User talk:Magister Mathematicae/2005-09

Category:Wikipedians of Mexico[edit]

Hello Drini this message is a invitation to categorize your userpage in the category: Category:Wikipedians of Mexico or in the adecuate sub-category and erasing your name from the equivalent list since the lists of users are in process of being transformed into categories. Remember: You can categorize your user page in more than one category. example: your actual location and your origin country.

for more info see: Wikipedia:User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location

Saludos. --Mnts 03:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SuperShadow VfD[edit]

Greetings: pawing through the SuperShadow edit history, I noticed you've edited the page in question before. I thought you'd want to know it is now the subject of a Vote for Deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperShadow. If you want, you could stop in there and cast a vote. --Maru 22:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I only fixed a minor problem. Since I'm not involved into the content, I'd rather not cast a vote. --(☺drini♫|☎) 17:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I (well, I have edited before, but mostly the Talk:), but that doesn't mean it isn't important that I vote, does it? A VfD isn't about whether you are expert in the topic, it is gauging the consensus of the community as to whether the article should be retained. Did you think it was an article worth deleting, not useful to anyone? Or did you think it was a good article upon a topic somebody may be interested in? Please say so on the VfD page -- unsigned comment by Maru

No. I refuse. Besides, it would be pointless as it seems consensus has already been built around that vfd. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 17:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?[edit]

Hi Drini! I see you have been activly pursuing some pretty persistent vandals the past hours and days, and your contributions history shows you to be an experienced user. I wonder if you would be interested in accepting a nomination for adminship, I was surprised when I checked Wikipedia:List of administrators and didn't find your name on that list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I was thinking of applying for the mop at some point, I wasn't sure I had enough merits yet. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 18:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Drini, your nomination is up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drini. Good luck! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drini, you have gained 10 support votes and 0 oppose votes. But your adminship request will be null and void if you don't accept it and answer the three candidate questions. Could you please check that? — JIP | Talk 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I wasnt online yesterday night ;) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 18:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem[edit]

Glad to help. Psy guy ^(talk) 19:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

planet math[edit]

There's a user called 'drini' on planet math, listed as one of the all-time heaviest editors at PM. I was assuming that's you, but thought I'd ask. If so, I was wondering if you were engaged in moving stuff to PM from WP, as well as in the other direction? linas 23:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Drini#Question. Oleg Alexandrov 00:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm the same drini, but I don't know of a substantial wp -> pm content moving, most of the content I created on pm was before I got into wikipedia. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I keep on interjecting when not asked. :) Moving stuff to PM from WP is tricky as one has to convert wikicode to LaTeX format. While that is easy for text, links and <math> tags, how on earth would one convert HTML formulas to LaTeX? Oleg Alexandrov 01:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

written permission to use the image Milaria Scotia Regium 1595.jpg[edit]

Since this was becoming huge moved to its own page: User talk:Drini/MilariaScotia. Please continue the discussion there. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 2 vandalism[edit]

Anyway we can lock down that page? I'm getting tired of reverting it. --Rayc 04:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I'm on watch (I had to do something for a few minutes). -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported them to WP:AIV hope that will do. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bro.[edit]

Thanks for catching and fixing that vandalism on the TLC entry. Glad to see I'm not the only one on Wiki looking out for my girls! :) Cjmarsicano 05:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Hello Drini, I looked through your user contributions the other day when I saw your nomination on FAC, and I thought that you'd be deserving of a RickK anti-vandalism star, on merit of resilient anti-vandalism. Do you accept? --Knucmo2 00:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sure :) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However I got to ask: which FAC???? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nitocris[edit]

I'm sure you would agree that heavy handed edits of topics a user is entirely ignorant of might profit by being entered into on a discussion page in the form of questions first. Rktect 02:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, what are you talking about? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your methodology. Rktect 23:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've nver touched Nitocris. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Do you have stairs in your house?

