User talk:Ixfd64/archive 10

The contents of this page were archived on February 14, 2011. They are no longer active and are preserved for historical reasons only. Please add new comments to my current talk page instead. Thanks.

Archives: November 15, 2005 · February 24, 2006 · May 18, 2006 · July 11, 2006 · October 26, 2006 · March 25, 2007 · February 20, 2008 · March 8, 2009 · October 11, 2009 · February 14, 2011 · January 22, 2014 · November 15, 2016 · October 10, 2020 · August 25, 2022 · current · search

Revert

Thanks. :) Acalamari 21:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting!

Please immediately stop mass deleting images and their talk pages etc. You don't know what you are doing. I'll write a longer explanation in a little while.

Please stop while I investigate and then write the longer message. This takes time since I am not a native English speaker.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a common practice for administrators to delete local copies of Commons media. Since the cascading protection on Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items and elsewhere already covers these images, I saw no reason for keeping them locally. In fact, quite a few images on that page have already been deleted by other administrators. However, seeing that some of the images there are currently being discussed, I'll leave them alone for now. I'm sorry if I caused any inconvenience. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should almost never delete protected images, even if they have copies at Commons. The copies at Commons just act as backups for the high-risk images here. (And it makes the images available if/when the templates that use them are copied to other Mediawiki projects.) The reason you have seen other admins deleting such images is that unfortunately this is a very common mistake...

Since other admins are likely to repeat this mistake I wrote the longer explanation over at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items. And the very reason we created that cascade page (and the old lockbox pages it is based on) is that admins keep doing the mistake of deleting or unprotecting templates and images here.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a good point. Do you think it would be a good idea to create some sort of template that warns against the deletion of certain copies of Commons media? I'm thinking of making something similar to {{c-uploaded}}. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have two such templates: {{pp-template|small=no}} and {{nocommons}}. See how we use both of them on for instance File:User-info.svg. We should probably see to that those templates are used on all the high-risk images.

I would like to move/copy this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#Do not delete or unprotect because listed here, since this discussion will have relevance for later visitors to that page.

Oh, and I ask that you undo the deletions you just did. (I really have to go to bed so I am not able to clean up after you, it's already 5 in the morning here.) And don't forget to reprotect the images after you undelete them, since unfortunately they don't automatically get their old protection back.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are much quicker than me. Is it okay with you if I copy parts of this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#Do not delete or unprotect because listed here for future reference by others?

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that is fine with me. :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PyKen

Hi Ixfd64

In re this edit are you aware of any servers running this implementation available? Also, what's the meaning of your username, if I may ask?

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 04:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.[reply]

I'm pretty sure PyKen is not a server-sided application, so I don't think there are any servers running it. Also, you can find out about the origin of my username here. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten

It had completely slipped my mind that {{click}} was deprecated. Thank you for fixing my talk page header. All the best. Bobo . 10:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. By the way, it seems that some images do not display properly (i.e., they become slightly larger) after being converted to the new syntax. I'm going to try to find out why that is happening. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huckabee

I'm a little confused as to why you changed the protection level on Mike Huckabee. It was already semi-protected; all you did was give non-sysops the ability to move the page. Mistake? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article had no history of page-move vandalism, so I didn't see any need to protect it from moves. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not reflected in the reason you posted. You cited POV concerns. It's fine for pages with no reason to be moved to be move-protected, as is the case with that, so I've put it back. It's highly visible at the moment; if you disagree about the protection, let's take it up at another time, okay? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually another reason why I removed the move protection; the administrator who added it said he was lowering the (edit) protection but made no mention of moves, so I assumed it was a mistake. The reason I cited POV converns was that I wanted the most recent log entry (my removal of the move protection) to reflect why the page was semi-protected ("POV edits" seemed more descriptive than "BLP violations"); it turns out that I actually forgot to mention the move protection in my summary! I hope this helps. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of the Children

Ok I understand why there are reasons that prevent an editor from erasing a big chunck of an article. But please take a look at this article, the 1976 coup section. I find it rather ironic that, by trying to revert some vandalism, I am treated like a vandalist myself. Maybe this is the reason why there have been such a sharp decline by the parts of editors in respect to the encyclopedia. So please, if you, or anybody knows how to delete such and outlandish and silly section from and article, then please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.76.36 (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should use edit summaries, especially when removing content from an article. That way, other editors are less likely to mistake your edits for vandalism. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ixfd64! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Don Davis (artist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Henri Cohen (athlete) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Edward Charles Allaway - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:76.102.12.35

