User talk:Hut 8.5/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Note that if you want to retrospectively alter your signature, retarget a redirect or other really trivial change I don't really care. Hut 8.5 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Albigensian Crusade

Having discussed the withdrawal of GA with LuciferMorgan, I give notice that I am sitting down with the three classic original source texts (Puylaurens, Vaux-de-Cernay and de Tudèle - the last in the Livre de Poche edition as the Martin-Chabot is long out of print) to add the missing inline citations to this page. I do not intend at this point to make any textual alterations, but if comments are made which are NOT justified, be prepared to state your sources now. Jel 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You edited the page, therefore have an interest - I'm letting you know out of courtesy. Nobody's done a decent job on the citations, so I'm allowing anyone with an axe to grind to tell me to desist BEFORE I waste an evening doing what should have been done long since.Jel 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The GA gestapo put a warning up months back which has been ignored, that's enough warning for me, and I don't have time to waste on doing it that way. As a matter of professional standards I must confess they're partially right, even tho' the citations will be to the sources listed, there's not much else. Why Gestapo? I contrast with the Today's Feature on Shakespeare a couple of days back, which didn't list a single contemporary source, even tho' there's quite a lot available, resulting in commentaries on commentaries - at least the Crusade page listed exhaustively the classic sources. Anyway, this page has evidently been orphaned and dumped on because nobody's looking after it, it's an area which is a turning point for two nations' histories, and could become riddled with New Age folly. Time to do a decent job. Anyway, if you're not interested, fine by me, have a great weekend...fine to delete this conversation btwJel 17:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA?

Are you interested in adminship? --Agüeybaná 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems you already have some supporters :-) --Agüeybaná 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI

I suggested to take a look at WP:COI due to your edits. I never accused you of anything. Anyway, sorry. Dukered 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hut 8.5

Dude, you forgot to answer the questions! Ryan Postlethwaite 19:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your RfA for now to give you chance to answer the questions. You can certainly count on my support when you put it back up. If you simply chose not to answer the questions then please accept my appologies and readd it ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Nomination

Your welcome! Gd luck! --Boris 1991 21:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize

Between December 14, 2005 and June 7, 2007, I vandalized Wikipedia under my previous username (YechielMan) and under various IP addresses and alternate accounts.

I recently reviewed the contribution logs of all the accounts and IP addresses that I can recall having used. My goal was to identify all of the intentionally harmful edits I caused, and to apologize to the individual users who reverted those edits, or warned me, or blocked me.

Hence, I apologize to you and to all of the following users:

Adam Bishop, Amarkov, Antandrus, AntiVandalBot, Bdj (Badlydrawnjeff), Conk 9, CanbekEsen, DLand, Downwards, Eagle 101, Ericbronder, Gogo Dodo, High on a tree, Hut 8.5, Interiot, Jayjg, Jrwallac, Kingboyk, Kuru, Noclip, Patrick Berry, PFHLai, PhantomS, Pollinator, Rachack, Ranma9617, Rx StrangeLove, SlimVirgin, Tfrogner, TommyBoy, Vary, Woohookitty, Zzuuzz, and some anonymous IPs. (I also reverted one edit myself after it went unnoticed for three weeks.)

Thank you for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia against everyone who has attacked it, including my old self.

If you wish to respond, please do so at my talk page.

Best regards, Shalom (HelloPeace) 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi - i do not believe i have vandalised anything, i never edit wikipedia and i certainly did not know who Frederick Winslow Taylor was until just now! This is truly bizarre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.231.238 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably have a dynamic IP address, so someone else vandalised the page and you got the blame. Sorry about this - there's nothing we can do. Hut 8.5 06:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, let me know if you need any help technical or otherwise. 1 != 2 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Le Bal

Hi and a big thank you for removing the speedy deletion tag from my article. Appreciate it!Luckyles 19:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New admin school

Janitor's bucket with mop.jpg
Hey there Hut 8.5, Congratulations on becoming an administrator. Obviously, it is unlikely that you will know how to use the tools at first and mistakes are bound to happen, so if you would like to practice using them, with step by step guides to follow, in an environement that you can do no harm in, then why not pop down to the new admin school where we have pages on blocking, deleting and restoring pages, protecting and unprotecting pages and viewing deleted pages. Once again, congratulations and best of luck with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

polyethylene glycol

hey my name is thomas and im a grade 12 chemistry teacher im just writing you this message to ask you for a favor i just read the information on this topic (polyethylene glycol) and realized that all the information in regards to this topic is totally wrong and unaccurate. so please remove that page and all the information in it, all of my students are getting confused due to the fact that we are studying this topic in class but then they go home and try to research the thing that we do online but they get the wrong info so they come to class very confused, this is making my job alot harder. right now im writing an article and doing my own research on this topic i will have all the information ready to post it up on wikipedia in about a week so for now please remove that page thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomascs (talkcontribs) 06:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosfield School

