User talk:GlassCobra/Archive 13
HelloHi GlassCobra, I'm messaging you to ask about the Logos Lab School article...which has been recently deleted by you. I understand that the notability of the article is the reason that it was deleted. Could, perhaps, after getting some reliable and confirmable resources might I (and others) re-create the Logos Lab School page? It would be much appreciated! Thanks-Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Hey Caleb, yes Cobra why did you deleat this article, as a student at the school I am greatly offended, there was nothing wrong with it. Maybe I edited it, but vandalize I did not. If this article is not up in a week, I will find a way to susspend you. BaconBoy914 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry, sorry, since I am as Caleb would say I am a n00b, I don't know were else to post this, and that link doesn't work. BaconBoy914 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC) RE: PeeWeeHi, hope you are well.. No recent activity that I know of. As you say, the promised apocalypse never transpired - he must have found another hobby! Cheers TigerShark (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
OKi did hwat u asked for with the db-......... thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxmysoxo (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC) RFA thanks
WP:Wikiproject Tool updateA few updates in events:
Thanks to everyone who has helped thus far. The project is still very new, but good progress is being made! Lara❤Love 03:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC) User 220.233.86.219Could you block this user. That user vandalized States and territories of Australia, even after a final warning. Footballfan190 (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC) User 81.99.151.57This User did it again too. I reported this to another administrator, and it still has not been responded to. That user attacked talk pages, even after being warned. Please, block him. Here is the link.[[1]] Footballfan190 (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC) RfA Thanks
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) RFA thanks x3Oh snap, the DEA is an admin
Hi AgainI was hoping you could give me some advice if and when you get time. I want to write my first article and there are several things I'm not familiar with i.e. various technical features such as how to add photos, copyright info, etc., etc., etc. Where do I go to find out these things? Also, anything you feel I should know before I attempt to write an article. Like should I start small? I don't want have any problems with the article afterwards. Is there somewhere on here that suggests articles that have been requested or need to be written? Thanks for your time. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Umbrella - RihannaHello! I just want to inform you that someone has edited the charts of Rihanna's single "Umbrella" and replace the true positions with fake #1's. Is it possible to reverse the fake data?--Chronisgr (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC) am looking to be adoptedHi GlassCobra,
many thanks, Don don-intl-artists (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intl-artists (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC) am looking to be adopted - followupHi again,
Don don-intl-artists (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Intl-artists (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC) my RFA
RfAHi there GlassCobra. Thanks for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I'll be back in a few months with more experience and more coaching; hopefully I have your support then as well. Thanks again - Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC) User:HeatsketchYou have blocked him...well...look what he has done[2]. I do think that he is asking for it.AdrianCo (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Hello!
Sure!adopt me away! --Cream (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Quan (rapper) DRVI have restored the article Quan (rapper) per your request at DRV. You may want to add the sources you cited there to the article so that it isn't listed again for deletion at AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Could you please weigh in on the Flyleaf debate againI'm reffering to the discussion here[3]. We still need help with a consensus and I'm feeling that legitimate sources are being totally ignored.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Improving Facebook to Featured Article statusI am currently working on improving Facebook to Featured Article status, and I noticed that you have made substantial contributions to the article recently. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could help out and improve the article. Some comments by other editors have been left at the peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive2, so feel free to address those issues, also. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Protection status of Lil WayneAs the person who initiated the current protect status of Lil Wayne I am wondering if you think 6 months in that status is long enough and that it is appropriate to see what happens if the article is returned to unprotected status? I have only recently begun to keep an eye on the article and do not know how large of a vandal magnet this article is. There seems to be effort by several editors to improve the article and opening it up may just wash away those efforts. Do you have an opinion? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC) AdoptionWill you adopt me I mostly want to do anti Vandal work. Which section would you like me too store? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arphibagon (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 11 months!!!111!!11
