User talk:Cobaltbluetony/Archive04

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2006-05-04 and 2006-08-21.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Thanks

Could you also wikify the name of "Fatigue Limit", before I link to that, or are all links automatically changed? riceplaytexas

Limerick "response" from Cobaltbluetony

This is not a democracy. This is a serious attempt at creating a respectable encyclopedia. We want everyone to contribute positively, but we won't tolerate nonsense, abuse, etc. Your edit, "Carlsberg don't do cities but if they did, then Limerick would probably...." makes no sense, and does not contribute to the encyclopedia value of the Limerick article. You are welcome to argue your case, but seeing as you don't actually have one, it might not help you any. Please re-read the message I first posted here; it was friendly and even-tempered. Your response to me was not. This is a community effort, so please try to act as you would with people in real life. Again please take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks!

---

> The insert I made to the article makes sense to all who know anything about Limerick City in Ireland. I am a native of the City as are my parents and grandparents. I have lived there for 28 years. How can an American like you presume to judge whether this insert makes no sense at all when you know little if anything about Limerick City. Let me enlighten you by saying it is the most popular beer in the City and us natives of the City commonly use the Carlsberg beer catchphrase in everyday conversation when making humourous comments. You make another presumption that "I can argue a case but I don't have one" which is a quasi oxymoron. I would of thought that a neutral encyclopedia community administrator like yourself would know better than to make such skewed presumptions of positivity. Let me give you some advice, don't presume about other people's point of view or about their motives, it is insulting and an insult to your duty to this community. Thank you for your time.

Limerick

Why was my line in the first paragraph of Limerick reverted??I'm supporting and promoting my city, that can hardly be analogous with vandalism and if it is a crime, well Officer send me down. How does someone like you get into a position whereby they are judge, jury and executioner?? This is an internet encyclopedia, not a dictatorship. How are you qualified to have this power and why should you be bestowed with it?

Sorry

Sorry I overwrote your reversion of Pakistan page. I think we did reversions only few seconds apart. Siddiqui 19:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Jockstrap vandal

Post new comments here. Barbara Shack 13:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)User:$13DG3 has vandalized Jockstrap. see User talk:$13DG3. Is it time for another block?Ha ha ha.

Andrew Wyeth

I'm not sure I understand the message you left for me on my talk page. I haven't really edited this article. I merely reverted from vandalism. IrishGuy 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I follow you now. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks. IrishGuy 21:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Someone12345

I am watching for a few more minutes (I'm under the weather today). Please maintain your civility—it wouldn't be worth losing your cool and finding yourself blocked. The vandal isn't worth it. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Celtica

Good evening Cobaltbluetony, I'm not sure if this how I'm supposed to reply, but I can't see any text boxes. Thank you for your help in forming my article, and sorry if you find it unsatisfactory. This is my first time attempting to add to Wikipedia, and I am a little unsure as to what exactly you mean by'Lack of importance.' I have viewed numerous entries on Wikipedia which I would consider to also have a 'Lack of importance,' yet they remain there. I would appreciate if you could clarify your position, and I will be happy to co-operate with your suggestions. Yours, Dbarrycork 12:14, 12 May 2006

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for passing this reminder on to me, cbt. Xiong Chiamiov 19:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Whopper has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! Whopper 02:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whopper (talk • contribs)

Blurred Standards?

Thanks for the message. I did wonder however, why my edit in External links was removed, yet other people have clearly placed links to their sites there, but they have not been removed. Their links to their own pages gave further information that could not have been given on the wikipedia website. The link I added only did the same... I'm sure you must appreciate the fact that I put it in External Links, making it quite clear what it would lead to!!! --Huweth 11:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Quincuncial map

Quincuncial map really is the correct spelling: compare

http://www.google.com/search?q=Quinuncial+map [zero hits]

to

http://www.google.com/search?q=Quincuncial+map [936 hits]

-- The Anome 14:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:205.222.243.75

There actually were five and, if that's all they've done is vandalize, that's good enough for a (usually short—in this case, 1 hour) block. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

user page vandal

no problem — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

the other guy will be blocked shortly — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If the vandal returns want me to sprotect? Petros471 20:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Let me know when you want it lifted. Petros471 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you removed my additions.

My additions to the Fordham Preparatory School web page were not a test, they were true and I don't think you are contributing to the Wikipedia community very much by deleting my true edits. I was only trying to add to my schools page. I am an alumni and Samuel Redding was my best friend and we still talk today. I also have a son who goes to the Prep and I don't appreciate you deleting the addition of his club of Advanced Military Strategy to the website. I would like for you to return the page to its original state in order to respect my friend Samuel Redding as well as my son. This small thing I tried to do has definately turned into an ordeal. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.96.44 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 May, 2006

I apologize if your efforts were sincere; however, there were a number of considerations which led me to revert your edits.