Mate why do you keep reverting my posts back, what I said were all facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.6 (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Socket Puppet Attacks

I have observed that the user Special:Contributions/75.133.78.190 has vandalized serveral sites, including the Women Airforce Service Pilots article as well as a string of other sites on 22 October 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_Airforce_Service_Pilots&diff=166322589&oldid=166319001 -TabooTikiGod 17:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

They haven't done anything after their final warning. If they do I'll block. Do you have any evidence that that IP is a sockpuppett? Hut 8.5 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocked. Hut 8.5 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hinayanan article sandbox

You deleted Hinayana/Article Sandbox yesterday, according to its log. I do not agree with the explanation that this is a "non-controversial housekeeping deletion". Please restore it.

If you insist and can justify your insistence, I will then move it to a personal page and request deletion myself. However, I really don't know why anyone has a problem with it remaining where it was until we reach editing consensus on what is, after all, an extremely controversial topic. The article, I mean. As for whether article sandboxes are permitted in the main namespace, I understand that some people, apparently including you, don't like them. I have yet to see a genuine reason for this, however. Meanwhile, you have managed to erase quite a bit of work on a difficult topic, for reasons that are far from clear.

--munge 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

CUH2A

My new article got deleted while I was adding references. I'm new to Wikipedia and not familiar with how to attach links and references. The Wikipedia style manual says I can just type these but what strategy shall I use when folks like you delete articles which have the hang-on?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Canto4425 (talkcontribs)

Deleted image Doraemon hat.jpg

Hello, can you please do me a favour? I'd just like to ask you to help me to check what was the license tag being used before it was deleted by Misza13, please? I'm not wanting it to be restored, but I've found such image in the Malay Wikipedia, so I'd like to give the most suitable license tag over there. Thanks a lot! --Edmund the King of the Woods! 09:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism handling

Thanks a lot for taking care of the rogue user "Snuggle Snuggle Cuddle". If it wasn't for your help and speedy banning, i would have not kept up with his vandalism speed. One barnstar for a remarkable job!.

--Excirial 11:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request for IRFE

The page IRFE is a copyvio from http://www.irfe.cl/principal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=5, translated in Google (see http://www.google.es/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irfe.cl%2Fprincipal%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D4%26Itemid%3D5&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=es&ie=UTF8) --201.236.94.219 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC) (diegogrez)

page removal

why do you remove pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsf (talkcontribs) 07:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I, Stormtracker94, award the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar to Hut 8.5 for great works in deletion and reverting vandalism. STORMTRACKER 94 14:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Morph (Disney character)

You forgot this. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 22:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

You have a "fan", of sorts... [1] -- Gogo Dodo 04:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A notification

For this, I have changed your block of that user from soft to hard. If an account is softblocked for their name, but then creates a bunch of usernames that require hardblocks, it's best to unblock and reblock that account. Just so you know. Acalamari 16:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Good luck. Acalamari 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Zip Codes of the United States

Wikipedia shows that you deleted the Zip Codes of the United States. Why?? I use that almost every day. G. Franklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.253.246.194 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Belated, but...

Hello, Hut 8.5! I was going to congratulate you on adminship, but I forgot! Anyway, congratulations on your RFA passing! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well! (: Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

I saw you blocked this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.124.93.28 the 25 October and wanted to tell you he recently made an edit to James Deetz where he erased Published works and added "John Deetz was caught for smoking blunts at a party in colorado,

he is a drug addict!" Bewareofdog 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Derzhavina page you deleted

Since I was a co-author of the text you called a "blatant copyright violation" your deletion was a bit strange.

Nevertheless given the bureacratic limits you seemed to apply, I will rewrite the page but it's hard not to use the same text I wrote in the first place!!!

You will perhaps notice that the concerts mentioned in the original Yale text have already taken place, therefore the content was edited accordingly.

