User talk:Enigmaman/Archive 3

Your words taken out of context?

here--VS ^talk 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I'm trying to understand what he's saying, but I really can't. My solution was based on something you might be familiar with and something I've seen used in the past. In that case, the editor was constantly getting involved in edit-warring (among other things), so ArbCom's solution was that he wouldn't be blocked (for the conflict that went to ArbCom) as long as he held to a 1RR limit in the future. Any time the editor exceeded the 1RR, he would be opening himself to blocks of increasing length. I thought a good way to resolve it would be Igor agreeing to a similar condition. Enigma ^msg! 01:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through it again, and it's pretty clear what's going on now. He would link to it in the future, and thus will simply not agree to a condition that would lead to a block if violated. So you're right. The only possible solution now is outright deletion. Enigma ^msg! 02:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes deletion is the only solution. BTW I understood your point - and supported your proposal with some qualifications. Igor is a difficult editor to support (I have tried for a long time) but he is always trying to duck and weave on these things - because he appears to have an agenda related to his own company interests. Anyway that part is at ANI thread because I just posted it and it looks like we are all moving to delete this miscellany rather than your/my proposal. His response on his talk page to this is the sort of thing that I can't understand - because he says that he will remove the business links which state that they are authenticated by Wikipedia but despite being asked he won't post that agreement to ANI. I appreciate your interest.--VS ^talk 02:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I first got into it via your talk page. I read the back and forth exchange earlier. Enigma ^msg! 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Moss reply

I was trying to add the link but the words right below it wasnt showing, and I dont really care whether it helped you or not--Yankees10 00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I just hate when people undo edits just because they didnt here about it, I mean its been breaking news on ESPN for an hour now, I am actually pretty surprised no one else has noticed the re-signing and has edited his article.--Yankees10 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do you think you can add this reference to the end of what I put in the Trade to patriots section, whenever I do it the controversy section doesnt appear--Yankees10 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Enigma ^msg! 00:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

northampton

but they are shit

I'm not an expert so I can't speak of whether they are in fact good or not, but we're trying to keep a neutral point of view here. :) Enigma ^msg! 09:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HUG.

Yes, it's a very powerful tool. Sometimes I even feel bad for the vandals... ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 11:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. ;) The most useful shortcuts are the following (IMO, at least): Q, revert and warn; Space, next edit; [, previous page you were viewing (like "Back" for an internet browser); ], next page you were viewing (Like "Forward" in an internet browser); Z, previous revision in the history of the page you are viewing; X, next revision in the history of the page you are viewing. A few you may find useful on certain occasions are: W, warn only (use when a vandal was reverted, but not warned); R, for someone who added a test (ex. "hi") to an article that does not qualify as vandalism; B, report to AIV (block for admins, but it doesn't actually block: I think it does work for the reports, but you may want to double check). Hope that helps. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try them. Thanks again! Enigma ^msg! 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I signed on for only a few minutes, and then gave up. Something weird is going on. None of the hotkeys worked except for one time, and then at the end, I couldn't even get it to work by clicking. I clicked revert and warn 4 times for a vandalism instance, and nothing happened. I don't get it. It worked fine for me last night. I'll sign on again later and see if it works any better. Enigma ^msg! 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it was a temporary glitch with Huggle. After 30 minutes or so, it started working again. Enigma ^msg! 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:I see Huggle is working for you too

Yeah, that was kind of weird. I waited a while and decided to try it again, and it was working normally. I wonder what happened?--Dycedarg ж 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That happened to me a couple days ago; I don't remember who it was but they were much faster on the buttons than I was. At least today there seems to be a steady supply of vandalism for everyone.--Dycedarg ж 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya. This is by far the best antivandal method I've used. VandalProof, when it worked (which wasn't often) was much slower and clunkier. Since that broke altogether, I tried IRCMonitor, which might have been useful except for the fact that it never worked at all for me, and I had to resort to a combination of Twinkle, rollback, and pop ups. This is so much faster it's not even funny.--Dycedarg ж 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm sorry Engima for that i won't do it again.

Hey Enigmaman!

How's Huggle going for you? ;-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, thanks. Twice it had problems, but on the whole it's been very helpful. On an unrelated note, I have a question for you, and I'll leave a message on your talkpage. Enigma ^msg! 21:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nevermind. I was going to ask you for help in interpreting a message, but when I submitted my edit to your talk page, it resulted in an edit conflict and I thought better of it. Do you use IM? Enigma ^msg! 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did it correctly the first time. Could it be because you're not on my friends list? I'm going to play around a little bit to try and figure this out. Enigma ^msg! 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the program I'm using. I'm going to open MSN Messenger to see if that helps. I tried to add you as a friend and it gave me an error. Enigma ^msg! 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm on MSN messenger... hey, just e-mail me with your MSN email addy and I'll add you. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sorry about that, I forgot to put up the wikiproject template. lol. A user can be co-adopted as an alternative if you would be interested in that. I honestly would prefer at least a co-adoption, but I'll leave it on your court. I am however back on here a much as normal now and If you still need any help, please feel free to let me know ASAP. On another note, whatcha ya think 'bout Brett Favre retiring? As a diehard Pack fan, I'm not extremely happy about it. Anyway, let me know what you're decision is and get back to me. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear your decision. I'll (really) miss Favre but I'm comfortable with Rodgers after the Dallas game. I'm glad I bought his jersey last season cuz they'll get hard to find now. I was really hoping Moss or Stallworth would sign with the Pack, oh well... I'm going to change my status indicator so everyone can be more informed. I got Ohio State Buckeyes football full-protected earlier today cuz there was an edit war going on. The person who kept it going is here. lol. Did you hear that Shaun Rogers signed with Cleveland? Julius Jones and Jevon Kearsh are in talks with the Titans. Talk to ya later. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just vandalized you're talk page. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what would happen if the Pack signed Culpepper? If that happened, he'd at least be surrounded with alot of talent. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had days like that too, no problem. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't want him because of the injuries and the Minnesota thing. Moss was a Viking too but he's good, still. I heard about Lemon, woooooow. I think the Pack will draft another QB in the draft somewhere, probably in the later rounds. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 05:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!!!!!! Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddy

If you're an admin, can you please use your special admin powers at the talk page for The Buddy??? Many thanks. A little mollusk (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm not an admin. I do agree that the page needs to be deleted, however. Enigma ^msg! 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, deleted now. :) Enigma ^msg! 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two dollars/euros/pesos/a looney says that they'll try again! A little mollusk (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then be blocked and then register a new account... The never-ending circle. Enigma ^msg! 05:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sings>The circle of Wiki!</sings> Say "Goodnight, Gracie."A little mollusk (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took the user no time at all to use another account to recreate the page. Enigma ^msg! 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Can you block the IP 209.94.170.126? He/She continues to vandalice since for ever.--Damifb (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not an admin, but I'll look into it. Thanks, Enigma ^msg! 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was blocked. Thank you. :) Enigma ^msg! 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I lost my temper with him/her. How can I look at his/her "contributions"? --Damifb (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ into your browser, and just add the username or IP after the final /. Enigma ^msg! 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Earth just move?

What the heck is happening? We agreed on something! [1] My grip on reality must be slipping! Help Help! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly the End of Times. I am preparing accordingly, and I suggest you do so as well. Enigma ^msg! 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubs

You reverted something i changed in the Scrubs article. I changed the number of eps in season 7 from 18 to 12, this is because 12 is what is now expected for this season. While it is true that Bill Lawrence has stated that the 12th episode won't be the last, it is more likely that the remaining episodes will either be released straight to DVD or included as part of an 8th season, to air on NBC or ABC. I have now changed the number of eps to unknown, since that is the truth. It is highly unlikely that all 18 episodes will be broadcast as a part of the current season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.184.215 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert anything whatsoever on the Scrubs article except my own edits, which failed at restoring a reference that you damaged. So I didn't revert anything from you. Enigma ^msg! 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Enigma!

