User talk:Android79/TalkArchive005

vandalism

Hi Android79, I've taken the time to read the page you so graciously provided defining vandalism. Apparently you were correct that well-intentioned vandalism is a contradictio in terminis, since vandalism includes "indisputably bad-faith". I regret using the word vandalism. It seems to have a rather stronger meaning than I had in mind. Unfortunately I am at a loss for another word. --MarSch 2 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)

Hey MarSch. Thanks for taking the time to read that. I figured our argument was more over a misunderstanding of terminology than anything else. Unfortunately, I can't think of a term or phrase that would describe what we talked about, either. Cheers, AиDя01D TALK EMAIL July 2, 2005 18:05 (UTC)

Kardos Kingdom

Dudtz-one of our doctors was on Good Morning America "Help! I'm being repressed!" — Dudtz (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Please stop adding junk to Wikipedia. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL July 3, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/I1

Dragon's Flight pointed out a serious omission to this proposal: that the image description page of WikiCommons should include the content of the one on Wikipedia. I have reworded the proposal to include that. Because the wording changed, I have hidden your vote; please read the new version and reinstate your vote if you still support (or move it to oppose, or delete it, as you see fit). Yours, R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 08:16 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3

PBurka pointed out that an important omission from this proposal: a band could meet WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (sharing a member with a famous band) and still be speedily deletable by this criterion. I've added a sentence to the proposal to reflect this: it now reads An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage, nor having a member that is or was also part of a well-known music group. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead. Please consider if you support this new wording, and change your vote if not. Yours, R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 09:54 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with the requests above. Those two proposals were the only two that had an important omission and required a quick fix while there were still relatively few voters. I'm sure there'll be plenty more discussion, but no more significant changes. I've extended the voting period by one day to ensure they get their proper time. Thank you for your consideration. R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 10:05 (UTC)

CSD Proposal 3-B

You voted or commented on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)

3RR

Report him for 3RR on the phony "GWB delete" page. A speedy delete would be less effective IMO. NoSeptember^T 6 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)

Or, a third option: WP:VIP. I'll do 3RR if that doesn't get quick results. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL July 6, 2005 21:35 (UTC)

911 Horoscope

True, yes, but not in the way she put it. She took issue with some of my less temperate comments on the VFD page and sent me a lengthy e-mail about what a horrible person I am, including her usual threats of legal action. She presents my response as though it were an unprovoked attack, which is certainly not the case. Ben-w 7 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured. She seems a bit high-strung, and the legal threats are just maddening. I don't know how diplomatic or not you were in the email, but I can't say I blame you if you got a bit harsh. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL July 8, 2005 00:22 (UTC)

Anon user

Hello. You have reverted edits by 134.161.144.50 on the George W. Bush article, and now this user demands to know why. Please see Talk:George W. Bush#stop deleting my additions; maybe we can resolve this somehow. Thanks, Sango 123 21:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just in the process of responding to that when I got your message. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 21:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, (81.156.177.21).

Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer. The above is one of her/his sockpuppets. ~~~~ 19:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/3-C

Hello! Sorry to bother you, but since you voted on the earlier CSD proposal about unremarkable bands, it would be appreciated if you cast your vote for this version. It has been reworded to address concerns raised against the earlier wording. Please take a look at it and consider if you support or oppose it. Yours, R adiant _>|< 08:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanx

Ok i have now my wikipedia account that san_taunk. so.... i was expecting some pointers u talked about at User talk:203.77.197.86 --San taunk 14:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA?

Okay, thanks :) that was months ago, wasn't it? R adiant _>|< 14:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brass monkey

Somebody completely rewrote the article to add folk etemology (sp?) to it and what not. Perhaps you can take another look? Thanks. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 20:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I was going to do that, but then forgot. Thanks for the reminder. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 20:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

King of the Music Video

ABOUT THE MICHAEL JACKSON "KING OF MUSIC VIDEO" TITLE HE WAS GIVEN THAT TITLE BY MTV AND VH1. — (Khalif forgot to sign.)

I've been unable to find a reference for it, and even if it were true, that nickname is hardly as prevalent as "The King of Pop," and does not deserve a mention in the article's introduction. What's the context – was he given some sort of recognition at an awards show? On a TV special? By the way, please turn off CAPS LOCK when you make edits. Most people consider typing in all caps to be equivalent to shouting. Also, you can sign your username and a timestamp by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

thanks for supporting me

Hello, just a quick note to express my gratitude for your support of my RfA. I'm sure I'll become a familiar face on places like the Administrator's Noticeboard and Requests for Adminship, as well as the murkier parts of my new job. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48, NIV) Never was a truer word spoken. I feel empowered, yes, but not in the "oooh cool delete button!" way I was kind of expecting. Already I feel the weight of the responsibility I have now been entrusted with, a weight that will no doubt reduce given time. Thank you for believing in me. :) Garrett^Talk 10:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dudtz

Hi, I put Dudtz on my watch list a while ago. The edits he performed on an article I monitor indicated immaturity and inexperience. Seeing your block notice surprised me and I checked out some of his more recent edits. It seems that the majority of the stuff he contributes could be classified as trolling or even vandalism. There are many more incidents than the ones you've mentioned on his talk page. Jbetak 07:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certify RfC