HoponpopHe appears to be using his IP (75.125.163.147) to taunt the editors responding to the RFC. You will see what I am referring to in the history of the talk page. I may be wrong but it sure looks suspicious to me. I realize since you and he are on the same side of the argument you will probably let him get away with this just like the dozen or so previous personal attacks, but will you please politely ask your ole buddy to not do that? Then hopefully he will listen. I'm doubting it though, seeing how he has yet to remove the PA's you asked him to. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, I just find the whole thing a bit frustrating. See though, how stern you are with me over something not even close to the magnitude of PA's. You did side with him, you know you did. If that's impartial then OK. It just seems that he can get away with anything. Again, I'm sorry for insulting you. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC) I'm glad you have asked other admins to come in. I would have added the RFC tag if I knew you could do that. If I am wrong about something this controversial needing to be properly surced I will willingly step down. I'm hoping other admins will choose to follow policy and stay neutral in the matter. You say you didn't pick a side yet you said Christian Rock should be listed multiple times. This entire argument is because of one user, and well you know his history. I know I am new on here, but in most all cases do you note have to cite info with a source, especially when it is likely to cause controversy? Just curious, why does policy not apply in this situation? You said yourself those two sources didn't explicitly back up his claim. Those sources only say they are Christians, how can that suffice in this matter? Dwrayosrfour (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is it you failed to add the SEVERAL other users whom are against adding the tag Christian Rock? You call it personal when several people are against it and one person is for it?? You make it sound like I am falsely accusing you of being partial to him. Can I add all the times you said 'Look i agree with your Standpoint" or all the times you said you don't see a problem with adding the tag, and even said the tag should be added, and even posted the content of the Christian Rock article helping back up his claim? Or maybe the dozen or so personal attacks you let him get away with while simultaneously reprimanding other users for lesses offenses, the list goes on. Is it appropriate for me to add those thigs there? How is it as an admin you can sit there and let hoponpop be disruptive as possible, and support him while he is wanting to add information that has not, nor cannot be sourced. You never answered me, why do the rules not apply here? Why does the tag not need a definitive reliable source? Dwrayosrfour (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Also I would like the report to include the fact he used his IP as a sock to taunt the editors responding to the RFC, more personal attacks there. Have you not seen what he said to user Landon1980? He then accidentally reprimanded his IP from his IP thinking he was logged in I'm assuming, and quickly reverted it hoping no one would see his mistake. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Hope Ya Don't Mind...But,,, i used your messsage to the vandals on my MadnessWiki userpage [4] I copy pasted and altered it a little so that it fits the tone of MadnessWiki, so yeah, hope ya don't mind... ^_^ . RfA ThanksMy RfA
followup on making a new pageHi GlassCobra, Thank you very much for the outline for making the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Intl-artists/Catya_Mare. I think it is ready for scrutiny. It is a sub-page and should it get the OK would like to move it to the main Wikipedia. The media was uploaded to Wikicommons after receiving permission and references were used in the article and I tried to do it carefully. Very sincerely, don-intl-artists (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC) --19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC) CertGuardHello, I recently found that my article, CertGuard, was deleted today. I personally feel that the article and the company is extremely notible, that its purpose is unique, and that it meets and exceeds the requirements of A7. Can you please send me the article on my talk page or revert the change. I was given less than 4 hours to place a hangon tag before the article was deleted. Mnemnoch (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Awarding Barnstar
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Adoption?Hi GlassCobra. I'm a user with some experience (ca. 1000 edits), but I need to get some schooling in things like categories, portals, moving pages/redirects, etc. I consider myself a rather serious contributor in terms of content - though I like to have fun while doing it. If you would like to mentor me, please do let me know. Thanks. Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC) BlockI noticed the user iloveaustria87 was blocked and so was someone else for being his sock puppet, however i cant find any articles that iloveaustria has vandalized. Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.194.151 (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Re Mathmo view on RfC(Moved from RfC) I think he was arguing that introducing such requirements would not be beneficial, for pretty much the reasons you stated. Orderinchaos 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the reviewHi Glass Cobra, Thanks for the article review and editing. Thank you, Don don-intl-artists (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC) FlyleafYou did not adopt that idea. Read the talk page that was our idea. That suits me perfectly. I stated that a couple times. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Your recent blockUser:Skuzz0r I completely concur with this indefinite block! Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place! Thank you! Mww113 (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC) ??I have left you a message on my other talk page. Please read it. 78.129.175.207 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC) OK I'm sorry. I won't mess with the article. I just don't think it is fair to list disputed beside it when good sources can be found. I wasn't aware that was how it works. Why is it not like that on all articles? Shouldn't they all be that way, there is alot of controversial changes that stick because they can be sourced meeting the criteria of WP:SOURCE why do all those edits not have disputed next to them? 78.129.175.211 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Oh and can we at least use the same logic and put the disputed tag next to the alternative genres? Because I don't agree with it, and you said that was the definition of disputed right? 78.129.175.211 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
??????????????????????????????????????????78.129.175.211 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Oh you are making stuff up as you go. I used to have faith in you but not anymore. Guess I was wrong, you are no better than the rest of the haters. It just isn't fair what you are doing. 78.129.175.211 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC) TFD of Template:Citations missingThanks for fixing that - I couldn't work out why it wasn't appearing on the TFD page. Terraxos ([[User talk:Terraxos|talk]]) 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) FlyleafThe consensus was to have alternative as the primary genre and in the first sentence. User:Kaiba keeps changing the consensus without discussing on the talk page, and when I try and enfore consensus he/she reverts my edits. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You have been given a...