Yes I do. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 8583[edit]

It was either a narrow interpretation of G1 (no meaningful content — we knew only that they wanted to know about the standard, which has no meaning in an article sense), or A1 (little context — there was no way of determingin ab initio that the contents of the article were indeed an ISO standard unless you already knew that such things existed). Now I think about it, I prefer the interpretation of A1.

Plus, there's the fact that it was a question, not an article so could be construed as a user mistake or test that was 'obviously' intended for WP:RD. -Splash 06:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was askingfor information about ISO 8583. Thanks for the comment. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of it, but there's always WP:IAR if you really need it. I usually understand that to mean "you can bend a rule to breaking point if you are certain it is good for the Wiki" — i.e. if you reckon the heat you'll take for bending/breaking the rules will be either zero or small. Congrats in advance, by the way. Did I vote yet? <goes to see>...-Splash 06:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, but as it standed "I need to find online information baout ISO 8583" didn't stand much chance as an article, so I dropped him a note about it being better to use a search engine (that'd be quicker than waiting for someone writing an article on the ISO). -- (☺drini♫|☎) 07:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

automatic reverter?[edit]

I've noticed that from your reverting summaries, you seem to be using a special method to speed up page-reverting for non-administrators. If there's a program for speeding up reverts, I'd like to know how to obtain it.

Thanks in advance. :) --Ixfd64 06:48, 2005 September 13 (UTC)

It's a java script that gives you a "rollback" button on diffs, created by User:Sam Hocevar and which can be found at qwikly.com -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, sir! :) --Ixfd64 06:54, 2005 September 13 (UTC)

Hey wow (where did I come from?) that totally answered a question I had (who am I?). So let me 'me too!' a thank you. --W.marsh 22:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I demand that you stop with this infernal automatic nonsense at once! All of the joy has been sucked out of my antiquated vandal fighting as you always get there first. You kids with your fancy toys...
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaha, anyway, my request for adminship ends tomorrow, and then I'll have the even faster real button ;) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 07:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Checks to see if one "oppose" will tip the scales...) brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably... :) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 07:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the script didn't seem to work for me. I guess that it's imcompatible with certain browser versions. Thanks again anyways for showing me where to get it, though. :) --Ixfd64 08:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem here. It gets as far as "Getting article history..." and stops with "Error: Object doesn't support this property or method". I'm using IE 6.0 and JRE 1.5.0_04. Which are you all running? Owen× ☎ 00:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I'm an admin now, I can't tell. I no longer use it. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know...rub it in. :P Owen× ☎ 00:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to slow you down a little[edit]

Can you look at these Special:Contributions/165.247.42.72 and tell me what you think? I'm blasé enough about finances that I don't know, but mass creation of articles always make me suspicious. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this talk: is still on my watchlist from a minute ago — I saw the one Aaron tagged for speedy, and I thought about it but chickened out (so did Aaron; he didn't give a reason, although it's nearly A1). I disliked it enough that I didn't AfD it though. I can't find a copyvio, and they are so dispersed (geographically) that I don't reckon they're spam.I think you either have to keep them, e.g. S&P 1500 isn't so bad, or mass-AfD them as a merge to List of stock market indices. I do wonder where the material is coming from at quite such a rate though. -Splash 07:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I actually went to sleep a litlle bit before you guys posted that. I'm in a little bit of a hurry right now (got to see my thesis advisor soon) but I'll take a look later. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 16:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ON delete tag[edit]

Ooopsss, I think I didn't read anything about keeping the text; I am sorry, should I post it again? -- GalaazV

it's ok, no biggie. The keeping of text is just to save time of admins. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're a sysop![edit]

I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I've noticed that you used the real rollback button now. :) --Ixfd64 06:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

/me grins. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember - with great power comes great responsibility. :) --Ixfd64 06:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations with your mop and bucket and a fairly rare case of a unanimous support vote! Guess the RFA answered a resounding "Enough!" on your question, "I wasn't sure I had enough merits yet." :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sjakkalle, and everybody that trusted me and gave me their support . -- (☺drini♫|☎) 07:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calle Ciega[edit]

