User talk:Android79/TalkArchive010

User:AdelaMae

The above user posted an unusual request at the AMA Request for Assistance page and I thought that you might be able to help (and told her so). I don't now anything about this beyond what she has said, but if there's some truth to it, maybe you can help smooth over this situation. Thanks.Gator (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

Perhaps I'm merely feeding those-who-should-not-be-fed, but check out my latest on User talk:The Great Saiyuki. Friday (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there as well... android 79 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

silsor

android,
We've spent too much time on this. We're feeding the trolls. Yes, f silsor had spelled out his arguments (assuming they exist) that would have been preferable. But I think that the best thing would have been low-key response. On one ond of the possibility spectrum is that this is a carefully thought social experiment, on the other is that it's a mal-adaptive attention seeking device. Whatever it is, I'd prefer to not make a fuss until it's actually hurting something.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, who's trolling? I would have been fine with a low-key response – see my vote on the damn thing – if silsor and others hadn't insisted on re-listing the silly thing time and again. android 79 22:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the subjects of an RfC

You have been named as one of the subjects of an RfC at [1] --Silverback 06:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you deleted my complaint

Since you deleted my complaint Wikipedia:Requests for comment/personal attacks by Ambi could tell me what was the out come? as I never had the chance to see any comments being unable to get internet for 24 hours. Does Ambi have to the right to abuse me? Is she exempt from abuse rules? This is a bit like a court case where your not allowed to take part and defend oneself. Could you return the comments (some ten I see) as I believe I have the right toe see them. And why wasnt I asked to comment? Eric A. Warbuton 03:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the policy laid out at WP:RFC, particularly Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours and RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack. Filing an RfC over a matter that other users regard as trivial or inappropriate may diminish their opinion of you or may cause them to file an RfC against you (emphasis added).

There was no "outcome", as an RfC is not equivalent to a court case. It is a request for comments, just an informal discussion with no "outcome" or decision, binding or otherwise. However, the general reaction from most commenters was that it was a frivolous RfC. I'm a bit baffled by your question "And why wasnt I asked to comment?" Your comments started the process in the first place. I have no intentions of undeleting the RfC, as I'm unaware of any policy that would allow me to do so. Feel free to ask at WP:DR.

A few sarcastic remarks from another user do not constitute grounds for an RfC. You'll note that two people are required to certify that they tried to resolve the same dispute with another user in order for an RfC to remain open. You'd be better off trying to resolve this through mediation. android 79 13:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Very much for your kind support of my adminship. I'll do my best to live up to your and my other supporters' expectations. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grapes for vandal-fighting

Image removed because the site is really slow today.

Yum, grapes! Thanks, Sam. android 79 17:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant mode

I'm pedantic, but I haven't really seen that phrase in writing, and wrote that very late last night :) Thanks for telling me. Ral315 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship nomination

I'm back from my trip. If you still consider me worthy, a nomination would be appreciated. :-) --Nlu 03:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get right on it! android79 13:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept. Thanks! --Nlu 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yay! Things seem to be going well... android 79 04:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

Hi User:Street walker is blanking and altering to suit his POV the Michael Jackson article, myself and another user are trying to keep a hold on it, but Street walker is now using anonymous accounts to get around the 3RR. As an admin can you help and advice a relative newcomer please? --KrisW6 08:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the last version by you; we'll see what happens from here. Wikipedia is moving very slowly for me this morning, so I may not be able to help as much as I'd like. android 79 17:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elitism

User Remington and the Rattlesnakes has violated the 3RR rule (by a large margin) on the Elitism page. I know that after the 4th revert (so I guess it's a 4 revert rule :)) an admin can block for 24 hours. Would you please look into this and block if it's appropriate? Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There were four clear reverts. Feel free to bring these to the attention of all admins at WP:AN/3RR if I'm not around. android 79 16:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My user sub page

It is more benign, I had it as a place where I could keep evidence in case of any potential rfars(now that i'm actually a plantiff in one, I rarely use it, ironically enough), as well as a place to remind myself of instances on the good users here.

