User talk:Tawker/archive5

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

Nominated for adminship

joshbuddytalk 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I voted. Sigh, but it looks like some people are opposing you with the reason "too soon". :( We'll see how this RfA turns out though... --Khoikhoi 01:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, of course I understand this. You're right. --Khoikhoi 01:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. What do you mean "you've pulled the page"? --Khoikhoi 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have little doubt that once you've poked around a bit more, your RfA will make for a fun week. I was made an admin at almost exactly the 'golden' 3 month point; just about the inside of what is really possible. And yet, after about a month, I thought I had read and understood all the main policies and things and was not going to make no-brainer mistakes or walk around offending people. And I wouldn't have, if I'd been handed an admin bit. But I would, I realise now, have execute those new abilities with less finesse than I did when I was made an admin, and even then I executed them with less finesse than I can now (when I put my mind to it). There's just a 'community' feel since, despite what some people say, the community does matter and the project would likely have fallen before the first of its many hurdles if there were no community and we all edited anonymously. As to the user talk edits, well, they're a useful part of your history. Noone can say you don't know how to handle RC patrol, for starters, or that you're not probably familiar with the recent history of the to-be determined vandals. Looking at your first 50 edits, they were all editorial contributions to articles. That must be why you acquired this new hobby...try getting back to it from time to time. I still find it far the most personally fulfilling part of the hours I spend editing Wikipedia, and working in article space really does teach me quite a lot, in unexpected ways, about what Wiki really is. -Splashtalk 03:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Mahmud of Ghazni

Why have you reverted my revert of Haiduc ? Mahmud of Ghazni is considered a hero in Pakistan. The allegation of his homosexual affair is just false rumor spread by his enemies. He lived around 1006 AD so it is a 1000 year old history. I have read about Mahmud of Ghazni in my school books and have never heard of these malicious rumors. What proof do you have that he had homosexual affair with Ayaz ? Please provide your sources. I have never seen you contributing to this page. I know the history of Mahmud, names of his grandfather, father, brother, etc. This blind revert has no merit !!!

Siddiqui 02:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Motorola PEBL.jpg

Help required, I don't want to revert a third time, even though this seems to be vandalism now.... Could you continue warning the user?

Prodego talk 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

At at first, before the user inserted the "NAKED..." comment, I thought that he might just not understand why he shouldn't do what he was doing. In which case I didnt want to revert again. But it was vandalism so....
Prodego talk 12:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Moe Epsilon/haha

lol, you fell for it twice? :-D Moe ε 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm just glad some users can fall for it and smile. :-) Moe ε 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
To darn addicted to leave Wikipedia. That's why I changed to semi-wikibreak. On another note, I was just thinking about if you were an admin or not. Then I looked through your contributions and saw you were just nominated and denied. Don't worry about it, just be thankful you didn't fail 4 times like I did. :-D Moe ε 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OP scanner

Ah, yes, thanks, I would like that! And I laughed out loud when I realized that Freakbot was legit. I think we've all been waiting to pounce on the next SQUIDWARD as soon as it appears. Good work on the bot! Antandrus (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work: thank you. It's quick, and I'm getting interesting results, both on previously blocked proxies and some I find listed on internet sites. This is much better than my previous method.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Cyberduck icon.png

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA succeeded with a final consensus of 52/17/7, and receiving comments including having 'excellent potential to become a great moderator', and I am now an administrator. It did however only just pass, and I shall do my very best to rectify any of my errors, including the general belief that I should do more article work. If you have any concerns, or if you ever feel that I may be able to help you, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you!

