Jump to content

User talk:Galwhaa/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Request for reconsideration: my RFA

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Matt_Yeager, you voted "oppose", noting that you "do not see the truth in Matt's statement above, I've been in my fair share of disagreements on Wikipedia, winning some and losing some, but I've learned a lot from all of them, and I believe that I could handle administrator responsibilities without losing my head. From what I see in the e argument, he has not learned a lot and he cannot handle responsibilities without losing his head."

I don't really want to do this, but I'm wondering if you would please reconsider. The "e" issue occured about three months ago. That's what I meant when I said that "I learned a lot" from it; I did learn an awful lot about WP:CIVIL, etc. . I know I DID make mistakes on the page in multiple facets, but I'm wondering if you could point out any time where I really "lost my head". I don't personally believe that I ever acted too far out of line; I'd really appreciate knowing where I went so wrong (if in fact I did), since once a source emerged for the claim, I did back off. I haven't asked any of the other "oppose" voters to reconsider (though I might), but you seemed to have a very positive opinion of my adminship potential, except for one (admittedly bad) mistake I made. I really do believe that I've learned from that mistake, and hope that you reconsider (though of course I understand why you wouldn't). Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh when I left that comment, but I reviewed some of the pages in your answer to question three. For example, you mentioned your current debate at Talk:Cohabitation. Your first comment already sets a bad impression because, first of all, you CAPITALIZED words (which is discouraged as per WP:TALK since it is SHOUTING) and you shifted all responsibility to Aecis. I understand that Aecis was just trying to revert vandalism and was a bit lazy, but that doesn't mean that you should be lazy, too. I like to think of Wikipedia as a mutual community - we all have to work together. The debate does get a bit friendlier, but I noticed that you finished the debate on a "good note" less than one hour after nominating yourself for adminship and before accepting. You knew that nobody would vote until you accepted, so you wanted everybody, upon scrutinizing (excuse my word choice) your edits to see it end with a positive.
Other than that, you are an extremely well qualified candidate. You have 2900 edits and almost 300 in the WP namespace. I'll compromise with you - since your debate with Aecis ended nicely and your argument here seems both friendly and flawless, if you can demonstrate to me one improvement in your "debates" before your RfA ends, please post it on my talk page and I'll gladly change to support. Just one improvement - it could be by kindly asking me to vote for you, by leaving comments on your own RfA page, by further compromising with Aecis, or by engaging in a discussion somewhere else. I do believe you have what it takes - now just prove you can improve. --M@thwiz2020 00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I like the link to Special:Random in your signature! :) And I recommend that, once your RfA ends, you archive all pre-RfA discussions on your user talk page! --M@thwiz2020 00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. On the matter of the Cohabitation article... here's the story. I ran across the page randomly, made some decent edits to it, and decided to watch it. After the page got reverted, I was very upset, because one shouldn't just revert randomly. Did I over-react, though? Absolutely. WP:FAITH was very helpful here for both myself and Aecis. Anyways, once he made his final comment, I thought, "well, that's that, he'll tak care of it". Then, after following the links in my RFA comments (trying to see if there was anything weird that I needed to explain), I noted that I never properly responded to his final comment, and so I left that extra note. I'm sorry if it appeared that I was trying to make myself look better--trust me, that wasn't it at all.
Probably the best example of me learning from my mistakes would be the Mad Season pages (Mad Season, Mad season, Mad Season (band), Mad season (album)), especially Mad Season itself (page history). The article on the grunge band (whose actual name is Mad Season) was originally placed at (keep track of the capitalization here!) Mad Season, and the album (whose actual name is mad season) was placed at Mad Season (album), with a disamb header over the band's page. Well, mad season is a 4-million+ seller with a #1 hit, not to mention one of my favorite albums (might as well be honest =P), so I disambiguated the pages, putting the band at Mad Season (band), which worked fine until User:Torsin came along and made Mad Season redirect to the band's page. (Still with me here?) I reverted with a note in the edit summary and on his talk page, and Torsin left this note on my userpage. He provided solid evidence, and so I made Mad Season a redirect to the band's page, and made Mad season redirect to the album's page, with a disambiguation header on top of each of them. As you can see on our talk pages, this disagreement was handled civilly by both parties and to a conclusion which we both agreed with.
That's one example. I don't have all that many others, because I don't do the "talk page of contentious article" thing so much anymore. That's why, actually, my little musical note redirects to Special:Random... because that's how I've made so many of my worthwhile edits (like the ones to Chris Vance, Dedan Kimathi, etc... some totally random dudes that I just stumbled across in a state of total disrepair). I've tried to put the encylcopedia first, especially since the e debacle... I've come to realize that there are vastly more important (and vastly more easily changed) things than one sentence on a certain number's importance. Really, that's the most important thing I've learned from the arguments I've had on Wikipedia, and I hope that the scope of my edits proves how thoroughly I've taken it to heart. If the reasons I've presented seem compelling enough, then I would like to ask you to please change your vote on my RFA. Thanks for listening in any case. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow... looks like you are a superb admin candidate after all. One lesson from all of this: patience is extremely important (for example, see this other discussion I had about my signature). I'll go and change my vote in just a minute! And good luck with your RfA! (I'm also sorry I couldn't respond yesterday, but I was sick and I slept through most of the afternoon and evening, when I normally edit Wikipedia.) --M@thwiz2020
Thanks! :) I hope you're feeling better, too. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ec5618