I've added my vote based on info I've dug up. Could you check back and either expand your reasoning, or consider retracting the nomination? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I apologize for the mistake. The new entry is much better, so I'll change my vote. How can I withdrawn the nomination however? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 13:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CSD criteria[edit]

Replied over there. --Blackcap | talk 21:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed test messages[edit]

How do you make detailed test messages so quickly? I'd like to learn too! :-) --HappyCamper 00:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using my templates {{test*-n}} For instance instead of {{test}} I use {{test-n|article name}} and I copy paste the diff url from my browser within [] to create the second link. Now doing all at once with tabs (one tab reverts from the diff, other opens the talk page, etc) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

This isn't vandalism, but it's the only way I know how to contact: From (68.47.26.123). You reverted an afd message that I deleted. Please do not do that, I created the deletion afd. And no body agreed to delete, so I sped the process. --anon

Once the voting started and people have voted, you cannot withdraw it even if you proposed it, since it the given time the poll lasts, enogh votes to change the outcome can happen. So no, you cannot remove the afd. This is regarding [1], [2].

However, this is considered vandalism: [3]. Likewise, this [4] is also considered vandalism. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't vandalism, but it's the only way I know how to contact: From (68.47.26.123). You reverted my page for a second time. I have told you once not to do that! Do not do that! If (I) delete something, then leave. (Do not) revert something on my discussion page that is not vandalism! I repeat, (DO NOT DO THAT AGAIN). I already know the process, yaddah-yah! If you're going to add anything to my page, make it useful. Don't throw that in my face, okay?68.47.26.123 02:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Message from anon user[reply]

Don't ever mess up with the comments on my talk page. Editing other people's signed comments it's vandalism. Read WP:VAND (regarding [5]) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself warned too. What you were doing is also considered vandilsm, and rude. Thank you very much, and don't contact me again. 68.47.26.123 16:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Final note: I'm not a vandaliser. That ^ is not the work of me. Other people have my IP adress, and I know some of them. I know all about vandalism, when I deleted the previous messages that I sent you, I was just trying to clean up your messy page. I was not acting with aggresive or rude action. So before you critize me, think of what you're doing.[reply]

Request[edit]

I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

test3[edit]

Hi, I can't help but notice that on at least 2 occasions today following reversions you've started at test3 on the corresponding talkpage, rather than test1, is there any reason for this? Regards, Mallocks 01:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in both cases the changes weren't merely tests (as from a new user) but were actually attemps at disruption. Several factors I take into account: obscenities, removal of large chunks replaced with nonsense, user had already several vandalism in their contribs (and hadn't been warned) or it was a recurring vandal that came after a block expired, etc... -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:KINGA QUEINZ! (Riven)[edit]

As expected, he's now back with a sockpuppet: User:I_want_Bleberries. Owen× ☎ 02:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also as User:ArageR, but I'm on watch. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your so-called sockpippets of User: KINGA QUEINZ! are actually socpuppets of User: Regara. -- comment by User:Someone...

Well I wans't aware, you may also want to tell User:OwenX -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True. I only realized this once I started collecting them all...hope I got them all now under the category. I don't think it really matters which of them was first, does it? Owen× ☎ 02:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many users may be misled by this. -- comment from User:Someone...

