User talk:Android79/TalkArchive009

Piconjo

Come on Android i made the article at Piconjo/Temp, aren't you gonna unprotect Piconjo? 64.251.182.80 18:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at Talk:Piconjo/Temp. I'll unprotect and move if that's what you want. Since you're editing from various shared IPs, it'd be much easier to communicate with you if you registered a username. android 79 18:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hey, take a look at my talk page and tell me what I should do with this guy. I strongly believe he's being sarcastic and attacked me personally but am assuming good faith now. If wrong I plan on giving him a final warning adn if he comes back to report him as a vandal. Thoughts?Gator1 21:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He WAS going after me and just blanked my vandal warnings. Comments?Gator1 21:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's gone, I'll let you know. A critique would be most appreciated. Is it considered vandalism when you tell someon not to come back to your talk page and they do with more of the same attacks? He impugned my abilities as an attorney. I take that very seriosuly and consider it a personal attack and a very low blow. But let me know how I should have handled it and if my warnings on his talk page should be put back after being blanked. Thanks.Gator1 22:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. Actually, you impugned your abilities as an attorney. RandomJoe 22:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. Now he's doing it here. Stalker.Gator1

It's best just to ignore trolls. android 79 04:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

... for deleting Open Season (2006 movie). This was really starting to get irritating. — FJG 15:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Let me know if it shows up again with a different title. android 79 15:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homocide vs. Homicide

The entry on homocide as a term denoting the killing of a homosexual was deleted entirely. And there is no "vote for unredirect" system. Thus, VfU is my only recourse, since I was unable to make my case on the AfD before it closed. --Gemini6Ice 23:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism

I do not appreciate your activities as a common vandal at Open Season (2006 movie). Eclecticology 23:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make baseless accusations. --fvw * 23:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even see the original article, so what I did was not a recreation of the article; it was a whole new one. Your horde of friends may see it differently, but maybe they should learn what good faith editing is and start doing something constructive. Eclecticology 00:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I saw was a substantially-similar recreation of validly-deleted content on my semi-regular patrol of CAT:CSD. There was no assumption of faith, good nor bad, involved. As for my "friends," I don't believe I've ever had any interaction with Fvw or the other fellow that you were arguing about this with before. If you don't think what I do – deleting a large portion of the junk that ends up in this project every day – then take a look at CAT:CSD some time and see what ends up there. android 79 01:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemwars.com

Hi. You voted to delete Systemwars.com and it was deleted. However, Tony Sidaway has decided that your vote and the consensus that agreed with you was insufficient. He has recreated the article in violation of policy and relisted it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Please take a look. - Tεx τ urε 15:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Way ahead of you. android 79 15:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Jones University

Now that I think about it, you're right, it would constitute a revert. --Viriditas | Talk 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm right some of the time. ;-) android 79 03:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

I see you have opposed my adminship candidacy on the same grounds as Andre. Do you believe I have a sense of ignorance, and if so, how can I fix that? If I read up on someone else who is running for adminhood, and see initial evidence of misconduct without thoroughly evaluating that evidence, should I just not render a vote at all? Denelson 83 20:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you see initial evidence of misconduct without thoroughly evaluating it, I'd suggest you not vote at all until you can thoroughly evaluate it, or just bring it up in the comments section for others to look at. If you had done that instead, it would have been a constructive discussion of that particular incident (hopefully). By basing your vote on one out-of-context example of perceived incivility (incivility that I personally see on DreamGuy's side) you are not really making a strong case for opposition. An oppose vote ought to be based on a reasonably long history of misconduct, not one set of comments, especially when there is so much evidence of Friday's civility and constructive cooperation with other users. One incident doesn't make or break one's reputation. This is all, of course, just my opinion. android 79 23:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I should have known to use the comments section to express my concerns first. Thank you.

