User talk:ArmadilloFromHell/Archive 06/Month Nov

Continues from User talk:ArmadilloFromHell/Archive October 2006

Keediz

It's not suposed to be vandalism. I tried to make it as dimensional as I could. The fact of the matter is that I hate this awfull rumor, which is why I did an article of it. It's such an infamous myth I thought it derserved an article of it's own. And I stated I wasn't trying to ofend Americans or children as I am neither ageist nor racist.

Keediz has been around for years even though it doesn't exist it makes me sick every time I hear it mentioned but I wasn't trying to vandalize just educate are younger readers. MJN SEIFER

I guess you got a stalemate then? :(

I actaully searched for Keediz on line and like you found nothing, But I have heard it used on TV loads of times. I really love children (In a legal way) and I hate adults treating them like idiots.

Never the less your threats have been taken into acount and as I'm not yet finished with this site, I will refrain from posting anything Keediz realated unless I can provide proof, and to be on the safe side I will ASK you before I do so. I hope we have a neutral understanding, but this doesn't remove my pain. MJN SEIFER

tracee ellis ross page

Uh-oh. He ignored you, and went right back to a wholesale revert. What now?

And oh yes -- he also removed your warning templates from his discussion page. He has done this a number of time before. Despite receiving appropriate warnings to not do so. --Epeefleche 17:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He removed the warnings, I put them back and warned him, nothing happened since then, except both of you have received warnings reagrding your dispute over the article. --ArmadilloFromHell 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh. He ignored you, and went right back to a wholesale revert.

And he again also ingnored and removed your warning templates from his discussion page.

What now? --Epeefleche 20:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what you mean - you are twisting the facts. I never did any edits on Tracee Ellis Ross I never reverted any edits there, the only think I did was restore the warnings on his talk page. The only other change after that was by an Admin. I'm not involved in the dispute you two are having, and I'm not going to mediate between you guys. --ArmadilloFromHell 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was less than clear. What I mean is this. You put back the warnings, as you indicated above, and warned him. He has however now again deleted the warnings (that you put back). He has also again done what you warned him not to do. --Epeefleche 21:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting quite annoying, maybe we are not talking about the same thing.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DtownG&action=history

2006-10-31T01:50:00 I put back the warnings, he changed nothing on that page since then. --ArmadilloFromHell 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

User:Alec - U.K.

I am spending a large amount of my time dealing with bizarre decisions and edits and now page moves/redirects. I don't think it is sneeky vandalism but extremely poorly thought out corrections. I don't know what to do as I am wasting time that I want to use to expand and improve other articles, fixing these things. Do you have any advice or someone else I could ask to intervene? Thanks,Regan123 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a couple of admins a while ago. One said he saw no problem, another put a warning on his page, but nothing happened. I reported him in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism with no effect. I've reverted a few, but it is somewhat futile, if I keep posting warnings, it looks like I'm on a vendetta. Some other people are reverting his changes, but no one puts any warnings on his talk page. It's never obvious vandalism, mostly stupid useless edits that add no value mixed with edits that add confusion, like changing a word to link to a disambiguation page. Sometimes I see him make an edit that is required, a lot are changes to content where I do not know the geography enough to decide. The longer this goes on, the worse the articles become, and it will be impossible to sort out fact from fantasy. There are places to post issues - like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - but I don't think this belongs there. I might post a general question in Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) - I'll let you know. --ArmadilloFromHell 03:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the next correct measured response is to open up a RfC on his/her actions, allowing several users to voice their concerns for Alec's approach, and allow Alec to respond to concerns (and so hopefully engage in some constructive dialogue). Failure to either engage constructively in a RfC, or at least take to heart its points in Alec's subsequent behaviour, could then be seen as disruptive to the overall project and thus generate a request for Admin sanctioning. David Ruben ^Talk 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to come round to an RfC approach, though am reluctant to start one due to my relative newness. There are continuing problems on Tulse Hill and now it is appearing on Dulwich. I am reluctant to keep editing them back simply because I also don't want to be seen to be on a vendetta, but the Tule Hill article is now so damaged I not sure how it can be fixed without blanking and starting again. I am also trying to engage in a discussion on the Talk:Tulse Hill page but changes are being made whithout a consensus being formed. I have asked a third party involved in WP:Lon to help but all it looks like at the moment is an edit war which I really don't want to be involved in. I am at a loss as to what to do, but am reluctant to leave articles to descend into farce. Regan123 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Alec - U.K. (2)