Currently there is a Wikipedia: Vandalism in progress/Regara that tells an interesting fact. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

( --unsigned comment from User:King Wario

POV template[edit]

Is there a good POV template to put in POV pushing talk pages? If not, do you think I should create one? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Category:Accuracy_disputes for templates that you may use. for instance, Template:Dubious, etc. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, a template for patrol, like test2 etc... but created to specifically address an anon POV pusher. Because the "This message is regarding the article Talmud. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked..." template isn't as instructive as it could be for POV issues. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of, but I haven't checked the templates about disputes either. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet watch list[edit]

Is it possible to have users added to a sockpuppet watch list? There are a few users who I suspect are using sockpuppets to do reversions against consensus on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. --Comaze 06:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not that I'm aware of. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing access keys[edit]

Hi, you asked on IRC about removing access keys. This javascript function does it, I think. Let me know if you need help using it. It only checks for access keys on links and input elements (buttons, textboxes and so on), but I think that this will suffice for wikipedia.

function removeAccessKey(key) {
  t=document.getElementsByTagName('A');
  u=document.getElementsByTagName('input');
  for (var i=0; i<t.length+u.length; ++i) {
    var s=((i<t.length) ? t[i] : u[i-t.length]);
    if (s.accessKey==key) s.accessKey='';
  }
};

// Usage: eg
// removeAccessKey('z');

Lupin|talk|popups 00:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THANKYOU^n -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it didn't work, at least using removeAccessKey('d'); didnt' remove alt-d shortcut. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the function works but I didn't give you instructions on using it properly. (You have to delay execution of the function until the page loads or there are no access keys to remove). Take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Alt-D_and_admin_powers for a better chunk of code (which also lets you remove more than one access key at once). Lupin|talk|popups 01:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I noticed that you removed the popups script after trying a local copy - were you trying to save time on the page load? If so then it may be worth trying again as I've put all the dependencies of the script into one file rather than spreading them out, which should make things considerably quicker. Cheers, Lupin|talk|popups 01:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I liked the popups, specially for the easy access to a block page from within an user/ip link. It's just that those days wikipedia was way slower than normal and I didn't want to add more loading time. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 17:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:199.8.13.1[edit]

Sorry if this isn't the correct format, I go to a university and the network IP address is 199.8.13.1, so when I came to the Wikipedia site tonight (this morning) I got a thing saying I have new messages, so I looked and it was regarding vandalism by an anonymous user using the IP address 199.8.13.1 on the Talmud article, so I guess some idiot who goes to my school was on here inserting their babblings. Anyway, I wanted to apologize on behalf of my school. Ben D. 08:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature: why not use literal Unicode characters[edit]

Hi,

Since Mediawiki 1.5, you can just use literal (driniM2|TEL) in your signature instead of the numeric character references (&#NNN) which show up in the edit window of a talk page. -- Curps 08:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any advantage? would it still work on the major browsers? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should display exactly the same... uh, by the way, what browser did you use to make that last edit (M2, TEL)? [6] -- Curps 20:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall if I was using either links or w3m (both text mode browsers). -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what you meant I guess in text mode the telephone got changed to TEL and when saving, it became letters instead of picture, but my signature was fine since it was rendered after I pressed SAVE. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you visit this website to find out what your user-agent string is (for the text-mode browsers), and then contact Plugwash (talk · contribs) to let him know... if your browser garbles Unicode characters, it's necessary to let Mediawiki know about it so that it can compensate. -- Curps 06:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links and W3M are known problem cases, the complication is that they are only noncompliant when used on a non-unicode terminal. The probable soloution is to put them into the bad browsers list but give users a way to override that list. Plugwash 14:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I use them often, but as I see plugwash is already aware of the issue. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 16:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to detect this automatically? In the login screen, maybe there could be a small edit window pre-populated with literal Unicode characters, and if that comes back garbled, then a non-Unicode-safe flag could be incorporated into a cookie or into the wpEditToken? -- Curps 18:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NLP article[edit]

Hello Drini. I noticed your reversion on the NLP article and can see that you have a great deal of experience. I have recently joined the fray due to a very obvious non NPOV presence there from NLP promoters. They do seem to have done a great deal of fact deletion over the past month. I am not so well conversant with NLP but I do have access to a great library. Anyway, it is really obvious when people are deleting large sections or doing dodgy stuff. No pressure, its just that another well experienced person looking in occasionally would be nice. Best regardsAliceDeGrey 03:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't want to revert that one, but I couldn't cancel the action once it was set in motion by mistake -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:168.212.65.126[edit]