Just a quick note... thanks for agreeing with my assessment of the lead photo of the John McCain article. As a personal opinion, I have no clue how any person can see the current one as flattering. LOL! Also, I'm not really a newbie to Wikipedia, I just prefer using my IP (most times) as opposed to my username! Or, maybe it's because I am too lazy to log in! In any event, thanks again... I am glad to know I am not completely alone in my concern over the photo. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When lies are posted as "fact"

What can be done?

Also what can be done regarding a user who keeps editing truths when the truth isn't linkable to any articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schc (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend it discussing it on the Talk page. If nothing happens there, just remove what you consider to be lies and see what happens. Enigma ^msg! 07:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge

For more information on the challenge, visit WP:AWC and go to the vandalism patrol challenge. It's the section of the page that has a ton of green checkmarks by Milk's Favorite Cookie. Please note that you must sign up there before you complete any parts of the challenge. Actions before signing up are not counted. Good luck. --Shark face 217 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to revert and warn, right? I'll get to work right away. Enigma ^msg! 03:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I'm guessing this was vandalism on your page lol ^8thstar 04:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like it. Thanks. ;) If I'm a loser with no life, what does that make the guy who spends all day vandalizing Wikipedia? hmmm... Enigma ^msg! 13:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you happen to find my talk page? Enigma ^msg! 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain talk page ^8thstar 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Merging

Go ahead and be bold. I doubt anyone will challenge you. If they do: Come to me ;-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move the song into the EP's article and condense that information. Just make a heading and add the info in there. Hail me when you've done/need any help. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks, sorry about that - I'm trying my best to get to grips with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxton 61 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Huggle

If I activate my e-mail account to my Wikipedia preferences, would I be able to use the Huggle program? Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You're basically approved, but I can't send you the program if you don't enable your e-mail. Enigma ^msg! 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will activate it momentarily. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting. ;) Just leave me a message when you do enable it, so I'll know. Enigma ^msg! 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep you waiting. I am editing from an iPhone. I will notify you when I activate my e-mail account. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Can you try now? Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 17:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Sending now. Enigma ^msg! 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Sorry for the long delay. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound like a dick, but may I please have huggle? I believe it will help me greatly when reverting vandalism. --Cheers, L A X 19:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked to doesn't exist. Why would requesting Huggle make you sound like a dick? With the absence of Gurch, the program's creator, we've been handling it here. Please look through that page.

Z: I sent you an e-mail. Reply to it when you get it. Enigma ^msg! 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew that page existed. Anyway, I have applied myself. --Cheers, L A X 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you e-mail. --Cheers, L A X 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your e-mail and thank you for attaching the Huggle files. Maybe the reason my e-mail message was sent directly to your junk mail, was because I sent you the message with my iPhone. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

warning vandals

Thanks very much for your message regarding warning vandals. You are right, of course; but one of the great frustrations is that most vandals are not registered users (or at least they don't log in while they're busy vandalizing), so they don't have a talk page, only a "special page". Because of this there's no place to leave them a warning, so far as I know. If there is a way to deal with these idiots, please let me know, because I would like to warn them (or smack them!). Thanks. MishaPan (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can warn them on their Talk pages. If there is no Talk page yet, you simply create one with a new message (generally a level 1 warning). Most of the vandalism on Wikipedia is done by IPs. The only way to get the disruptive IPs blocked is to warn them first. The vast majority of the users I warn and then report to WP:AIV are IPs. Enigma ^msg! 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing you

Hi... Sorry about erasing your comment. It was unintentional and resulted from an edit conflict. Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Personal attack

Thanks for taking care of that! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, will do. TrickyApron (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

I got rid of the rest of the vandalism on here. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This latest one is a rather strange vandal. Been using a bunch of different IPs to make the same weird edits. Enigma ^msg! 03:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks Steve. I appreciate you guys keeping an eye on my page for me. Enigma ^msg! 03:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fun times, lol. No problem. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

As a recent changes patroller racing cluebot, do you have time to read what you revert before you revert it? I am concerned about the speed and carelessness with which you reverted my recent improvements to tort_law. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no carelessness involved. I looked at your edit, and it didn't appear to be constructive. If I was wrong, I apologize. Deleting the lead paragraph and replacing it with "A pedestrian is walking down the street..." did not appear to be a constructive edit. You should at least discuss it on the Talk page first. Enigma ^msg! 06:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went back and looked more in depth, and I'm even more convinced I was right to revert it. If you really think I was wrong, it must be a fundamental belief about Wikipedia policy, because it certainly had nothing to do with "speed and carelessness". Enigma ^msg! 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any grounds for reverting my edits other than the fact that I didn't include a summary, or discuss them on the talk page first? Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I believe that it's inappropriate to begin the article on tort law with an example. Wikipedia has established policies with regard to the way most articles are written. I can assure you I'm not the only one who feels that your edit was not constructive. If you still disagree, feel free to bring it up on the article's talk page or ask an unbiased third party for his/her opinion. By the way, you should not make major changes to an article without bringing it up first on the talk page, let alone not bringing it up on the talk page and not even including an edit summary. Enigma ^msg! 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more note: If you disagree with me, that's fine, but I don't appreciate your impugning my edit style in general. I am very careful with what edits I revert. Enigma ^msg! 06:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I apologize if I appeared to be attacking the editor not the edit. That was not my goal. Nevertheless, I still believe you are mistaken in your edit, and I believe you should have read more carefully, and past the first paragraph. Substance aside - that is, whether or not you liked the way I edited the article, reversion remedies are deemed appropriate only for obvious vandalism and patently valueless additions. Even if you are right about the content of my edit being faulty, dealing with as you did is rollback-abuse.

Further, I defend the first paragraph as I rewrote it as . I replaced the purely fictitious hypothetical that had previously muddied the intro with a situation taken from a famous, celebrated, and well-known tort case that better illustrated the central concept, and I cited my sources in the process. By moving it to the lead paragraph, I did attempt something new, by leading with an example. However, as far as I know, there's actually no rule against it. Novelty is not a criterion for deleting someone's good faith edit, and it's certainly not a reason to wipe out my effort to add sources and better examples to the article.

If you had a problem with the content, you could have edited the page in any number of ways to address your concerns without subtracting all of the value I added to the article this evening, or raised the issue on the talk page for the attention of someone with greater expertise. I would like to request that you consider undoing your own undo, and pursuing one of these alternative remedies. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it went from me being "careless" and "going too fast" to "rollback abuse". Not sure which is better. You really think replacing the opening of the tort article (which gives a clear definition) with "A pedestrian is walking down the street, minding his own business. Suddenly and seemingly from out of nowhere, he is hit by a barrel full of flour that has been quite accidentally launched into the air from a window above!" is appropriate? I certainly don't. That's not the way we start articles at Wikipedia. It just isn't. There's not much more to say here. Like I was saying, if you still think I'm wrong, post on the article's Talk page that you think the opening should be changed to what you suggested. Enigma ^msg! 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nothing has shifted. Your contentions are focused almost exclusively on leading with an example. But your reversion wiped out WAY more than just that. The fact that you still don't realize that, 12 hours later, is good evidence that you were indeed careless in using the reversion. Moreover, the use of reversion to deal with non-vandalism is highly questionable. Looking at how you rushed to revert the article, in combination with all of the information on your userpage praising yourself for the speed with which you revert, does suggest that you were more likely than not using the tool carelessly.