I see he is back again. I have just been threatened not to consider editing ("vandalising") the Tulse Hill article. Not good. Let's take some action and get him blocked this time. MRSC • Talk 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Norton

Good lord. Percy "Nobby" Norton is a real article with genuine, verifiable, reliable sources. I am stunned. DS 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, but with all the vandalism and sockpuppetry and the mixing of present and past - somebody living and somebody dead, it's going to be hard to post an article. I would not accept anythiung from the active promoters of the article given the history. It would need to be created from scratch by a trusted editor togther with good citation and reference. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alec UK

I've been cleaning up after our friend. But now part of the edit history of Brixton Hill is in Streatham Hill & Brixton Hill article (which is now a redirect). Can you fix this and put all the edit history together? MRSC • Talk 18:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COuldn't we just move the page Streatham Hill & Brixton Hill to Brixton Hill after transplanting the relevant information back? I know it is a bit of pain, but at least the full edit/talk history would survive? Regan123 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ill need to look at it with a clear head. I'm actually doing paid work right now and won't be free for another 6 hours. I may be doing some quicky vandal fighting only during that time. I'll try and look later tonight. --ArmadilloFromHell 23:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested in the various comments above, I think it's time for an RfC - but I'm not sure how to get one started. --ArmadilloFromHell 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cons0123

You reverted back to my warning on User talk:Cons0123. It was I who removed it. I was warning the user of the same offense you were and we posted our warnings at the same time. I removed it as he doesn't need two warnings for the exact same action. Sorry for the confusion. -WarthogDemon 22:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was my fault, I should not have jumped in so quickly and given you a chance. It must have been a timing problem, when I hit revert, your seconed poat was not showing - in the two second difference you posted and my revert hit your change. I've seen cases where I've ended up reverting my own reverts to a previous version bacuse of timing issues. --ArmadilloFromHell 23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Awesome

I don't see why you found it just to delete the page, It was completely true so I see no reason to delete it. Argh-Pies 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not deleted the page, I just tagged it for possible deletion. An admin will now look at it and decide. Since I'm not perfect, around 0.05% of the pages I tag do not get deleted. However, see Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary --ArmadilloFromHell 03:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Pages

I mistakenly created a page that you later tagged. I want to delete it, how do I go about doing that? thanks.Dapoloplayer 04:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - we must have cross posted, I replied in your talk page, as you posted the above. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of warnings

With regards to this:

I believe you were a tad too harsh there. The background is that the user posted their stand against the deletion of certain articles, but in a way that did not address the content of each one specifically. Commenting like that even in several AfDs would not be a case of either bad-faith editing or vandalism, and at most these comments will simply be discounted by the closing sysop(s). The user also said that they were discriminate in choosing which articles to comment "keep" for. Hence I don't see the messages some editors and I left on their talk page as "warnings", which is why I reverted your re-insertion. Regards, Kavadi carrier 08:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll accept that. But something bad is going on there. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say it isn't as big-scale as what others are doing. It's just that the keep rationales were rather the same, that's all. And that's what made some people feel strongly enough to tell him off about it. Kavadi carrier 08:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report to WP:AIV

Your report of Silentbob4477 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not belong on AIV, so I removed it. AIV is for persistent vandals who have been properly warned and need to be blocked to prevent further action. Most of this user's recent edits are to their talk page. It looks they they wanted to copy someone's user page design and responded to requests to remove various things. I don't really see a problem here, but if you continue to find the user's behavior disruptive, WP:AN/I would be a more appropriate place to report it. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asthma Article

I am getting the reference links to work, as displayed in the "health benefits" of tobacco smoking, as posted by one of your wikipedia monitors after I'd talked to him about the health benefits of tobacco. Asthma prevention and treatment is listed within the references. If you ban me for trying to help...so be it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.36.185 (talk • contribs)

Now, I don't mean to be a "vandalist", however...because I "vandalised" I was able to bring important research to the attention of Gzuckier who included it into the articles Tobacco smoking : ->Health Benefits and B Vitamins : ->Sources of B vitamin

Now some of the research that he included into Tobacco smoking : -> Health benefits is directly related to the treatment of asthma. So if I put this link, into the asthma article, am I really vandalising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.36.185 (talk • contribs)

The discussion on that page indicated why you should not continue to post the information, yet you continued to keep posting despite other editors reverting it. You then ignored the warnings and cautions and you are now blocked from editing. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

iBNUaSAD

Hi there ArmadilloFromHell.