I'm sorry, but I'd prefer it if you would take the time to personally look into my case, instead of simply copying another user. I believe the edits to which Durin refers are taken out of context, which I have tried to explain.

I had edited [1] a user's talk page in response to his completely blanking the page, in what I percieved to be an attempt to hide his past (and criticism therof). It was a minor matter at the time, and although Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines suggest I should have sought dispute resolution, I didn't think such was necessary.

If this threatens my Adminship, I apologise. From my point of view, I posted on a Talk page in good faith. I never lied, I never tried to offend. I merely defended myself. Thank you.-- Ec5618 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I once moved another users edits on a talk page to a different section. Unfortunately, he didn't see the move and thought I deleted his comments. He left a message on my talk page and I replied in this edit. Problem solved, right? Nope. The user, since he didn't want others to see that he had been involved in a dispute, blanked his talk page. Hence, I left this message for him. It seemed to work. I didn't add a link to an archive, or revert his talk page after he once again blanked it. I just informed him of Wikipedia etiquette and then, after seeing his obstinance, just gave up and focused on more pressing matters. I believe that, if you're going to get into a heated debate or possibly violate a rule (such as WP:3RR), do whatever you can to avoid the situation and compromise without negative consequences.
Granted, I shouldn't have just followed Durin's lead so quickly, but I did take a look at the edits myself before voting in opposition to your RfA. I will make an analogy, but, since you live in the Netherlands, you'll just have to imagine you're in the US for the time being. In 2004, US elections were held between Republican Bush and Democrat Kerry. You probably know who won - Bush (although, technically, he should have lost both in 2000 and 2004 if not for errors in the vote-counting process - as you can tell, I'm a staunch Democrat). The reason why so many citizens voted for Bush in 2004 after he made so many blunders in his first time is because of Bush's campaign strategy - Kerry was, by far, superior. In the debates, Bush always criticized Kerry, yet Kerry praised himself. People, in general, are quicker to prey on one flaw than they are to praise one strength. That is, even though Kerry was better, Bush's critism of him made him look bad and, if Kerry had instead chosen to criticize Bush back, probably would have won.
Now, back to your RfA, I know you are a superior candidate for sysop rights. You have about 3650 edits with almost 400 in the WP namespace, etc, etc, etc. However, Durin pointing out one weak spot, unfortunately, hurt your position more than pointing out five strengths would have helped. It's just human nature. Finally, you said I understand that Adminship is 'no big deal'. I disagree with that statement. Sure, adminship is not a trophy or sherrif's badge, but it is to be taken seriously. If it was "no big deal," anyone would be allowed to edit the main page or revert vandalism without an edit summary (which, surprisingly, is a source of big debate recently). So, to compensate for my human nature, I'll make a deal with you, just like I did recently with another RfA candidate. Your RfA ends on Feb 6. If, sometime before then, you point out five of your strengths and notify me on my talk page, I'll vote in support. Just five, and I'm sure you have more than that - I've already named a few above! You can reply to my talk page with the list, and I'll vote in support. I don't want you to lose just because humans are naturally impulsive and greedy... okay? --M@thwiz2020 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for reconsidering. While my current RfA may be lost to misunderstanding, I would appreciate your vote of confidence. First things first: "Adminship is no big deal". I stand by that, in a way. I was inspired by the top of the Wikipedia:Administrators page, which quotes Jimbo as having said the exact same thing. I don't see the issue with allowing an editor to have Admin rights, when it should be obvious that there is little chance of abuse of power. While I have been involved in controversy (most of it a direct consequence of my involvement with the intelligent design related articles), I have never vandalised and have never tried to offend anyone. Does anyone have the impression that I will go rogue?