But I will submit new text. Careful though, you may find similar sentences in there which may cause further bureaucratic actions on your part!

Thanks - Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taskin1770 (talkcontribs) 12:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For me to poop on

As I've just mentioned to the person who tagged this, it is not even slightly an "implausible typo". It is a quote, which happens to contain a naughty word (oh noes!), that is discussed in the article. I'd appreciate you reversing the speedy deletion, though of course you should take the time to confirm what I've said first. Gavia immer (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought (and so did someone else) that it was simple vandalism. I've restored it. Hut 8.5 07:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Pointing to any other target, it would be simple vandalism :) It just happens not to be so for this target; in any case, it's restored now, so no harm, no foul. Gavia immer (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking that vandal and reverting my userpage. :-) --Mentifisto 07:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikzilla for details on this partuicular sock-vandal's history. Thanks, and sorry he's dragged you into this. - BillCJ 07:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your false warning on my talk page

Many people make the same comments in deletion discussions. It is very common. It is also common for Wikipedians to label the actions of those they disagree with as "disruptive." Personally, I think your deletion nominations are disruptive.--Neverpitch 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry

sorry... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.36.98 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

: )

you made me want to stop vandalism too...thanks..


Sda2762 21:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrick A. Reid

Good morning! I thought I'd bring the above article deletion discussion which you recently closed to your attention. The article you endorsed as a KEEP was a reproduction under a different of name of an twice nominated and twice previously deleted article, the second occasion included a deletion review which was also thrown out. The previous article was entitled Patrick Alexander (Cartoonist) and it appears the new article has been created stealthily by the parties unhappy at seeing the article deleted previously I'd suggest an overturing, or at the very a least a re-listing of the article in AfD under the previous name. Thanks for your time. Hen Features 04:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • EDIT: Having checked the creation date of Patrick A. Reid, it falls squarely on the same date the Patrick Alexander article was endorsed for deletion. It appears pretty clear what those upset at the deletion were up to! Given that the entire premise of the KEEP arguments hinged on the subject being notable, the fact the name of the subject is apparently so unimportant that it can be swapped and changed around at will appears to undermine the whole argument. Hen Features 04:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cieran 91 (talk · contribs)

I just wanted to let you know I lifted the block placed on that user. Based on his past contributions he appears to be a good faith editor. His claims of a school mate using his account when he forgot to log out seems very plausible to me. He thought his account may have been hacked but he claims to have changed his password and appears to have control over it once more. Please let me know if you have any issue with my unblock of this user. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Jyrki Katainen

So you are from UK? So what is it to you that we expose the Finnish criminal Jyrki Katainen? Perhaps 13,000 TEHY nurses would heavily disagree with you?! Not to mention they had the peoples support aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.85.77 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your block of 142.33.122.30

At [2] you blocked the IPuser. Please be aware I've now marked it SharedIPEdu. LeadSongDog (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thornton Aircraft Company

Très harsh deleting my one liner on this company. Suggest reinstate as it was valid information where there was none before. Ok, it did not assert significance. On those criteria suggest delete the Northrop article too since it does not either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.180.58 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Open Education Declaration

OK. I got my head around the CC copyright violation. You will be aware of this report [3] about Jimmy aligning copyrights. You'll also notice that he is one of the signatories on the declaration, so he's going to be a bit embarrassed as I've been pointing other signatories at it, and saying we might as well do the drafting here. --Simonfj (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm trying to keep a thread on the input here to the reply over here [[4]]

Your reply was,

Yes, I know Wikipedia is soon going to be migrating to a Creative Commons license, but until that happens the text can't be included in Wikipedia. Even if that wasn't the case, the text would have been deleted through some other mechanism since it wasn't any kind of encyclopedia article and Wikipedia is not the place for any kind of campaigning, as I'm sure Jimmy Wales will know. Hut 8.5 21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And I'm trying to confirm:

Thanks Hut,

Let me get this right. Even if, in the meantime, I get the guys at [2] to put a link to the GNU Free Documentation License, the founder of Wikipedia doesn't have the right to put a document (article) he has signed, whose core aim it is to further the Foundation's aims, on the site he set up?--Simonfj (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If they license the text under the GFDL then it will not be deleted straight away as a copyright violation. However, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and including text campaigning for anything is a violation of WP:SOAP, and this would likely result in the page being deleted in an articles for deletion discussion. Note that Wikipedia's policy of neutrality was strongly championed by Jimmy Wales, and I seriously doubt he is going to break it. There are other websites the Wikimedia Foundation can use to express support for the petition other than Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Hut, Just keeping the thread together. I'm using our exchange as an illustration of how conversations can't be followed (by newbies) due to the separation of 'inputs' and 'outputs'. If I'm missing something about how they're kept together here would you let me know. I'm taking it that OEDeclaration can be undeleted (somewhere) as and when this gets to the Trustees.