Further, it wasn't my idea to put examples in the lead paragraph; it employed an example before, but in the third sentence instead of the first. The difference is, the example before was "original;" mine was based on citing to sources generally-accepted in the field. I believe my way was more encyclopedia-like.

So, that being said, is the "leading with an example" style matter your only problem? Because I'm not stuck on that. I don't think it would be as accurate, but as a comrpomise, and to avoid edit-warring, I wouldn't mind putting the new content in the old order ("definition" first, example second). Will that satisfy your concerns so that I can go forward? Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done talking about this. What you did was inappropriate. You don't make major changes without an edit summary, and you don't make major changes without seeing if others agree with them or not. Enigma ^msg! 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are "done" - could you please clarify what that means? "Done" could mean a lot of things. Does it mean that you've made up your mind, you're done listening, and your committed to your course of action? You're refusing to negotiate? You're going to block my attempts to edit this or other articles? Does it mean that if other editors like any or all of my changes, you're going to revert them too? Clarification would be appreciated so that I can gauge my response. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means I'm not interested in discussing it with you because of your continued attacks against me. If other editors agree with you, then you can form a consensus to change the article to the way you like it. I'm not interested in edit-warring either. Enigma ^msg! 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your characterization of this dialogue as a "continued" personal attack. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I object to your unwarranted criticisms of me, based on the reversion of an edit that I think most people would agree wasn't constructive. I guess we're even. See WP:MOS. Enigma ^msg! 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not criticizing you. It is not a criticism of a fellow editor to ask, or assume, that his edits are a product of a stated, or implied personal belief. Also, if that is the case, you're hands are unclean, because you've made the same assumptions in this dialogue. Did you mean it as a personal attack? I didn't take it as one - was I supposed to have?

Also, I have no idea how you conclude that most people wouldn't agree my edit was constructive. No one else has weighed in on it; you didn't even give it a chance. If you mean that it's already foreclosed by some style convention, I checked and I don't see one. Do you?

Further, I'd like to ask if you would respond, yes, no, or conditionally, to my specific inquiry regarding a compromise, above. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have weighed in on it. I did not make any assumptions in this dialogue. What I saw first from you was suggesting that I'm "careless" and that I don't look at what I'm reverting. When that wasn't enough, you accused me of abusing the rollback function. I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply said that I don't believe your edit was constructive, especially given the manner with which it was performed. Enigma ^msg! 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's exactly correct to say several people have weighed in; there is hardly anything resembling a consensus, or even awareness. At least two people have said that the introduction you restored is a problem. No one has any proposals on changing it except for me, so far.

As for my accusation of carelessness, I think you are wrong to take that as a personal attack, or as being without cause. It is not a personal attack, and I do have cause. You reverted three paragraphs worth of good-faith edits within less than a minute of my making the changes. It was perfectly correct for me to think that this was a "false positive" and that you were rushing. Your user page congratulates you on the quickness with which you revert vandalism. That's not a bad thing, but I inferred from that the possibility that you had rushed. You claim to have "reread" the edit to confirm your initial conclusions. But nothing you have stated indicates that your reread goes beyond the first line. So as far as I'm concerned, that confirms that your first revert was careless, as was the second revert. Still, I am not concerne with whether you are a careless person, I am concerned with the fact that you carelessly reverted my edits.

To be clear, I am not accusing you of being a revert-abuser. But I think that this use of revert is outside of policy, and an abuse. Do you see the difference between my attacking an edit as abusive, and an editor as being abusive?

I'm sure you are an excellent editor. Wikipedia needs vandal cops. I know I am not. I only have about 50 pages on my watchlist. I try to keep them free of vandalism, but that's the extent of it. Here's the thing though, reversion is meant for pure vandalism, not as a solution to disputes about content or style. Do we disagree on that? Is that "just my personal disagreement" with wikipedia, as you would say? I don't think it is. I'm pretty sure the conensus is, when in doubt, don't revert. Reverting three paragraphs worth of editing on an unprotected page solely because you don't like the way one sentence is worded is a very questionable use, and probably abuse of the reversion tool. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are accusing him of abusing reversion tool; whether intentional or not. Maybe you should take your changes to the articles talk page and settle this there. K im u 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but not as some kind of a personal attack - as a defense of my edit. Anyway, I agree with you, it is a matter of the article's talk page. I didn't think it was at first, but clearly now it is, and it has been posted there. Thank you for the suggestion. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

background in law

I note that you have a background in law. Would you mind if I asked if you were deemed a member of the bar or licensed lawyer by any state, territory, or district of the U.S., or held comparable status in any non-U.S. jurisdiction? Not a personal attack - just general curiosity. You are, of course, under no obligation to answer. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not passed the bar, and as a result, I am not a licensed lawyer. I do intend to take the bar exam within the next few years, and I have several close relatives either involved in practicing law or attending law school. My brother-in-law attends Columbia Law School and I frequently converse with him about matters of law, especially torts and the wide variety of subjects covered by commercial law. Off-topic remark: one thing I have in common with you is that I'm particular about word usage. I frequently see people misusing words on the Internet and I frequently correct them, in the hopes of their becoming more proficient with written English. You might've noticed a small correction I made on your talk page. ;)

As for "personal attacks" and civility: As you admitted, many of your comments come off as attacks, whether you intend them to be or not. For example, on your talk page, you slurred me by insinuating that I'm uneducated in the matters you deal with and therefore "unfit" to revert your edits. Enigma ^msg! 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention a few things. My original law background came from working in the offices of a lawyer a few years ago. After that, I took several classes in law. I'll be happy to show you my transcript or refer you to my professors. I received exceptional grades, as if that means anything. Enigma ^msg! 01:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, appeal to authority between editors is irrelevant on wikipedia; it may sometimes be an issue when it comes to a source of facts. So, that isn't why I asked. Honestly, I don't doubt your knowledge. I don't remember what I wrote that that impugned your background on the content, but it would have been based on the content-blind justification for the edit, rather than any claims about your authority.

The reason I ask is because I'm a philosopher first and always, so I'm interested in ideas, and where ideas come from, not just facts, things or stuff. Consequently, I am always curious about what editors on wikipedia say about themselves.

I like how you say, "if that means anything" -- an enlightened attitude in my opinion. My thoughts on the matter, based on my experience as well as many friends are that (a) undergraduate or graduate law course grades have little to no correlation with law school grades; (b) law school grades (and for that matter, law school names) have little to no correlation with ability to practice law. Nevertheless, it's great for your brother that he's going to Columbia, it is a fine, fine law school.

Also, you may want to check the requirements for admission in your local jurisdiction. California does not require that you obtain a law degree before taking the bar exam. (That said, the overwhelming majority of those people who take the bar in California without obtaining a J.D. from an ABA accredited law school fail - about 80%). Although a lot of what you learn getting one is of little help in practice, it is a good idea, if not a necessity, to get a J.D. before attempting to enter the practice.

If you already know all of this, ignore me.

And now that you mentioned it, I checked, and I see the edit. Excellent. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally feel that grades and degrees mean very little. I just was arguing this earlier today. What matters is what you learn from a class, not how well you do on exams or papers. Obviously the goals of tests and assignments are to aid learning and measure learning, but I feel that they often do a poor job of measuring what is actually relevant. One can get lots of As and have a pretty transcript, but the practical application of that is limited. Enigma ^msg! 04:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Agree ;-). This is ESPECIALLY true of law school, which adds another dimension worsening the town-gown disconnect. Stop me if you know all this already.