I am reffering to message you sent me at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ibnuasad

I know that you intend to keep wikepedia clean from spams and vandalism bu I believe that I was not spamming at all. I was just adding a link which leads to an article that will help people understand better on the subject. I assume that you may have receive reports from Dmoz about the link added and in the article I stated that some Dmoz editors were corrupted. Some...not all. This is just my assumption because from my website tracking logs at http://extremetracking.com/open;ref1?login=ibnuasad I see that my website had been visited by someone coming from Dmoz editors forum.

What I did on the Open Directory Project was not vandalism. I did not mess or delete the whole page. I only added a link to an article on How to get listed in Dmoz which in my honest opinion will be very helpful to other people.

Its the same thing with Search Engine and PageRank. I added a link that would help people understand better how they work in simple english.

Warm Regards, Ibnu Asad

iBNUaSAD 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal procedure to issue warnings when inappropriate external links are added. Adding links to promote sites is generally considered spam, and considering the site name and your user name, I am led to believe that you own the site, that is why an additional spam warning was given. When I see more than one link to a site being added, I immediately issue warnings since I have no idea how many the user is planning on adding, and I want to avoid having to remove links from hundreds of articles. Open Directory Project is a prime target for external links, and they will be speedily deleted, as you may see from its history. --ArmadilloFromHell 18:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

Please don't use the vandalism warning templates for something that clearly isn't vandalism (1, 2). It would be much appreciated if you try to act civilly towards other editors. --bainer (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's was cleary vandalism and IMO, I was not uncivil. If nothing else it's a clear violation of Template:Summary2, and disruptive. --ArmadilloFromHell 02:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is edit summaries, then you should ask the editor to use edit summaries. If the issue is removing prod tags, then you should ask the editor why they dispute the proposed deletion. Instead you used a third-level vandalism warning template for something which does not fall within any of the definitions of vandalism. You then followed that with the {{blatantvandal}} template. That, to me, is uncivil behaviour.

I suggest that you re-read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, and I also recommend that you make an effort to discuss matters with other editors when you disagree with their edits. --bainer (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, ArmadilloFromHell! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. 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 and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS sorry the last bach of welcomes failed to go out if you have readded your name can you please remove it thanks

Shared IP template

What's wrong with Template:SharedIPEDU? It gives more relevant information. --192.235.8.2 22:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be you are correct. But on principle, I don't think that the person at the IP address should be changing an administrationn notice about that IP. You should track down an admin and ask them, or look through the history and ask the person who originally added it. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people User:Crazytales56297 has a crush on

Db-attack too. And half them aren't true. ~ ^(t)crazytal es_(pwn3d) 05:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - I did not catch on that the page was targetting another user. Maybe all the names on the list where users also. Must be a sockpuppet of someone you annoyed. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The names aren't wikipedians to my knowledge. They're people at my school. ~ ^(t)crazytal es_(pwn3d) 05:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense - this time of night is when the school vandals appear and I see how fast I can knock em down. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

colin calle

armadillofromhell, Though I understand your concern as to the page I recently created, I beseech you to let me keep it for just a week more. In my english class at school, we have an assignment to "leave our mark" somewhere where others will see it. The teacher recomended the moorpark high school site because the only people who really look at that page are moorparkians anyways and so they would understand. I guarantee that the page will come down as of December 4th. Please grant me extra time for my class? <3

It's not my decision, I just tag articles for deletion, and somsone else deletes it. It's important to create an article that fits our guidelines, unfortunately we cannot allow creation of articles that might at some future time be made into a good article, if we did Wikipedia would be a slushpile. New articles that clearly do not fit are usually deleted within a few minutes. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: History of Taichung

ArmadilloFromHell wrote:

If the user had any history, maybe I would think it's an article split, but this is the only edit for him (when I tagged it). I've seen cases in the past were people just copied content into multiple articles without doing a proper split. Nothing was put in th edit summary to explain what was happening, and no response has been made in the user talk page. Also, depsite the fact he has changed Taichung there is still duplication. Also note, the user has now just made edits to Taiwan that have been reverted. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the information. I've deleted it – Gurch 06:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, when I looked at it, it was more obvious, he just cut and pasted the whole thing in one swoop, and nothing else showed. When you look at his history now, unless you look at the detail, it would give the impression he was doing an article split. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Warrington

Good grief! That took you 8 minutes to find.... are you losing your grip, or what! Now have you caught up on Willement and are you waiting for Wailes?

