User talk:Patstuart/Archive 7

Why can't I edit?

Why can't I edit. It's a personal attack on me. Thank you. Greyduck2 01:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the actions of a member of the community, please take it up in a civil manner. If an administrator makes a block that you don't like, you can say something to him, and if you still disagree, take it up at WP:ANI. Calling someone a fruitcake, a little child, and "not a man" is a personal attack; even if Clown had personally attacked you, as you claim (which he didn't), it doesn't mean you can do it. The policy page reads "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. [emphasis kept from page]". Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am personally attacked by not being allowed to edit on my IP. So are 2,000,000 other people. Greyduck2 01:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, I doubt that Clown blocked all of Ireland. If you can provide proof for this, I'll take it up somewhere. Second, like I said, it doesn't matter; even if he did personally attack you, acting likewise is not an excuse. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, that block was too much, you're right. Though keep it cool on the npa, please. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, no sweat. Greyduck2 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof

Actually, I'm not using it right now. I tried it a couple of times, it kept crashing with those error 91s, and I gave up. Glen saved me a lot of work when he sent me that JavaScript stuff with the magic revert buttons. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Schmuck on wheels

Heh. I wanted to db-nonsense it until Glen sent me a google link. I passed on the news to the author: User talk:Christian031z. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously the wiktionary thing occurred to me when I read the new improved stripped down version. I have no idea what else there is to say about it besides the definition. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the backup on the Cedar City spam guy. Even when vandalism/spam is obvious, it's always comforting to have someone supporting you. We have a few things in common; I have degrees from Pitt and Penn State, and most of my family lives in Pittsburgh. Feel free to email me for further info. Cheers! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

I dont care what was done with it, I just said we cant speedy it under CSD#G1 that's all!  Glen  06:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian inappropriate rollback on noticeboard

Can you review again? I made some responses. See also this revert of RS info: [1] This is getting to be abusive. Can you take a look in a little detail? Please?

Requesting action..

Oddanimals has Vandalized the Dora the explorer page at least twice with sex comments and I do not know what action to take.I repaired the damage but feel a warning or ban is in order for the sake of our younger users. Superx 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips and somone put a warning while I was asking for help but they didn't use the one for the type of vandalism you said he was guilty of should I change this? Also there have been at least 5 vandalizeings on the Dora the explorer page sence it was unprotected(luckly not all as bad as the reported one) , how do I request it be put back on protection? Superx 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User Tasc

Perhaps the Tasc block was happen for the entire discussion. I think user Tasc don´t understand wikipedia philosophy, but that is only my opinion...

At the same time, I think en:wiki rules about admin limits are very interesanting and judicious (as a nemo iudex in causa sui principle), but en:wiki have a lot of admins, and in es:wiki we have only 88 (more or less)... If we would apply that rule of "non-intervention" many admin can´t to argue in a lot off discussions... (this is a optimistic opinion) Or... perhaps the deep problem is that the latin political tradition is reflected in our wiki ... you know... (this is my pessimistic point of view)... (Sorry, my english it isn´t very good...)--Amadís 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, answer in my spanish page.

Thanks

Hi Patstuart,

Thanks a ton for that very warm welcome. I got pushed onto Wikipedia...without the proverbial paddle in hand. Am just getting the hang of this place...so i apologise for mistakes made unintentionally. I hope I can look forward to your guidance and help when I get stuck.

My first order of battle...is to go thru the Style Manual, and refine the three articles that I put up...after that comes my user page...now lets see how and where i get the time....this place is an ocean...and i plan to sail as much of it as I can.

Thanks once again. Ranten 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

appalachains

i again will say that i was not vandalising and that reliable info is that if you find the appalachains and the scottish highlands and put them together it fits almost perfectly also: This is why the mountains of the Scottish Highlands and the Appalachians seem so similar; they were the same range! its here

i think thats enough proof! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezychicken (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks CheesyChicken. Um, I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh in my assertions, but let me specify. The Appalachian range, like you said, may have been the same range 500 million years ago, but they are not given the same name today. If you were to add something saying as much, that would be understandable; however, just saying that the Appalachian range runs from Kentucky to Pennsylvania to Scotland (or something of the like) is extremely confusing and not adequate. I think someone else said as much on the talk page too. Also, could you do me a favor and sign your posts by typing ~~~~ afterwards? Thanks? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti vandalism

Hi Pat, I'm an admin so I use the admin rollback tool. Apart from that I have a fairly large watchlist (just shy of 10,000 articles) so I see a lot of vandalism. Good luck, Gwernol 02:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for the rv on my user page. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Klan (Tv series)

Hi Patstuart ! Thanks for correcting article about Klan(Tv series). I have also a question . In this article there is written 'cittation is needed' . How can I prove that Klan is being broadcasted by TVP1 ? Schould I put there Tv schedule ? :-) I don't know how to correct... Thanks in advance Greetings from Poland Bartekos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartekos (talk • contribs)

Hey. It's not too hard; just find a listing of the programming on TVP1, and find something that lists Klan. If you can only find one in Polish, it might do, as long as a reader like myself could find the word "Klan" in it. BTW, the fact tag I put there was probably a bit strong; I should have used a {{specify}} tag. :) Good luck, thanks for getting back. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez

You added a tag to the article suggesting that it was too long. Rather than leave the frankly ugly tag on the article, I felt it would be better if editors respond on the talk page. Please feel free to discuss your concerns there. Thanks.--Zleitzen 05:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for watching my talk page...