Ian13/talk 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Dispute (mediation reply section)

Hi

  • First this returns to when I was new on wikipedia and he despite of being an old wikipedian several times attacked me with most bad words. Second he has continued it even till this time which if necessary I can provide links to all of them in five minutes. Third, Those Iranians who due to political and economical reasons have more access to internet when a wikipedian from Kurdish minority comes to wikipedia imidiately disagree with him, call him in every talk page separatist... and mispresent him to all other Iranians in a bad way. For example his links refereing that I am from CIA.!!! and I do not do it anymore despite really everyday we are suffering bad words by them. Thank you very much.Diyako Talk + 00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I had forgotten it untill tonight he rewrote it to you. also i have several times told them that we are not enemies, I'm not from CIA, we are all wikipedians but they act systematically against us (few Kurdish wikipedians). I also do not reply them so much, look at my talk page there are many threats, many boggus warnings by them for no good reason but I do not reply.Diyako Talk + 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


You were the one who first initiated the attacks on me. You had quite some number of posts by then,,,you werent new (even if we are to accept that as your pretext). And you still use the word "Farsees" against me, even though me, ShervinK, and others have asked you to stop using this term as it insults many. (Im not a Persian, if that's what you mean. I'm an ethnic Azeri).--Zereshk 00:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Zereshk, Farsis is the name of yiour ethnicity in your own language Persian for 1400 years but unfortunately persian users do not agree to use it on english wikipedia in the article persian people and this is also another action tthat is against wiki policies persian users revert it in the name of vandalism!.Diyako Talk + 00:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
"In my own language"? In case you didnt know, this is English WP. And in English, it's "Persian". You disregard this fact intentionally to irritate many users.--Zereshk 10:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

About Best iStory

Ok, I understand, and removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzer2 (talkcontribs)

Iranian Kurdistan

May I suggest that you contact User:Shervink for this? She/he is much more involved and capable than I am. She/he has been centrally involved in the debates. I only served corroborational purposes in backing him/her up. Thanx again.--Zereshk 00:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a lower case k in User:Shervink. Sorry :)

As for that obnoxious user, my strategy is to avoid him in discourse altogether. He will eventually get an ArbCom verdict if he continues creating such massive scale tension on the Iranian pages. I will let the others take care of him as they are currently doing.[1]

Such people are not worthy of my correspondence. I have better contributions to make. I fully acknowledge your message, and will abide by it. Over and out :) --Zereshk 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My POV is that they are afraid of Kurdish wikipedians and want to mispresent and hence block us. and this is my last comment in this talk page. sorry and thanks.Diyako Talk + 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: When you remove copyrighted text

And your comment "{copyvio|site} could you use that template with the source of the text please?", naturally I recognise that I was in the wrong and have added the {copyvio|site} template to the article in question. I hope I haven't made a hash of things by doing the correct action in two edits, and all I can do is strongly apologise if I have! Commiserations on the admin thing, you'd have earnt my vote today if you hadn't already withdrawn. - ThomasHarte 01:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, User:Nok32uk has twice removed the {{copyvio}} tag on the basis that "The copyright issue has been resolved" whereas in my reading of Wikipedia:Copyright problems the statement "Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made." is entirely unqualified so once an article listed there as Daz Simpson is, Nok32uk doesn't have the right to do that. Nevertheless I don't want to start an edit war, and if you could weigh in on Talk:Daz Sampson with an opinion either way it might help avoid a dispute. - ThomasHarte 17:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon Iranian

Please see here! removes link to Britannica and adds his POV. then in the talk page bolds the word "jerk" to me. This is their bahavior. Is not it a systematically action by them?Diyako Talk + 02:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the user has to sign in to be more credible; however, at the risk of being personally attacked by you again Diyako, I looked at that revert, and with all due respect, I have to say, I looked at that link, and Encyclopedia Britannica [and] Columbia Encyclopedia both do actually say; the Kurds are of “....an ethnic group of unknown origins” 1. I don`t see how that user is violating any rules, moreover, it seems that he or she has valid refrences, so you need to work it out in the discussion page first, until you both agree. In the mean time, please do not remove the banner, and that statement. His or her refrences are authoritative, for now. I will revert back to his version if you keep editing it, so again, please come to a consensus first. Also, I`m just curious, how do you the anon user is Iranian, or Turkish or something? Please assume good faith. ThanksZmmz 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I know him. you can read archieves on those articles. You be attacked by me???Diyako Talk + 04:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you know an anon user with an IP address? Does he ever mention he is Iranian, Iraqi or Turkish or something? Furthermore, why did you revert and removed the banner, if the user has an authoritative source, and did not resort to the discussion page first?Zmmz 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