Still, I realise that Adminship should not be taken lightly,and that my comment may have appeared callous or indifferent.

As for your requested five points, please know that I don't like to toot my own horn or brag in any way. I have a personal rule to remain strictly professional; a rule I might add I am breaking by telling you that. Nevertheless:

  1. I have a reasonable command of the English language, and have, in my opinion, a decent writing style.
    A pet peeve of mine is the use of the word 'reason' in conbination with the word 'why'. Don't take this the wrong way, but when you wrote "The reason why so many citizens voted for Bush ..", the word why was redundant.
  2. I am dedicated to the project, and am proud to be a part of it. I see its faults, yes, but I am willing to work at fixing those.
  3. I am versatile. I do not mind copyediting poetry pages one day, and discussing reorganising the reference desk another. If something should be done, it might as well be done.
    I will continue to patrol the articles surrounding creationism, but other than that, I'm mostly a free agent.
  4. I am ever present. When I have little time, I will still check my watchlist for vandalism.
  5. I forgive. I will give people an unspecified number of chances. If an obstinate editor appears to have a point, I will call on other editors to listen.

Thank you. -- Ec5618 13:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your expedient response! I'm sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner, but I was sick yesterday and slept through the afternoon and evening, when I normally edit Wikipedia. Your reasons are flawless so... I'll change my vote in just a minute! Thank you for asking me so kindly, too - it just emphasizes your fifth point. I'm sure you'll make a great admin - so good luck on your RfA! --M@thwiz2020 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Members of WikiProject edit counters, good news!

My RFA

Hi Galwhaa/Archive 3, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools

This list is part of the Missing Articles project. The point of the list is to eventually clear it completely, removing articles as they are created. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-4 07:13

Thanks for the notice! However, in this edit, you removed one existing article but not the rest. What was your reason for removing only that specific article? Should I go down and remove all existing articles? (Of course, leaving on the list such schools as Reservoir High School - although it's blue, it's a redirect to Howard County Public Schools.) --M@thwiz2020 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It's all explained here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles#Guidelines. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-4 17:24
Make sure that the article in question is not for another school of the same name. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-4 18:21
Thanks for the link! As for my edits, I checked that each school had an article for that school in that city before deleting it. I would have left links in the edit summary, but it was too long. There were some schools listed twice in different cities - in those cases, I checked to make sure two different schools existed. In some cases, people would list a school under a city and a community, so I removed the community reference and left the other link with the city. If you have any questions about a particular chnage, just ask me and I'll tell you my rationale. Again, thanks! --M@thwiz2020 19:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks!

Okay, this is perhaps a bit overdue, but thank-you for your support in my recent RfA! I passed with a final vote count consensus of (82/1/0), which was a lot of support that I really appreciate. I'll try to live up to the expectations; and on that note, if there's ever something I do wrong (or don't do right), please spit in my general direction. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Category:Years in Canada

1736 in this category appeared to me to be missing so I was setting up the page and adding events. It probably exists and I missed it. Could you direct me to it? Thanks! (Stormbay 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Sorry about that. I deleted it both as having no content and as being a repost of already deleted material. I have undeleted and added a hang-on notice so that other admins will not delete it. Thanks for notifying me! --M@thwiz2020 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Abramoff

Please - take a closer look at the situation on Jack Abramoff. There is a constant stream of anon vandals reverting that article. User:JackO'Lantern has been doing his best to keep them back, and you've blocked him, when all he was doing is reverting vandalism. This was a mistake - please undo it. William M. Connolley 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

OK, you've undone this - thanks! William M. Connolley 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
Okay, I'm sorry. I've already unblocked him. It's just I considered it to be more of an edit war than "simple vandalism". I'll go and block the offending IP addresses as per Wikipedia's blocking policy, too. --M@thwiz2020 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about your block of RexNL. NoSeptember talk 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I was about to leave a message on his talk page when I saw that I had new messages. I then responded to those, left blatantvandal messages on the IP addresses involved, and then had to leave to watch the Super Bowl, forgetting to leave a message for RexNL. --M@thwiz2020 20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Abramoff vandal

I blocked him for 48 hours. Several IPs have been vandalizing the page with similar abusive edit summaries; User:William M. Connolley blocked them for 48 hours each, so that's what I've been continuing to do. Thanks for warning that user, though. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it! I'm going to go watch the Super Bowl so I won't be around for a few hours. Bye! --M@thwiz2020 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Block