Thanks for watching my talk page and reporting it to AIV. I do not believe any of his intentions would ever be considerably good. Sad that he still has not realized what he is doing is honestly no benefit to anyone and quite redundent if you ask me. Once again thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 09:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, especially in view of the fact that one of the links he sent you was "endless-loop-javascript" or something like that. ;) Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you may be interested in this link: WP:RCU#Jinxtengu. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Again I thank you for your help and concern...and as far endless loop, I already have heard of the pesky little buggers before but thanks for the heads up :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 09:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...

We have had rather severe differences in the past, but my sense of honour compels me to say this. Thank you for reverting on Intelligent design! Unfortunately, I could not remove that obviously unacceptable comment without laying myself open to a block, so I was much relieved when I saw you had removed it. The Crying Orc 09:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. BTW, in my estimation, it wouldn't have been a problem to break 3RR for a newbie blatantly plopping a message at the top of the page like that, as it's more a vandalism problem than NPOV problem (though the new user may not be aware of this, believe it or not). Though I could be wrong, as it's only my guess. Thanks for the message though! Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey pat...

I apologize for breaking that rule...

I'm new, and got a little to hot-headed...

The article is slanted in such a way, as to make evolution seem the only logical conclusion... which, if one actually researched any of these issues, one might question that assumption more carefully...

My goal in editing the page was not to destroy the existing information, which was accurate, but to re-word it to be unbiased (or at least fair, and biased)

So that the general reader would not be lead to a conclusion on a purely emotional arguement...

However, Nothing I wrote was untrue...

Any way, since I'm new, and have no desire to break further rules, I'm going to leave the article alone...

It's my assertion that the majority of editors here have a predisposition towards darwinian thinking, and many state they are biased towards atheisim...

I suggest that we do not allow our bias to distort actual fact...

Also, the article says that proponets of I.D don't believe in natural selection!

Which is totally inaccurate! (Dog breeders have used artificial selection to get new breeds of dog, by editing the already present genetic information , as nature does, but this does not explain the origin of the animals genetic information)

This needs to be fixed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robben salter (talk • contribs)

No problem; it happens to the best of us. As for your first changes to the article, I don't see what the problem was with them; I would go ahead an redo them, without adding the bit in parentheses on your last edit. It was the stuff afterwards that was no good. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:OP

Yeah.. I saw that yesterday, gosh I better get to work eh :P — Deon555^talk 21:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[2] shows only a single red list, Google Search (for proxy lists), [3] shows only User/User_talk pages on Wikipedia. Can't connect directly to it.. I can't call it Open proxy just based on that single red link.. It _may_ have been an open proxy in the past, but been closed since, or it was just an pain, not necessarily an OP — Deon555^talk 01:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, just wondering, thanks! Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries! :D — Deon555^talk 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Matt Redman

Thanks for digging up a photo. Actually, we did have a free photo before, and it was even more cruddy than the current one: [4]. — Matt Crypto 03:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that perusing the history. NP. Have a good night. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Darn, just noticed that the Flickr photos are non-commercial, therefore, by Wikipedia standards, non-free. — Matt Crypto 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found one under a usable license - [5] - but it stinks. Do you think it's worth keeping? Check the link at Matt Redman - I'm inclined to say no, so I've gone with db-userreq. If you think it's better than nothing, feel free to remove it. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

ANI

Please provide proof of me blocking that anon for "mentioning" the discussion with Trodel. Also, the blocked were in response to an editor who was changin IP's to make the same vandalistic edit multiple times. That was no new "innocent". Aditionally, the block was almost immediately shortened to 48 hours. Please get your facts striaght before you make comments, especially the mentioning one. pschemp | talk 17:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"World domination"

Listen, the above expression has been in use, since at least the early 1920's, both in the British Empire, the United States, as well as throughout Europe, in the context of antisemitism, to allege that Jews are out to "dominate" the "world."

• Now you mean to tell me that because some "recording studio" I have never heard of has that name, the important antisemitic, by Hitler and Henry Ford, is to be covered up by this RECODING STUDIO?
• Please reconsider--and do something about the "recording studio" involving DISAMBIGUATION, ETC.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 07:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I understand now. We're dealing with a capitalization problem. World Domination goes to the recording studio, but World domination to Global domination. We want to rename World Domination to be World Domination (Recording Studio), and have World Domination link to Global domination. I'll do it myself. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes, you got my point, thanks!

But, do not, however, capitalize the d in World domination!!!

Yours truly, Ludvikus 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

---

That would not follow the naming conventions. Unless it's a title, it's usually kept lowercase. World Domination should be a redirect to World domination then. Oops, nvm, I didn't!-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

---

By the way, you are concerned with World Domination Recordings, no?