Hi. Will you certify an RfC against User talk:172.172.170.232 for his attacks and statements on Hillary Clinton and William Clinton and on my talk page? As you noted, he is likely a sockpuppet. My only concern is to go to the work of an RfC and then he disappears coming back as another sock. --Noitall 03:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Don't you mean 172.150.56.37 (talk • contribs)? Are there two now? Sorry, too much going on in those articles to keep up, especially when I'm doing other stuff. I'm concerned about this/these user(s)' behavior and will certify an RfC if it looks like it's going to be fruitful (anonymous, untraceable IPs... not likely) and if the behavior continues. android 79 03:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, yes fruitful is the operative word. Perhaps I'll know by his juvenile behavior and misspellings and POV (not that it is bad, just identifiable). Well, we'll see. Take care. --Noitall 04:05, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

New criterion

Man, I think I came back from my wiki-vacation too damn soon. We have a new criterion that's long overdue...and I'm getting grief from a user I've never heard of. Just between you and I, ol' buddy, I'm quietly stepping aside for a few days. This isn't worth the hassle from a total stranger. I've found other, friendlier places to chat and to contribute. Drop me an e-mail if you want to say howdy. - Lucky 6.9 05:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good little break, but don't let it get you down too much, and don't stay away too long. This project does attract a lot of junk, as you and I both know, and it needs to be cleaned out! I vaguely remember seeing Mirror Vax before, but all I remember of the context is that it was negative, so I won't comment further. android 79 13:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sango's RfA

Hi, Android79. Thank you very much for supporting my RfA! I will try my best to demonstrate that your praise was well-placed and wield the mop responsibly. Sango 123 01:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Damn, you're making me hungry with that picture! :-) android 79 01:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson and 84.13.48.197

Please keep a watchful eye on 84.13.48.197's edits, they appear to be subtle vandalism. Hall Monitor 22:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll revert those figures back to "unknown." android 79 22:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a moron...

Thanks for doing the delete...too many beers...need to add the comments to the Talk section now...just posted to Haiku....even more ironically, I own BOFH.com :) Wikibofh 03:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what did I delete now? I've not had any beers, which is a shame, but I am damn tired. I can't remember what I did 15 minutes ago. (Nice site.) android 79 03:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Michael Jackson

Hehe, yeah, I know. It has hapend to me many times as well. Shanes 03:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatch's RfA

Thanks for your support on my RfA! I look forward to helping with VfD (yes, you read that right =)). Cheers! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:53, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Obscene material

Why do you think that the obscene material is not a candidate for speedy deletion? --Noitall 22:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Because it's not. Also, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Wikipedia:Obscene image, which is what this category/CSD scheme is based on, was invented by SuperDude115, a user with a history of unilaterally declaring policy and carrying it out. See the discussions on the deletion of the template and categories for more. android79 22:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion. Also, I thought the other tag was an official tag. What about the tag I originally put on it, "This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: Inappropriate blatent nudity used to vandalize pages/No meaningful Wiki-appropriate content or history and used for pure vandalism" and also Wikipedia:Vandalism Image vandalism: Uploading provocative images. ? --Noitall 23:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  - I support the deletion of most of the images that were in the category, as all but four of them were not being used in articles. However, they should not be speedily deleted. I disagree that uploading provacative images ought to be considered vandalism, but you are correct in that the policy could be interpreted that way. Inserting the images into pages is the act that ought to be censured. Have these images been used to vandalize? android79 23:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    - I guess I caught the 172 Anon in the act. Several were uploaded into articles. Others he created pages with similar names or edited on those pages and it appears was ready to upload them. After I ran into a couple, I looked to see what he was doing and found them all. --Noitall 23:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      - Which 172 anon? Speaking of SuperDude, I see you have been in contact with him about this. Are you aware of this RfC, particularly this revelation on its talk page? I don't know what your beef with -Ril- is, but it'd probably be best not to get SuperDude involved in disputes that he previously had no direct involvement in. android 79 23:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the 7121989 Anon, if that is an Anon.

I had no idea about Superdude, I thought he was doing the right thing. His motives were certainly right. I also have no idea about creating templates or whatnot -- I thought they were all official. As for -Ril-, he is one of my more suprising disagreements. He did a reactionary revert on me once and then and immediately tracked me down and found the RfC by Agriculture. He then caused all sorts of problems and continues to cause problems. Today, he was trolling my edits and that is how he ended up undeleting all these pictures. Anyhow, I don't want to do an RfC on him, and I would be happy to modify any edit (or even Wiki behavior) I made, if you want to take a look at Talk:The Bible and history, be my guest. Thanks. --Noitall 00:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

(Sick of indenting... I wish the Wiki software had a better way to structure conversations.) Wait, were the images actually deleted at some point, or simply listed for deletion? I'll be happy to look at that talk page when I have time, but I'm no authority on the Bible. android 79 00:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, they were just listed. I can't delete. As for the talk page, that's fine. It doesn't seem to be a content dispute because he has never given me a reason for his reverts other than he does not like me and lists "POV" with no explanation. --Noitall 00:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Smerge

I guess "smoosh" works too; anything that gets the point across that not everything is to be merged. I hate cut-and-paste merges, generally. I haven't noticed the term catching on too much, but it's still new. I guess I'll check today's VfDs and see if it's there. I better keep linking it for a while, I suppose, even though it kind of defeats the purpose, as it takes longer to link to my userpage explanation than it does to write out "slight merge". I think I used to write out "trim and merge and redirected", but "smerge" sounds better. I have no idea if and when it will deserve a WP:Smerge. I guess I'll leave that for others to decide. -R. fiend 13:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HBP

She killed Frodo??? I thought it was Aragorn :) Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 16:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 07:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]