Hi, could you please consider unblocking me, like you did for User:JackO'Lantern. Thanks, RexNL (logged out). - 213.75.12.50 23:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: I've unblocked Rex, since I assume your block of him was for the same article, and it looks like you've gone offline to get away from the fray :-) William M. Connolley 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
Thanks, see the comment in the section two above. --M@thwiz2020 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:70.232.44.12

Rory - before you can block an IP due to vandalism, you must first warn him/her. When the vandalism is blatant, you can use {{blatantvandal}} on the user's talk page. I blocked the IP and then, noticing you hadn't warned him/her, unblocked the IP and left a message for him/her. If the vandalism continues, leave a message on my talk page and I will block the vandal. In addition, "non-notable website" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. I have AFD'd the page instead. --M@thwiz2020 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't {{anon vandal}} a warning? The template says that the user "may continue editing," and that he may be blocked if he continues to vandalize, not that he is actually going to be blocked. Rory096 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, anonvandal works but blatantvandal can be used for either user names or really obvious vandalism. The message means that the IP can continue constructive edits but that he/she will be blocked if he/she vandalizes. --M@thwiz2020 21:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll use that in the future. Rory096 21:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA... sniffle... =P

My admin request went up in flames. (But thanks anyways!)

Hey, Mathwiz2020, I wanted to thank you for your support of my (unfortunately unsuccessful) request for adminship. The final tally was 37/16/5, which fell short of the needed 75-80% for "consensus". I really did appreciate how you changed your vote. I realized that most of the voters there were not going to change their minds, but you seemed torn, so I tried to convince you. As you did change your mind, I can claim a moral victory (one of my pet articles =P). I don't know if or when I'll go up for nomination again, but even if I don't, I will try not to betray the trust that you and 36 others were willing to place in me. Thanks for having faith in me. Happy editing... and thanks again! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that you'd put it on your calender! That makes me feel really happy. You said you'd do it in a month or so... hmm... what about in, say, 31.4159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510 days?
Pi forever! =P Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's the spirit! Well, I already wrote it down and I wanted a Friday about two months from now so I arbitrarily chose Fri 7 Apr 2006 although your idea for pi days is a good one... --M@thwiz2020 01:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
10 pi days. -- Ec5618 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ec, as I said to Matt, it's a learning experience. I didn't forget you either - I wrote down in my calendar "RfA 2 admins see Feb talk archive". While that technically includes you, my ability to decipher my crude notes two months from now is yet to be determined... --M@thwiz2020 01:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke's RfA

Hi Mathwiz2020, thanks for voting in my (successful) RfA. All the voters who voted neutral or oppose had the same criticism – lack of involvement in the Wikipedia namespace. This is nice, because it is a weakness that I can endeavor to fix. Although I don't think I have the disposition or diligence to be actively involved with, say, VfD, I've recently started to participate in the Featured Article discussions and will start participating in some policy discussions now that I am starting to grasp the way the project runs. –Joke 16:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Autobrowser

Hey, could you confirm me for the Autobrowser, I noticed that you were active, so perhaps you missed the request. Cheers, Jacoplane 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added you to the list. I should go through and update the list of admins sometime soon. However, I've been putting that off because, if an admin wants access, all they have to do is add themselves, since admins can edit protected pages. I understand, though, that you (and most admins) will want to take the "safe route" by asking, so I'll update sometime soon... --M@thwiz2020 22:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Charlie Sheen

Hey do you think Charlie Sheen could be a sockpuppet of Eskimo dude? They both made the same edit to the same article. I just want to hear your opinion on this. — Alex (T|C|E) 00:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I do believe so. I have tagged Charlie Sheen as a suspected sockpuppet as per WP:SOCK. For anyone who linked here from the template, the evidence lies in the users' contributions:
All contribs for both users are exactly the same. --M@thwiz2020 00:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain he is. BTW I think Windows Vista should be protected from edit for a while. I'm relatively new to wikipedia and I'm not sure who should I ask for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassini83 (talk • contribs)

The Vista article is not really under attack. No need for protecting it, yet. By the way, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). — Alex (T|C|E) 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Spamvertisement'

If you like 'spamvertisement', check out WP:VSCA (Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement). —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello... again