Therefore, the word "Recordings" already disambiguates, no? Ludvikus 08:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. There was a big mass of confusion between us, with redirects and misspellings. All is well now. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

re White allies

Eh, I guess you're right. Anyway I cleaned it up and removed the spam. A quick Google indicates it's a real term, and maybe this could be a good article someday. Herostratus 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

USS Mackinac (AVP-13)

Beware of nominating articles on US warships for deletion as copyright violations. The source for USS Mackinac (AVP-13) is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, which is a public domain source because it is a work of the US Government. Many other sites also legitimately copy DANFS and don't credit the source, making it look as if the Wikipedia article copied from them - it didn't, both copied from the same PD source. Thanks & keep up the newpages/rc patrolling! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:J Di

Hi, I'm an admin on nl: and commons:, and I'm just trying to help out here with basic questions, if I've got time to spare. Question: is it normal for an en.wp admin to have no user page at all? Strikes me as a bit strange, "red" userpages normally mean vandal or newbie user? Just out of curiousity and trying to understand en.wp better, so I can help out more. Cheers, Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 04:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC) (if you don't want to go to nl:, leave your answer here or on my talk, I check here at least 3 times a week, and it isn't thát urgent)

Hey Niels. Well, it's not very normal, but very occasionally I've noticed that admins will delete their own userpages, for whatever reason - the page log shows he does so frequently. A quick perusal of the list List of administrators shows that there is a total of 4 or 5 admins currently without a user page. If you have any other questions, feel free to message me, or email me. Oh, and BTW, I've posted at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk, could you answer it by any chance? (I found a nc-2.0 image, which seemed illegal to upload, but I noticed that the commons isn't deleting those). Thanks!-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Warnings

If I see Vandalism, do I have to warn that user/IP adress? Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 09:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Try looking at WP:VAND. If they've ignored past warnings, report them to WP:AIV. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Abuse Report

Don't feel bad about reporting a school IP for an abuse report. The IP was not even eligible for the report anyways. Most IPs need to have at least 8 blocks and consistents warnings that show signs of similarity between their edits before we contact the ISP. We would have simply rejected the request and notified you of the results. Thank you anyways and keep up the great work. -- Andrew4010 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. If you're referring to the one I'm thinking of, then it actually had, I think, 50-55 blocks over 4 addresses. Maybe I should have left it filed anyway. Thanks though. :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

2022 Winter Olympics

I was reading the 2022 Winter Olympics deletion discussion page and I really liked your argument, but I noticed that you didn't sign your argument to Keep. Hairwizard Hairwizard91 says that arguments to keep/delete don't count until they're signed. I just thought you'd like to be made aware that you didn't sign in case you didn't already know. Nice to meet you. Jecowa 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did sign it keep further down. I just forgot to add my sig. :) Thanks. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for explanation

I would like an explanation of this edit. What, specifically, does an editing dispute about Peter Tatchell have to do with the vandalism of an article about Anne Milton? Or were you referring to User:Detoxification? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to Detox, sorry about that. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I seem to have jumped to the wrong conclusion initially - sorry if it seemed abrupt. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celestial weapons

I'm assuming good faith that this wasn't vandalism, but you seem to have made a rather strange mistake at AFD [6]. I have reverted it. So ... umm ... thank you for your experiment and please use a sandbox next time and all that good stuff. ;) BigDT 00:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen that John Kerry page in my life; I definitely didn't add it into Celestial Weapons. Something went awry, it looks like. Thanks for the AGF, though. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#CFD hiccup. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting/hillarious. I guess there isn't enough vandalism tonight so the server decided to create some itself. ;) BigDT 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad server! Shame on you! Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew you'd lose it and start vandalizing one of these days, Pat! :-) (BTW, some interesting new details posted to WP:VPT#Major edit glitch). -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, are you going to block me now, or will I at least get a warning template? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding your humor to Wikipedia, but the articles are meant to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive). Maybe you should check out Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :-)

Here's another server belch. Click "Newer edit" and see what happens. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR / Tennessee Football

New day. :-) But yeah, I'll let any changes from him go from now on. I actually requested an intervention, but it seems like he won't be up to it. Thanks for the help. It helps to know that I'm not totally wrong here. Dlong 06:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, Wikipedia is global, so it's 3 reversions in a 24 hour span. But no, the guy's hopelessly out of his mind promoting Tennessee; it's not a national championship when the other teams were undefeated, and only a few small polls rank you #1. If it continues, try posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

He's still at it. :/ I've posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Any other suggestions? Dlong 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Man!!!