Today's law school curriculum is largely unchanged from a paradigm shift that came to be in the closing years of the 19th century. Prior thereto, the practice of law was not universally a "learned profession;" as it is deemed in the western world today. Law school strictly was optional. (e.g., Abraham Lincoln had no J.D.).

A legal academic who had a bit of a chip on his shoulder, Christopher Langdell decided law should be a learned profession, and he knew best what the law was and how it needed to be taught. Langdell and his followers did a great job of organizing legal learning. They turned the Ivy league law faculties into great producers of case books and treatises, which prior thereto was a haphazard business. Langdell made anonymous grading a common practice for law schools, instituted the case method still used today, and basically created the curriculum that focused on contract, property, etc., as distinct subjects, that still form the standard 1L curriculum today. In fact, prior to Langdell's movement, "tort law" did not even exist as its own subject.

However, Langdell's approach had a lot of drawbacks. Langdell and his followers were adherents to what is referred to as 'conceptualism' by legal scholars, closely connected to legal formalism. It is based on Platonic idealism as applied to law. Their view was that actual cases and transactions were iterations of ideal legal forms that existed on some other plane. Law wasn't manmade, it just existed, in brooding omnipresence, and lawyers and judges had to "discover it." This is why they adopted the case method. Learning how to read cases taught you how to "find" the "real" law. This, they felt, taught lawyers how to "find the real law," like tunneling out of Plato's cave.

Of course, legal conceptualism, and a large measure of formalism, have been debunked and rebuked by scholars of the realist movement, which focused on law as manmade. Plato, for his part, associated the view of law-as-manmade with (a) "might-makes-right" ethics and the sophist Thrasymachus (see plato's republic) and (b) the barbaric tyranny that led to his own mentor being put to death for being unpopular (see Plato's Apology.)

Today, classic conceptualism is relegated to footnotes, although according to some theorists (see e.g., Joseph William Singer, and any of his numerous essays on legal pragmatism from a critical legal theory perspective) still crops up and has hidden influence in legal decisionmaking). But the way conceptualists teach law lives on.

Why? Well actually, there's still a lot of good from the case method and anonymous grading. Teaching students how to interpret appeals is very important in any system where any amount of judge-made law is a factor. Nearly all post-conceptualists are in agreement that it needs to be practiced, and still plays a role. Anonymous grading is fair. It speaks for itself. However, law schools, still following essentially the Langdellian method, make your ability to interpret appeals into somehwere between 51 and 99% of what you're graded on.

This is very out of touch. Law practice does not revolve around interpreting appeals. It is about serving clients. Serving clients may require the ability to draft transactional documents, identify and minimize tax liabilities, prove disputed facts before a tribunal, or persuasively argue an interpretation of legal authority to a tribunal or to a legislative or regulatory body, correspond with and counsel clients and correspond with third parties who may have similar or disparate interests, and a number of other tasks. Most of all, it requires a ton of reading and writing, and strict adherence to ethical standards of professional responsibility.

Most law schools have caught on to these last two points, with required courses in reading and writing, an upper division writing requirement, and mandatory professional responsibility classes. However, classes on discovery, trial practice, advocacy skills, and the like, are strictly optional. Fortunately, an increasing number of students take these classes. I wouldn't say law schools fail law students, but given the overbearing emphasis on "socratic" teaching, it's not surprising that most young lawyers agree that upon getting out of law school, they were still borderline incompetent to practice.

I think the theory is that if you can master the socratic method, you can teach yourself how to ask a leading question, or make a privilege log. You can take the straight A law-student and teach him what he doesn't know; you can't take an actor who knows how to act out a leading question in front of a law & order jury or the paralegal who's created a thousand privilege logs, and teach them to be a straight-A law student. Actually, I think you can, but that's another story for another day.

My skepticism about the converse claim aside, I believe it is true that any legitimate law school graduate is mentally resourceful enough to educate himself, it is fair to say that law schools aren't placing practical learning, or even practical thinking, at the top of the list. This is one of two reasons why law school graduates and practical ability are worlds apart.

The other reason is that greatness in practice depends as much on attributes which cannot be taught - discretion, charisma, and luck as it does on knowledge. You can take a guy with character and teach him what he doesn't know; you can't take a smart guy with no scruples and teach him character. People know this, and law is a people-serving business; people will more often flock to lawyers with proven character than proven smarts without character. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was certainly instructive, and some interesting reading. Thanks. Enigma ^msg! 05:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is a shorter way of saying it, but it isn't nearly as fun, and I haven't had a chance to expound on all of those subjects in a single comminiqué in a while. I'm making a guide to law school for my younger brother who is going to have at it later this year, so I'm willing to "get into" things, because these communiqués become the rought drafts of sections of that guide. Anyone who says, "Matt, how do I pass the MPRE?" or, "Matt, do grades matter?" becomes a guineau pig for the advice I plan to give my brother. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Help, Just Incase

I am a wikipedia friend of your adopter, Burner0718. I was just going to tell you that if you need help and Burner0718 isn't online, you can ask me a question. You can tell if I'm online by just looking at the top-right hand corner of my userpage. I have made over 850 edits and I am also a very experienced editer. Burner got his idea of his userpage formatting from me, like he said on my talk page. Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know! Thank you. Enigma ^msg! 02:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your permission, I am on wikipedia everyday. Also, I'm going to change the red link. That link was kinda intentional because when I edit that page, I can't tell which link is red or not because it is all black.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. It's almost like a challenge. "Find the red link." Unfortunately, it's not much of a challenge because of how much it stands out. Enigma ^msg! 03:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: warning vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Paul the Apostle: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Enigma ^msg! 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was the one who reverted the vandalism on Paul the Apostle, and I usually warn vandals, but I didn't warn that user because I thought you already did. I have been here on Wikipedia for a year already, my first edit day is coming soon, which is March 19. NHRHS 2010 NHRHS2010 19:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Anyway, your revert was before my revert. I was thinking if you had warned the vandal first, we could get the vandal blocked faster. No worries. Enigma ^msg! 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Most of the vandals who target the handful of pages on my watchlist whose edits I revert before cluebot are not registered users, and are identified only by IP. Is there any point in sticking a warning template on the talk page assigned to an IP? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Most of my warnings are to IPs. Most of the vandalism on Wikipedia comes from non-registered users. Put warnings on the talk pages of the IP address, and then after the final warning, you can report them to WP:AIV. Enigma ^msg! 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Barnstar!

Thanks a lot! Although, I'd like to mention that you've beaten me before as well. I'm quite happy that Gurch fixed Huggle; that unstable previous version was really starting to get on my nerves.--Dycedarg ж 23:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you

Hi Enigmaman! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1).

I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being

an admin to the high standard that the community deserves.

Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs?