1. For the Special Olympics, there were no 1990 games, in the summer or winter. 1991 summer games were held in Minneapolis / St.Paul (19-27 July). 1989 winter games were held in Reno / Lake Tahoe (1-8 April). The Special Olympics website does not list a Samuel Redding, nor is there an article about him here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's essay on notability might take precedence on this, but if you can find mention of him on some online resource, this would be most beneficial for supporting his mention at least in the Fordham Prep article.
2. Advanced Military Strategy does not appear on Fordhams's website anywhere, nor does Theresa Napoli have any course information listed, so I cannot verify this information either. It may very well be true, but under the policy WP:VERIFY, unverified claims may be deleted; this was my justification. Since you do not have an account, you appear only as an IP number, and IP numbered editors make by far the most specious and vandalous edits. This fact added to my concern about your information.

However, under WP:AGF, I am going to restore Samuel Redding's mention. If you can find some form of verifiable evidence as to the advanced military strategy course being taught at Fordham, and that Theresa Napoli is the instructor, I will restore this as well.

I hope we can work together on this. - Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony 15:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for restoring my changes but I cannot give you any evidence as to the existence of the Advanced Military Strategy nor that Mrs. Napoli is the instructor because Mrs. Napoli is new this year and they have not updated the teacher list yet. They usually dont until the beginning of the next academic year, so until then I cannot help you. The main thing is that my friends accomplishments were honored, and again I thank you for that.

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. IrishGuy 17:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. - CobaltBlueTony 17:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Gah.

Got punk'd by that new message link. Sneaky bastard :P
Bronzey 10:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that can be called Neutral

I recently edited certain passages on the Jehovah's Witnesses pages which you changed back. The motivation behind it is for the exact reasons you stated in your statement to me about being neutral. Many passages in that page are absolutely NOT neutral and definitely has an opnion within them. It shouldn't have any tone to it, negative or positive. It should just simply state the facts. When speaking about disfellowshipping it is very blatantly giving a negative opinion regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and is not completely accurate. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I'm offended by it. There is nothing wrong with stating facts, but facts is not what is mentioned in that article.

I agree with your statement "No opinion should be presented," so perhaps someone should take a closer look at that article and exclude any negative opinions that were clearly incorporated into it. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmitaz (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 May, 2006

Checking IP addresses

I know I can't check Ip addresses on here, but what do you go to check it.--H*bad 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Empress Myeongseong

obviously, i was warning the anonymous vandal about the reverts ... thanks for trying to stop the guy. Appleby 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

i've left a message at User talk:Spangineer, but it would have been a better idea to request a block again the anon rather than tango with him. however, it does look like vandalism to me, so hopefully spangineer will reconsider. Appleby 18:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thumbelina (1992)

I guess that kills my enthusiasm for writing a page on the 1992 animated film, Thumbelina, being obscure and all. Oh, well, IMDb appreciates the information and all the time I spend writing what I write. Should have kept back-up of what I wrote on the "The O.C. Bunch" (2005). - Tron 21:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have you know, that I spend a lot of time on my research, I've contacted companies and sometimes crew in order to acquire facts before submitting them to IMDb. It may be true that IMDb often takes unfactual information into the database, but I cannot put an authentity guarrantee seal on my submissions that verify all the research I've done to get them. - Tron 21:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm more upset about the time I wasted writing that rather large article. - Tron 21:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but vandalism can be undone. When an article is just deleted, everything just goes with it. Luckily, some of the stuff I had written are printed on the River Forest newspaper the strip was issued on. - Tron 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Slow vandalism on JW page

This is another slow vandalism attack. You're better off getting admin attention instead of reverting again. In fact, if another revert takes place, I think you could list it on 3RR. Or is it listable already? joshbuddy^talk 20:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why?