Listen, mind your own buisness next time alright? I upload the images....not you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelyna (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you'd like to familiarize yourself with WP:IMAGE, and WP:CIVIL. And, to tell you the truth, I went easy on you; I'm notoriously easier than most people about fair use images. However, perhaps I should do like some people would do, and contest all your fair use images. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.....but no thanks....NOW I have everything under control. And you were right, I'm sorry I went off the handle, but that's the way I am. Look, I'm sure I have everthing under control now, and be sure to point out any mistakes I make because I'm a beginner in this wikipedia shin-dig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelyna (talk • contribs)

No harm done. Stay long and contribe often. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pat Robertson.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Pat Robertson.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to cry. Even CNN uses pictures of him from his TV show. But I can't use a picture that an amateur snapped from his own university without getting flagged for it. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Panda Candies

Dear Pat Stuart, I am very happy with your appraisal of The Panda Candies. JUST KIDDING! I'm glad you made a typo and called us a notable band, though. That was cool of you. But, I shall have you know, we've sold over 16,000 records in Maine alone... so I guess you're just one of many people supressing the free-thought of youths in America. We're just trying to get our ideals out there, you know? There's no need to be the Big Brother of wikipedia articles, Pat. You know, technically, you could just stop everyone from thinking altogether with hypnopaedia. Not everyone believes that The Panda Candies suck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemaciss (talk • contribs)

Apologies if my tone was a little harsh. And yes, you caught my typo, I make those a little more often than I'd like to admit. However, if you'd like to go to deletion review, I would encourage you to do so, but you'll need to be ready to explain why the article passes WP:BAND; unfortunately, before, it didn't explain why in the article. Again, apologies if I was too harsh. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:69.165.222.229

The help desk was a good suggestion, I should have thought of that myself. But spamming that message to dozens of editors didn't impress me. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to roll them back, but I'll let someone else do the honors, if they wish. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In the case of a user page, I'll revert almost anything. In the case of a talk page, I generally leave it alone unless it's clear-cut vandalism. This one is borderline, so I'd go with leaving it for the individual editors. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:217.160.230.178

I've now removed all of their edits from the revision history but one; unfortunately, the one remaining revision in their contribution history (see here) is beyond my power to delete -- there are so many revisions that the database transaction times out. You might want to ask at WP:AN/I for some more high-powered help, such as the intervention of one of the software developers, who definitely can do this. -- The Anome 23:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

They all look clean to me. :) Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like someone's just succeeded in doing it. Problem over. -- The Anome 23:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Burgeranch / Burger Ranch

Hi,

The real issue here is that the HEBREW spelling of Burger Ranch has only one Reysh (the Hebrew letter resembling the letter R). Therefore, the English transliteration (but not translation) is Burgeranch. However, the English Translation is Burger Ranch, two words. My real issue is not moving the Israeli Burger Ranch article to Burger Ranch (although it is more developed than the Portugese article), but to move it to Burger Ranch (Israel), as it better represent this English article than Burgeranch. Milchama 18:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with that statement. In fact, I voted Strong Support. Perhaps you misread my vote or mistook it for someone else's. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just a bit confused on if you viewed the site url as burgerranch.co.il (two r) and not the actual burgeranch.co.il. Thanks for voting. Milchama 19:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded and I have been made an admin. I appreciate your support. Many times I've seen you reverting vandalism and I also want to thank you for the hard work you do. Thanks again! =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the complement. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Snow

Your sense of humor is appreciated. I clearly underestimate the demand for Samuel Johnson in search results. P.S. do you have an opinion on the following related matter Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Primary_Topic. TonyTheTiger 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Hope you didn't mind me closing that one, but it was starting to get ugly, and it looked like WP:SNOW was quite applicable. Anyway, I've commented at the said talk page. Peace. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have figured out how to handle George Bush type problems. See Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Primary_Topic. TonyTheTiger 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

USERNAME_VIOLATION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

no such user? Where did you see it?  Glen  14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

erm, my bad, I saw it as an edit summary on the 3RR board; looks like someone didn't fill out the for right. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on my User page

Hey! Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my User page! -Seidenstud 15:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

University of Zimbabwe

Thanks for the tip - your guess in French was right - interwiki links ;-) part 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Khoikhoi"

See User talk:NKH#Explanation. Also, the Khoikhoi were not a race, just an ethnic group. There were the cousins of the Bushmen, who you might know from the move The Gods Must Be Crazy. Yeah, I guess "Pat" is somewhat of a gender neutral name...is it a he or she? It's Pat. ;-) Khoikhoi 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

lol, it never occurred to me that someone who get me confused. No, it's most definitely he. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barn star. Your comment made me laugh. I work at a university in Boston, and I prefer to keep my "virtual" life separate from my "real" life. I was singularly unimaginative in my choice of usernames. --BostonMA ^talk 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to the Articles for Creation page

The following user 69.150.140.44 appears to be vandalising the Articles for Creation page. As fast as anyone can submit an article, he seems to be taking great delight in deleting them again, while leaving his own submission in tact. I wondered whether yourself or another editor might be able to block him. Cheers 217.43.192.134 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

An addition to my earlier note

I am not so sure now that this was a deliberate act of vandalism. I left a note on his talk page and from his reply, I got the impression he was unfamiliar with Wikipedia and didn't understand how to edit the page. But whatever the case, he now appears to have stopped. Cheers 217.43.192.134 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the user appears to think that deleting everyone else's submission was appropriate, because he thought the page would only have his submission. Quite silly, but that's life. I hope you were able to undo his work. Anyway, good idea with the warning, and if a user persists, it's best to go to WP:AIV, because likely I won't even be around (besides, I'm not an admin anyway). Patstuart^talk|edits 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keith Sager

Keith Sager's feminist viewpoints are absolutely key for A level students up and down the country. Admittedly part of his biography is slightly irrelevant- his whereabouts now may not be considered relevant for some wikipedia users, however WJEC, Edexcel, OCR and AQA all stipulate that critics have suitable background infomation provided. Those searching for infomation will be able to use Sager's article as a reference point for their studies before deciding how to use him. Deleting him from this site would be unwise for it is not offensive to those who do not know who he is, but useful to those needing more info on him.