You posted on AWC saying that you already completed the 20 blocks/bans and over 100 warns. Can I get the diffs for the blocks/bans? Thanks. --Shark face 217 17:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea on how many warning you gave out during that period? A rough number will be fine (I'll take your word for it). --Shark face 217 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I didn't keep count. I'd say over 300, at the minimum. Enigma ^msg! 01:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption offer 2

Hi Enigma. I'm pretty sure you remember me as Burner0718's friend. I am willing to adopt you as your second adopter. Please visit my userpage for more info. Please respond on my talkpage.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there's no reason not to. Why are you so eager to co-adopt me? Heh. You don't need to officially adopt someone, unless you want to be on the adopters list or whatever. :) Enigma ^msg! 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wanting to tutor someone for a while. Today, I actually found someone who will 99.9% accept my offer of adoption. I can be your backup tutor if Burner isn't around too. So I'm your co-adopter now right?--RyRy5 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. Why not? It's a little bit of a strange dynamic though, because I've been around much longer. :) Enigma ^msg! 02:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around longer than me. :D Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. Hey, one can never have enough adopters, I suppose. I can learn things from both of you. Enigma ^msg! 02:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'm trying to clear out more time to get back on here more often than here recently. Much thanks to Jj137, I now have a new, working, status indicator. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with my situation

Hello, I'm sorry I'm writing to you but i feel without friends and I hope you might be sympathetic. Its a stupid little thing but I'm annoyed with the whole user box situation you commented on recently. I've modified the box to make it completely un-offensive to anyone and administrator's are deleting it without any discussion. Is that fair? No i'm being threatened with being banned for expressing a really generic opinion. Do I have any recourse or must i give up it the face of such unfair wielding of power? (new page) --Bleveret (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might try WP:RfC. Honestly, I don't know. I'm not convinced that there was a consensus to delete your userbox, but the closing admin felt there was, and the admins deleting it now are relying on that. Enigma ^msg! 16:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Template

You are welcome to swipe whatever you want from my home page. I have updated the section under "User warning templates" to describe how I use that stuff. You are welcome to use, lose, or abuse that information. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

meetup message update

I fixed it at the city project level but haven't gotten it on the state one yet. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's updated now. How does it work? There's a central point where someone inputs meetup dates? Enigma ^msg! 22:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha

Yeah, it is pretty rare for Kurt Weber to give a different comment, but if anyone should get the "Kurt Weber Stumper Honor", it should be Ruhrfisch. Useight (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not bad, but the one I might point to is the one where he supported a clearly unqualified candidate to get back at people for criticizing his opposes. Sorry, don't have a link at the moment. By the way, was it just me, or was Wikipedia down for like 20 minutes? Enigma ^msg! 01:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was down for a while. I don't know what happened, just that I couldn't edit. Useight (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites on the Internet, and it being down so long means something strange happened. DOS attack? What I also couldn't figure out was why I couldn't find any information on it being down on Google news, or Wikipedia forums. Enigma ^msg! 01:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody with a ton of edits (like 75,000) changed their username. I hear that will bring down the servers. Anyway, the links I originally meant to post before completely messing up and running out of time were:

Useight (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Alright, thanks. Just a bit curious. If he's the only one that does that, then that's alright. Problem is, I'm pretty ambitious, and would like to become an administrator someday. If I feel I'm ready, but nobody's nominated me, I figure in this case it would probably be best to self-nom instead of canvassing. But then again, I might just decide it's best to wait until somebody notices and decides to nominate me. But I don't have to worry about that now. I'm quite a ways away from being ready. — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 01:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: IP

Sorry about that, I was at work for a bit. I'll keep an eye on it, in any case. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just trying to get immediate attention to it. Oh well. Enigma ^msg! 02:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, any idea why it was ignored on AIV? It looks like an open and shut case. Enigma ^msg! 02:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're around (and since Scarian's taking a break) - fr. Libs

Could you do me a favour? I am about to turn in soon. But I am seeing "the falsifier" (see Scarian's talk page) very active this evening. Tonight he is a new IP... 66.143.119.148 (talk · contribs). Could keep a check on this one and rv anything that he does. He is switching between Kiss/Foo Fighters/Van Halen (his usual haunts) and childrens TV shows (which I mention on Pat's talk page earlier about how similar this editor is to the "toy town vandal"... a veteran thorn in Wiki's side) Much appreciate any assistance you can provide. Reporting "the falsifer" isn't easy. Many admins like Alf and CambridgeBayWeatherman are familiar with him. Former admin's like KOS are too. But trying to explain it over at AiV or ANI to some green admin who doesn't know the history... I'd rather just follow behind the guy and rv all his junk. I am about to leave. Good luck protecting Wiki. Libs 156.34.210.47 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll be around a while longer, and I'll keep an eye on it for you. I'll check contribs every so often, and make sure everything is reverted. With any luck, that IP will also get blocked shortly. Enigma ^msg! 02:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Maybe Master of Puppets knows the history of the Toy Town Vandal??? Anyone who's been around here a while knows who it is. 156.34.210.47 (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask him, but I doubt any admin is going to want to block absent vandalism after final warning. Trying to connect one IP with another can be tricky (looks open and shut here, but still) and most admins would rather avoid it. I'll keep an eye and report to AIV if there's another vandalism edit. Enigma ^msg! 03:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure of the Toy Town vandal's history, but what's he doing wrong, exactly? I'm suspicious that this isn't a new user, but they seem to be making legitimate edits. Of course, I'm tired and half-focused on schoolwork. Fill me in? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let Libs handle this one. Enigma ^msg! 07:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Just in response to your comment re:locking my talk page - why, what's happened? Has the bot been shut down or something? 23skidoo (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I gave up trying to figure out what's going on ages ago. However I did expect to see an awful flood in the last few days before the deadline (hence my - now removed - message re:locking my talk page) and it didn't happen. So something must have changed. For me I think the wording on BC's so-called "opt-out" page (the bit where he adds the condition that those who opt out can't complain about BC) was the last straw. Actually given the amount of abuse (deserved and undeserved) I'm actually surprised he hasn't quit. He must be a high muckety-muck in Wikipedia or otherwise get his jollies from abuse. I know I would have said to heck with it ages ago if I were in his shoes. 23skidoo (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

message from a vandal

Leave me alone please and don't try and make me look bad for expressing my opion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenal-Samuel (talk • contribs) 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? You vandalized pages and personally attacked other editors. If you edit constructively, I think you'll be left alone more. Posting "UR AN IDIOT" on someone's userpage isn't going to get you left alone. Enigma ^msg! 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adopter 2

Hi Enigmaman, not to intrude on your userpage but I added that I adopted you userbox on your userpage. By the way, I may beat Burner0718's edit count soon. I already have 1380+.--RyRy5 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. No problem. Enigma ^msg! 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message from the guy who attacked Betacommand

Bots are not people. Thus I did not attack a person. hth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.224.55 (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you didn't attack the bot. You attacked the person running the bot, namely Betacommand. Enigma ^msg! 14:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry.

I think someone else has been using my account, I may have let one of my hacker friends know a hint and he probably figured it out, I did not vandalise anything, so this must be what happened. I am sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcrankins (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: protecting my userpage

I put this on StaffWaterBoy's page, and I didn't know if you saw it or not...

“

I appreciate your advice. However, I really don't want to protect my userpage, even though it is vandalized so much. Someone else asked me why I don't protect my userpage. Here is what I told them:

“

Yeah, I know, but in my mind, protecting my userpage does two things:

It lets the vandals win—"He warned me but he's scared I'll fight back, so he has his userpage protected."
It lets the vandals let out steam.—"I got blocked, but I sure told him off..." Since I don't care what vandals think about me, I just let them spew off. If my page was protected, the vandal's anger could build up and they could turn themselves into another Hitler. I know that's probably a stretch, but you never know.

The reason I have all that crap on my userpage is to force vandals to work if they want to vandalize my userpage unobtrusively. Unless you know HTML and wikimarkup fairly well, you will not be able to figure out what is going on with my userpage. So basically, the only thing they can do is blank the page and/or add content that will be obviously out of place. Or they can add stuff to that banner, which I could quote to you in my sleep...