I'm just asking. How come you took all of those important people from off the Cancers category? Hit me back. - Thursday, 25 May 2006 4:37 P.M./A Different World

Why? Part Two

That's their opinion. Come on, I'm doing something new. Their the ones that's jealouse of it. Why follow them? Come on, this is new, preach to them or I won't be able to write something new ever again. Stop embarrassing me with deleting these items. - Thursday, 25 May 2006 4:47 P.M./A Different World

That's A Shame

That's a shame for listining to them. It is neccsesary to put whatever you want but nonsence on this website. This is revolutionary. If you think that this is nonsence they why can't you do anything with the Chinese Zodiac? Come on now. This is fundemental. Do I have to put out the definition for the Astrological Signs so it won't become nonsense. Come on, Stop deleting the revolutionary and leave it alone. Look at it as a new thing. - 4:58 Thursday, 25 May 2006/A Different World

Knowledge

Revolutions can run over opinions if they like, but not facts. How am I wasting my time when your free will is damaging peoples hard decided and hard work of posting stuff that's real. What can we do? Come on, I've been doing so much thinking that people might want to look at the page more often. You can't do this. You are listining to their opinion and you believe it as a fact because your not ready for it. That's like me not ready for DVDs and VHS is played out. But that's neither here or there. I'm saying that my ideas can change this website, entertainers that died in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, that's somebodys hard work and you go ahead and delete that? Come on man, be for real. This website is stong but not strong enough. And it's going to turn dummber if I post these websites on forums everywhere. When students and people that are as old as I am see websites like popular and famous people, they'll become intrested saying "Oooh, I'm the virgo too" I've got to read more. That's publicity but a good one mind you. So why delete something that you can't handle. It's revolutionary. If I have to deal with VHSs being gone forever in 2007 (that's neither here or there) then why can't you deal with something new. You know what, yall going to have to put out some serious rules out there for all of us users so we don't have to become embarassed of our hard work. I mean that. - 5:10 Thursday, 25 May 2006/A Different World

Your Right

And I thought that people would know their year of birth when it comes to their faces. But your right. Your absolutley right. But why leave the Year Births down on the categories anyway? That's what made me think of the sign idea. Something new that'll spark the mind, your infamous but the family I know has no intrest in this website, so that's why I'm continuing to work on a few things. This dosen't have to happen to everyone that's famous. But you have a point. It's just that some people don't know and it'll make them learn. - 5:30 Thursday, 25 May 2006/A Different World

buu edit

• a consensus was reached to keep the pics on the page to a maximum of 7. no more pics should be added. check the discussion page. - Zarbon

Thanks

Thanks for catching my mistake of removing parts of the Mormon page. It wasn't my intent.

Limerick revisited

I have no intention of picking a fight, you obviously have not heeded my advice of making presumptions. Furthermore, it is a good suggestion of yours to develop my point about Carlsberg so as to be of a point with a World view, however I am reluctant to do so as I feel the up to 200 words it may require to detail the point will be subject to such pedantic scrutiny as has been demonstrated thus far. I have become disillusioned with the process of editing in light of the responses I have received which served to undermine and insult my point of view without examination or regard. It's a shame this happened but maybe it was inevitable given your propensity to rush to judgement and presumption on contributors. Occupational hazard perhaps. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzajf (talk • contribs) 10:03 30 May, 2006

Astrological person categories

These are in the empty and delete queue. I am just trying to close the discussions right now, not update categories in articles. Any editor can update an article's categories removing these noting the CfD discussion. The queue is at the end of the CfD page. If you do this and they are empty when you finish, just move them to the to be deleted queue. Vegaswikian 17:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Only an admin can delete. By moving the emptied categories, you make it easier for someone to notice that a category is ready to be deleted. Then any admin can do it. It may take time since someone is not always watching. Vegaswikian 17:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

JW resource link

How's that? joshbuddy^talk 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made the change... was wondering if that was okay? joshbuddy^talk 20:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cherry Hill Township, New Jersey

Thanks for the expansion, I put in some updates of my own. Transportation should be a basic for all municipalities. If you're interested in New Jersey, I invite you to participate in WP:NJ, an effort to fill in the holes and expand the details about all things related to New Jersey. Alansohn 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Smurfs

Hi, why did you revert my changes on The Smurfs? I'm a registered and experienced user of the polish Wikipedia, I just don't have an account here. I think I know better about the use of the word 'smerf' in polish, and that's all I edited. Why am I treated like a vandal? Nice greeting on the english wikipedia :/ Stansfield

Ok, I get you. It's hard to get a citation when it's just a slang thing, the most simple way to check it is typing 'smerf' and 'policja'(police) in Google:) but here u go, I added a link to an official police page about the program "Smerf" (conducted by the polish police for kids) as they even call themselves "Smerfy" (Smurfs) :) hope that's enough. Stansfield

Keep your pants on. I've opened an account. But I'm having problems with a redirect between the en and pl wikipedias, help me out here:/

Well if I cant, then I won't. I'll type sth more some other time. And hope I'll have time for some polish-related edits:) thx for the help

Like u mean the babel boxes from my polish page would appear on the english one? well that sounds reasonable, though I guess I can do it myself. or is there some automatic system to that I'm not aware of? :)

Cool, thanks once again:) Stansfield 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that things have calmed down a bit

...thanks for rv'ing his vandalism to my talk page. Another job well done. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

High fives. - CobaltBlueTony 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment...