What are you thinking?Glasscobra, contrary to your obvious belief, you do NOT own the Flyleaf article. Furthermore, you need to realize what an administrator is on Wikipedia. You have access to technical features and I don't, that is it in a nutshell. It does not give you the right to make a new consensus just because you find me enforcing it ridiculous. Once again, MULTIPLE places in the consensus there were mentions of the promary genre being ALTERNATIVE ROCK, this means it is in the opening, look around on some other articles, including Anberlin. There were also mentions of Christian rock not being in the opening because it is disputed, and the vast majority of our sources support alternative rock. If you want to suddenly change this you need to take it to the talk page first. I am putting it back in the opening and enforcing consensus arrived upon after a month of arguing. I guess if you block me then fine. This isn't fair and you know it. The fact you are an admin is not intended to give you this sense of authority you have, or to give you the right to break the rules. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC) You do not have the authority do do that. I do't know what but I am doing something about this. Something has to be done about the way you do things. Here you go again using your "authority" You need to brush up on what an adinistrator is. You have me literally shaking mad right now, I spent a great deal of my time keeping that article factual, and I merely enforced the consensus. Now here you come slinging your false sense of authority around. There were several mentions of the opening in that past discussion and you know there were. I have news for you, you will be edit warring yourself if you keep removing material from the consensus. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You keep throwing up the talk page and I find that ironic. If you don't have more authority than I why is it you can do whatever the hell you please without discussing it, and for me to even do something previously decided I must take it to the talk page. Alt rock was never disputed as the primary. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC) NO, you need to discuss not having it there. I am drawing my conclusion from the month long argument, go back and read it. Kaiba was not even involved in the dispute. Here is an idea, you refrain from edit warring, you want the change, so you take it to the talk page, because remember this isn't about authority. Talk about common sense, every article I know of includes the primary genre in the lead, this should not be any different. There are dozens of places in that discussion that speak of alt rock being the primary and being in the opening. Do I really have to dig back through the archives and show you what you know is there? This is ridiculous, and I can't take this any more. I never agreed to this, and no one else did either. Every time any editor spoke of the opening it was said Christian rock should not be there because there are over 30 sources for alt rock and metal. This is not an attack, it is a statement and here it is. You are clearly abusing your power here. How can you send me to the talk page to argue over something that was already agreed upon, if nothing else it alternative metal was already in the article. Yet you can just do what you want because you are an admin and say "I'm following policy, it's common sense, it is logical" etc., etc., etc. Give me a break, what is your problem with me? Dwrayosrfour (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Now here comes the block I assume, do that then tell me this isn't about authority. This is the most unfair thing I have ever witnesses in my life. If I am edit warring, YOU are edit warring.Dwrayosrfour (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Before I am blocked I just want to say this. If this isn't administrative abuse it doesn't exist. If Jimbo really wants to think Administrators do not have authority that is fine, but he should see this. They can run rough-shod over any article they want and only have to flash their mop to get their way. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC) You have made the same number of reversions, I suppose someone will block you to right? Yeah I highly doubt that don't you, all you have to do is flash your badge. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) There were dozens of mentions that Christian Rock would not be put in the opening sentence, that alone tells any reasonably person "something" would be there. Then in response to this most would say, yeah no need to overstate it, alternative rock should be the primary because the vast majority of our sources back it up. That happened more than once, and alternative metal was in the version you put in there when you were adopting the idea from Anberlin, and said how similar the two are. Well, go look at Anberlin, alternative rock is in the lead sentence. The primary genre is always listed in the opening, just because you (an almighty administrator) doesn't want it there means nothing, absolutely nothing. You go back and ask everyone involved if they were not under the impression alternative rock would be the primary genre, and in the lead sentence of the article and see what they say. You are the one so insistent on not having it there. So you need to take it to the talk page before implementing your changes or change rather. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC) If this is what Wikipedia is (your wikipedia) I honestly do not mind if I am blocked. However you should be blocked as well, you also have violated 3RR, my reverts were no where close to blatant vandalsim. You are the one making changes, I am enforcing consensus. You also failed to take this to the talk page before implementing your changes. So we should both be blocked if one is going to be. It takes two to edit war. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I sure don't see why you had this user blocked. User Kaiba was removing sourced content from a previous consensus. He/she was removing alternative from the lead all together. dwrayosrfour was only enforcing a consensus that took a moth to reach. Kaiba did not so much as even discuss the change first. As you most likely know, in the archived discussion everyone agree on alternative being the primary genre, this was implied in the consensus several times. Kaiba was the one making the change, the other user was enforcing consensus, hardly seems fair he was blocked for this. 76.177.242.179 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Archiving?Will you answer a quick question for me? How can I archive the old stuff on my talk page? I blanked the page because I don't know how. If you have time will you either tell me how or archive the page I blanked for me? Thanks! Landon1980 (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC) OK thanks, there are a lot of things I don't know how to do yet. I have used wikipedia for years and I'm aware of most policies. However, I have never done much editing at all. I used to use various IP's from the university I attend, but I kept receiving irrelavent warnings so I created an account. In case you didn't notice I reverted my edit to Flyleaf, I won't mess with it until something is decided on the talk page. Also, do you really not mind for me to ask you things from time to time? I will most likely pester you because I know next to nothing about editing here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) One more thing, I realize this is not a social network and I don't intend to use it as one, but does policy prohibit putting a picture of yourself on your userpage? Landon1980 (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Flyleaf, part deuxHi again, I'm not trying to reopen this discussion, but I just noticed something that I want to point out. You keep saying that dwrayos and user Kaiba were edit warring over whether to inlude alternative rock or alternative metal in the lead. You said that several times and it really just now sunk in. That is not what the dispute was over. Kaiba was removing alternative all together from the opening and leaving it blank. He did this without discussing first. Ok then DW reverted his change except for he made it rock instead of metal because he felt that was consensus. I can see where he thought this, I thought the same thing. Kaiba repeatedly removed alternative all together, and he was enforcing what he thought to be consensus. He was clearly doing this out of good faith, I think he genuinely thought the consensus was for alternative to be the primary. In light of this, do you still think he deserves to be blocked for three days? I'm new but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing. That consensus took a month to arrive upon, he most likely thought it was ok for him to enforce it. Especually seeing how Kaiba did not even discuss it first on the talk page. Anyways, you might have already known this, but I wanted to make sure. It's none of my business, but him being blocked that long, if at all seems grossly unfair to me. Landon1980 (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I would like to request dwrayosrfour be unblocked due to to this. Do you have any objection to this? Surely the community does not treat users like this. He wasn't making any changes, he was protecting the article. User Kaiba is the one making a substantive change without discussing it, and I counted several times where alternative was said to be the primary genre. He does not deserve to be blocked for this. Neither of you actually knew what was going on when he was blocked. You thought he was removing metal and putting rock, and that wasn't the case. Landon1980 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) block on IdiotakuchanI wouldn't have blocked Idiotakuchan without seeing some contributions to see if they were a good-faith user. As WP:U says, blocks should only be placed before a user edits in extreme cases. The name "Idiotakuchan" sounds to me likely to be a self-description, not an attack on anyone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC) AfD nomination of Adrianne Calvo Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Calvo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