I was surprised to see you welcoming many users while I was going through the list, especially considering I just met you a day or two ago (see the xoxoth incident above). Anways, I was curious as to why you greet all users, even those who have not edited any pages. Another Wikipedian once asked me the same question, so now I welcome only new users who have edited Wikipedia (and check their edits, too, to make sure they are not vandalism). I don't have a problem with what you're doing - it's just that, if you have a legitimate reason, I'll start welcoming all users, too. Thanks! --M@thwiz2020 22:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It just seems like a good idea. Plus, if they see right when they join that there are people to help out when they're making/editing an article or something, then they're more likely to do it, and when they do it, it'll be more likely to be a good article, rather than some vanity page. Right now, we're giving newbies links to things helping them to create an article after they've made a useless article. We should be proactive and give them the links beforehand, so they make worthwhile edits. Rory096 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight. --M@thwiz2020 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Revert of the Sodium_Chloride Article

Please explain why You reverted the article. Everything i changed is valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.169.253 (talk • contribs)

In your edit, you removed the phrase "also known as common salt" and changed it to "confused with salt." To most Americans, it is common sense that NaCl is salt, hence, your statement is probably false. However, if it were true, you would have to provide a source to back up your claim. The one website you added to external links did not state the above so I removed your unverifiable claim. If you want to say something contrary to common opinion, back it up. And please sign your comments with ~~~~. Thanks! --M@thwiz2020 22:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Hi there. I'll make it short. We have similar characteristics as Wikipedians, in terms of edit count and counter vandalism. As a fellow peer, would I have your support in an RfA? Thanks. --Jay(Reply) 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm... unfortunately, I would have to say no. There are but three reasons: (1) I am strongly opposed to vote canvassing on RfAs, that is, leaving messages on user talk pages asking users to vote on your RfA. While your RfA hasn't begun yet, it is the inevitable outcome in this situation. You can put a notice on your talk page, add a link to your signature, etc., but please, do not leave messages. (2) You only 10 main-talk-space edits. Yes, I know I shouldn't be so editcountitic (adj form of editcountitis?), but admins should be able to resolve disputes. While your conflict resolution skills are shown by your user-talk-space edits, I'm not convinced. (3) Not enough AfD experience. You've only voted on eight AfD pages.
If you promise not to canvass for votes anymore, show me examples of your conflict-resolution skills, and start to edit AfD more, then yes, I will vote for you. Speaking of which, I might just nominate you for AfD on... let me check... Fri 7 Apr 2006. Yes, I have some weird habits - don't ask. --M@thwiz2020 23:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Just check. I've only asked you, as a similar contributor, for feedback, and no one else. I have not reduced myself to canvassing as you have stated. You have made an ill assumption that I will canvass for the vote, if there will be a vote. To my knowledge, I currently have no RfA in progress, and probably won't have one for a while. Even I know that RfA vote grabbing can ruin a good candidate. Sorry for the bother.
  2. Perhaps a quality conflict resolution skill is to avoid long disputes on Talk pages, resulting in my few edits on such Talk pages. In addition, discrediting my dispute resolutions on user pages etc. rather than on Talk pages is, as I like to call it "interioteditcountcategorism": to judge based on edit counts in categories. I apologize if I haven't written 63 paragraphs and rebuttals on the Lost: Season 2 talk page (Interiot really should cut out those detailed numbers. I may have some editcountitis from all of this).
  3. Fair enough. But as you debate on AfD's, urgent matters are ignored on WP:AIV; at least half a dozen anon vandals were listed as you were contributing earlier. Nonetheless, I will be sure to increase participation and familiarize myself with the AfD process.
  4. I must ask you this: do cons out number pros? Through my fair deductions, the one point I can see for not having a mop just yet is AfD votes. But I am sure you can appreciate the many other valid reasons I should have a mop. Thanks for the feedback. --Jay(Reply) 01:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry about my assumption, but I did check your contributions to see if you had canvassed other users, and I just assumed that your would canvass for more votes given an RfA in the near future. As for interioteditcountcategorism, I usually look at talk-space edits simply because user talk-space edits don't mean much. While you have 876 user-talk-space edits, the majority of them are warnings for vandalisms, and it's impossible to sort through 876 edits to see how many of them acutally involve a dispute and resolution, while it's much easier just to look at main talk-space edits. I appreciate your efforts on WP:AIV - in fact, I listed an urgent matter involving at least ten sockpuppets on WP:AN/SOCK a few days ago and, for three days, it remained uninvestigated. Granted, only a few users have checkuser rights and therefore can patrol the suspected socks, but similar backlogs exist on almost all administrator noticeboard pages. So, looking back, I will monitor your contributions and an RfA nomination may come in a month or two. Just out of curiosity, though, what program/IRC feed/something else do you use for RC patrol? (I use WP:CDFV.) And while you might not have "the mop" yet, you can still help clean up! --M@thwiz2020 17:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I primarily use the Recent Changes page for my vandalism patrol. --Jay(Reply) 23:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said above (although I mistyped the link), I use CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter, a program written in Java that monitors RC. I highly recommend it - you can set to to show only IP edits, highlight edits made by users that you or the program "blacklists", etc. --M@thwiz2020 23:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I used CDVF not too long ago, and it works well. But thanks for the tip. --Jay(Reply) 00:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