My constant deletion of notices regarding his status is simply to allow students to do their work and not come to me saying wikipedia says Keith Sager does not exist!!!!

Yours

Cammers7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cammers7 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

• Not our problem. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As it appears we seem to be getting nowhere regarding Sager, i would ask you and your fellow editors to tell me how to prove his existence..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cammers7 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, if you're at all familiar with internet searches, I would suggest doing a google search, and providing what you come up with. I personally couldn't find anything on google for your specific Mr. Sager. However, if you can't find any reliable sources for his existence, this is exactly one of the reasons why the article ought to be deleted. Also, it would be very much helpful if you would read up on WP:BIO, and find how the subject fits these criteria. In my opinion (other editors might disagree), you might like to start with WP:BIO. It doesn't take too long to read, and if you're familiar with the subject, you should be able to find where the two intersect. -Patstuart^talk|edits 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Source Material

Just a quick note to say thanks for the advice. 217.44.164.92 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Suzanne Mizzi

Thanks for that. I thought someone else had deleted it 217.44.164.92 13:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope! And BTW, if you plan to use Wikipedia regularly, I highly encourage you to get an account. It greatly eases the process. Patstuart^talk|edits 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad case of balls

[7] Haha, I understand the meaning of the words, but damn it sounds funny. :)

Usually I'm more than happy to speedy delete orphaned talk pages, except CSD#G8 says "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere" (emphasis mine). As mind-boggingly stupid as the entire AfD was (and I was more than happy to put the nail in that particular coffin), I figure that leaving the talk page (and its discussion) is a better option than removing it and having them bitch and moan all the more (and, possibly, all over the place). If in a couple months (when their one month blocks [*bows*] and their interest both wear off) nothing has come of it, I'll remove the salt and kill the talk page as well.

Anyway, just thought I'd drop you a line to explain my rationale a bit more. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, trolling on my innocent comments, like that, you should be ashamed :P. Anyway, I thought a month was incredibly lenient for throwing the entire community through a hoax afd, a hoax rfa, several sockpuppets, and other blatant vandalism. If anything, block the stinking socks! But maybe the only good result will be that he won't immediately create another sock, but will wait the month on this account to come back. But thanks for the response; you keep it interesting. Patstuart^talk|edits 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only reason that I didn't block the indefinitely is that they do have logged edits elsewhere that aren't the concentrated bullshit they spewed forth in the article/AfD (and I'll let the sockpuppet thing finish before taking further action against Gordon).

Now, that said, if at the end of the month they resume their behavior I'll ban their asses so fast they'll be seeing Image:Octagon-warning.svg in their sleep. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and shame is for the weak. ;-P EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lolz. And no, shame isn't for the weak. shame can be a virtue, believe it or not. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ELAC

Hi, if you would like to join our group, you would be more than welcome to. I know of about 6 to 7 people who would be interested in this project, but it will take me a while to find them. Once the project attracts the interest of at least 10 people, it will be functional. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure how often I could contribute. If I was sure I'd be on here enough, I'd consider it, but I'm really trying to cut back on my time, as it's been excessive as of late. But good luck. :| Patstuart^talk|edits19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Father Francis

I don't think you should have created that article (from AFC). There is not enough sourced material in the article to show that the band meets WP:MUSIC notability criteria. They also have somehow gotten at least 4 articles about the band's albums inserted, and these are lousy articles that again fail to meet WP:MUSIC. They appear to be self-published albums, though it's hard to tell since the band's web site is not completely working right now. These articles should all be deleted. 67.117.130.181 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I could have sworn I did a google search and came up with thousands of hits, but now I'm only getting a few. May I ask, though, how you picked up on my error? I'm glad someone is monitoring me. I would suggest just prodding the thing, or even db. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doing any systematic monitoring. I've been submitting some stuff through AFC myself, and then checking back later to see what happens with my submissions, and while I'm there I sometimes click on other surrounding things that look interesting and/or bogus. 67.117.130.181 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear; sometimes I think those long response messages I leave go unnoticed. Anyway, you can now see the article is deleted, as I tagged it for such. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Safiyya bint Huyayy

Hi, I'm having a bit of a tiff over in that article, I would, it about including the title 'concubine' in the lead paragraph of Safiyya bint Huyayy, who was a Jewish girl whose whole tribe was slain by Mohammad, as described further into that very article. I would appreciate your input in the talk page. FrummerThanThou 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Correcting the Skip Farlow Entry

Thanks for properly formatting the entry at articles for creation. It was my first time accepting/declining an entry. Keep up the great work :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what you did was fine; I got an edit conflict on that one, and mis read Persian Poet to be "Patstaurt". Patstuart^talk|edits 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

re:zzzaaacccch

After talk to another admin I've extended the block to indefinate Gnangarra 16:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, we all have disagreements on how to implement the block policy. I just reapplied him, as, IMHO, this type of vandalism is just the kind to nip in the bud right away, as nothing good can come of it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality article

LOVE the new edit! It's the perfect mix of NPOV and truth! Keep it up, sweety! |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the Family Research Institute is by anyone's definition a hate group. It's a front for fundamentalists who really would love to see gay people treated like they are in Iran. Good job reverting.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, someone wasn't willing to let the statement sit in the article at all, so I had to replace the reference. Hopefully, I can find something from a better group at some point. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Entries "Service Manager","Report Manager","Technisoft"

Hi,

I'm after some guidance here ...