--Amandajm 06:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the right mood, I just learned to do stained glass, and I came up to do some Wiki editing after making my first 3D box lid, just happened to see your articles, and I could not resist. I wanted to add something before someone (typically me) speedy deleted them for lack of content/notability. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the content and notability-

The latter first- these are all the most nnotable workshops, each making a huge contribution to the art of their day, a contribution which has been overlooked for a long time by art historians, considering how many "ordinary" people are still delighted by this form of art, usually gazing at it from a quite uncritical perspective. There were hundreds of such firms, most of them small regional glaziers who could set pretty patterns competently but who weren't up to much when it came to the anatomy of the figures.

Some of these stubs have virtually no content yet, but I willl remedy that. I have to get my facts together for each workshop in turn and I only have a small number of books availablle. Never mind! Maybe someone else will get exited. Have you looked at the parent article Stained glass - British glass, 1811-1918 ?

--60.229.158.54 10:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Mann

Why are you deleting my article on Nicholas Mann? I'm trying to profile his life and his works. Please explain yourself. Thanks ```` Lackluster02861 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lackluster02861 (talk • contribs)

Read your talk page, you are going to get blocked of you keep it up --ArmadilloFromHell 07:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesnt make a bit of sense. Why can't wiki have a page on The splatter gores? There is a page on gwar and tons of other performance artists. Please explain yourself. ````lackluster02861

oops

I have moved UserArmadilloFromHell/bio1 to User:ArmadilloFromHell/bio1. -- RHaworth 14:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops and blsuh and cringe!!. Thanks - it was an articel that was just created by someone that I was updating, and it got speedily deleted before I saved it, so I wanted to save it for possible report. --ArmadilloFromHell 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not link spam!!!

If you say I'm posting link spam, you are posting a fraudulent message! I posted the link to help guide people. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.39.247 (talk • contribs)

Let me itemize some points for you

First you posted this message at the top of the page, where it says do not put messages at the top of the page
Second, in the article, you messed up the page by posting your change at the bottom - so I could have tagged you for semi-vandalism
Third, the link was not useful - posting a link to a list of links is very poor practise
Fourth, you violated the terms of WP:Spam - so I tend to think that what you did create link spam - I'm not sure what else I would call it

--ArmadilloFromHell 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Cedarhurst, New York

Thank you for butting in on Cedarhurst, New York. For now, we seem to have come to a resolution to the Orthodox community issue. Though I am extremely disturbed by your decision to remove the same category in question from Bathurst Street, despite the lengthy discussion within the article regarding the local community. Alansohn 08:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would prefer that Cedarhurst, New York be removed from the category as well. The other editor is not basing his edits on facts; only from experience as he used to live in the general area. Until there is a census that states the actual percentage of Orthodox Jews, I do not think its fair to put Cedarhurst in that category Helical Rift 08:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Bathurst street is not a community, it's a street, on which there there sections that are mostly Portuguese, others that are Black/West Indian, others that are Jewish but not Orthodox. The Orthodox sections of Bathurst are relatively small; next thing is we will be labelling Dufferin Street as an Italian community. The whole thing is elitist, comfusing and POV. Note that I have nominated the category for deletion. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Armadillo. It terms of these labels and categories, I sincerely think that a town really needs to be associated with a certain ethnic group or religion to be labelled as such (i.e. Little Italy, parts of Yonkers, NY that is all Irish). Better yet, I would delete all these labels but thats just my opinion. I sincerely apologize for involving you in this mess. Helical Rift 08:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...What's the policy on deleting categories? As you can see with the Orthodox Jewish community issue, its getting completely out of hand. Helical Rift

I do not know the policy on deleting categories, this is the first time I've suggested one be deleted. As it stands, it's an argument between the original category creator, the category deleter (me) and two people who have had recent conflicts over the category. There is some input from a third party, but more uninvolved people need to contribute.

What is your policy on barnstars?

i was under the belief that barnstars were of public use. Explain to me, in essay format, their purpose, how they should be used and why I can't use them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentbob4477 (talk • contribs)

I think someone who assigns themselves barstars with a forged signature has a big problem. --ArmadilloFromHell 17:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Addition, would you say that I'm ready to become an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentbob4477 (talk • contribs)

I think not, you still don't know how to sign messages. Good reading for you would be WP:HOAX --- Wikipedia:No personal attacks --- Wikipedia:Speedy deletions --- Wikipedia:Sock puppetry --ArmadilloFromHell 17:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Marks and Ted Janeczko

Thanks for dealing with this. I was going to put a warning on User:Xeriandros's talk, but had to leave the computer. Thanks! --Lijnema 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the usual vandal, it would seem previous edits were ok, and he suddenly posts two attacks in a row. --ArmadilloFromHell 18:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish-American neighborhoods

