User talk:Xaosflux/Archive13

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wdefcon

I've speedily restored this template as a seeminly out-of-process deletion. I've noted this on WP:DRV. This template has already surived a TFD discussion. As I put on the DRV page, this is without prejudice for relisting it on WP:TFD. Many users noticed this deletion rapidly and were confused as to where it went. I will not wheel war over this if another admin feels it deserves speedy deletion, but will argue against speedy deletion of it on DRV. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Xaosflux: Ah, certainly, that's fine if you feel it wasn't a satisfactory speedy; actually, I'm surprised to learn anyone still had any interest in it, considering it failed an MfD some time back and apparently hadn't yet been deleted. I deleted it because, well, it looked useless, and had apparently been left "in the lurch" following the MfD. Also I thought there was fairly good consensus, although I might be mistaken, that the more militaristic former trappings of the CVU weren't a good idea. "Defcon" has such a militaristic air to it, and frankly the status hadn't changed for eons. But anyway, I won't touch it again. Thanks for your time in restoring and listing it, btw. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The project page was deleted little opposition, but that template is heavily transcluded and edited practically daily. Thanks for the quick response back. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Squidward

I noticed you only blocked one of Squidward's latest puppets for one week. All of his puppets are open proxies/hacked machines/zombies and should be blocked indefinitely. Your one week block caused a conflict; don't worry though, I fixed it. --Cyde Weys 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA's

Yes, thank you; that answers my question persicely. I mean, my (second) nomination I was forced to withdraw because I had low WikiProject namespace edits. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor2. I never said that you have extreemly high standards, just high. :) I'm asking because I want to eventually become a sysop, but I need advices from frequent voters like you. (the guides don't really specigy users' standards. Cheers. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

But are Wikipedia namespace edits a part of your demand? I would like you to act like somesort of a Guide for my adminship if you don't mind. That means that I would like you to valuate me (in the following months) when I am rendered valuable for an admin (and nominate me if possible). Could you do that? Regards! --HolyRomanEmperor 15:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I regularely contribute WikiProject History, of which I am a member. I also founded the WikiProject Belgrade... Anyway, I'm not going right now; I'm asking you to value me (in due time; there's plenty of it). Thank you! :) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have replied to your question on my rfa, with a followup of my own. Please respond, thanks! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You have recieved eight(8) cool points for your Monty Python reference on my RFA. Cheers! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for participating in my RfA. Since now I'm an admin, I'll do my best not to turn the community confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line since I'm always open for constructive criticism. --Dijxtra 11:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Por favor

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop encouraging other users to harass me. If you are somehow "surprised" by this statement, you might want to look at this[1]. You instigated this. KI 18:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following you. I voted Neutral on your RFA. I posted one question, and was not swayed much by the answer, so remained neutral. How is this a bad thing? And what are you accusing me of instigating (re: You instigated this. )? This seems to be a dif to another editor asking some questions. While I don't see anything devious in my extremely limited contribution to your rfa, I do hope you are assuming good faith on the edits. (N.B. I also was neutral on your first RFA) — xaosflux ^Talk 07:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting... I can see your going to stick by the nonsense Geo Swan posted below. No matter. I was referring to your instigation here.[2]. Please read the "questions" he added. You obviously did not do so before. KI 18:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm making no opinion regarding questions that Geo Swan added to your RFA. My note to them simply suggested that very large entries on an RFA such as this one may be better suited for placement on the discussion page, as it may detract from the process of the request. This suggestion was apparently taken, and the disusccion was moved. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks & "instigation"

After I left my vote on User:KI's RfA you were kind enough to answer a query I had left in my edit summary, and give me some courteous, helpful and, importantly, neutral advice on how to respond to RfA's.

Thanks!

I think this is the "instigation" that User:KI wrote to you about.

They consider the questions I left for them on their vote page "far from civil".

So far as I can see, even if, for the sake of argument, I accepted KI's premise that my questions weren't civil, I can't, for the life of me, imagine how they could think you bear any responsibility for them.

I already had pretty strong concerns that KI was tempermentally unsuited to be trusted with the authority inherent in being an administrator. Their last notes to me, and to you, further strengthen those concerns.