I didn't put anything on talk pages in realtion to the article concerned!

Suggest you look at the edit history.

Your tip is noted though ShakespeareFan00 20:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh! OK, but the edit was to an article not to a talk page..

ShakespeareFan00 20:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin

I know! Believe it or not, the page was essentially wiped by another user just before you and I made our edits, almost concurrently. I did not intend to remove your addition, since it was made seconds before mine and I had no way of knowing that. Sorry if it got in the way of any hard work. -- Iol 19:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it wasn't me editing the George W. Bush article you spoke of. 131.238.103.211 20:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Michel-p (talk · contribs)

I have warned the vandal. (in french) Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the tip on where to report current vandalism. Credmond 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sending that welcome message to me on my talk page! It was much appreciated - I didn't expect anyone to notice my minor edits especially in this huge community with lots of edits every minute. Anyway thanks again Robin 20:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop.

Indiscriminate removal of talk page discussion is vandalism. Restore it at once. I don't care what page you put it on, but please clean up after yourself. Now. --iMeowbot~Meow 17:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a talk page. It's an archive of a current talk page. Moreover, it's not my mess. Those who started using it as a current talk page are responsible for reconstructing their discussions on the appropriate talk page, not me. - CobaltBlueTony 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It helps to look at why things are set up a certain way before indiscriminately messing with them. The page is labeled "archive" only as part of an expedient cleanup. We're trying to contain an edit dispute/revert war, and you are not helping. At all. --iMeowbot~Meow 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternate usage of archived talk pages is confusing and dilutes the purpose of archiving. I regret that I don't have the time to weed through the polluted archive and bring the discussion up to the current talk page, but you seem familiar enough with it to be able to handle it. I apologize if this puts more work on you, but as a fellow editor, I really do have to insist that the use of archives not be damaged. Thanks for your understanding. - CobaltBlueTony 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your user page states your desire to one day become an administrator. I'm afraid that this incident and your callous disregard for the participants would be one reason why I would vote oppose. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the above comment. I was a little upset at the missing talk messages and the disruption of the conversation. I wish you well in your endeavor. However, I too find the Punk'd template annoying -- Malber (talk • contribs) 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

from derek_farn

Re: your message on my [talk page].

Thanks for pointing out the three reverts rule. I was not aware of it and will follow it in future.

There is a rather active poster working on the programming language article whose knowledge of the subject, unfortunately, does not match his enthusiasm.

You can see what a handful he has been for other people involved with the article here: [[1]]

The discussion on the reverted material is here: [[2]]

You have much more ex perience with wiki users than me, so I will leave you to read the ongoing discussions and draw your own conclusions. Derek farn 00:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for the warning as well. Ideogram 01:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to ask how you detected the potential 3RR violation so quickly. Is there automated software to detect this? Did someone contact you? Did you just happen to be watching? Thanks. Ideogram 06:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do understand the need for 3RR. I was having a personal conflict with this user (as you might have guessed) and got carried away. I think both of us now are not interested in playing this game again.

Since you are observing programming language I hope you will decide to participate more actively. We can use your help. Ideogram 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Annoying

I find your Punk'd user page very annoying :-). Ideogram 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I got 0wned =/ I came here after seeing your post on Ideogram's talk and thought you know a way I could change the "You got a new message" thingy. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for passing on the wisdom of the ages, it will help my world domination plan come to fruition. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Annoying

Perhaps you could explain why you want to change other people's talk pages? I mean, I am sure you point out a rule which shows you are following some standard practice and not just been officious. Pliny 17:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I was reporting a problem user are you one of TPIRFanSteve sockpuppets?

I think you must be TPIRFanSteve in a sockpuppet format. Cheesehead 1980 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I seem to be in error. He is doing the revert thing again. What action can be taken?! Cheesehead 1980 01:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hi. I just want to make it clear that I have no intention of making another revert to the articles if he changes them again. I think his images suck, but I'm doing my best to combat them without violating site policy. If that's already happened, my apologies. -TPIRFanSteve 02:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:The Unconsoled

The discussion page Talk:The Unconsoled is being contantly used as a bulletin board mirror. How can we stop this? - CobaltBlueTony 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I have semi-protected this Talk page to prevent IP addresses from editing. Contributors will have to be logged in to edit for the timebeing.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cancel my account!