I added the subject entries as a new contributor. These entries are not spam. I do concede however that they relate to company and company product information.

"Service Manager" is one of the most widely respected service management software products in use worldwide. A Google search of "technisoft service manager" will return 1000+ hits. At what point does a company or company product become notable enough to allow it to have a Wikipedia entry?

"Microsoft Dynamics GP" is a competing software product that does have a Wikipedia entry ...

Regards.

Fkrugerx 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 00:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've seen the afd that there is one this one. The reason I voted speedy delete was because I caught a copyright violation on at least one of the pages. Wikipedia can't take text directly from a website, and trust me, even if you own the website, it's much easier to rephrase it in your own words.

Anyway, the problem with the site at the moment is it doesn't appear to pass the WP:CORP or WP:WEB guidelines. I would read up on those, and find how your piece of software fits those guidelines, and ASAP bring mention of that into the afd discussion. And if MS Dynamics GP is no more notable than your software, you could mention that too; but you'll need proofs for all of this. Finally, if it does pass, rephrase the words so it's no longer a copy of what's on the website, or it might then be deleted anyway. I hope this helps. Patstuart^talk|edits 13:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Repost from User Talk:L0b0t re User talk:216.96.116.83

Could you please do a CheckUser on User:Blue Sand521 to see if he's the same IP? This mess all started when I ventured that Blue Sand and the IP need to present an actual case contesting the deletion of Young B instead of the childish whining, personal attacks, and logical fallacies coming from their general direction. Apparently they're escalating to vandalism of user pages in their undeclared war. Wonderful.

See the talk page as well; they've turned it into a 'Let's whine and make baseless accusations and personal attacks!' personal pity party. It's a mess. I'd appreciate your help. Thank you. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither User:L0b0t nor I has bureaucrat priveledges (in fact, neither of us is an admin), so we couldn't do that anyway. I'd advise trying to go through WP:RCU if it continues and it's bad enough. Anyway, they should try WP:DRV. Sorry if I'm restating everything you already know; but it's hard for me to figure out exactly what's going on with this one. Cheers. -Patstuart^talk|edits 13:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

e-Pedagogy

Instead of just deleteing the contribution, perhaps you shoud have researched the meaning of the comments first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.166.1 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Sorry if I caused an issue on this one, but your statement was really confusing. And, if I couldn't understand what you meant, someone else might not be able to either, and that's not beneficial for the encyclopedia. I would advise trying to rephrase it so someone unaffiliated might understand better, or using Wikilinks (see Help:Link). Again, sorry if there was a problem. BTW, I won't respond to your talk page, as you appear to be a dynamic IP. -Patstuart^talk|edits 13:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Quechua languaging ranking

Shouldn't it go back to "not ranked"? I know 'W' isn't supposed to cite itself, but it seems silly that an unreliable 83 should take presidence over an unreliable 68. I won't worry about it anymore either way, but this did put a smile on my face. Is it not this the most typical of Wiki experiences: one schmuck tries to be helpful, then a second schmuck re-edits it back to a third schmuck who if i'm not mistaken did the exact same thing as the first. (Given how disputed counts are that far down on the list I thought it more than coincidence that 83 is where it was listed on the ranking list the day it got added to the infobox) Of course, besides that Quechua 83 another schmuck could go to the Somali language info box to rank it as 83 using a source from the language speaker data article(http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/help/top-100-languages-by-population.html) and both info boxes link to a ranking list that's different.

---

Anonschmuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.171.13 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, thanks for getting back. I like it when people have time to call me out on something, rather than just go away mad about what a quick trigger finger Wikipedia's users have. Anyway, to be honest, I see people change the statistics on Wikipedia all the time, and I guess about a third the time they're probably just playing around, third they're correcting something, and a third they're using a source that differs. But just playing around is really bad, and has made some of our otherwise very good articles to be quite useless in a few areas (read, Justin Timberlake, which, when it's not protected against anonymous editing, probably sees statitistics change several times a day). But hey, yeah, if you can find a source that says it's 68, they by golly, go for it; just include it in the edit summary, or better yet, in the article. You're probably more knowledgeable than I; I'm just trying to keep Wikipedia from being overrun by subtle vandals or people with an agenda (e.g., native Quechuans or, like one guy, white Chileans who want to prove how white their country is). Cheers. -Patstuart^talk|edits 04:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sundyle

Gone.  Glen  08:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking User:Sundyle. Perhaps you could work on User:pizzahead2> --Riley 08:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Riley. You shoulda reported him to AIV; he was just going on and on. -Patstuart^talk|edits 08:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'm pretty new (and by new, I mean like...two days) to getting involved with vandalism. Thanks --Riley 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For you :)