He removed the Britannica link and added his POV. Diyako Talk + 04:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Mind giving me a second opinion on 134.161.241.176 's contribs? Serlin 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

They seem to have been disagreeable for a while, I'll leave them alone and let someone watching those articles to deal with it if they feel the need. Thanks Serlin 06:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Seattle University Athletics

Hi, with regards to the article in question, I don't see any claim of notability. I may be wrong as I don't know how prestigious national level university teams are, but just the fact that they are university team (not independent sports clubs) makes me feel that they might not be notable for their atheletics. Again, I may be wrong, but I am having this gut feeling. I leave the decision up to you. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In this case I would feel that a list of NCAA teams be put up (as against SU Teams) with this as a subpage (but this requires that NCAA article should be detailed enough). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Fake msg vandal

I'll keep an eye out for his return. They never get bored this quick. -- Longhair 10:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

AfC

Damn it, I've seen that joke before and still fell for it!

I've only been doing AfC for about a month, but the convention (and the current instructions) when fulfilling an AfC request seems to be to leave the submission where it is and give a short reply. I can think of a few reasons it's a good idea to not delete the requests, but none of them are really very compelling. It might help them find the new article, especially when you haven't used their title; a message on the IP's talk page may or may-not reach them. If nothing else, leaving them there with a thumbs-up or thumbs-down added might give other submitters examples of what does and what does not get in. It's not big deal. Cheers. ×Meegs 12:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's crazy: I've created articles a week after they were submitted, not written to the IP's talk page, and still had the submitter discover and start editing the article within hours. Anons don't have watchlists, so they're either-punching in the article's title, looking for a reply below their submission, or looking at the "Recently created articles" list at the top of WP:AFC (that not everyone adds to). They're monitoring one of the three, and some of them really seem to put their lives on hold waiting for a response. That's part of why I like working there. ×Meegs 13:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunter Ellis

I've put this article up for deletion review, after re-writing a stub focused much more on his non-Survivor notability as a TV host, which was then speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted content. Since you commented on the initial AFD, I thought you might want to participate in the discussion here as well. -Colin Kimbrell 17:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


GAA

In reply too your comments i am removing the line x is a prominent GAA club in County Kildare, significant in Kildare GAA history as it pov and cant be true for every club in kildare and removing the clubs links and adding them to category gaa clubs in kildare (Gnevin 19:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)) Will do even if it will make a big task even bigger , nearly finished now anyway. (Gnevin 19:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

Edit summaries - fresheneesz

Hey, I got your message just now, but i was wondering when you saw an edit of mine that isn't summaried. I try hard to remember to put those things, and I think I usually do, unless its a minor edit or a talk page. Fresheneesz 21:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Template

Template was given go ahead for deletion, see the history of the articles talk page. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up the speedy delete template, with no edit summary and blanking it really did look like vandalism. You might want to use edit summaries in the future though, they really help out RC patrollers :) -- Tawker 23:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I will let you delete this time ...Cordially SirIsaacBrock 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I already told you read above, read the history of the talk page. You are not the admin so stop monkeying around with the article. SirIsaacBrock 00:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, one of the main features of a Wiki is that anyone can monkey around with an article. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, SirIsaacBrock! :)
User:Adrian/zap2.js 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
(To whoever it may concern) I've recently delisted the TALK page of Template talk:Mil-antarctica from CSD, as a talk page for an existing template, possibly potions of a deletion discussion. This in no way endoreses that the Template itself should or should not be included in the encyclopedia. The template is currently in use in articles, and it's deletion could be disrubtive at this time. I don't see that this template has ever gone through a deletion review, but anyone is free to list it on TFD at anytime they have a good faith reason for it's nomination. The template itself does not seem to qualify for speedy deletion either, and I would delist it as well in it's current state. Thanks, xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
As for my "blank it if you wish" comment, although not popular, archive to history is an allowed talk page archiving protocol. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My aplogies