Did you nominate Category:Irish-American neighborhoods for deletion?[2] I ask because it looks like that part of your nomination although you didn't comment on it. Arbusto 21:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not, but I'm not sure how to deal with it, it does imply I nominate it. I'll add a comment for now. --ArmadilloFromHell 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the info I added to Addhoc's page

If you would like me to stop removing his info from mine 68.149.157.248 01:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it for you. Please remember that no Wikipedian is more important than another. By arbitrarily enforcing rules on some but not others, you have given me the impression that you think your stature is higher than mine. Please avoid this in the future. Thanks! 68.149.157.248 01:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point very badly --ArmadilloFromHell 01:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and avoid this in the future. And please also do not remove this message as it should be considered a warning (see my point?) Thanks! 68.149.157.248 01:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated elsewhere your posts seem to be covered by WP:POINT --ArmadilloFromHell 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As also stated "elsewhere", my disruption of your talk page to prove a valid point, and was a direct consequece of your unnecessary disruption to my talk page. "Elsewhere" has also deemed this of no reprehensable conseqense, so I'll just leave it at that. Later 68.149.157.248 04:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Bandwidth is cheap these days --ArmadilloFromHell 04:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild moonberries

I've marked Moonberry for deletion... and the draft you're keeping in user space is still available in the history of Wild Moonberries -- do you still need this for anything? The author is long gone by now. Mango juice^talk 17:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was never my article. At one point I marked it for speedy deletion for lack of content. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, can I delete it? It is kinda pointless. Mango juice^talk 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's fine with me --ArmadilloFromHell 06:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silentbob4477

Hi. I want to know if Silentbob4477 was blocked under the suspicion that he and I were the same person. If this is the case (and appears to be due to the constatnt speculation and unsupported conclusions on the issue) please compare the IP addresses of our accounts. You will find that they do not match and cannot be from different computers owned by the same person due to the fact that the IP addresses that are given on the net are those of different ISP accounts. Therefore it is not possible and highly illogical and inconvenient for he and I to be the same person. I just wanted to clear this misunderstanding up once and for all. I am not condoning any negative action/s made by Silentbob4477 but am merely trying to eliminate suspicion and conspiracy. Sincerely, Enknowed 14:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would supect he was banned based on consistent mis-use of his user page, making threats and general troublemaking. But I'm not the one who mkaes those decisiosn. I just happened to recommend it be done. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...which are the same reasons that will eventually cause you to have the same fate. It's sad when all some people have to do with their life is make trouble for others. --ArmadilloFromHell 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkville

What evidence do you have that Yorkville stops at Yonge St? My source claimed it extended to Church. I won't revert your edits if you can source the statement.Pdelongchamp 19:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I could just as well ask to to provide the source as to why you changed it. You could however start by looking at the map that is linked in the first paragraph of the article. Then you can look at Google maps. Yorkville comes to a halt at Yonge street where the Central library is located. The only East running streets are Collier steet which is slightly North of Yorkville, starts at Yonge and continues Eastward to Church, crosses it, continues on the other side and then stop; and Asquith Avenue (South of Yorkville) which starts at Yonge, continues East and crosses Church. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide a source. I'm the one that added the map you're asking me to take a look at. You might have thought I was talking about Yorkville Ave but the sentence in questions as well as the article relates to Yorkville neighbourhood. I would suggest leaving it the way it was. (i.e. extends to church)Pdelongchamp 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits you made. I would left the rent paragraph deleted but you didn't comment on why you deleted it so I just did a full revert. Feel free to delete it again but maybe give the reasoning in the edit summary this time? It's not a big deal to me but it would be cool to know why you deleted it.Pdelongchamp 16:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a metter of interpretation and POV. I used to work at the end of the street and shop there. I would never consider Yorkville to extend to Church or include Bloor. I was going to get some photos of Yorkville street and replace the ones of Bloor. If you use that map as the source for the boundaries of Yorkville, then the article should be renamed to Bloor/Yorkville as the map is titled; also most searches on Google come up with that as the name of the neighbourhood. At the moment I'm not planning on changing anything. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request, and related info