		Glen's Anti-Vandalism Barnstar!
		Glen is thrilled to award Patstuart with this small token of appreciation and acknowledgement for exceptional performance in the art of troll extermination, cruft elimination and for ensuring Wikipedia is safe for public consumption..exceptional performance in the art of troll extermination, cruft elimination and for ensuring Wikipedia is safe for public consumption... You are a legend, please keep up the great work!  Glen  08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Since we're getting hit hard tonight if you see someone who needs to be stopped immediately report them to my talk page and add a link to their user page or talk in the edit summary so I can go straight to them from my watchlist or IRC - thanks again!  Glen  08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks, man, much appreciated. Patstuart^talk|edits 08:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Xiexie

Saw your comment on Glen S's talk page; thanks for getting help for me. It was pretty crazy, 16 userpage defacements in about 15 minutes. Heimstern Läufer 08:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty rare to see it that extensively; it must have been a few friends, possibly using proxies or from different households. But yeah, once a userpage gets hits with that kind of vandalism, I don't see any reason to ever unprotect it; if a user really wants to give you a barnstar or something, they can use the talk page. -Patstuart^talk|edits 08:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'll probably request unprotection before too long. Give it awhile to be sure the vandals have died down, but I'd rather not keep it protected long-term. Heimstern Läufer 08:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Some additional information that is not on my entry

Hi Patstuart,

Because it's not appropriate for me to add information to my article or to participate in the discussion about my AfD, I would like to present to you a post I wrote last night in which I did some research about some of the accomplishments I have made in blogging that I feel speak to many of the standards by which Wikipedia determines notability.

To boil down the tiresomely long post: I have not only been written about around the world (something that isn't in my entry, but came out in the discussion), but I've also had my Bloggie-winning post "How To Blog" translated in several different languages around the world (including Chinese and Russian. I feel like that is something notable for inclusion in my article and AfD. I also have a link to the .AVI of the G4TV interview (all I've seen on Wikipedia is a link to a separate interview they did with me before the show) and some (admittedly, very poor) links to discussions about my inclusion on a French tv show called Envoye Special which is what many deem the French equivalent of 60 Minutes. I also have an edited version of an hour-long segment I did this year with the online interview show by Worlds of Wonder called "Ring My Bell". I'm not familiar with the copyright procedures on Wikipedia so maybe the Ring My Bell and g4tv clips are not ok.

If you do indeed read my post, please excuse any anger or animus I might show in there. I just find it very frustrating that if a field like Blogging is to be accepted in any way in Wikipedia, that having other fields (professional book publishing, major newspapers, tv networks) who have shown to have no clue about Blogging be standards of validating bloggers. And I say that as someone who has been validated by almost all of those non-blog-related fields.

It's my opinion that one way to determine one's standing within a field, one cannot discount or remove fellow blogs or fellow bloggers in the equation. Therefore in determining google hits to my blog, to see how popular and influential I am within the blogosphere, one cannot punish bloggers who have a .blogspot.com blog simply because they dont have their own domain (which is an argument I saw in the discussion where someone tried to compare me to Buggs Bunny and pals - a first). Americablog, Atrios, and Post Secret are all blogspot blogs and are all notable even according to Wikipedia.

In the blogosphere I retain a Technorati Rank of 438, which means that I have more links from more blogs than 99.999% of the blogosphere. Not 99.998 but 99.999. A distinguished user tried to compare me (and other bloggers who he deemd nn) to the Daily Kos, which is not only unfair - because DK is a group blog consisting of dozens of writers - but because DK is the #1 or #2 most popular blog of all time depending on who you talk to, every blog would fail a comparison to Kos. However I believe that if one is going to allow the argument of ghits to be discussed, so should something related directly to blogs (and something far more accurate) Technorati's numbers.

I am not soliciting you for any aid, I merely bring this to you because you have already voted, you have been fair to me this week, and because you linked to the tool that shows that my AfD has had way more activity/votes/discussion than any other in the last few days, and if such a controversial article is to be discussed seriously it should have as many actual facts on the table as possible. To use a term I have read in some of the other AfDs, I remain Neutral as far as my feelings of what happens to my article, although I'm very curious as to its outcome. But I would feel foolish if I held on to information that might be useful to the discussion. If this information is presented and the article is still deleted at least I know my humble achievements were analyzed fully before a judgment was made.