BTW, I know perfectly well that it is okay for a few people to oppose my RFA. Nobody is perfect. Denelson 83 02:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hi, you speedy deleted STILL REFUSES TO SAY SORRY as an "attack page". Can I point out that the speedy criterion A6 applies to "short articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject", and the example given is "OMFG! Joe Random is a l0ser n00bface lolol!!!11").". The article in question was a long paragraph of coherent text, and included various verifiable statements of fact about a prominent politician. I do not believe it fit the criteria, and I do not believe it is appropriate to speedy delete articles of this nature. Kappa 01:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although I think the outcome will be the same. I've undeleted and will reopen the AfD. android 79 01:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind an outsider opinion, I admire the speedy undeletion, since there was protest. However, I feel the original speedy deletion was valid. Discounting one anon, there's unanimous consent for deletion, including a few suggestions of speedying it as an attack page. Friday (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Friday. I guess I could have called it "short enough" to qualify for A6, especially given the way the dicussion was going at the time. It's all academic at this point, anyway – if Kappa votes merge or keep, I don't think it'd be a bad bet to say he'll be the only one – and I refuse to get all bent out of shape about speedies and undeletions. android 79 01:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Android79 thanks for the undeletiong but I'm disappointed that you would wish to stretch the speddy criteria in a way that they really weren't intended to be. You are correct that it's academic, I wasn't asking for it to be undeleted, just for you to be more restrained in future. Kappa 01:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my wish to "stretch" anything. The word short in A6 had apparently escaped my attention until now, and I thought I was validly applying it without having to do any justification. I'm going to take any questioning of my speedies as an implicit undeletion request, unless the reasoning is absolutely absurd. There's been far too much acrimony about this kind of dispute recently, so back to AfD it goes. android 79 02:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hector Acuña

Android, I think you forgot to SD the Hector Acuña talk page when you deleted the article. Good call, by the way—for some reason I'd been under the impression that that rule applied only to User pages, but on checking it seems to apply to any page. Thanks. enceph alon 03:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Thanks. That rule comes in quite handy for CSD, as a lot of "newbie test" pages are blanked soon after creation. android 79 03:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Personal Attack Policy talk page...ironically.

Could you take a look at the blanking that Snowspinner is doing on the Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks page. He's been warned twice about removing ocntent on talk pages that he just doesn't agree with (with the most recent warnign coming from me). He's now on my talk page claiming it's NOT vandalism and just remvoed the same content again. I think an admin's opinion on this would prperly educate him on what is and is not appropriate. I can smell an ugly revert war brewing here. Thanks.Gator1 15:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I support Snowspinner's actions. Njyoder is being disruptive. android 79 15:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism of my page. --Nlu 16:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for all your hard work on warning/reverting vandals. I see your name pop up on WP:AIV more than any other. android 79 16:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New_Yanoff should not have been deleted

You were the final decision maker on the speedy deletion of my New_Yanoff (Usenet Client) entry.

The identified "copyrighted" page listed contains text that *I* wrote about my own software. I think the text is concise, that's why I use it most everywhere (including my own product web page). I don't know how much editing would be necessary to avoid triggering the copyright search match, but that shouldn't be necessary anyway because, as I said, I wrote both texts. Is there some tag I can add to note that I have permission to include "copyrighted" material (which I do have)? The help text on wikepedia indicates this is possible but nowhere do I find details/spec on how to do this!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Yanoff" Woodcock 14:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC) I am Gregg Woodcock (user Woodcock) Oct 14, 2005[reply]

User:Βικιπαίδεια είναι κομουνισμός

Howdy. I unblocked this user to impose an indefinite block without realizing that the block you used in the first place was also indefinite. I was confused by the {{test5}} message you left, which says "temporary" block, but I should have checked the logs. Anyway, just a heads-up. android 79 20:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake, thanks for the cleanup. --fvw * 20:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting on my RfA

Your opposition showed very clearly that nobody is perfect. I will try very hard to improve my behaviour. Denelson 83 22:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

By all means, please do stay in touch. I was trolling the waters for some info that I could put over at the R/C Wikicities wiki, checked the deletion log...and saw that User:Wiki brah had been blocked for good as a sockpuppet, no less. What a great deal of fun THAT was trying to deal with his shenanigans!. That was part of the reason that I was going out of my mind; you try and help a guy, and he winds up being a dweeb like that. Anyway, I was logging on to e-mail another user, caught your message and I wanted to drop in and say "hi." Much obliged for the nice note. - Lucky 6.9 05:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki talk

What does "IRC" mean as in "let's talk by IRC." Thanks.Gator1 12:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IRC = "Internet Relay Chat."

More thanks!