AWB + Java

Hi, I have been working on trying to get AWB to save, show changes and preview by calling the javascript behind the buttons, rather than simulating actually clicking the buttons as it does at present. I have found it a bit difficult, but have progressed so now it can call some java (e.g. the java that inserts the unusual fonts, "insertTags"), unfortunately I just can't work out how to call the java behind the buttons, I suspect you probably know as you have the expert java user box thing on your user page. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, I'll send you the test program to demonstrate how to do what I have worked out + newest AWB if you want. many thanks! Martin 13:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, if it makes it any clearer, the code to call the javascript to insert the letter Ñ looks like:
webBrowser1.Document.InvokeScript("insertTags", new String[] { "Ñ", " ", " " });
Although it is more complicated than this single line, so I'll send you the code if you want to see it. Martin 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been on Wikipedia (or online at all) for two days, so I'll check my e-mail and look into this when I have time (probably pretty soon). I think, though, that using javascript will eliminate the out-of-focus problem. It's simple enough to submit a form using javascript, the problem is telling Wikipedia whether you want it to save, preview, or show diffs. --M@thwiz2020 17:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
If we could eliminate the out-of-focus problem that would be pretty much the last annoying problem dealt with, which would be great. I just emailed you the files. good luck! Martin 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Please - Does your signature M@thwiz2020 happen 'automatically' or do you cut and paste? If it is the former how do you set this type of thing up. Any clues appreciated. VirtualSteve 05:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve! That's a good question - and the answer is simpler than you might expect. I'm going to assume for a moment that you know about the four tildes - that is, in order to sign your name, you type in ~~~~ and, for you, [[User:VirtualSteve|VirtualSteve]] (plus the time) appears. Three tildes is just your sig, four is sig + time, and five is just the time. Well, if you go to Special:Preferences, you can change the signature that appears when you type in three or four tildes! What I did is I selected the box that says "raw signature". If raw signature is not selected, your signature will be [[User:VirtualSteve|whatever you type into the box]]. However, if you don't want the stuff before and after the "whatever you type into the box" to appear, just select raw signature. Then, you can type in anything. For my signature, I just entered:
--[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]][[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">wiz</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Mathwiz2020|<font color="black">2020</font>]]
Now I just sign with a space followed by four tildes! It's as easy as that! I hope this answers your question in a not-too-complicated way. --M@thwiz2020 17:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

anon bot?

With all due respect, click on the links above and you'll see why. This user posted modified links to Special:Userlogout in an apparent trolling attempt. Please see the edit history of User talk:Hello why/My Watchlist ([2]) where he created a modified version of the "vandal" template and spammed the same message to several pages. After he was blocked, he created a second account and began repeating the same actions.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NSLE&diff=39518890&oldid=39518326

Oh and here's a third one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=39519381&oldid=39518838

Maybe more that I don't know about. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:02, Feb. 14, 2006

I also noticed that it logged me out, but that was okay. Next time, if you want to warn me, simple leave a message telling me so, don't blank my talk page, especially when your motives might be mistaken. Thanks. --M@thwiz2020 23:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Admittedly, it was not a link to a shock site, but I considered it to be vandalism nonetheless. Actually what I had in mind at the time was "oh shit, somebody, somewhere, is going to think those are sockpuppets of me or something." In any case you should probably remove the links now before some visitor gets trolled for being nosy. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:17, Feb. 14, 2006
Also, you might note that I have been completely forthcoming about this. After posting the explanation at WP:AN I also posted personal responses to the people above me in the discussion ([3], [4], [5], [6]), so I doubt others would have drawn the conclusion that you did. And believe me, if I figure out how to modify the existing code to be as fool-proof as Carnildo has described, I will certainly do so. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:32, Feb. 14, 2006