However, I am clearly no expert on what is a notable fact on here, which is why I am coming to you. If you find them within the realm of discussion and/or inclusion please add them, if you dont, no hard feelings. I have given this information to no one else but you, nor will I. Have a nice weekend, Tony Pierce 75.203.255.186 10:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears the afd is already over. Looks like I can't help on you this one. :( Sorry. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Safiyya bint Huyayy 2

Hi, the discussion has taken a turn. They're now disucssing Islamic terms from Islamic sources. Please can you remind them that those details are irrelavent on wikipedia. If you press the random article link and arrive by the bio of a 17 year old girl who captured after a massacre of few thouasnd of her kin, obviously you would include the term concubine. Yes this burdons you with the job of taking on the issue on the whole, since there are a number of article about Mohammad's concbines, but wikipedia is suposed to show a worldwide view. In the words of Striver... "Further, i find the whole issue irrelevant, since the term concubinage does not even exist withing Islam, we have Nikah (permanent marriage), Nikah Mut'ah (temporary marriage) and Ma malakat aymanukum (captive)."... Obviously he has a problem, there is no WP:QURAN! I would like to reiterate that we in the west DO have such a word concubine and Safiyya fits the discription. FrummerThanThou 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

Thanks for the hello. --BostonMA ^talk 03:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

change the title

Can you change it to Envision High Schools —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacDude415 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Done. -Patstuart^talk|edits 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Urban-Scan

Hi, it might become important because it might be bought, and will have been important (but would no longer exist). I suppose this is none of wikipedia's business, though. It's really up to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nelso (talk • contribs) 05:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

You can actually create the article yourself, if you wish, because you're a signed in user. But IMO, it didn't satisfy the WP:CORP guideline, and someone else might come along and tag it, just to let you know. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Woah!

Woah! I did not notice the barnstar you awarded on my kind users page till now! That's quite nice of you Pat :). I really felt that the editor was assuming good faith but was desperate to establish a page. I just tried not to lose my patience is all. Thanks, that made my day.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey now, no problem. That's all I was saying, that you keep a cool head, as in "rv childish insult", whereas with me, it would have been "rv *^%*(&) asshole". Not really, but I think you see my point. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not precisely

It isn't precisely vandalism, see my last edit to the anon in question. JoshuaZ 06:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Collins notability

I think he is notable as a fellow of the Discovery Institute and as a fairly prominent supporter of intelligent design and related apologetics. But this may be my own POV coming into the matter. JoshuaZ 06:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wondering

I am wondering if perhaps having a list of articles that I have created right smack on my user page is leaving them open targets for any kind of vandals. Would making a subpage discourage this in the future? (I'd like having them on somewhere...) Just looking for a separate opinion here. -WarthogDemon 09:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, given the AN/I thread, sounds like it to me. It depends on the technical know-how of your adversary too. He seems to know what he's doing, so it might not stop him, though it certainly might slow him down. -Patstuart^talk|edits 15:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Then I shall do so. At the very least, it'll decrease the chances of "coincidentally" going to pages I have started; no one would be able to see them just by clicking on my name. -WarthogDemon 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you should include the Joe D'Ambrose article that I tried to create but you declined...

He is a very prominant student entrepreneur on in New England and is well known for his entrepreneurial accomplishments while still an undergraduate student. He has recieved attention on more than one occasion in newspapers including The Providence Journal (Providence, RI) and The Middletown Press (Middletown, CT). He is often highlighted in Bryant University publications, including but not limited to their website, Bryant.edu. An involved student and entrepreneur, Joe is also active in various community service projects including the development of a new non-profit corporation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.206.155.245 (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

If you believe your subjects merits an article, please read up on the WP:BIO guidelines and explain which of those he fits. Thank you. Also, I find it suspiciuos that only a few hours ago, your IP was engaging in inappropriate behavior. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not engage in any suspicious activity. I think that because I am on a college campus there are other users in my building that share an IP. By the way, I checked out the WP:BIO guidelines and I believe Joe fits these criterion:

- "other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". This applies to the field of student entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship.

Can you provide any sources for people notable in your field? I might like to warn you about possible WP:COI in this case too. -Patstuart^talk|edits 07:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Botswana200/Auckland-NZ IP Vandal

Thanks for RVVing my user page. Think we should find and call the ISP? He needs medical help in my opinion. No person that mentally unstable can reliably function in society without eventually self-destructing with possible collateral damage.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 08:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not uncommon for people to vandalize like that, though I've seen people banned for far less. I just wish they were quicker at WP:AIV. Patstuart^talk|edits 08:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to put up with that kind of trolling on your page either. Just remove that crap; see WP:DFTT. Patstuart^talk|edits 08:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok. This guy's a frakking psychopath or a script kiddie who knows a few templates (the interesting one, i.e. ones that get things deleted or warn vandals) on Wiki. Ultimately he's boring at this point. Earlier I was ROTFLMAOing at his high-pitched yapping, but it's old now. As for the trolling, I'm removing it all. Makes good juicy evidence for his permban, however :)  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 08:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you cleaned the gunk out for me!

 E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 08:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'll take the 'slow reverts' idea up, except for my userpage itself. How about we feed all this to AntiVandalBot or VoABot? That'll be Comedy Gold when idiot sees his trolling insta-RVVed! :D  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 08:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

His contribution log will do just fine for that; besides, we don't like to indef-ban IPs unless they're open proxies, or the circumstances are especially exceptional (e.g., a school that has 2000 vandalisms and 5 coherent additions). I see a lot of people throw around words just because they can. I've seen eleven and twelve year old girls say the worst things on this encyclopedia. Patstuart^talk|edits 08:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the trouble with IPs. Makes me wish Wiki was account-only. And I know about the crap that comes outta kids mouths. Kids Say the Darnedest Things and all...  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 08:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)