I've commented on (and queried at) your BRFA. Relatedly, I've compiled a list of what I think you're proposing to find by page-fetches from the live wiki, but instead from the database dump from the end of last month. Let me know if that's of any use to you; I should be able to compile a similar list from "fresher" data come the next db dump (whenever that is). Alai 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - ti seems that's half the job done, I was thinking of doing something similar. I downloaded a dump a few days ago for testing. I was going to scan it with PHP, and then rewrite it in Python, since my Python programming is a little rusty. From the comments in the proposal, it was suggested not to use Python, and use AWB, but AWB so far does not work for me as far as making any changes. This whole thing came about because I saw an issue that needed fixing, and I like programming new stuff (I'me a full time programmer), but it seems I'm hitting snags. --ArmadilloFromHell 20:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to a mysql server, or can get one running without too much pain, it's fairly easy to produce the above -- it only needs the "page" and "categorylinks" dumps, not the whole shebang (mercifully). I'd agree with the BAGers that AWB would be preferable, if there's indeed significant "manual assistance" actually involved -- I've used AWB on tasks where the edits need to be checked or redone by hand, and current use pywikipedia for tasks that (hopefully) just require some sanity-checking per batch. (The user page bug thingie I have no idea about.) Alai 01:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's no problem, I've got my own private Wiki installed using the Wiki software, I use it for documenting and problem tracking for a software development project, and I figured out the internals of the Wiki tables, since I generate a lot of the Wiki pages with custom PHP scripts that feed it from a separate problem tracking system. I just got AWB working and used it for something else that I just came across - very cool for that. I think that it's good anyway as a prototyping\testing tool for making sure search and replace, etc. is working ok. Thanks for the help. I'll play around some more. --ArmadilloFromHell 02:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remove nonsense from my talk page to keep that hostile teacher away from further posts.

Let me remove nonsense from my talk page to keep that hostile teacher away from further posts.swadhyayee 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important they be kept there. User:HeBhagawan spent some time restoring them nicely. You have now reverted them at least three time. --ArmadilloFromHell 00:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you after me? Others to keep their talk page clean. One I remember is RaraTheAppleJuggler

Why are you after me? Others too keep their talk page clean. One I remember is RaraTheAppleJuggler .swadhyayee 01:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not after you, I tend to revert any removal of legitimate warnings whenever I run into them, epecially when the user has been warned not to remove text from the talk page. --ArmadilloFromHell 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph

That was quick...I'd only just created the journalist article and I was just about to circle back to deal with disambiguation. Cheers! Ringbark 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just finishing for the night, and wanted to knock off some late night vandals creating nonsense articles. I found yours instead, and it's nicer to add to an article than tag them for deletion. For fun I also went to the Telegraph web site and found an intersting item about a woman getting the largest award ever for rape from the estate of a dead millionare. Weird. Night. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Armadillo, could you add your vote on the survey for Beit Hanoun incident as well as commenting. That way we will solve the issue faster. Thanks.--Burgas00 19:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tulse Hill and Tulse Hill railway station

The problems are well and truly back on Tulse Hill and Tulse Hill railway station. WP:3RR is in danger of being breached on the former and the later is a mess again. I will edit the later but for obvious reasons keep away from Tulse Hill for 24 hours. Regan123 21:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully he will do the 3RR and can be tagged for it. --ArmadilloFromHell 21:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I don't disagree it would be me getting the ban at the moment!!!! Regan123 21:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert if I have grounds, such as putting it in Cemetaries -which is bizarre, as is saying someone is a resident of a nearby hill is typical weirdnesssaying someone is a resident of a nearby hill which is typical weirdness. The others are harder, I don't know if postal codes are correct or not. It seems you have only done one revert since my last edit, so it seems open from my POV.

You recently removed a category from the ethnic group category. Please reinstate it. 87.194.35.230 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I revert it? - it does not belong in that category. --ArmadilloFromHell 23:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asthme

You have redirected the french word "asthme" to the wrong acticle. Please direct it to the correct article. 87.194.35.230 01:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no ides what you are talking about. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asthmatics

Your removed "asthma" from "minorities". Do you claim that the majority of people are asthmatics. 87.194.35.230 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, however, it was not Asthma that I changed but Category:Asthma. [:Category:Asthma]] covers a disease, and does not belong in Category:Minorities for that reason alone, since minorites refers to people. Category:Minorities is clearly for Ethnic minorities anyway. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionist

What's the purpose of deletionism? Kingjeff 02:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a loaded question to me; from you user page, I would guess that our styles are directly opposite. My view is that most new pages posted around 1:00am should be deleted; they are generally school kids making nonsense pages, and attacking their friends and teachers. If no one deletes them you end up with a big mess. I also believe that talk pages should not be archived for at least 5 days. --ArmadilloFromHell 03:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angioplasty link