WP:RFA/Quarl

Hi Mathwiz, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 11:58Z

User Page Design

Hi, just thought I would let you know I like the new layout you are using on your user page with the rounded corners (stuff IE). Gosh, thats a sweet set of skills, pretty much the best that I know of, you must get all the girls. ;-) In case you didn't get the reference --Martyman-(talk) 21:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... thanks. I prefer user pages such as User:Sceptre but I like mine, too. And I definitely agree with you about IE. Oh, and I didn't get the reference because I did not (*gasp*) watch Napoleon Dynamite.
That was a pretty random comment, though. I know some people that leave me comments or "know" me watch my user page but I've never seen you around Wikipedia before as far as I can remember (except for when I saw your listing yesterday on RfA but I didn't vote because I never vote when there is >50 votes of support and <5 of opposition, since it's clear the candidate will win, but I voted anyways just now because I might as well).
Okay, now I'm the one being random. Anyways, thanks for the positive feedback! --M@thwiz2020 23:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure why you are on my watchlist either (I am pretty overzelous in watching things, I think it is close to 1400 pages by now). We where discussing an untagged image back in January so that is probably it. I noticed you added the rounded corners and I hadn't seen it before on wikipedia so thought I would check it out, and then the heading "skills" reminded me of the hillarious scene in ND where they are discussing how they are going to get girlfriends and what skills they have. Anyway I guess you had to be there. Thanks for the vote. Catch you round. --Martyman-(talk) 23:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I remember that discussion about the image now! I searched my talk page for your name but couldn't find it - the discussion was archived! How do you monitor such a big watchlist? I disabled the option to add all pages I edit to my watchlist (see Special:Preferences) because mine was getting too big - of course, now, I forget to add pages to my watchlist that I should because the option is disabled! Maybe I'll watch ND one day to see what you mean. See you around, and use your new mop (which you will acquire very soon) wisely! --M@thwiz2020 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote
My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future.
Martyman - 09:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!

File:Wikiballoon1.jpg
Happy first edit day! Cheers, Sango123 (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, how nice! It's really odd that you of all peolple are greeting me now of all times, since I was just reading about you on JStewart's talk page. Thanks again! --M@thwiz2020 01:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please drop by JStewart's talk page and look at the bottom of the first section (right below your greeting). Thanks. --M@thwiz2020 01:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't mention it! And that is a bit odd. :) Cheers, Sango123 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
If it's a small world, then it's definitely a small 'pedia. --M@thwiz2020 02:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well said! If I ever start a quotations page, that'll be the first entry. :D Sango123 (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And happy first edit from me too -- I just got hooked on the Calendar after getting a nice anniversary greeting myself. It was fun to read your user page and learn more about you, and I'm going to have to keep my eyes open for more of your contributions. Best wishes for many more years of productive editing ahead! — Catherine\talk 04:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy, happy, happy! Essjay Talk • Contact 13:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Montgomerty Public School IT Security Officer

Hi, I got a hold of the school's IT department and complained about vandalism. They asked for logs and I pointed them to the ip's contributions (not really server logs). They haven't responded since.

Contacting the school was an extra step I made because of the long blocks, which I really hate doing to a school. But the alternative has been to live with daily vandalism. I've been looking after this ip for over a year and haven't seen any improvement each time the blocks expire.

If you'd like to unblock and try another approach, you have my support. --Duk 02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks Mathwiz for nominating me. But I decline. Please note that this has nothing to do with you. Your help on AWB is much appreciated. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you please delete this page → Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adrian Buehlmann? Thanks. --Adrian Buehlmann 15:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

RfB --> MfD, not AfD

Strictly speaking, an RfB would go to MfD, not AfD, as it is not an article. However, I believe declined RfB's are supposed to be deleted, for which mine has just been overlooked. I'll let it sit, I guess. BD2412 T 01:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should have said MfD but forgot. As for speedy deletion, it is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion anyways. You might as well leave it up. Happy editing! --M@thwiz2020 01:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, really the speedy deletion criteria are for things in the main space, not project or user space. We delete user pages on request, after all. There has been some discussion of automatically deleting declined RfA's, but I see this was never brought to a resolution. BD2412 T 02:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Psst

Check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 17:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

PokeRealm Edits

Are you an administrator? You recently contacted me about editing the PokeRealm entry. I can assure you, the sick individual responsible for creating the article has no interest in discussing it. He is solely interested in launching a campigan of defamation against my website.