One welcome template is enough. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Criticism of YouTube

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of YouTube. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of YouTube. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to anonymous user 216.55.193.246 re Cars (film) vandalism

Thought you should know that the user edited it but I changed it back. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed that. Thanks for fixing it! --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons question

I see that you tagged File:LAHS marchband.JPG as being moved to the Commons. I have no qualms with that. But the immediate link that the template provides is dead [1]. Did you actually move the image to Commons or did you mistakenly put on the wrong template? --haha169 (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sorry, I just realized that the template provided an incorrect link. You are an administrator, right? Could you delete the local copy of the image? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did transfer the image to Commons, but the file name somehow got changed from LAHS marchband.JPG to LAHS marchband.jpg. I've updated the image link on Los Altos High School (Los Altos, California) and deleted the duplicate file. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --haha169 (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: Tile join vandal (Virgin Killer)

For future reference, feel free to block ones like this on sight. This is one of thousands of socks created by Tile join, aka the Genesis vandal aka The Virgin Killer vandal. These socks are so identical I swear it's a bot making them. The page has been semiprotected, but that won't stop him, but it makes him easier to identify. He will add and subtract a comma from a defunct user talkpage for the required ten, then blank the VK page. Even though he cannot remove the picture, his actual goal, it won't matter. After he is reverted, he will go blank the user and talkpage of the reverter, even if it's a bot. For several years he would replace the Evolution page with the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible. He makes dozens of socks at a time. He doesn't ever speak to anyone, he just methodically vandalises over and over and over again as he has for years. He is on a mission (presumably) from God. He cannot be reasoned with. He knows no remorse, no pity or fear. And he will never stop, ever, until he or the wiki is dead. </bad paraphrase of Terminator> Auntie E. (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'll keep my eyes open for this fellow. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your last unprotection

"[move=sysop] (expires 13:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (featured article move-protection shouldn't be indef" Could you please check page logs? It was protected indef before the article was TFA. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 15:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake

Hello Ixfd64, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on August 30 2005, 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Zoomzoom99 (page has mainspace links, and more than 49 edits). This has been done because the page is either pure vandalism or a blatant hoax (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Zoomzoom99. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Zoomzoom99 (talk · contribs) 11:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

While I understand your point of view, I feel that what I did was not vandalism. First, the article itself is way too long. It discourages people more than anything from wanting to learn about race because the article is so long and rather difficult to navigate. I mean to be honest, that whole article could in fact be summed up in my one sentence. I did not intend to vandalize the page in any way. That is just my point of view of what race is. University professors also preach that same sentence I posted on the "race" page. Therefore, I would not say my statement is radical and controversial. I have been taught this concept so many times in University of California courses I have taken over the past two years. It may be controversial in your opinion, but to me, it is the simple truth of what race is. However, thank you for your message and I am in no way trying to attack you. I'm just expressing my views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrion20 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I never said your edits were vandalism. What I did say was that it's a good idea to discuss potentially controversial edits before implementing them. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, still. It can't be that controversial if there is a section bluntly titled "Race as social constructions". I just put it at the top of the page, in my own words in language that people can understand; this should be the focus of the article. I've taken many eye opening classes about race and ethnicity, and this article does not move me at all. I just feel lost in this article everytime I go back to look at it. I don't think "race as a social construction" should be hidden in the middle of article, and be the shortest of all the sections. I just think it should at least be in the begininng of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrion20 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please read edits before reverting

thanks for the attention to my recent edit. you should've checked the actual full edit--i didn't remove anything, just *moved* text to the proper place. thanks! Joanouvair (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. However, may I suggest using an edit summary next time? It would help prevent misunderstandings like this. :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help in putting the picture up, it looks great! I've learned loads in the process.. Archiesgone (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have a cookie

Ixfd64 edited the Ted Stevens article first once the death was confirmed, and wins a cookie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.42.202 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "cookie"! I'm not sure if I edited the article a bit quickly, though. It wasn't supposed to be edited for about four more hours, but the "breaking news" on the Yahoo! front page seemed pretty legit to me. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Thanks for the welcoming, but it appears that I had accidently logged out and didn't realize it. maclean (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonizer

A harmonizer is a type of effects unit commonly used when recording rock music. It needs its own page, as many pages were linking to a Norweigan pop album called "Harmonizer" erroneously.. I created a page for the album called "Harmonizer (album)" and then intended to use the "Harmonizer" page for the effects unit. Unfortunately, someone has turned the "Harmonizer" page into a disambiguation page.