This is too much like high school. How do I cancel my account? Cheesehead 1980 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• You say to edit less controversial topics, but I hardly see how The Price is Right is controversial topic. It is just a game show. The investment of my time is not worth dealing with juvenile stupidity. Good bye. Please delete my account. Cheesehead 1980 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent JW edits

It looks like you've already done that. I will keep an eye on it. joshbuddy, talk 15:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Casablanca edit

Thanks for the note, wasn't aware of that. :) Dane 1981 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Signatures!!!

hey thanks for the advise (Xsxex 17:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

66.108.195.155

The above user has been blocked for forty-eight hours for vandalism, as requested on WP:AIV.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

NICE JOB

Your last editions were nice to the main page on JW's. You get a star!  :-) Johanneum 17:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User-space redirects

The only cross-namespace redirects that are technically eligible for speedy deletion are those from the main article space to userspace (not in the other direction). However, I do agree that it is a bit jarring to redirect one's main user page somewhere else, though I suppose that, given the latitude usually afforded contributors in designing user pages, it's technically allowed. If it's annoying you, I'd suggest dropping a note on the user's talk page and politely asking whether that user would consider removing the redirect. — TKD::Talk 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

J.W

Hey, I see you're quite interested in the "Jehovah's Witnesses" article. Maybe we could help each other. I've noticed there's quite a bit of work to be done so I'm sure we can accomplish it if we work together. Whaddya say? Knuckles sonic8 13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:TPIRFanSteve

I see I am not the only one who has had problems with TPIRFanSteve. He has driven at least one person off of Wikipedia Cheesehead 1980 and seems to act like a problem child when anyone changes one of his articles. Is there any further action other then reporting him? I posted a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR This person is a problem user and needs to be dealt with! Buckner 1986 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I resent being described as a "problem child." This is a simple content dispute in which Mr. Buckner has continued to re-add his false information even after I linked him to several episode recaps that disprove it on Pathfinder (pricing game)'s Talk page. I am attempting to have a conversation with him now on his own Talk page; I can only hope he and I can come to an agreement. -TPIRFanSteve 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

...and we apparently can't. On top of that, I'm apparently also a sockpuppeteer now. Is there something that can be done about this? Please? 'Cause he clearly isn't gonna listen to me. -TPIRFanSteve 05:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I will remain as civil as possible...I have no intention of giving Mr. Buckner any additional ammo. -TPIRFanSteve 14:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think TPIRFanSteve has stopped being civl as he has introduced sockppuppets and/or meatpuppets into the debate. Very low blow! Buckner 1986 23:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• And another one! Daor Nedlog, which is the main part of TPIRFanSteve's own Price Is Right fan site name "golden-road.net" spelled backwards. Could this be a coincidence? Buckner 1986 22:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Given the results of the CheckUser, I think it's pretty clear that I'm not using sockpuppets. (EDIT: On second thought, it proves that Zinkin isn't a sockpuppet. Oh well.) With that done, how the heck do I prove I'm not using meatpuppets? 'Cause I can't see any way to actually prove that I don't know who User:Plinky and User:Daor Nedlog are, and I'm not even sure whether they just didn't know that they were inviting themselves to be labeled as puppets or they did it intentionally to reflect badly on me (and I have dealt with people on Usenet and message boards who would do that if they had the opportunity).

I just want to put this to rest, and I really don't know how. -TPIRFanSteve 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet!

I just want to make clear for the record, I'm no one's sockpuppet; I don't know Steve, but we are not posting in tandem. I was fed up with people degrading Steve's good work withinformation that cannot be proven. I understand the need to look into charges of sock puppetry even if there is not real proof. I am not Dzinkin or Steve. Plinky 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I am not a sockpuppet or meat puppet of TPIRFanSteve. See: Talk:The Price Is Right Plinky 14:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Tag

Hi ... Thanks for the advise, but I'm not sure what you mean !!! I put a welcome tag on an IP user .... where does the other bit come in to it ??? Help ! David Humphreys 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jedi Order

I have speedied the clan page when deleting their main one. If this page is recreated under this name or any other, and the users remove speedy tags, feel welcome to drop me a note or email me. Ian¹³/t 17:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop it!

Stop it with your labeling me as a puppetmaster - sock or meat. Please note that golden-road.net [3] is a legitimate source and I use it as the source for my contributions. TPIRFanSteve 0:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That message was left by an impersonator, TPlRFanSteve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —Whomp [T] [C] 01:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

JW article edit

Thanks for the reminder. It does get very frustrating when users continue to make blatantly POV edits, especially when they are entire POV paragraphs from copyright publications. Unfortunately, the kind of people who make such brazen edits over and over again simply don't respond to nice friendly nPOV templates, and the culprits are largely anonymous IPs, so there is no point in adding to their talk pages anyway. On a separate note, I noticed that a vandal had falsely claimed a 'revert' to an edit by me, but actually reverted to a vandalised edit, which you corrected). I was very annoyed with that particular AOL user. Thanks for picking up on their deception.--Jeffro77 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

persecution of jws

Could be some time before this irritator is contained. Just keeps coming back under aol proxies.George 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Persecution

Hi there - Sorry I didn't get back to you Thursday. I'd done RC for four straight days and the 4th and 5th were absolutely insane, so I just checked messages yesterday and stayed off after that. It looks like your guy has settled down with just the two blocks, at least for now, but I'll keep an eye on it today – I'm sure he'll be back.