”

Hope that explains my reasoning. Thanks for the suggestion though. Have a good day, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

”

Do you think that "forcing" people to keep reverting my page is a nuisance? Or is it just another reversion (or AIV report or block) to add to their stats. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I don't mind reverting the vandalism to your page if you don't want to protect it. I didn't know you had a reason for not requesting protection. Enigma ^msg! 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. swa q 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I checked the vandal's contributions and its most recent contribs were to your talk page. It got blocked before it could hit any other pages. Enigma ^msg! 18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Admin behaviour

That's highly unusual... warnings are essential to making sure vandals understand why they are blocked. This seems to be a highly user-unfriendly approach. I'll comment on the talk page, but you're right to question it. Also, while a person's talk page is under their jurisdiction, ignoral of warnings is also quite rude. Which admin, if I may ask? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here and here. Not much anyone can do, but oh well. Enigma ^msg! 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, You Shut Up!

I've removed the speedy request on No, You Shut Up!, as A7 does not cover music albums. You may wish to consider a prod or AfD instead. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome

... and the link which you followed was the Help article on how a new section should be formatted/created, using the '=' symbols, etc. :) --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 07:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, I got you something great but I can't show you because it's fair-use only. Excuse me, I mean non-free. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

co:Adopter

I felt like anwering since I'm your co-adopter. There is no place where you can find the redirects you created. I am 99.9% sure.--RyRy5 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your still wide awake and reverting. Good Job. Ask if you have any questions. BTW, I have about 200 more edits than Burner.--RyRy5 talk 06:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Cute new sig, with the Edwardian Script. :) Enigma ^msg! 06:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks cool. Anyway, back to RC patrolling. --RyRy5 talk 06:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do it. I'm a big sports fan, but the recent antics by the Patriots* have turned me off too all Boston-area sports. I know you don't have to like the Red Sox to join the project, but I simply can't bring myself to join it. Enigma ^msg! 06:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats OK. Thats a Scout's job anyway. So, when do you plan to become an admin? I have really nothing to do this late so I might as well talk to someone.--RyRy5 talk 06:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to plan to become admin? Heh. I actually didn't have any specific plans until I was approached by two editors who suggested it for the future. I figure it's at least six months off. I need to do some more article-building and undergo an editor review before I get anywhere near the process. Anyway, I have to wake up in 4 hours, and I only slept 3.5 hours last night, so... Enigma ^msg! 06:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to be an admin. I'd support you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you to say. Some day... <- remember the dots! Enigma ^msg! 13:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

User:Diligent Terrier/Nerd Cabal/Invitation

Uh, just got back. I'll look at this later. Enigma ^msg! 02:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption Program

The program is what you must complete to graduate my training. You can still ask me questions. Visit this link for your test. Please visit my Adoption Program for more information.--RyRy5 talk 19:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, just got back. I'll look at this later. Enigma ^msg! 02:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll bite. The edits are no problem. I vote on RfAs occasionally. I voted on 3 just last week, I believe. Improving an article of your choice might be difficult, but I'll do my best. Enigma ^msg! 06:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to take this test.--RyRy5 talk 06:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm doing it now. Enigma ^msg! 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me when your done so I can grade it. You are the 2nd person to take the test.--RyRy5 talk 06:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grade it now.--RyRy5 talk 07:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you opened it to edit and then get an edit conflict, sorry. I just fixed two things. Enigma ^msg! 07:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else edited it, not me. About your test. Go to Recent Test Scores on this page to see your scores. Your next test may be in a week or 2.--RyRy5 talk 07:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:AFD question

It's really up to you and the voters. My opinion is, if it has been up for to long, you should probably close it.--RyRy5 talk 06:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My quandary is that usually admins are responsible for closings, but sometimes an AfD will sit around and not be closed. I guess I could try asking an admin to close it. Enigma ^msg! 06:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I would do.--RyRy5 talk 06:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Note

I am sorry, but I saw your edit summary. Was that directed at me? If so why? And if not not sorry for asking. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 06:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception with your saying the user's heart is in the right place. What are you basing this on? The user is pretty disruptive, based on my review of its contributions. Are you saying heart in the right place because the user wanted to be an admin? This might sound a little harsh, but I think Wikipedia would be best served if the user in question never became a sysop. Enigma ^msg! 06:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL – Whoa fella/gal – First, I think you are taking this way to serious and personal. The candidate had no chance of passing. Second, they were a new user. Moreover, as we all know, and I know personally and still remember, when I first joined Wikipedia, we all make mistakes. The warnings on the users talk page did not concern – civility – vandalism or any type of page blanking. The warnings concerned possible copyright violations and matters that a new user may not be aware of. Nothing to construe anything more than an over eager individual trying to contribute to Wikipedia not detract from the project. Yes, I would say that is a contributor with their heart in the right place. And if a few words of encouragement keep that individual coming back, contributing in a more productive manner, I will say them again, and again, and again. Let’s call this a misunderstanding of intent rather than philosophy. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 06:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC). ShoesssS ^Talk[reply]

Fair enough. Enigma ^msg! 14:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoptee Award

		Award of First Success
		For passing your first Adoptee test with a score of 26/20 at my Adoption Program. Keep up the Good Work.

--RyRy5 talk 06:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research and Point of View

Please do not add original research to articles, as you did to List of Espada in Bleach. Though your edits were in good faith, it has been verified that Luppi is a man. Calling him a woman not only constitutes original research, but Point of View edits. Thanks. Sasuke9031 (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I dealt with this one for you here. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 10:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. VandalProof again? I love getting warned for reverting vandalism. Enigma ^msg! 14:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think you linked me to the wrong page! :P You must've meant here. Thanks for the help! Enigma ^msg! 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about a misguided person. Anyone who actually looked at the history could see I was reverting edits which added undesirable material. I don't know whether Luppi is a man or a woman, nor do I care. Enigma ^msg! 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: AFD

I looked over it and closed it as delete. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Enigma ^msg! 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAC may offer more information than me. Yes, non-admins may close AFDs, but only if there is a clear consensus to keep (i.e. 6 keep votes over a few days with no opposition). This is called a speedy keep. You can't really close AFDs which are clear deletes, as you can't delete, so it is best to let an admin do it. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that there really is nothing to do except let it sit there [unless you want to annoy your favourite admin :)]. Enigma ^msg! 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vids

Ah, yes. The heavy set guy who walked [quite rudely, in fact] in front of DS, what is his name? And were you the guy in the blue shirt? :-D (I'm gonna be away for a while, btw, so I won't get your answer) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 10:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm not in view. In fact, I wasn't really in any of the pictures, either. I was sitting towards the back corner, so the video shots and almost all the pictures missed me. The guy who walked in front of him was Luigi. Yeah, that was pretty weird. Enigma ^msg! 14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my userpage

In thanks for fixing the vandalism/blanking on one/some/all of my userpages I reward you this bootleg CD of your favorite band/musician.

Enjoy! ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Townsend Harris

http://staff.thhs.qc.edu/thhs/index.php

check this link. It's called Townsend Harris High School @ Queens College. Perhaps the statement can be amended, rather than deleted. I reverted it, but feel free to alter the language.Slapshot01j (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't think it necessarily belongs on the page, but since you're so insistent, I included an amended sentence. Please leave a comment on my talk page before undoing one of my edits. Thank you, Enigma ^msg! 00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

I emailed User:Gurch asking for approval for Huggle three days ago and have not gotten a response. I wanted it because Vandalproof has been having some problems and was looking for a new anti-vandal tool. I was wondering what I should do next? --CWY2190^T^C

I'll send you an e-mail. Shouldn't be a problem. Enigma ^msg! 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --CWY2190^T^C 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for backing me up. Also, do you want me to create your test now?--RyRy5 talk 05:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another test? Sure. Didn't I just pass one? Heh. Always up for tests, though. Enigma ^msg! 05:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will recieve it tommorrow. Since you passed the last one, you will get tests alot quicker. PS. Do you know when Burner will come back?--RyRy5 talk 05:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. He didn't tell me. He just sometimes disappears for days at a time. Enigma ^msg! 05:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just got my 5th adoptee! Also, do you think I am an inexperienced editer? I just want your opinion. And I was just on my RC patrol when I noticed your summary saying something about a flamethrower, what do you mean by that?--RyRy5 talk 06:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a guy who created an article to promote himself who is edit-warring with everyone that attempts to revert his edits. I was notifying him that I'm well-armed. Yeah, I think you could use some more experience. There are a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines out there. Enigma ^msg! 06:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. Also, what time do you go online each day? I would also like to know what time it is where you live. It's for your test tommorrow.--RyRy5 talk 06:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the Eastern time zone but I'm often up late. I'll be online starting in about 8 hours for tomorrow. Enigma ^msg! 06:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the east too (Las Vegas). I usually edit from day to night. Someone gave me a barnstar a few days ago for always being active and for making over 2400 edits in one month. Your test will be here around maybe tommorow morning.--RyRy5 talk 06:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas is on PDT, not EDT! I'm 3 hours ahead of you. I'll be on the lookout for the test. Enigma ^msg! 06:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!!