The name does sound somewhat foreboding, but it doesn't have malicious intent. Can you think of any less intimidating names for the page? I've gotten the wrong impression from others before there. Karmafist 17:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of a better name. The idea of keeping evidence for potential RfArs seems troublesome to me, and separating users into "good" and "bad" categories is a bit uncivil and falls on the wrong side of WP:AGF. It's not so much the name that may be offensive, but the content. android 79 18:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, I think the biggest reason why it's still there at all is what I saw as condescending bullying by Ral315 regarding it. If he just asked politely for me to get rid of it, I probably would have, but now I don't know since that might be seen as caving in to him.(i'm like a chinese finger trap IMO: pull and it gets tighter, don't pull and it gets loose.)

As for WP:AGF, i've removed several users from the "bad" side of the page, I removed Borisblue last night after we had a good talk thanks to Pigs, and I nominated MONGO for adminship even though he was on it just a few months ago. Remember the A in AGF, it's still just an assumption in a "when in doubt" situation. It's not a clear thing.

That page has been deteriorating anyhow, and the past few weeks have been making it worse. I have an idea on how both sides can save face here, perhaps I can put anything worthwhile there onto a Word file on my hard drive. I'm not 100% since it seemed to help remind Borisblue that he went a bit too far, but ultimately the goal of it is to act as a tool, not to cause division and derision. If it can't do both, it probably shouldn't stay there. Karmafist 18:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now recreated at User:Karmafist/Notepad, with mostly the same content, but no redirect from either of the former names. Andy Mabbett 11:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King of music

Hi

I placed a rfd on article King of music, added by User:Street walker. He has since removed the rfd, without any consensus being reached on the relavent talk page. He has been repeatedly warned about this MANY times before. Can you as an admin, tell me how I can go about reporting him for this, as I consider it vandalism, and against the consensus system used on wikipedia? Thanks. --KrisW6 09:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfD notice is still there, and the redirect will be deleted at some point. No need for warnings or further action at this point. android 79 13:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

My signature is not working for some reason, all of the sudden. Any ideas what the problem is?Gator[[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 15:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC) See?[reply]

Hmm, weird. Might be related to the recent implosion of the part of the software that cleans up after bad HTML, user signatures being a prime source of that. Do you have HTML in your sig? android 79 16:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

....I feel like Dr. McCoy from Star Trek, but "I'm a lawyer dammit, not a computer programmer!" I have NO clue what you're talking about! LOL. I just copied and pasted what you told me to....My nickname line reads "Gator]][[User talk:Gator1|(talk)" That should work right?Gator[[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 16:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am a programmer, and I can't figure out why it's not working, either. :-) I have a guess why, but I won't bore you with the technical details. In the meantime, put this in your sig box:

[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]]

and check the "Raw signatures" box. That should work. android 79 16:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks it did! I owe yah.Gator (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remington and the rattlers...

I checked it out, and I would do something, but I can't do anything about it either. You may want to ask Hall Monitor... he seems to be around too. Sorry. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, way to rub it in... 8^) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for recently doing something the user/troll Remington and the Rattlesnakes. I noticed you got around to removing the POV tag on elitism before I did, as I was writing a response to explain why it was justified on the talk page (I added it anyway). There's also a personal attack he recently added to his userpage, if something should be done about it (it'll probably turn into another edit war when he gets back). And after all, Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit pages ;) --Indium 04:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and furthermore...