I really like to write and edit, but this RC stuff is certainly interesting. Somebody's trying to trick me into checking my 'you have new messages' alert with a redirect to the Punk'd entry every other day (is that like a Wiki-rite of passage or something?), plus I've had my user page vandalized 3 times this week by a guy who POV'd the HItler page, so what's one more? It's having fun with no money! Let me know if your guy starts up again and I miss it. ;-) - Baseball,Baby! ^{take a swing} 10:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Billy Hentenaar

Thanks for replacing the speedy tag for this article. The only reason I sent this to AfD was because of the numerous deletions of the speedy tag by the author. Wildthing61476 15:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad Form?

I overwrote someone else's edits? Sorry, it wasn't my intention. Barnas 16:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

re:BrianBarney

I had not even planned on really monitoring him. I am not an idiot and realize that if I had tried, it would only have antagonized him further. Seeing him actually participating on several talk pages was a bit of a redeeming when I glanced at his contributions. As for the "contribution, not the contributor" ideal, it's a double-edged sword. Massive, high-quality contributions are not, should not be an excuse to gloss over blatant ignoring of non-content related policies. Circeus 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi tony

thanks for getting back, ive been trying to get a human to respond and to my luck there is humans behind the binary!

yes the page called shem booth and was the start of a 3rd person perspective of my practice as an artist and researcher.

if u do a search of "shem booth" on wikipedia go to deleated log and some scientist of all things left a really nasty coment, deleated it and moved on. Although it was at the early stages of being build it was a start, and collecting people opineons of my work and practice, not from me but from other people otherwise i might aswell write it myself

my friend called me today and i asked about how it was going and then he told me about all this. apparently this admin guys coming up with all sorts of excuses, yet other people are bitching about this guy doing the same thing(and this guys surposed to be admin!).

To be honest the reason im so pissed is i dont wanna get the guys to start again and build it propley then its get deleted again and waste everyones time. the page started with sentence Shem booth spain Ba(hons) MA, Artist, musician, academic. i think i qualifie for all 3

i tryed to contact anyone to get a responce starting with the admin guy who did it, this is what was said.

Hi there

im a artist, producer and academic.The administrator "Blnguyen" deleted the page that was being built for me, and left a rather ignorant comment "an academic who doesn't seem to have PhD

well let me address this, first of all i was accepted and started a PhD course at the university of Greenwich London computing and mathematical sciences, and Plymouth university (planetary colligium) uk with supervisor Roy ascott- I’m not doing that PhD no more, but because i could not afford it. im only 24, ive spoke at the Technarte 2006 art & technology conference, ive written and produced a double concept album, ive taught and lectured at various university’s, please help.

My edit to Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses

Very well done! - CobaltBlueTony 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Aw gee thanks! - George 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! - CobaltBlueTony 16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Need mediation

Hello! Thank you for your request. If you would like to request mediation, please do so at WP:RfM. Unfortunately, I've been swamped lately and will most likely not have time to take any new cases for the next week or so, but I'm sure another mediator will be happy to take a look at your case once you have requested it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I Wrong?

Am I wrong for making something special out of websites? Because everytime I try to make things new for other websites, these clows have to bother me. You told me to have a good time and edit things, their not nonsence. How is Birthdates Inapropreate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Different World (talk • contribs)

Please read through Wikipedia's Policy on Speculation and Original Research before you make any more contributions. Your recent edits will be reverted shortly. AND SIGN YOUR COMMENTS! --3bulletproof16 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was explained to you why, very politely. All dates are approximations and WP:OR, and false under legitimate information. You also added them as an "alternate name", and even admitted they were fake on my user page and not my talk, and began personal attacks. Then you said the reason your edits were being oppossed was because 3bulletproof16 was racist.