Anyhow, thanks for your help, which I believe was in the best traditions of the wikipedia, and which no one should try to make you apologize for. -- Geo Swan 08:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Sugarman Three

Can you please undelete the The Sugarman Three article I was in the process of creating and give me a few minutes to state a case as to why it IS a notable article? Thanks! - Blahm 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know when I'll get a chance to pad the article some more since I was procrastinating from writing my papers/preparing for classes and should really get back to that. So the article per se may have to wait, but I think what I wrote in the talk page is a decent case for keeping the article. - Blahm 05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Requesting SProtection

Requesting SProtection for Kosovo, Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro articles Hi Xaosflux,

I need some help here. We are having troubles again with Hipi Zhdripi. Same old story, he runs out of arguments, logs out and then reverts to what he considers "the right version", thinking he can avoid a 3RR block this way (he got blocked before). The thing is his mastering of English language is so poor he isn't fooling anyone but himself.

Please have a look at the history of contributions for the Kosovo, Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro articles.

He has recently vandalised the Serbia article too and issued threats (well, a bit hard to understand but they definitely sound like threats to me) to User:HolyRomanEmperor

I ran an ARIN check on the IP addresses and all resolve to the same ISP. He has also admitted it was Hipi Zhdripi in a few of the edit summaries, anyway (see this).

I will list him in the 3RR noticeboard later on but, sincerely, I cannot see the point as the dynamic IP addresses seem to change quite a lot and a block on his username would not affect his unlogged edits.

In the meantime, I feel forced to request to have those three articles sprotected. Thanks in advance.

Regards, Asterion 19:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, this has already been semiprotected by another administrator. I would appreciate any suggestions from you as an admin on what is the best action to take against User:Hipi Zhdripi. I know he is behind the IP addresses involved in the last actions for which I requested the Semi-protection. I have marked these as suspected sockpuppets. He has also admitted it was Hipi Zhdripi himself in a few of the edit summaries. This certainly make him go over the 3RR limit repeatedly. The fact that he got blocked for this before seems to clarify that he is fully aware of the rule. Shall I list him in the 3RR noticeboard as User:Hipi Zhdripi or ask for a CheckUser? --Asterion 21:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What's an RIR lookup? Sorry, I'm lost here. Do you mean a reverse IP lookup? --Asterion 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Rapidan

I posted a proper article on Rapidan the Game but I would like it to be what comes up when you type in Rapidan because Rapidan is the name of the game and currently there isn't anything ON the rapidan page... can we fix this ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxsavell (talk • contribs)

Zarbon

I don't follow your edit summary on the Administrators' vandalism notice board. Does that mean you're going to block him, or...? Kafziel 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It apears I cleared that in error. When viewing the block log for them at the time I misread the 18 in the time for the date, and cleared AIV as a already blocked report. FWIW another admin has since blocked them. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

One question

What I wanted really to know, is when does the Project edit count stop being low. Could you give me some sort of a border so that I can know in the future? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ifdef

Regarding your speedy keep vote of {{ifdef}} (see Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 18), there's actually two issues here. It's not just that we have #if now, it's that it's a fork of {{qif}} and basically complicates things even more. Even if we decide to keep qif for now, we absolutely should not encourage the use of still other conditional templates (especially when ifdef is [almost?] identical in functionality to qif; I could see the point if it did something exceptionally different/better, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't). Anyways, just wanted to clear that up. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 04:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you!

This undecidedness spread by me is because everyone says that none will count my edits, but judge their quality rather. You see, when I find an article, I save it; and skim up for the internet for sources, expand it, clean-it-up, fix all typos & errors and place some tags if I didn't finish the job/do it properly. Now, after totally moving an article from an errorous stub, the result I get is 1 edit. That's the thing that's been annoying me. I mean, I do not want to seem like some obssessed Wikipedian that now contributes only to sum up his edits. I am here to contribute, and I thought (and am thinking) that adminship will help me quitte a lot.

Anyways, thanks! You've been very helpful! Cheers. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Could I also bother you some more to comment on some of my largest contributions: Duklja and Tvrtko? Thanks in advance. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Dahon

You speedy deleted this page... due to copyright. I accredited the content at the very TOP of the page saying all content was from the Dahon site. Another bike co seems to have alot of content straight from their site as well. Why the differnece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Brewer (talk • contribs)

More Dahon

first up - how do i reply to your messages in talk?

second - i have checked the copyright info you gave me - what constitutes permission? e.g. Permission to reproduce this web content was granted by NAME, TITLE, CO on DAY MONTH YEAR? is that enough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Brewer (talk • contribs) .

Your signature.