Thank you so much for having the courage (and the flamethrower) to help with this vanity issue and 3RR mess I'm currently involved in. This should never have gone to AfD and the user should have been blocked a long time ago. Thank you, thank you, thank you! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

No problem. I'm here to help. I saw the report on AIV and decided that someone else needed to step in. The csd tags should've stayed. AfD is not the appropriate locale, because it would take far too long to get deleted. Definitely a good speedy delete candidate, and hopefully the offending user will be blocked shortly. Enigma ^msg! 06:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect timing. This sort of abuse of this site just burns me up. So, I made a new article at Earp, California to ease the tension. I figured if someone is going to write something, it might as well be worthwhile to a much broader audience. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have such an itchy trigger finger that I have the urge to nom your article for deletion! Just kidding. Thanks for adding something constructive to the encyclopedia! That self-promoting editor could learn a thing or two from you. Enigma ^msg! 06:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1 completed successfully. Crufty self-promoting article was deleted. Step 2 is pending, as the AIV report still sits there unattended to. Enigma ^msg! 06:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Well, I admit there is nothing to see in Earp. Really. On the other hand, Lake Havasu is just a hop, skip and a jump up US 95. Laughlin, Nevada isn't much farther. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the user was not blocked. Anyway, I'll have to take a closer look at your article tomorrow. G'night! Enigma ^msg! 07:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, but it's lacking in detail about the actual townsite. Enigma ^message 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blocking a user

Can you take a look at User_talk:Aimar120? He has taken some liking to me and to my user page, and I suspect that he is the same IP that you blocked two days ago. His account has been used only for vandalizing and for building a half-assed user page copied from mine, and his edits on IPs seem to indicate that he doesn't intend to make anything constructive, and that he is ready to use proxys to go around blocks --Enric Naval (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. Some admins don't put block notices on talk pages, so I clean up for them. If you think the user is a sockpuppet, go here. Enigma ^msg! 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on the user for you, however. Enigma ^msg! 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's becoming a bit daring, I have to say that, see User:Depaultivo. Let's see if I can make sense out of the sockpuppetry denouncing process and call his crap out --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Aimar120#User:Aimar120 --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Enigma ^message 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test

I'm going to create your test now. Wait about 5-15 minutes.--RyRy5 talk 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your test is ready. Go to your tests room and tell me when your done.--RyRy5 talk 21:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing it now. Just got back from real school. Enigma ^message 00:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll grade it. I see you changed your sig a little. I also go to school but I'm on Easter Vacation for 2 weeks (1 of those weeks I am going to Science Camp).--RyRy5 talk 01:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it because I saw on an RfA that everyone with font colors in their signatures is obviously a teenager trying to turn Wikipedia into myspace. Ha. Enigma ^message 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(lol) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(damn, I clicked submit too fast again). Go look at the current admins in active and see how many have a tweaked signature with colors, boxes around names, fantasy fonts, etc. Then when you make your RfA you call the bullshit of anyone that makes that comment (lol again) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Go check at your test room. If you have any questions on what you got wrong, just ask.--RyRy5 talk 01:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I somehow submitted the test without filling out some of the questions. Is it too late to complete it? Not sure how I forgot. Enigma ^message 01:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead and fill those in. Just remove the 0 points.--RyRy5 talk 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What was wrong with my rollback answer? Enigma ^message 02:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read it 2-3 times and I didn't see any explanation about an "undo". I'll grade the rest of your test now and give you a new grade.--RyRy5 talk 02:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undo just undoes a different edit. Nothing to say about it. Enigma ^message 02:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your test has been graded!--RyRy5 talk 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Ty :) Enigma ^message 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that you need to step into my edits?

Why do you feel that you need to step into my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The.Amazing.Critical.Critic (talk • contribs) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're vandalizing the pages of other people. That's against Wikipedia policy. Please stop. Enigma ^message 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hey enigma, long time no talk. I need to talk to you in private; so could you e-mail me? K im u 02:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent right after you posted this. :) Enigma ^message 03:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say hi. Separately. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burner0718

I really hope he gets back soon. And I really hope he isn't retiring. Well, do you have any questions about something?--RyRy5 talk 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's niot retiring, he's just enjoying some non-wiki activities for a little while. K im u 18:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: humor

Yeah, if I ever figure out what he is trying to say, I'll let you know and I'll add it to my "funny stuff". Don't hold your breath waiting for me to tell you what he was trying to say, though. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh noes

????--RyRy5 talk 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've never used AIV? Enigma ^message 20:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am. It's on my quick links list section.--RyRy5 talk 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just disappointing. Enigma ^message 21:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't had major issues with users. Only 2 so far. Hey, did you visit the classroom today?--RyRy5 talk 02:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I signed my name earlier after reading. Enigma ^message 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User warnings

Just curious, why the extra level three warning here? The user didn't make any further edits after being politely warned the first time, so I'm not sure threatening him with a block was entirely necessary. Some might even find it a little WP:BITEy. I'm just a little curious; I see it happen all the time, and I never quite understand it. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was justified, given that the account has made zero constructive edits, and vandalized a page twice. I could be wrong, though. I almost always start off with a level #1, with certain exceptions. Enigma ^message 14:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it was my mistake. I went back and checked further and saw that your edit mentioned his edits to WP:Signatures. It looked like a welcome template. I guess you're using a combination when the first edit is vandalism. Anyway, I'll try not to let that happen again. Best, Enigma ^message 14:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14.

Very nice, congrats & kudos. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 08:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About 68.191.179.217's vandalism

68.191.179.217 continues to do vandalism, he completely doesn't care. He did vandalism in the List of Happy Tree Friends characters again. He realy should get blocked.

Here's his last change

--Mr Alex (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been warned since 3/23. Not much anyone can do there. See [Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace] and leave warnings if you see further vandalism. Thanks, Enigma ^message 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

this is not vandalism and it's not a personal attack. Please leave off. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please knock it off with your nonsense. I removed the vandalism warning because I recognized that particular edit was not vandalism. However, the user has been blanking pages. Maybe they just need to be educated on how Wikipedia works. Enigma ^message 18:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he does but templating is not the way to do it. This user was upset. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, then. My apologies and my apologies to the user in question. Enigma ^message 18:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graduation

I am asking you if you would like to graduate soon. I don't know why you would like adoption if you are so experienced already.RyRy5 talk 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would like to graduate. I first went up for adoption months ago, when I wasn't so experienced. That's how Burner adopted me. You saw Burner had adopted me, so you adopted me as well. When you adopted me, I wasn't really looking for an adopter. I think I might as well leave the program now. Enigma ^message 18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's OK, you would have to wait maybe a week or two. The requirements state that you must be part of the program for 1 month.--RyRy5 talk 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that. ok Enigma ^message 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just keep joining class and you should be done in no time. Also, no more tests since you aced the last few.--RyRy5 talk 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contribute Today!