More - EX1 / EX2 / EX3

AMA request

User:Truthwanted persists, to the point of repeated 3RR violations, to POV push his notion, apparently supported by one scholar, that the Declaration of Facts proves Jehovah's Witnesses were trying to curry favor with the Nazi government by claiming that some values/ideals were shared by both entities. It has been explained that the "ideals" in question were "high moral standards" and "family values". Nevertheless, User:Truthwanted persists in reproducing selected texts'' from the Declaration, using bold and/or italics to emphasize the portions that support his viewpoint. Several editors have reverted his edits, tried to explain in the edit summary or talk page, but he does not want to relent. He also accuses Witness editors of bias and attempting to hide some truth (ergo his preemptive nom de wiki?), assuming bad faith on our part. - CobaltBlueTony 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cobaltbluetony, has someone from the AMA taken on your case yet? אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no one has taken on my request yet. - CobaltBlueTony 12:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, I am actively working on finding you a suitable Advocate. You should hear back from me soon. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would my involvement benefit or hinder? Agathoclea 14:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it could hinder :-) Currently, it looks like Benon is going to take CobaltBlueTony's case, provided that he still wants help from the AMA, so I would suggest giving Benon a ping on his talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 15:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On second and third thoughts, it might be good for both of you to hit Benon up on his talk. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like that I am getting a few proceses mixed up here. I made a few notes on this case, but I think I will need to learn what AMA really is if I wanted to get involved. Agathoclea 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ping Before I proceed here are there two other users, apart from yourself who have also tried to resolve this dispute, because if mediation does not work then the next step is RFC where that will be required. Benon 22:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

At this stage I see two options open to you in the dispute resolution process (after skimming through the dispute history):-

1. Go for formal or informal mediation, if all major parties will agree to it, however as Truthwanted, has failed thus far to respond to reasonable invitations to the talk page I am unsure as to whether he will respond to a mediation request (nor can I be sure you would accept mediation.)

1. Go for an RFC, providing you can get two other users to certify that they as well have attempted to communicate and resolve with Truthwanted, on the locus of ignoring conseus.

Anyway just my opinions, just as a little curtosey can we keep the disscusion on your user talk page please (I have it watcher) as it helps to centralise the disscusion rather than fragmenting it, awaiting your response Benon 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

3rr again

Sorry to dump this on you I am literally just passing the computer. Truthwanted together with the IP have just violated 3RR again, if you want to write a report to get a little peace. Agathoclea 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I counted 4 distinct reverts plus a few extra edits spread across the username and the IP. But if there are no more reverts in the near future then it is pointless going through the excercise anyway. I read your mediation request, maybe that will clear things up easier. Agathoclea 21:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We hoped too soon. Agathoclea 15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

Hi, I was sure that the information was somewhere on the page, but it was not referenced in the introduction. The tag is a request for people familiar with the subject to add a <ref> tag to the information. Cuñado - Talk 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Profsnow

I'm sorry, I was restoring the previous edit from vandal blanking and somehow either I hit the wrong button or there was some glitch in the software. --Guinnog 21:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

S'okay - you did have me wondering, though, although I'm not at my most alert in the late Friday afternoon. Time for a gym trip! --Dan 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My Spelling Mistake

[4] A long day, but I swear I know better. Thanks for catching this. GChriss <always listening><c> 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :)

For the tips I'll keep them in mind. :) Keep up the good work! Lordofchaosiori 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I award this Liberty Star to Cobaltbluetony for his great efforts with Wikiproject Philly related articles. --evrik 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Woo hoo, new template!

What template did you use here? Haven't seen it before, I like it. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

JW Controversy page

Thank you for using references on your recent change (unlike some others). Could you please double-check the reference currently labelled 12, there appears to be a mistake in it. BenC7 01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Web design award

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Web design award, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion with User:Truthwanted

see [5] for the explanation. Agathoclea 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate user name

Hillary Clinton (talk · contribs) - CobaltBlueTony 17:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct place to list this is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Chance

I am giving this a second chance and I hope things will be better. Cheesehead 1980 13:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Civilization Fanatics Center

I removed the {{prod}} tag on Civilization Fanatics Center. The site does claim notability as the 190th largest bulletin board on the Internet and the second best fan site of 2005. It's one of the largest Civilization fan sites, rivalled only by Apolyton, which has its own page. If you disagree with my reasoning, feel free to list it on Afd so that deletion can be discussed. Thanks - Bootstoots 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:CyberVenuThomas

Hello. Thanks for the note. But I guess I was a bit late. Anyway, I'm networked to him on orkut. I've sent him a message there. He seems to be out of station right now. Regards, -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}15:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey bro