"Remington and the Rattlesnakes" is the "North Carolina Vandal". Curps remembers him, Joy Stovall, and probably a number of others too; I've made several posts about him on AN/I as well as ViP since at least June, though he's been active longer than that, and I've blocked innumerable sockpuppets of him. His editing style and target articles give him away. Look at any contribution from a 63.19.xxx.xxx IP on any North Carolina related article (for example, Stokes County, North Carolina: [2] --there's a list of some of his socks on a long vandalism spree), as well as Luxembourg, Mississippi, elitism (this gives it away, but there are hundreds of examples like this [3]), as well as his obsession with "croboys" and so forth, all of which appears in his vandalism history, as well as on his current user page. He is really one of the most prolific vandals in the history of our project, if you count up all the 63.19 vandalism. For a while he just played in the sandbox (look at all the 63.19 edits there in the last several weeks) but now he's come out, and he's trying being a POV warrior rather than a blatant vandal. I can accumulate a small mountain of evidence on him; it's easy, because he says the same things in all his vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and more. If you look at the very end of his contribution history, he registered about a dozen usernames (eg User:JhY51681), editted the sandbox with them once, then editted their user pages from the Remington account. There's also the user:Jake Remington account that the username is supposedly based on too. Very strange. Indium 04:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: it's very typical of him too have arguments with himself. Another characteristic behavior is putting fake "vprotect" tags on pages. I think I will post some of this on AN/I. Antandrus (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad this didn't come to light a couple days ago... woulda saved a bit of work. :-) android 79 05:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, well I guess the good news is that now there's a couple more people who will be watching for him (he never stays away for more than a few days; he's a wikipediholic of a different kind ...) :-) Antandrus (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remington sockpuppets

I believe, based on the user history and attitude of the user(s), that User:Werxaddamill. Your welfare bill and the IP address 63.19.195.125 are sockpuppets of Remington. Do with that as you see fit.Gator (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HTML Color

With regard to your question on POTW's talk page, you can use [text to colorize] instead of text to colorize. FWIW, I use the font tag in my sig because it's smaller than using a bunch of span tags. =) --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 18:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I learned HTML a long time ago and have not bothered with CSS until now. I'll probably continue to just use font tags unless it can be shown that it breaks Wikipedia in some way. android79 18:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. [[Red]] doesn't work: Red, as the wikilink color overrides the style information. android79 18:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
 - You'd need to do it like this-- [[Red|Red]]. For example: Red. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 19:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think POTW's concern is with regard to Wikipedia being XHTML compliant, but it (the font tag) currently validates under XHTML transitional just fine. If you don't enclose your color name/value in quotes though, it won't validate. You can check out the validator here-- [4]. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 19:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
 - There we go. Thanks! android 79 19:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't set a colour without also setting a high- contrast background coour (what if your text is yellow, and a visually - impaired user has set their background colour to be yellow?); you shouldn't change the colour of links from the user's default (or, at least, from the default of the site they're on). See the W3C-WAI guidelines for more. We should also aim to use XHTML strict, not transitional. Andy Mabbett 19:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About MJ's intro

Why was his sister taken out of the intro? she has said time and time again that he was the person who made her started to dance. She was taught a few steps by [[Paula Abdul], yes but even her Rhythm Nation music video, she said, was influenced by Michael Jackson's mini movie Captain EO and his military dance moves in it. Why I think that she should stay in it. Furthermore, Beyonce doesn't even do a lot of dancing compared to Janet Jackson or any other person in the intro.So if she's there I think that it's only right that his sister be put there too. Khalif 17:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take either of those things out. Keep in mind the intro should be a short summary of the article. Excessive detail is bad. This discussion belongs at Talk:Michael Jackson. android 79 17:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, misread what you wrote. I guess I did take that out, as I didn't want the list of influenced artists to get too long. android 79 17:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating/supporting my RfA

Thanks for nominating me for adminship and then supporting it. The RfA passed today. I look forward to working with you to make Wikipedia a better place. --Nlu 03:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jake. Remington is not User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes, and I demand the removal of this block.63.19.156.161 05:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Remington

I am Jake Remington, and I am not User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes. I will not take any slanderous claims from the lower classes.63.19.156.161 05:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EddieSegoura

EddieSegoura seems like he is revealing some possible sensitive information about some IP addresses that I thought amor experienced user like yourself should take a look at. Let me know if this is proper as I am totally dumb when it comes to this kind of computer stuff. Thanks.Gator (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]