Great idea, done. --Rory096_(block) 20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Xaosflux/Archive13! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Spamming of the Sudoku article

Hi Xaosflux. About a week ago you kindly added an 'sprotect' on the Sudoku article for a couple of days which seemed to stop one specific pest. Thanks! However, the Sudoku article seems to attract an extraordinary volume of antisocial people who repeatedly place ads for their personal website in the Links section in spite of prominent notices discouraging this. I'm totally sick of reverting them and am not far from giving up and leaving the Links section to degenerate into the unholy mess it was 9-12 months ago. Is there some way of putting a permanent block on a specific section within an article? If so, could you/someone consider this for the Links section of the Sudoku article? --angusj 09:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

203.94.130.77

You blocked 203.94.130.77 (a school). User talk:Cyril Washbrook is suffering collateral damage. Not sure that the block can lifted considering the vandalism, but I encouraged Cyril to contact his network admin.--Commander Keane 03:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Joel Leyden

I'd like to bring to your attention that the version of the page which you protected is the version that less reflects the guidelines and spirit of Wikipedia. The user who has been agressively defending the article, Nancetlv (talk · contribs), is a suspected sockpuppet of the author and subject of the article, Israelbeach (talk · contribs), who is currently under review for similar edit warring on Ra'anana. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israelbeach and/or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Woggly. I believe that DejahThoris deserves support for her efforts to bring the article in line with Wikipedia standards. As I am currently involved in dispute resolution with Israelbeach I will not unblock the page myself in order to revert it to the version that I strongly feel is better, Though it is in my power to do so. But I do ask you to reconsider this block. If I see that you are currently inactive I may leave a request for unprotection and a description of the matter at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection . --Woggly 06:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users: Nancetlv and Bonnieisrael --Woggly 08:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Leap year date fix

Hi, I'm Ed Poor. I'm the one Tim "blames" for getting him to create m:ParserFunctions by making all the Date math templates.

Could you take a look at Template talk:Ordinal date leap year? I think I've found a minor error that won't be noticeable until March 2008, but I like to plan ahead! ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving rename request to CfD

When you moved the speedy rename request for Category:American Dance Acts to WP:CfD [3], you used 3 = signs instead of 4, which made every other nomination on the page a subsection of your nomination. It has now been fixed. --Blainster 18:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:User antifa-01

Template:User antifa-01 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. PS: I know this a heated subject. I don't care either way on the subject. This was a technical nomination only. If you wish to have a go at somebody, please pick somebody else. If you wish to have a go at me, then fine but I won't respond. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude!

Dude! Has the Davie Dodds talk page really been protected to prevent me from 'vandalising' it? You're not serious are you dude?--TheMadTim 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

John Cena

Hi,

This IP address is shared throughout the university. There are probably 2,000 college students coming to Wikipedia who just clicked on "you have a new message" who have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. If you have a specific grievance that you would like addressed please contact our network admin directly. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.190.88 (talk • contribs) .

I've got to idea what this anon is talking about, I've never left them a talk message. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is possibly regarding User talk:70.109.255.175, and a generic test mssage regarding vandalism of John Cena. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:203.97.2.58

I just had a look at his edit history and I see vandalism as far back as october 2005, with a strong streak since march. I think I'd go for at least a week now, and keep him in check afterwards. Circeus 01:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know

The email ticket system does have a pretty big impact on Wikipedia, though the edit counters don't show it. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of the above fact but then again, I know you're pretty conservative -- Tawker 02:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

replies on your talk, please put any other replies here. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Block Request

Can you place said block on my account, the whole thing on 5-7-06, and give the Toolbox links to Bishonen as well, and state that this account was terminated at User request ? Martial Law 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Also can you make the Toolbox links part of the Welcome template as well ? Also, go ahead and make yourself a copy of the toolbox as well. Martial Law 07:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Reg recent nominations for speedy deletion

Hi,

This is with ref to the articles St Hedda's, Egton Bridge, et. al. The pages were created without much content and evidently the author has been using templates to create the pages in bulk without substantial information about the topic. In the interim, I suggested in the user's talk page to list/tabulate them in the main page, if the user doesn't have significant information. The particular articles on individual parishes may be created if and when someone has enough information regarding the topic, rather than populating wikipedia in bulk without enough info. Thanks for taking up this matter with me. Cheers. - Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

This is to let you know that I just made a stupid block, but it's fine because yours will expire and kill mine. So, um... this note is to let you know that you don't need to let me know. Thanks. Mak (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

lyrics

Hi user:RyanGF3's posted lyrics from Love Song by AC/DC song on Love Song (AC/DC song). I deleted them as a copyvio. Is that the thing to do, or do I owe him an apology?User_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome and thank you.User_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Czech Big Brother page

I do appreciate your work on the Big_Brother_(Czech_TV_series) page, but I googled the 4 contestants who were red links and got no hits. The Big Brother site linked also doesn't mention any of the listed constestants. I might suggest PRODding the page -- it strikes me as a likely hoax.