Do you mind if you teach me to create one of those?--RyRy5 talk 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using The motto of the day. I put that template on my page about a week ago. Today's motto is the contribute box. Pretty clever. Not quite sure how to create it. You'd have to look at the template. Enigma ^message 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA for fun and profit

That. That... was awesome. Huzzah! Tan | 39 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank DHMO, although I did make my own small contributions. :) Enigma ^message 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Bar

I don't have an orange bar at the top of my userpage. I think RyRy5 does, though. Nothing 444 21:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, my mistake. I messed something up. Enigma ^message 21:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congrats on hitting 7000! Thats a big milestone. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Enigmaman! Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a test to see who had my page watchlisted. :D Thanks. Enigma ^message 23:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, from when we were having our lively debate about Torts. Besides, my talk page isn't nearly as interesting or lively. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching your page! That's how I always respond to your comments.--RyRy5 talk 00:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Lex: Yeah, I'm the same way. Every page I edit normally is watchlisted, and thus I must have something like 300 talk pages watchlisted (most are of blocked vandals. Need to start removing those). But I also get to see a lot of interesting conversations this way. :D

To Ry: That's good. I prefer to keep discussions on the same page, so that's how I operate. Enigma ^message 01:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 7,000!

Congratulations on surpasing the big 7-0 (0-0)! You had over 4,400 edits so far in this month alone! You must be on wiki-crack! It appears that you have done some massive vandal-fighting. Has anyone nominated you for an RfA? If not, I will; and I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find an admin to co-nom! The only thing I can see that the opposers will harp on is the (relatively) short time that you have amassed the edits. People tend to forget about WP:DEAL and that an RfA is not an RfB! Let me know and I'll start the proverbial ball rolling!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, please don't. I intend to wait a while before pursuing an RfA, if I do at all. It's been suggested, but I would be much better off staying at a high level for a few more months, and making more significant contributions to specific articles of interest. I'm pretty familiar with AfD, CSD, AIV, and RPP, so that's good. Thanks for the offer, though. :) Enigma ^message 01:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whenever you decide, I think that it will be a benefit to the site! And I'm sure we'll get more than one co-nom! Cheers!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine so. :) Thanks. Enigma ^message 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll co-nom if you want :) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:hahaha

That's weird. BTw, sorry I couldn't reply sooner but I was a halo 3 tournament. K im u 04:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kidd

How many times have you had to revert vandalism on Jason Kidd? It's been a hard hit night, anyhow. Basketball 110 04:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably at least 15, if I had to guess. Enigma ^message 04:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I warned the one I've mainly been reverting. He hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since. Basketball 110 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw one by you, and that was on a persistent vandal that just got blocked. Enigma ^message 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Lake Mathews

Hi, I was actually trying to call attention to what's an obvious biased opinion on an issue on the article. You may want to look at it.

I did look at it, and I removed it. You could've simply removed it yourself. Be WP:BOLD. ;) Enigma ^message 05:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[2], Much appreciated, them seem to be hitting me hard tonight. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have to thank me. Just surfing for vandalism right now. I would've done your counter too, but I wasn't editing your page manually. Why don't you semi-protect your page for a few hours? Enigma ^message 05:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being it is a talk page, I am gonna wait it out for a bit longer. Hopefully the will get tired. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive?!?! I'll show you unconstructive!

Excuse me, Mr. "I'm big and tough with my large vocabulary and administrative powers"! I'll have you know that before posting my addition to the Adam Haluska page, I had my mother spell-check and grammar-check this page, to approve of its constructiveness. Even more, I called my grandma, who happens to be a former harvard professor of literary excellence, and faxed her the changes, just to make sure my i's were dotted, and my t's were crossed. And guess what? My i's were dotted, and my t's were crossed. Do you see the pain you have caused me? Thanks for destroying my dreams of someday becoming a serious professional writer of some serious professional writing career, like wikipedia editing or writing those novels that get sold for 50 cents at garage sales.

If you've an ounce of sympathy, I ask you please: Restore my article additions, as they were completely valid (and awesome.)

Thank you sir. Or woman. See, I'm not discriminative, like some people (you).

Have a good day (or night.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.235.195 (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. Thanks for the entertaining rant, though. :) Enigma ^message 05:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Enigma, Tiptoety ^talk 06:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind.

I changed my mind, you're the man. At least you appreciate my ingenious sense of humor and satire. I bow to you for rocking faces off. I expected you to accuse me of tasteless vandalism and poor humor, but you've realigned my misconception of all wikipedia moderators being humorless old men (that smell bad.) On the contrary, I'm sure you smell like flowers and expensive French cologne.

I salute you, noble editor of the pages. --12.208.235.195 (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)The guy that edited Adam Haluska's page.[reply]

Would I be out of line to say that it's edits like the above ones that make Wikipedia great? Yeah, I probably would be. But it makes my day to see this. Enigma ^message 06:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone reading this, here's another good one from tonight. Enigma ^message 06:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AdminshiP?

When are you going to run for the RFA?--RyRy5 talk 07:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not anytime soon, like I mentioned above. First of all, one doesn't run for an RfA while in an adoption program. Second, and most importantly, there's no way I could pass an RfA with my current body of work. I need more experience in certain areas. Finally, my ultimate goal on Wikipedia is not to become an administrator. If it happens, it will only be because that is the community's will. You must understand that an editor has more freedom when they're bereft of any administrative responsibility. That's my take on it, anyway. Enigma ^message 07:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was just wondering if you changed your mind about it, so that's why I asked. Cheers.RyRy5 talk 08:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're the second one this weekend. :) Enigma ^message 08:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick

Well, that was pretty quick, removing my message because it was a "personal attack" but I don't know how else to say that the user was wrong and that I don't appreciate it. I come to wikipedia every day and it seems to me like I'm being targeted and harassed now.

You don't know how else to say someone is wrong other than calling them a "horrible person" multiple times? Really? Enigma ^message 07:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you belittling me?

I'm asking you a question. Enigma ^message 07:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even know the situation. I don't know who that person is. Just someone who sits online all day and goes around deleting important information. I don't see how anything I did is wrong at all. How ELSE can I get this fixed? Emailing an admin? So you people have no power at all except deletion? How does this work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexhatesyou (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first step would be leaving a polite comment on the user's talk page, asking why what you contributed was deleted. If the user does not reply to your satisfaction, there are other steps that can be taken after that. Enigma ^message 07:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I sent him a nice message, did you see it Enigmaman? What did you think of that nice message? Lexhatesyou (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it. That's a definite improvement. Good job. Enigma ^message 07:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Enigmaman

So, since you wanted to get involved in this situation, I would like to ask, how do I message an admin? I checked a few, they don't have talk pages. How would I go about this?

Every admin has a talk page. Pick an admin here and leave a message on their talk page. Enigma ^message 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist.

Pages aren't protected preemptively, and since I doubt many IPs have heard of huggle (let alone its whitelist), I think it's safe. If any vandalism occurs there though, I'm sure it'll be reverted pretty rapidly. · AndonicO ^Hail! 08:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It just seemed to me that pages that should never be edited by IPs anyway, should be semi-protected. Enigma ^message 08:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I used .0.7.3 tonight. Enigma ^message 08:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KnightLago

Enigmaman, just a brief note that I fully support your move here. Regards, Anthøny 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Enigma ^message 20:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]