In fact, I tried to create a 'legitmate' article for PokeRealm and it was marked by deletion because it was considered 'advertising' so I don't understand why false statements are being allowed when I couldn't even put up a factual entry. If you are an admin, I request for you to blank the page and lock it from future edits.O 0 16:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the PokeRealm entry was re-created. Can you please delete and protect the page? Thank you. O 0 18:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, the same user also created Pokerealm_server which needs to be deleted/protected as well. Thanks. O 0 22:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you please delete the PokeRealm page and protect it?
PokeRealm article is up yet again. This is the third re-creation of the page. When will it be locked? Thanks for your time. O 0 15:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza elections

Thank you very much for voting in the recent Esperanza elections. However, you signed up for Esperanza after the election began, and in accordance with the election rules, your votes were discounted. Thanks anyway. haz (user talk)e 19:42, 27 February 2006

I joined Esperanza on 18 February 2006 at 01:07. Elections began on 20 February 2006 at 12:00, so I joined before the elections began. --M@thwiz2020 19:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry again, but the rules on voting say that members registered before Feb 13 were unable to vote. I only just found that out myself. Sorry... :-( haz (user talk)e 19:53, 27 February 2006
First of all, the only reason why I am pursuing this issue is because, without my vote, Karmafist will not win. Between the wheel war, his desysopping, and his failed RfA (well, it hasn't ended but it will fail), I don't want to be the reason he didn't win this, too.
Anyways, at the time of my vote, the voting page stated only these rules:
  1. Elections staff can't vote.
  2. Those who were not a member of Esperanza before the 20th, can't vote
  3. Those running for a position can vote.
  4. Those currently on the Advisory Council can vote
Beneath that, it said:
This is the voting page for Esperanza's Febrary 2006 elections for two seats on the Advisory Council. You must be listed as a member of Esperanza in order to vote. The voting method is approval voting; you may support as many candidates as you wish. Voting began at 12:00 UTC on February 20th and will end at 11:59 UTC on February 27th. Any votes cast outside these dates will be discarded.
That's all the rules it stated. It did not refer voters to Wikipedia:Esperanza/February_2006_elections, which stated the Feb 13 rule. Instead, the voting page said you had to be a member as of the 20th. Since the voting page failed to inform voters of the correct requirements, I think the requirements as stated on the voting page (or any pages linked to by that page) should be followed, and those alone. Even you said you didn't know of the requirement until recently. How am I supposed to follow a rule that not even the "experienced" election staff know? (I can just hear your response: It's a new rule. But then we go to the grandfather-rule issue: I only have to follow the rules as they were written when my alleged infraction of them occurred.)
If you disagree with anything I said, please just let me know. (The reason for the delay is that Wikipedia is a bit slow for me today and was down for 10 minutes, I don't why since no one else is experiencing this.) --M@thwiz2020 20:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't notice the downtime - just lucky, I guess! We do, indeed, have a problem - the box that Celestianpower added supposedly "clarifying" the voter criteria did the exact opposite. You are, of course, entirely correct; the text in this box on the voting page clearly said "20th" and not "13th". I don't know how events will unfold, but as Admin Gen, Celestianpower will ultimately have the power over whether the votes will stand or remain discounted. We may even see an entire revote.
You are right about Karmafist, though - I voted support on his new RfA yesterday and hopes he makes it back after his desysop by Jimbo and his (pretty harsh) treatment by the ArbCom. A finer guy we shall never see. haz (user talk)e 20:59, 27 February 2006
Ah, my bad about the clarifying box. However, it said you had to be a member to vote and since you weren't on the Members page, you weren't a member. Sorry.Also, you should have looks at the main page anyway. As much as I like KF, someone has to win - we can't have a tie. I'm sure JoanneB will make a good Adv. Council member too. --Celestianpower háblame 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I am on the member page - in fact, I added myself in this edit on 18 February 2006 at 01:07. Does this mean my vote will count? --M@thwiz2020 21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
No, you were reverted. The message at the time clearly stated that the page is locked and people wishing to be members should requests as such on the talkpage. Ergo, you were not a member and hence were ineligible to vote. Sorry for the confusion. --Celestianpower háblame 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Essays

Thanks for your suggestion about moving the blabber on my userpage to a subpage and adding it to the Essays category -- as you see, I have done just that! I found lots of other food for thought there, too.

By the way, the entry above exemplifies why I've not actually joined Esperanza. I admire their goals, but.....  :)

Thanks again for your kindness! — Catherine\talk 17:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Galwhaa/Archive_3&oldid=1125659255"