I think it looks fair; though I just hate seeing something like that on Wikipedia. The claim is made, and the defence against the claim is given, the defence makes the initial allegation look so totally rediculous you wonder why the allegation is there in the first place. Especially in this case it's just absurd, the obvious intent of the original is to slander rather than relay accurate information. I'm still not convinced that it should still even be in the article, however, it is nice knowing that people who run into the allegation elsewhere on the internet will now have the refutation of the allegation readily available.. I dunno... I admire your willingness to attempt compromise. Duffer 05:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

my user page

Thanks for catching that! 2nd Piston Honda 19:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeff F

Thanks for your work with Jeff F. I din't kill the Martha Stewart and Kel Mitchell changes, since I idn't know enough about the subject to simply declare them false. Thanks again for your help LinaMishima 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ian Mannus

Don't sweat it... I should know better than to do substantative edits amid ongoing vandalism...--Isotope23 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

Hello there Cobaltbluetony, i have just finished my userpage and was wondering if you think it looks finished. thanks Cluckbang 19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang

My project page

I'm sorry if you would rather had User:Cobaltbluetony/Project Pages/Haddon Township unedited. I try to avoid editing special pages to fix links, but I thought the edit would be harmless and I was trying to reduce the redirect links as much as possible. Medvedenko 17:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, glad it wasn't a problem. I was going through the What links here page for The Philadelphia Inquirer and thats how I discovered it. --Medvedenko 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have returned

I have thought long about your words, and am proud to say I'm a good editor now. Thank you Cao An Min

sorry

I edited over your changes George 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

weatherstone

The sources for the article are the public files you can get from the SEC and JPM annual reports. This is very basic and factual information (Bloomberg and Reuters have it too). I was just checking some of Weatherstone's "counterparts" entries (e.g. Jamie Dimon or Bill Harrison) and none of those articles have any source reference about when he was born or went to school or when he was in charge. WikiPier 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How can I do that? Bloomberg info appears only on the dedicated terminals (i.e. there's no web page to link to) and old JPM shareholder reports are paper booklet sitting on my shelves. WikiPier 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vadalism?

Have you made even a cursory look into the history and discussion of this article (Wigger)? Please do so next time, before accusing me of vandalism and reverting my edits. Thanks. Snackmagic 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Other people's edits" you're referring to were reverts themselves. The article was standardized as the stub I'm reverting it to, then passed a request for a merge into list of ethnic slurs. It was brought back into its own article, as a stub, in anticipation of a new approach. Instead, it was reverted back to it's pre-cleaned up status.Snackmagic 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

JW's#blood

Might need some help with this Ben doesn't like my addition.George 01:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kuravpur

thanks for the comments. Please let me know how to direct the search for Shripad and Sripad to the same page. The difference is: South Indians write it as SRI while North Indians write it as SHRI, the meaning/pronounciation is the same. thanks.Palaviprabhu 10:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I need your help

• Comment Hi Tony, thank you for contacting me. You seem to be an experience Wikipedian. I feel there have been unfair marking for the deletion of the International Institute of Management article. While I understand that the initial vote by voters was based on lack of information and that the article may require editing, but I provided clear references for verifiability and notability on this article's entry . However some voters still want it deleted in spite of the clear answers! Just because they do not know about the institute does not mean the institute is not notable especially when it has consortiums in 16 countries and their education programs are broadcasted all over Europe and North Africa. I feel that this is unfair practice by deletionists and I ask your opinion and support. Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miro.gal (talk • contribs) 22:41, August 11, 2006

Re: Vandalism - thanks

Yeah, it does seem like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thanks for reverting it!! — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson and User:Researchfellow

I don't like User:Researchfellow's edits in that they seem like overly exhaustive commentary, and possibly (as suggested by the user's name) is original research. This article isn't the place to go into such detail about a medical/psychological disorder. Care to comment/revert/advise? - CobaltBlueTony 19:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is changing VERY quickly due to its media promenence and contraversey. If you feel that some material is WP:OR or NOT properly WP:CITE then delete it and note such in your edit summary. If the editor can SOURCE his material, then maybe it should be added. Anyways, if you want to cite me a certain example or edit change I would be happy to comment on it. Thanks! --Tom 16:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

welcome message template

What't the template name for the welcome message you use? It's way better than the ((welcome)) template I've been using. Herostratus 17:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! Herostratus 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Statue article, thanks!

Thanks for catching that the article wasn't really notable and for taking the time to explain it. While I know of many people who are aware of the statue, I put it under the only name I've ever heard for it other than "that statue." It appears that the use of the name is not as widespread as I thought, and should if anything be no more than a footnote to a more extensive article about the history of this landmark (if it is possible to find out enough to warrant such an article in the first place). I really should have done more research, and I really appreciate you taking the time to explain the reasoning, it has helped me to better understand what Wikiedia is, and how it works. Thanks!Fastard 18:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)