The bot just hit a bug there, I was just about to fix it but you beat me to it -- Tawker 02:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tawker. I'm lost. What happened ? What did I fix ? -- PFHLai 02:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You mean at Current events ? Okay ! I thought it was just an edit conflict ..... Don't worry about it. -- PFHLai 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Accident

Regarding your warning on my talk page, it was an accident. I was about to revert the article myself before some super-fast Wikipedian (who, sadly, probably dedicates his whole life to reverting so called "vandalism") reverted it before I could even get a chance, just in time to accuse me of being a vandal. --69.232.218.27 04:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Heh, just FYI, the person that disrupted the Mohammed cartoons page (202.83.174.28) is from Pakistan. Haizum 06:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

;-) Jude(talk,contribs) 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 :-D Jude(talk,contribs) 08:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You're evil. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Marriage license

I'm wondering...why did you revert the reversion of blatant POV material at Marriage license? I'd revert it again myself, but I don't want to start an edit war. -- Calion | Talk 21:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't have any edit summary to go along with the large removal, it was tagged by the vandalbots and seeing a lot of blanking with what looks to be on topic without an edit summary usually gets reverted. Feel free to remove the content, look at it I think your POV concerns are valid, it was the lack of an edit summary that caused the revert -- Tawker 21:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. It wasn't my edit without a summary that you reverted, it was some anonymous intelligent person's. And thanks for the clarification. -- Calion | Talk 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

It is an image. The article does not specificaly comment on that image thus there is not even a ghost of a fair use claim.Geni 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Reporting more vandalism

You reverted edits by Special:Contributions/205.155.32.128 on Bill Gates the "bitch suck my cock" incident. Same user IP put HAIL SATAN GO ANTON LAVEY!!!!!!!!!!!!! on Anton LaVey is that considered vandalism or... Just a passing note + I didn't do it! Should I fix it or will you. I've edited articles before but heavn't encountered this kind of stuff before. Death2 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply reply

Yeah I saw what 205.155.32.128 also did. He or She is crazy but shure made my night brighter, I know it's vandalism but for some it's also fun. Just keep an open mind, always. I do articles but I'll take an eye on occasional rampaging. HEHE. Death2 23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Neopets

I think we need an administrator to protect from anons and new users. In the Neopets site there is a board regarding the vandalism. [2] Joelito 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to find someone to protect it. I was not about to spend all night reverting. Joelito 00:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The link above was the one for the board. I have an account so I did not notice I needed a username and password. Joelito 01:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Just wanted to say

Good job. You helped me out when I needed it, and I've seen you do so much it's amazing. Keep up the good work! Oh, and your Tawkerbots are friggin' awesome. :)

That would help, I suppose. And I forgot to sign this again, didn't I? *Sigh* --69.145.122.209 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

TawkerBot2

...kicks ass. It's beat me on about a dozen reverts since it started. Good stuff! TKE 02:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. Nice work. Yeah! Antandrus (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Guinness, and message

That would be a great upgrade! So far I'm quite impressed.

By the way, I blocked 63.19.128.0/17 to shut down the Guinness vandal for 15 minutes (it's a good way to verify if my suspicions are right as to who it is) -- it seems to be working. There's two good users I know at that range so I keep the blocks short for that kid. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the message is good. (The harsher messages have a way of enraging vandals; bored vandals leave more quickly.) Cheers!  :-) Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 mistakes vandalism reverts for vandalism

I noticed that Tawkerbot2 seems to detect removals of large portions of text as vandalism. Several minutes ago, someone started an article with very little content, and an anonymous IP added many profanities to it. Another editor and I reverted the IP's edits, but Tawkerbot2 saw both of those reverts as vandalism. This could affect legit editors who remove copyright violations. I thought that I should let you know.

Other than that, Tawkerbot2 seems to be doing fine. --Ixfd64 04:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The page was almighty LOL, but it has been deleted. Would you like me to temporarily restore its history? --Ixfd64 04:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)