Just made an entry to the NPOV page [[5]] Please don't feel I'm in any way having a go at you. But if Jimmy can't campaign for something around here, then this NPOV policy is obviously blocking a lot of other people from reintepreting their old fashioned ideas about how 'policy' is meant to be implemented.--Simonfj (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Do you actually have anything from Jimmy Wales asking you to post the text on Wikipedia, or are you assuming because he's signed it that he wants it on Wikipedia? Hut 8.5 10:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


No, if I had've I would hve put it as a reference on the article. Even so, even kings have to obey the laws that stand. I'm assuming that Jimmy, as one of the signatories, will be thinking along the same lines as others who attended [4]. who point out that these kind of docs, unless they are hosted on a global library, where they can be edited, never become living docs. They never become encyclopedic because they aren't seen to be shared nicely. [5]

I could have referred to a Budapest Declaration, which this one is based upon (as Philipp says), and made the article about DeclarationS. But I'm using this as an example of why, because there is nowhere a New article writer can put a doc up (in an open space) and gather a constituency, newbies are presented with a deletion notice which, if they are not thick skinned (like me), will frighten them off. It's either that or a conversation is split between two users discussion pages, like wot we're suffering, and no one can read how NOT to be made to be seen as stupid.

The problem is that we are now at the stage in Wikipedia's development where we are beginning to synethesize similar docs. Remote groups are wanting to read off the same page rether than duplicating "me too" articles. So we need to improve the communications process, and use more relevant comms tools.

It's a bit much to expect, when you're patrolling 6, that you haven't a way to better orientate a newbie, especially after you see the need to shoot their firstborn. So let's see if this conversation, like the proposal I've just sent to Sue Gardner, doesn't act as a catalyst for improving the way we share our knowledge. Merry Xmas. --Simonfj (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)--

Groton School OTRS

I gave User:Epeabody, who recently inserted the abuse-allegation material there and created a (now speedy-deleted) walled-garden of sorts to support it, a 1-week block. He has emailed me, claiming he was just trying to add cites (i.e., his newbie mistake was cut'n'pasting the supporting articles rather than ext-linking them). Another user has asked me whether this block is excessive. I don't have OTRS access. Could you comment on this situation (blockability of user, whether abuse-allegation can be included at all with WP:RS (and how many cites needed), etc.? Both User talk:DMacks#The block of User:Epeabody and Talk:Groton School already have some discussion about it. DMacks (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm here because...

I would like to say hello. I enjoyed the site for a long time, and I am proud to finally have a firm user profile in this site.

I may not throw away all my paper encyclopaedias, but this site will be very useful. Thank you.

--Marianian (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help with user:216.204.49.50

I'm really sorry to bother you with this, I know you must be really busy - I didn't know where to post this for you to look at, so I put it here, sorry if this is the wrong place for this request ... I've been patrolling the 'recent changes' and this user is doing a lot of vandalism again ... I saw that you have personally blocked him before but apparently that wasn't enough ... can you please take a look at his recent contributions and judge for yourself if action needs to be taken - I would appreciate it if you could take a look when you get a chance - thanks, Ukt-zero (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Libutti

You deleted a page I started on Dr. Steven Libutti, I think for a copyright violation (G12 was in the deletion log). The data for this entry was obtained from a US Government website and as such is in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted.

I request that this page be re-posted on wikipedia as Dr. Libutti is one of the foremost cancer experts in the United States and an important addition to notable physicians on wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth364 (talkcontribs) 15:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Could you repost the page so I can edit it substantially?

Thank you

Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth364 (talkcontribs) 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Thank you and thanks for your helpful suggestions. I will work hard to improve it.

Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth364 (talkcontribs) 17:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I substantially edited the page which redirects now from Libutti to Steven Libutti. I included more references and internal links. Thank you for your suggestions as I think they significantly improved the page and my understanding of how to set one up. I hope the revision is acceptable.

Ken--Kenneth364 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)