Is everyone allowed to vandalize 1 page every day with impunity, like this IP? This one has been vandalizing pages since long ago, and received enough warnings. In case it matters, he vandalized Blue screen of death 3 times yesterday, and 3 different pages two days ago, isn't that enough? What is enough, anyway? --tyomitch 20:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but anonymous ips are blocked temporarily only (suually 24 hours). And WP:AIV is for inmediate action, he stopped, so I removed from it, perhaps you'd like to add it WP:VIP. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems to have ceased vandalism for a while, so there's no big deal. But what am I to do if it continues? list it at VIP? Have a mercy for me, I'm not very long around here to know all the policies. --tyomitch 15:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it persists, then you would want to mention it on WP:VIP. However if attacs fast and often, you go to WP:AIV. Finally, you can always drop me a note so I can take a look. I don't bite ;) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from RHaworth[edit]

Nice to know that someone is watching but 213.123.195.207 is my sock puppet. It is not my machine and I don't like to log on in case I get called away without logging off. -- RHaworth 02:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sir! -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test-b[edit]

Drini, I have created a template intended for notifing a user that a test has been reverted and references the article in question. It is tailored after {{test}}. I would appreciate your opinion and input. Thanks! Psy guy ^(talk) 03:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, but isn't it almost the same as Template:test-n ?

Vandal[edit]

Hi Drini. You might want to keep an eye on 82.117.194.66 (talk · contribs). It's an IP you blocked earlier for vandalism, but is also a large broadband proxy and was affecting a legitimate user, so I've removed the block for now. If it needs to be blocked again, please try to keep it short, if possible. Thanks. Angela . 04:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do, however neither the user, talk page wanr it about being a proxy, nor it shows on the list at the block page, and since I don't know ISPs ip ranges by memory, I set the block. Do you know the ip range for such ISP so I can take it into account in the future? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what range this covers. Often, it is just a case of trial and error, and adding {{sharedip}} templates when you block one and later get complaints about it. Checking the IP with a tool like dnsstuff can sometimes help, but often not. I wasn't complaining that you'd blocked them - I realise it can't be helped and proxies will get blocked like this - I just wanted to explain why I'd removed the block. :) Angela . 05:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for pointing me the issue. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Vote on Davien Crow[edit]

You said they are not notable. Please review the rebuttle I posted, the fact that everyone from Marilyn Manson to Suicide Girls and large internet sites like Roc Detector and Megametalonline and more importantly SMNnews should be proof enough are involved with Davien Crow and his band Sin Star should be enough ... But I have covered most of this already. I am asking you kindly to please review the facts and consider changing your vote to keep the article.

Look the point summarized is I am willing to work with you guys on why these were deleted but until now noone has given us any feedback and has even lied about stuff trying to get it deleted. All 3 of them meet the sufficient amount of requirements for WP:MUSIC, the guidelines in WP:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, Wikipedia:Importance, Wikipedia:Notability (the fact that suicide girls, gidget gein, and marilyn manson are involved and can be verified in those links should proove that) , Wikipedia:Fame_and_importance mainly the part stating "There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)" If you can't tell the community of Myspace.com and Livejournal.com alone are enough to meet this criterea you are blind. If you do google searches, go to forums and search their names, or visit internet archives you can find un-disputable information on the band from reputable sources, first hand accounts that are years older than these discussions, and intangible archives kept by internet archives. IF you want more detail read my above rant, your right I do sound mad about this, because I can't see how you can say they do not meet criterea or that this is a vanity page. Please accept my apologies for anything you have taken to be rude and please re-consider changing your vote. What Harm could it do ? BTW I am not trying to bully anyone, I can show you the location of the people threatening to come here and vandalize the hell out of Wikipedia. But I do not want that to be part of your decision at all. (please reference the large rebuttle on the discussion page itself)

I have posted this, I hope that some of you will consider looking for my information and reconsider your vote for now. A lot of people are simply responding to the rudeness of user:sin-thetik and some things I said are being misconstrude as threats. I am simply upset because of all the time it took to write these 3 articles, knowing they fit the guidelines, only to have somone delete them with the proof and verifiable facts right in front of them .. just their un-willingness to read them. Please think it over, I appreciate your time. I'm just a fan girl trying to be the first to get an article up about them since I have been running a fan site about them for almost 2 years now.