Please reverse the edit that made it a disambiguation page. Thanks--Atlantictire (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links should now point to the correct page. For some reason, the articles with those links still show up in Special:Whatlinkshere/Harmonizer; I suspect the database is a little slow today. Otherwise, everything seems fine.

In the future, please do not "move" pages by copying and pasting them, as this destroys their edit history. Thanks. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!
Best wishes, SabrinaMagers talk (19:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you! :-) --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alicebackwards

Alicebackwards (talk · contribs)

I don't want to interfere with what you did, but before you added your warning on the editor's Talk page, the editor removed previous warnings. Can you restore the previous warnings and yours?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the warnings. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can help a little more, that would be great. I've reverted far too many of the editor's vandalisms. Although with the best of motives, I've no doubt violated WP:3RR. So, I'm stopping, even if it means the page is blank. I could request a block on the Admin notice board, but can't you implement an immediate block, even if only temporarily while this is sorted out? It's so much trouble requesting a block, and the editor is out of control. If there's something else I can do, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user permanently. FYI, the three-revert rule does not cover vandalism reversions. :-) --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the rule more closely and saw the exception. I feel better now. Thanks for your help!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? MoFo

why are you not letting me edit Ed Gein's page? I was adding in valuable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.161.226 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Ed Gein's picture to that of a chicken was a little funny, but it was not appropriate. Please do not do this again. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: Huggle Feedback

Hello, Ixfd64. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Spike Toronto 06:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed you

Thanks Rjwilmsi 19:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User vandalising after a 'last warning'

Hey Danny,

I'd noticed your warning on this user's talk page. I have reverted a case of vandalism that this user (or IP address, anyway) performed earlier today on a page I was viewing.

So, just giving you the heads up to do whatever is needed.

Regards,

Jeevan —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeevanJones (talk • contribs) 19:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user seems to have stopped on their own, but I'll keep an eye on him (or her). In the future, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. To tell the truth, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia regulations etc., but I will take a look for future such cases. --JeevanJones (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Grint

Er, why did you restore this fangirl's attempt to marry herself to a Weasley to the article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seemed legit enough for me. I don't delve too much into what goes on in celebrities' lives, so unless an edit looks blatantly unconstructive, I would assume that it was made in good faith. Perhaps I should have at least asked the user to cite her sources? --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, the previous time she added. She was also marrying one of her mates to Daniel Radcliffe. I did check the US Magazine archive to see if the edit was accurate before I reverted and warned her; it was easy, and didn't take long. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That first edit would have been very easy to catch. Radcliffe is a very well-known actor, so any marriages and whatnot would be plastered all over the news. However, I hadn't heard of Rupert Grint until now, so it would have been harder for me to tell whether the edit was vandalism, at least not without a quick Google search. I guess I should start checking users' previous contributions before restoring their reverted edits. --Ixfd64 (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jake 'The Muss' Heke

Hiya mate! I can see you reverted my contribution back to the previous version. May I ask why? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiio (talk • contribs) 00:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Andiio 00:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiio (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hi, I see that you were trying to "tone down" some of the quotes. However, Wikipedia is not censored, and we generally don't redact "bad" words. I'm sorry if I didn't explain it to you earlier. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Danny. Thanks for informing me that this site is not censored, I was not aware of this. I have however restored three quotes which I added to Jake 'The Muss' Heke which were deleted when you reverted my contributions. Don't worry I haven't censored anything. Thanks again. Andiio 13:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiio (talk • contribs)

Nomination of Sandy Bridge for deletion

The article Sandy Bridge is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Bridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. hydrox (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction disproven

You say:

February 8, 2011 - 48th Mersenne prime discovered

The Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPS) discovers the 48th Mersenne prime, which will be around 15 million digits long.

Update: Nope, it didn't happen. Year changed to 2011.

That's today, and it still didn't happen. Georgia guy (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be more careful

You need to be more careful when using a bot to detect vandalism, and especially when you template established users as vandals. In this edit [2] you revert an edit that has been carefully explained on the talkpage and refer to it as a test or vandalism and proceed to template the editor who is using his valuable time to improve wikipedia. Proceeding like this is detrimental to the project, if you are unable to exercise due care and judgment when mass reverting by bot, you will have to turn to manual editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was using STiki, which doesn't seem to show edit summaries. I should probably bring up the issue to Andrew. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, maybe use it less or with more care in the meantime? BTW sorry for the somewhat snarky tone of the comment above, I have a bot aversion, but I don't need to take that out on you.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STiki talkback

Hello, Ixfd64. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:STiki#edit_summaries.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.