so in this case. The "explanation" given by User:Stoic atarian is simply not true. As User:Lexicon has pointed out on his talkpage, User:Stoic atarian had been acting in exactly the same way for months before this incident, removing valid comments, calling them vandalism and reported people for vandalism. I see no point in the message User:HalfShadow left on User:Stoic atarians talk page, but that message is not the cause of his behaviour. Dusis 00:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re block

Replied on my talk. Moreschi ^Talk 18:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon 2

can you please remove this page for me i'm having trouble removing it. i'm removing it because i made and updated page, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon 2: Time and Darkness Exploration Team. Manplush 20:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Manplush[reply]

speedy deletes of user talk pages

I see that ypu tqagged a number of user talk pages for speedy delete on the ground that they were created by a banned user, when the creation involved nothing more than substing a welcome tempalte onto them. Are you sugestiugn that the users so welcomed are also socks of a banned user? if not i don't see why the talk page of a presumably valid user should be deleted merely because a sock puppet dropped a welcome first. I am happy to re-edit wit a different welcome template and take responsibility for the "creation" of the talk pages involved. DES ^(talk) 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will be good enough. Funpika 18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the welcomed users are not socks. But the pages I tagged only had one edit by the banned user in question (unless I missed one). Other than that no messages, warnings, etc. If there were I would have simply removed the welcome left by the banned user. Funpika 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Warning Templates

Hello. I would like to thank you for making some user warning templates. However, please make suggestions on WT:UTM before implementing them. We're trying to cut down on the number of the warnings, and make them simple. Thanks! --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that in the future. Funpika 20:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your userpage says you're going to upgrade to Vista Basic. As some advice...I don't think you should. Going from XP to Vista Basic isn't that big of a change. I don't think it's really worth it. I would recommend Premium, but if you have an XP system, it probably doesn't have the hardware for Vista Premium. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I don't have 1gb memory or a good graphics card. My computer is only compatible with basic. Funpika 20:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have only the minimum requirements for basic (512 MB) I wouldn't do it. It will slow down your computer a lot. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I saw that

I'm checking into it - thanks. Tvoz |talk 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2 image speedy deletes under G5 to undelete...

I undeleted the former, but the 2nd one wasn't under the name you gave me. Was it a typo? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I will get try the link again. Funpika 23:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your NPWatcher Application

Dear Funpika,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

«Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC meeting to discuss Version 0.7

Hi, I wanted to find out if you would be able to attend the IRC meeting on Version 0.7 on Sunday afternoon (US Eastern Daylight Savings Time). We'll be talking with the publisher, the bot writer and others about plans for the release. If you're not familiar with IRC, I can help you download the software - worthwhile, because most Wikipedia meetings are done on IRC. If you can attend, please sign up here. Thanks! Walkerma 03:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please don't label good faith edits as vandalism, and please don't start the warnings with a level 4 warning when there has not been a significant history of vandalism. Refering to this. Viridae ^Talk 03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]