Hi I had systematically removed the new user's spamming of this link to multiple pages as the site failed to give greater detail than that already in articles. I took pity though with this final link in [{Angioplasty]] as the site's webpage seemed substantial and does have rather nice pictures :-) That's a very weak keep vote - what do you think ? David Ruben ^Talk 04:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was testing an AWB script when I noticed his links, so I decide to run it, but by the time I changed the parameters and started processing, you had changed all but that one - fast typing! I let it do that one, as I thought you just had not got to it. I'll revert back - I think they were all done in good faith, not typical link spam. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hsu Hao

I noticed that you put a db-empty tag on the article Linda is a child molestor, but I'm curious if you looked at the page history. This user is a persistent vandal (see: [[3]] especially her "contributions" to the talk page for User:Undergamed). She needs a very severe warning about continuing in this manner, considering that she already received a persistent vandal warning from User:Merope (which she keeps removing). Just thought you'd like to know. ---Charles 15:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's marked empty, because at the point of warning it is, but based on the page title, a warning was issued, + some others, and now I'm about to ask for a block. --ArmadilloFromHell 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick action on this. Was I mistaken in assuming you are an administrator? ---Charles 15:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - not an admin, just an agressive vandal fighter. Take a look at his page for the final warning. --ArmadilloFromHell 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, admin or not, you do great work. I just looked at the page, and was glad to play a part in seeing this vandal done in. Cheers! ---Charles 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on reverting his talk page blanking, and the whole incident was very fast, he's blocked permanently. From his attack article creation to blocking less than 10 minutes. --ArmadilloFromHell 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really bothers me when I see someone blanking their own talk page in order to remove warnings they have received. I really got into it with an editor who claimed he had the right to remove such warnings. Of course, they are always there in the history, so it makes little difference. In this case, a user who had no intention of making any constructive contribution is blocked, and I am a little happier. Thanks! ---Charles 15:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me also. There used to be a standard warning tag for it, it was removed a month ago, reinstated and removed again. There seems to be a conflict between those who think that warnings should not be removed, and those who think that once a warning has been issued and read, the user may delete it. The problem is that when you go to a talk page that is empty of warnings you think the user is clean and issue a level 1 warning and it defeats the whole purpose. The counter argument is that it's in the history, but that's a whole a lot of extra work. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement with you on this matter. I am aware that there are serious differences of opinion amongst editors and administrators on this issue, but there should be some way of moving forward on this. It is simply strange to me that one would want to create so much more work for other editors and administrators---the warnings should remain on the talk page for reference. ---Charles 18:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hippos

I am not sure if they are a hoax or not but they are probably almost certainly non-notable. The group of articles that have been created are unencyclopedic and gossip/myspace in style. Vandalism is just extra. MRSC • Talk 22:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dmoz

Hi,

I recently added a link in dmoz article pointing to a page rendering how dmoz once looked like (newhoo). You deleted this link, the comment said no proof. Well, all I can tell is that I found this page on the personal site of Rich Skrenta, the founder of newhoo that became dmoz later. So I think this information is secure enough, however it's up to you to decide whether it deserves to be replaced on dmoz article or not. Have a look at [4] and look for "What NewHoo once looked like" string. It indeed points to [5]. Regards. (17 Nov 06) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.48.77 (talk • contribs)

Go ahead and repost it with the appropriate references attached - I don't guarantee someone else will not delete it. --ArmadilloFromHell 02:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine Jews

That wasn't a personal attack.. i was just laughing at a funny nickname

Next time, try to be a little more inteligent and do not censor like a tyrant.

--Killergon2 04:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just don't get it, tone of language is important in Wikpedia, look carefully at the words in the post you just made. It's not the correct way to speak. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a comment at the discussion section... i didn't touch the original article... therefore, you censorship is truely ghey.

--Killergon2 01:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Loser

When you say "the submitter", do you mean me (who tagged it as a hoax) or the article's creator? Per WP:HOAX, hoaxes aren't speedyable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry if I was not clear - I meant the article's creator, he removed the speedy delete tag that I put on it, and I warned him, but I guess I forgot to put it back in place. --ArmadilloFromHell 07:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. I'm with you now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page: Apex