PLEASE THINK IT OVER G4DGET 05:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I though it over. Thanks. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rktect arbitration[edit]

Since you left a statement, you may be interested to know that there is now a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect/Evidence. -- Egil 13:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've been following the case. I was preparing new evidence other than it was gathered (from the egyptian and mathematics topics). -- (☺drini♫|☎) 18:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested on basic RC patrol[edit]

Hi Drini. I hope you don't mind me coming to you for a bit of advice on RC patrol. I'm just starting to spend a bit of time each day on it and I remember everyone being so impressed with your patrolling skills in your RfA your name stuck in my mind as being associated with it!

I just want to know whether I should be creating talk pages for anon IPs so as to warn them. I think I remember reading at some point in the past that you shouldn't create the talk page for an IP just to issue a warning if it's not already there, but I can't find that reference now. And how would I stand if I wanted to get an IP temporarily blocked but I hadn't issued any warnings?

I do like the test-n templates I've just discovered by the way. Good work :-) ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 17:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been tempted to put welcome tags on IP talk pages. I haven't yet... but it would be like putting all the advice there. But really, I've noticed most IPs doen't even bother talking... unless they are a serious wikipedian, in which case we should encourage them to create a user name. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 17:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just showed me the way to welcome IPs... tag them with Anon instead of welcome or subst:welcome... and I just thought of something, it might be a good idea not to sign those kinds of welcomes, because it might invite certain IP's to come and vandalize your page. Of course they can see you welcomes them in the history, but why invite touble? -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 20:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think welcoming anonips is going to help much, however you should (¿must?) create the talk pages in order to warn them when they commit vandalism (as to keep track of repeating offending ips). However keep in mind that not all that seems vandalism truly is, and you need to be gentle and treat respectfully everybody (even vandals). Anonips that haven't been warned can sometimes (under some circumstances) be blocked, but yes, warn them if you can (even if that needs to create the ip's talk page). another advice, regarding templates it's always better to use subst: (for instance: {{subst:test-n|article}} instead of {{test-n|article}} since for technical reasons, using subst: is easier on wikipedia's servers. I agree with NatsukiGirl about not signing anonymous welcomes (but I don't do those anyway). There are a LOT of new signed in users you can welcome better, try this: [new users log]. If you need any assistance or help, don't hesitate to drop me a note. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'll carry on making talk pages to warn IPs then. As regards being gentle, I'm grateful that the first {{test}} / {{test-n}} templates are pretty nice and assume good faith, but I have occasionally been starting with {{test2-n}} where the vandalism has been obscene / disruptive / persistent and couldn't possibly be interpreted as a good faith test. I trust this is the done thing! ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 20:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on my RFA...[edit]

I noticed that you voted on my RFA, but your vote seems a bit confusing. You voted "Extreme Phrozaic Support" under the oppose header. So...uh...which is it? I'm guessing support, but I don't want to fiddle with anyone else's vote. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing on RoyBoy's RFA. I've moved it to the "Support" area; if you were actually opposing, feel free to move it back and I won't mess with it any further. Ral 315 W_S 12:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed got things mixedu p last night, I'm fixing them right now. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 17:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Please look at the bottom of my talk page. For this reason I am dropping the mediation, and I urge you to use this in evidence at his arbitration that he is very uncooperative. R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:209.197.131.36[edit]

I blocked him for 24 hours; you later did so for 48. I believe that my block, since shorter, would take precedence, but I won't object if you unblock and reblock for 48 hours. Ral 315 W_S 02:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I think we almost blocked at the same time, I don't rally care if it expires in 24 or 48 ;) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be a sock puppet of "Bogdanov"...[edit]

Is it a joke ? Or, more probably, a way to put pressure on me in order to encourage me to keep "silent" ?