Looks like I'm cutting the wikivacation a bit short. Again. Felt it was necessary after what almost happened to Essjay. Still going to lay low for a bit, but I guess I really can't stay away for long. - Lucky 6.9 19:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

Just thought I'd tell you your signature gave me a little chuckle. You don't have an "e" in your name for Esperanza, so you did the next best thing: use a letter that doesn't really make sense. Oh well. Cheers. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's an A in Esperanza! Two, in fact! :-) android79 19:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh. Got me there. Well then, why not use the "n" or the "r"? Hmmm...? Exactly. No connection at all. I like the green and purple, by the way. Did you use it first? Did I copy from you? Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did it first! You can't prove it's not true! ;-) android79 14:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I could go back and figure out when I started using them, and then go back through your edits and figure out when you started using them, but that would be a copmplete waste of time, so I'll just say I stole it from you. I have done a lot worse things than stealing people's signature formats, so I will be evil and say I ruthlessly swooped in and plundered your sig. Ha ha! No one can stop me now! --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are an evil, evil ~~man~~ ~~wizard~~ non-corporeal entity. Nice job! android 79 18:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My accidental block

Ah, I was worried there for a moment. Ironically, I was trying to warn the currently blocked anon about using misleading edit summaries when I got blocked. No worries, thanks for the quick fix! --213.163.7.195 15:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (I am Ashenai, by the way, I just occasionally (and annoyingly) get logged off). (confirming identity)[reply]

They still haven't figured out the random-logout bug? That sucks. android 79 15:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

Thanks :)

Just FYI, the reason I want the trivia section is related to my current combing the article. I need a place for some facts that are sufficiently relevant to be mentioned, but don't really have a good home of their own. They don't always flow nicely in the middle of other text. EricN 15:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand your perspective there. My personal reasoning is that if trivia doesn't really fit in the body of the article, it's not sufficiently important to be mentioned even in its own section. However, depending on the section you eventually come up with, I might change my mind. android79 15:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The section I started...some facts were moved from elsewhere in the text, others were ones that have been added and reverted many times because there was no good place for them. EricN 16:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

151.199.192.110

Recreated Secret Secret Page after it was speedied and your "final warning." Al 16:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, he's been blocked. android 79 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive zeal reverting George Washington

I'm sorry; I see that I swept up a legitimate edit by 209.7.119.170 with some subsequent vandalism by 64.66.81.210. Thank you for letting me know; that's not a mistake I would want to repeat. I have no preference for "gained prominence" over "achieved prominence." Tom harrison 16:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to recover a contribution?

I see you deleted the RfC against Redwolf24. I don't have a problem with that, however, it appears my contribution to that nolonger appears in my contributions list. Is there a way to recover that work? -- thanx, --Silverback 17:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it. I removed it from the list of active RfCs. android 79 17:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Redwolf deleted it himself in line with RfC policy. android79 17:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I couldn't tell that from the history. Is there a way to recover my contribution?--Silverback 01:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:VFU. android 79 04:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing

Thanks for your support there, if you are able to, i'd welcome your help in trying to make Pigs into a better user. After looking at that RfC, I think most people will agree that a light touch isn't going to work with that guy. Karmafist 14:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you...you've totally brightened an otherwise poor day. I really appreciate the feedback :-D EricN 23:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Pls revert the edits by Wingedagression in the earth page. I think u r an admin-- SivaKumar 16:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Please see my latest post on ANI. I wasn't saying a plot was imminent, its just that some admins are not what you might think, and they dont have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. As you know, most computer geek types are pretty smart, and learned from the "rogue" admin controversies in the past and are now much more subtle in their disruption and flaunting of consensus. And as far as I know this attack is still in the planning stages. I'm not part of it. There is also discussion of running for Arbcom. Arbcom can be controlled by a minority of 4 voters.Wikiphilosopher 14:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottfisher

I think there's been some good headway dealing with the Scottfisher copyvio issues. Scott has come up with a list of images that he agrees should be deleted, and both he and Pigsonthewings are asking me to go ahead and delete them. However, I'm not entirely familiar with procedure on PUI and how that relates to the new speedies, so I wanted to ask some other admins familiar with the issue for comment. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncebackability

I feel you've made a Big mistake in deleting this article! - Bwfc 10:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus to delete, IMO; besides, the article, which was really just a dicdef, exists in pretty much the same form at wikt:bouncebackability. android 79 11:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated template substitution

This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]