I am not sure why you deleted the page I was working on. I was trying to document the company I work for which is an emerging company with a very unique history. The reason stated was "blatant advertising" when I was merely documenting what this company does and what the affiliations were. Unfortunately, I am new to this thing and did not keep a copy while working on it, and poof! it was gone. I think you could have at least read the article without bias before you removed it! Thanks for listening. --Rwphan 19:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record I don't delete articles, I don't have that power. What I do is tag articles that probably should be deleted. If I tagged it as blatant advertising, that's because that is what it looked like to me. If the site is no longer there, that is because an administrator agreeed with me and deleted it. I do read articles before I tag them. There is a difference between an article that provide factual infomation about a company, and one that soudns like blatant advertising. And you should note that company articles even when written correclty are not listable unless they meet the definitions provided in WP:COMPANY even if the company is legitimate. I own a computer consulting company, it has a long history and a good record, but nevertheless it is not listable in Wikipedia. --ArmadilloFromHell 00:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks?

Could you please clarify where I have made personal attacks? I take my editing very seriously and would never attack anyone. Also, I did not create the page Sam hewitt nor did I leave any comments on the said page. Awaiting your reply. --Tim1988 ^talk 11:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user page moves

Your right, new users cannot move pages. One user is claiming four days[6], but it might be based on number of edits. Cheers! ^_^ --Electric Eye (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Happynoodleboy

There seems to be some funny business afoot with this fellow. If he has changed his name to Tim1988, which seems to be the case, why is he still making edits under the other name? And why are all of his edits vandalism/attack pages? He is need of a very stiff warning, and told to pick one name or the other, and have the one he does not pick deleted. What do you think? ---Charles 06:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange - I would think the redirect is not allowed. The recent vandalism is also strange - I just posted in WP:AIV --ArmadilloFromHell 06:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very strange, and I am quite perplexed. Tim1988's comments here, and on my talkpage have only increased my confusion, quite frankly. I cannot find your listing on the WP:AIV page. I will check back in with you later, and see what progress has been made. Right now, I have a play to work on... Thanks for your time and efforts on this matter, I hope we can figure out what happened. ---Charles 18:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

There seems to be some confusion here. User:Happynoodleboy was my old username, which I had changed to User:Tim1988 through the relevant Wikipedia page for doing so (see here). As far as I can recall, I have not used that account (Happynoodleboy) since and I do all of my editing through User:Tim1988.

I did redirect User:Happynoodleboy to User:Tim1988 so that other editors would recognise that I have changed my name.

I have checked the contribs for User:Happynoodleboy and I see "No changes were found matching these criteria".

I'm not ruling out that the old account might have been compromised, but I see no vandalism edits made there myself and I certainly wouldn't vandalise myself. Can you please explain what the problem is here? Much appreciated. --Tim1988 ^talk 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have no history of vandalism and IP addresses have been hacking your page, it looks like someone has the password to your account and was creating attack articles. Since the articles have been deleted, you can no longer see what was done. I suggest you change your password. As far as the old account linking to the new, I was not sure that was allowed, it just added to my confusion. --ArmadilloFromHell 18:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how, but it appears you are right, the old account has been compromised. Although I haven't used the account since I changed to my current user name, since it's now under someone else's control, I've removed the redirect that linked that account with my current user page. Perhaps I should request to have the other account blocked if that is possible. Either way, thanks for informing me of the situation. --Tim1988 ^talk 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it looks like this has been sorted out... or, at least, the problem has been diagnosed, yes? Now, the solution? Blocking the old account seems the right idea. ---Charles 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your report at AIV - Before you ask

I removed your report of 69.179.43.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) even though it is likely the same person as Eddyhaskel. If they can wise up and start to make good contribs, good for them; otherwise we can always deal with them later. Secondly, still warn them with test1-4. ;-) Kimchi.sg 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I added it as an afterthought just as a note and should have mentioned that no warnings had been issued. Just in case he comes back on the IP address, I have now tagged it with warnings. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne yuen

You said on User talk:Lboy349324, "Please do not post your own resume on Wikipedia." Worse - he was posting someone else's resume with the name changed! The bulk of the article was copied from the bio of one Dwayne Bryant. Lboy was doing this last night too; now I've blocked him for it. FreplySpang 05:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for telling me that. I wondered why he got blocked so quickly. --ArmadilloFromHell 07:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College Pranks LOL

sorry about the vandalisum but this is a collge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.159.6 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for posting - I had to remove the last change as "vandalism" but in fact all Wikipedia articles should be labelled DO NOT USE FOR YOUR HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT since random rampant vandalism makes most articles untrustworthy, I've seen populations of countries vary from thousands to millions and back and forth over several minutes --ArmadilloFromHell 19:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continues in User talk:ArmadilloFromHell/Archive 06/Month Dec