Igor lives in France, I live in Switzerland, how could you mistake us ? Our I.P. are completely different, of course... Moreover, on the "Bogdanov affair" talk page, there are a lot of people who know me, some of them personaly, and others just by Internet (mail and forums) : Igor himself, Catherine, LLL, YBM (who gave my complete name on his forum, I can give you the link if interested), Max (whom you put also in the list, while he's one of Bogdanov's worst enemies !), and surely others whom I forget... So please find out about it before accusing me !

Laurence67 10:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK... You didn't answer me, nor did you remove my user name from this ridiculous list... So, I will be more specific : as I wrote on the "Bogdanov Affair" talk page :

look at my edits of the 25 september at 12:20 and 12:35, on this page ! Between both, YBM was so kind to write himself, by reverting me at 12:25 : "195.186.234.183 = Laurence67.

It seems to me that it should be enough to make obvious I'm not a sock puppet, so please remove me from this list, otherwise I would have to think that this accusation is voluntary disinformation.

Laurence67 17:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

having different ips is not guarantee of being a different person, as anyone can edit from several different ips. I'm still trying to verify if you're or not. Since your only contributions have been related to Bogdanov affair and that the content you add is exactly the same as Igor, I suspect and therefore tag says "...this user may be..." . It's not an statement of you being the same as Bogdanov, it's a statement of possibility, so no disinformation is happening. I haven't answered since I'm still doing more research on the issue. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block on User:YBM[edit]

You posted the message regarding the block on his user page. I assume that you meant for it to reach his talk page, so I moved it there. Feel free to revert me if I'm wrong. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 23:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah I meant talk, I'm sorry. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your 3RR blocks don't count for those who are above the rules.[edit]

Drini,

you still haven't responded to my information about "the other guy" editing during this "indefinite" period where he was supposedly blocked along with me for 3RR violation. here is what i said to 2 other admins at the arb page

ya know, Ral315 and Snowspinner, for the 2nd time i was blocked for 3RR violation along with Igor who was blocked "indefinitely " ', and sat this out for 24 hours, while at the same time Igor just goes and gets another IP and edits the article anyway during the time that we are both "blocked" (during my 24 hours and his "indefinite" period).

does this matter to you? i've never been a 2^nd Amendment supporter, but now i understand what they mean when they say "When you take away our guns, only the crooks will be armed because, being crooks, they will not give up their guns voluntarily." (i'm still not a 2^nd Amendment supporter.)

you can throw all the 3RR blocks you want. with me they'll stick because i will not edit anonymously nor look around for other IPs to work from, but with Igor, it doesn't matter. he'll just shrug it off and do what he does anyway since he sees himself as above the rules. ever wonder how much he's laughing at you? r b-j 01:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I'm not throwing them to you. I also blocked the other party. If igor gets another p and reverts, somebody else (other than you) will undo him, and if he presists , he gets another block. The point is that nobody is taking out a gun of you, since you don't have guns. Igor doesn't have guns either. He is NOT above the rules -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Igor B. has just violated again the 3RR rule on Bogdanov Affair. You can read the relevant par of the discussion about the section Igor reverted on Talk:Bogdanov_Affair/Archive_4#About_Internet_dicussions and appreciate Igor's comment to his third revert : "I stand to my position. Look at the talk page (and don't forget, YBM, that you have only 1 revert left". --YBM 02:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Characters[edit]

I draw your attention to の (AfD discussion). Uncle G 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You commented on the other two. I thought that you might wish to comment there, as well. It's on a different per-day page, so you might have overlooked it. Uncle G 03:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yah I saw, but I'm not commenting anymore, seems like it will be a keep -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HumanMandala[edit]