Cheers, Supermanhaiku 14:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 14:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk deletion

I have archived the remainder and will restore the links post-deletion. Many thanks! Charles 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, I'd reply, but then it would create that page! =) — xaosflux ^Talk 20:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Charles 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Marxist userbox

Is there a general vote taking place or just for admins?--Constanz - Talk 05:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Sock Puppet

Template:User Sock Puppet has the wrong DRV link. I would correct this, but am unable to do so, as the page is protected. --Constantine Evans 02:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Votestacking

I've removed the notices you inserted into the deleted templates because the edits you made resemble those made by MSK, and are likely to have the same vote-stacking result as those edits. Putting "come and vote here" notices on the userpages of userbox users can only distort the measure of consensus. --Tony Sidaway 03:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

DRV/U

Stating that I am votestacking is not assuming good faith, period. I've recreated the DRV/U in progress notes to the Discussion pages of the affected templates as a regular message instead of being inline on the template. I still think that bringing the same box through the deletion process over and over again is a big waste of time, but something that affects the moral of many editors (perhaps having the boxes is affecting other editors to, it is quite a sticky situation). I support our policies, but the community has overwhelming cried out that CSD:T1 is not specific enough. There has got to be some way to get a community consensus on a userbox policy, any ideas how? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that bringing the same box through DRVU many times is pointless. I'd prefer to see far, fewer of these routine T1 speedy deletions queried.

There isn't really a lot of doubt or ambiguity about what T1 is about. I don't hear the community crying out, or even squeaking plaintively, about it.

We had the makings of a more comprehensive userbox policy but it was deliberately sabotaged by someone who gathered together a rabble. It'll be a month or two at least, in my view, before a new policy stands a chance of reasonable discussion. Personally I would prefer holding off on userbox policy formation at least until the fall. --Tony Sidaway

Thanks for the replies, I speedy things all the time from CAT:CSD and they rarely end up on DRV, same with most sysop deletions; I'm pretty sure I've even deleted some boxen(!) My annoyance with some of the ones on DRVU now are that they have gone back and forth ad nausem. If we could point people to a clear, community endorsed, policy on userboxes when speedy deleting them processing tfd would have less backlog, and drvu could go back to being about the process.

Personally though, if I speedy something, and someone complains, I usually restore it and bring it to xfd, most times it comes back delete, but if it stays as keep, them it's no big deal to me either. Even with this I've never been involved in a page that I deleted, went to DRV, got kicked to xfd; passed xfd that I thaught should get deleted again, doesn't all of the process exist to gather the consensus of at least anyone who wans to volunteer to debate it. (On many issues the consensus of the entire community is more likely abstain, and they simply don't comment at all. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bot

Okay...my bot no longer runs from the monobook...I have finally got around to making the bot request.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 03:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I just fixed the bug with people using templates in summaries and the <a href thing. Looks like all the bugs are gone.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 05:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting on my RfA

Thanks so much for voting! Thanks so much for voting on my request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your constructive criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future.

Mahogany

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

I appreciated your question, and your comments. Thanks for your vote in my RfA; it didn't gain consensus but I'm glad I accepted the nomination. - Amgine 17:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Why are you going through and re-adding all of the non-encyclopedic divisive religion-based categories to userboxes? We need to get rid of these things, not add them! --Cyde Weys 00:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hola

Hey, thanks for taking our side in (at least some of) the userbox debates. It's good to have admins on both sides to make sure neither side outsteps its bounds. Also, just out of curiosity, how do you pronounce your username? Shousflux? Zhaousflux? Exousflux? TheJabberwʘck 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's unpronouncable to hu-mans. =) (`Zay-os-`flux) is pretty close though. I don't really think I'm taking sides, because I don't think it's about sides. I would LOVE to see a workable Userbox Policy, Category Policy, etc; but withstanding one I'm against doing things that will make editors be annoyed and leave the project; and even more so in wasting peoples time. Admins should represent the community, not dictate it. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reality television

some admin intervention needed, User:202.50.90.10 - I know it's a college in New Zealand, but this article is going to be trashed. --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 03:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL vandal just on WP:AIV

They appeared to be done and moved on, but, no problem at all. Thank you for asking! :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Template: User Hell

Thanks for letting me know. It's my opinion that "this survived a TfD" is not a reason to undelete a speedy delete -- I view the criteria as somewhat disjoint. Inflammatory and divisive userboxes should be speedied, but it makes sense to send userboxes to TfDs if there is not consensus that they are inflammatory and/or divisive. That being said, I'm happy to watch the discussion on DRV and wait until that reaches a consensus before asking someone else to re-speedy it (or not, depending on what the consensus is). Nandesuka 14:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)