Sorry about that. I went into the delete box and then got sidetracked and didn't actually delete it for a minute or so. You must have protected it during that time. Academic Challenger 03:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok I was just curious -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LLL can't post[edit]

Hello, I received a message from LLL. I believe you have blocked that user and consequently, LLL cannot post anywhere, neither here nor on the arbitration page as called for by Snowspinner. Can you indicate what LLL can do to respond and offer some explanations ? You may reply on LLL's user page. Thank you. CatherineV 12:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a sockpuppet that's what the tag says. It's just an unfortunate coincidence that the account was created at the precise time an edit war was being engaged. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, given that he's one of the involved parties on RFAr (Max Ephysique was not for instance) I'll lift the ban so he can contribute to the RFAr (I missed that point and I apologize) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Catholic[edit]

Thanks for the help with the revert sillyness there. I apologize, but I put in a 3RR report this morning before I read your block on this person. Dominick 14:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but , what's your point? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked vs Banned[edit]

I assume you meant this to be the blocked template? The distinction is confusing enough for our regulars, let's not confuse the newbies too much, even if they are spammers. --fvw * 16:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much difference, except this makes explictly the blocking time and test5 not, so I reckon this is less confusing. Bue perhaps I'm the confused one, can you explain the difference to me? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm fine with using {{blocked}} (apart from not knowing of its existence before I checked after I found your use of banned). My point was that admins only give blocks (a technical measure) whereas bans come from the community as a whole, the arbitration committee, the wikimedia board, etc. and are formal "We don't want you to edit anymore"s. --fvw * 22:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was thinking you were referring to Test5 , I wasn't aware of "blocked", makes more sense, thanks. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Max.Epiphysique[edit]

I have taken the liberty to unblock Max.Epiphysique, who does not seem to be a sockpuppet of Bogdavov, at a first glance; also, several people protested that he is not.

This being said, the page is still under close watch, and users, including of course Max.Epiphysique, who would behave improperly or disturb this already troubled article, can absolutely be blocked.

Cheers ! Rama 19:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Man[edit]

Just curious how you read my comments initially (obviously they weren't clear enough). Guettarda 22:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I made a mistake, I thought I had undone myself -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Please take a look here.--chris.lawson 03:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting involved -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Just wanted to give you a heads-up in case you had an opinion.--chris.lawson 04:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Melchizedek[edit]

Hi there, I just was hoping you could go over and make some comments on what is being said on the Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek page. We are trying to gain a consensus and then basically go to other articles on DOM and gain consensus so that the vandalism and false claims stop in those articles. If you'd like, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks.. Davidpdx 9/30/05 6:10 (UTC)

Speedy vs Copyvio[edit]

Please don't use the summary "speedy" when tagging a copyvio, speedy means an admin can delete inmediately the entry, whereas copyvios not. I know a proposal is being made for speedies to include such cases, but meanwhile help us by using the proper term on the edit summary -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to have caused confusion. At the time that I put in the wrong edit summary, I had just found an unusually large proportion of crap on NP patrol, and writing the summar "speedy" after putting in the proper tag had briefly become automatic. I'll do my best to be more careful in the future. NatusRoma 07:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Hans Island 001.jpg[edit]

I've restored the speedy tag at the Image talk:Hans Island 001.jpg page, because I don't think that reverting to a previous version is necessary in this case. The first (and only) contributor blanked the page himself, probably because he noticed that what he wrote on this talk page had nothing to do there. This was factual information which belongs to Hans Island article, not the image talk page. If you read the article you will see that the info given by the user is incorporated. Besides, images' talk pages are here to talk about the picture, not the article to which it is linked. Before tagging blank pages for SD, I carefully check if the previous version is worth restoring and I don't act blindly. In that case, I think the Speedy Tag was the good choice. Glaurung 07:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]