Jump to content

User talk:Ixfd64/archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The contents of this page were archived on March 25, 2007. They are no longer active and are preserved for historical reasons only.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

Hinduism delete notice?

[edit]

Hi, you're name as an admin is part of a deletion and protection notice at the top of the Hinduism page. Something's not right there, can you look at it? Thanks. ॐ Priyanath 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now - very strange. I wasn't the only one who saw it: Talk:Hinduism#Notice_at_top_of_page - ॐ Priyanath 16:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab League revertinng in Arabs

[edit]

can you please explain your constant reverting of images i insert in the Arabs Article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs)

Award, man!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For your hardwork and dedication to making Wikipedia a better place. I, Sharkface217, award you this Original Barnstar. Good job! :-) Sharkface217 04:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting Halloween

[edit]

I have a favor to ask, as you're the one who unprotected the article and I have to go to bed now. I just spent hours fixing all the propaganda and misinformation (in text, footnotes and external links) that a fundamentalist Christian or two bombed the article with. It had totally thrown the thing out of balance and was appalling in it's degree of insult to the information already in the article. So, if you could keep an eye out for them reverting my edits, or re-inserting their histrionics and propaganda, I would appreciate it. Thank you (and Happy belated Halloween ;-)). --Kathryn NicDhàna 08:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have kept the protection on until noon GMT today. Just because Halloween was over for you did not mean that it was over for the vandals, who went crazy after you unprotected the article. -- Weirdoactor 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's now 1:15 pm EST, and the vandalism is still happening at a fairly heavy and frequent level. The extreme religious hysteria stuff that happened overnight reverted all the work I'd done, and I just had to re-do it. If this keeps up, the sane editors paying attention to the article will burn out. I won't be around much today, and assume the fundie - User:Caloon2000 (and, I assume, some of the IP edits that have made identical changes) - who doesn't respond to requests for dialogue or warnings, will undo it all before I return. I request we semi-protect again. Please. --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-protected the article. I'll remove the protection tomorrow and see what happens. --Ixfd64 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it looks like the article is staying protected until some of the abovementioned POV and 3RR violations are fully investigated. It's kind of ugly over on that talk page now, and on the User talk pages where the flames have spilled over. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I owe you one! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: automated user page deletions?

[edit]

Ixfd64 wrote:

If you're using a bot to automate user page deletions, it might be a good idea to note that in the deletion summary. For example, "bot - automated deletion of temporary user page..." would do. Just a suggestion. :) --Ixfd64 09:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback. I don't want to use "bot" in the edit summary as that might confuse people into thinking User:Gurch is a bot account, which it isn't, but I see your point. I'll add "(Automated)" to the start of the deletion summary next time I do a batch (which will be tomorrow). Is that OK? – Gurch 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hi, I was attempting to clean up User talk:207.127.128.2 and I noticed you made this edit reverting a vandalism warning. I looked at the contributions history and the warning looked justified. I was just wondering your reasoning for reverting it or if it was a mistake. Thanks, VegaDark 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I couldn't really tell whether the edit by 207.127.128.2 (talk · contribs) was vandalism or not, so I gave the user the benefit of the doubt. After all, strange things do happen in the DC universe! --Ixfd64 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case your definition of vandalism must be significantly different from mine. Are we looking at the same edit? By that logic, someone adding "GOT SHOT IN THE HEAD" in the Abraham Lincoln article wouldn't be vandalism, simply because it was true (with disregard to location of the addition or the fact it was in all caps). IMO, in the very least you should have replaced the warning with the Mos0 template instead of deleting it outright, as the edit was obviously not something keepable. VegaDark 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'll keep that in mind. --Ixfd64 21:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sucks ?

[edit]

i am just wondering if it is allowed of such word on this page i think it is a bit big to describe something please correct me if i am wrong .

--Jhabib 00:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had no right to delete the Yehuda Zisapel page!

[edit]

I was in the fast process of massively editing the article, and I made that fact CLEAR! The original article was posted by novice users who do not know how Wikipedia works! Some users don't know about WP:NPOV !!

Please RESTORE the article so I can edit and make it a genuine encyclopedic article. If you do not do so, I will petition for REVOKING your administrative status. You cannot behave like a thug, this kind of behavior on your part cannot be tolerated. —comment added by John Hyams(t/c)

  • If you disagree with a page's deletion, then please see deletion review. --Ixfd64 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already did that, and my request is pending. You, however, have not even bothered to reply to me, you just did what you did, without any explanation or trying to be nice to a fellow user. I think you do not deserve your Admin status; your short and dry reply only makes me more determined to file a petition (and I am just about to do so). My personal advice to you: be nice to people. My reminder to you: even an esteemed Admin does not own Wikipedia. —comment added by John Hyams(t/c)
I apologize if I wasn't too clear in my first reply. The article was deleted per consensus in accordance with the deletion policy. Also, some of your comments may be interpreted as personal attacks. --Ixfd64 23:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Fellowship_of_the_Ring_-_Bilbo's_home.PNG

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Fellowship_of_the_Ring_-_Bilbo's_home.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Fellowship_of_the_Ring_-_cut_scene.PNG

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Fellowship_of_the_Ring_-_cut_scene.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GeoHack page deletion

[edit]

Hello Danny, I just noticed that Magnus's incredibly useful GeoHack tool page seems to have been deleted, and protected to prevent recreation. Is it being replaced, or is it to be no more? --Leigh 10:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - it appears to have been restored. --Leigh 12:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the deletion log, the GeoHack template was never deleted. 62.154.250.10 (talk · contribs) accidentally redirected the template to [[insert text]], which I had deleted and protected. That's probably why you saw the deletion notice. --Ixfd64 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - it all seems OK now. --Leigh 15:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Hey, thanks for undoing the vandalism of my user page! dj chainz 08:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: custom vandal warning tool?

[edit]

Ixfd64 wrote:

You seem to be using a pretty nifty tool for warning vandals. Did you write it yourself? If not, could you please show me where to download it? Thanks! :) --Ixfd64 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have written it myself; I'm not making it publically available at the moment but I may do in the future. Tools such as VandalProof do the same sort of thing, though; you might want to try those – Gurch 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the quick reply. Cheers! --Ixfd64 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina

[edit]

Thanks for getting rid of the junk i accidentally added. Can you explain how that happened? I'm very confused. --Espoo 09:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropist

[edit]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Sebastian (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my redirects

[edit]

My redirects (minor and uncontroversial)say that they have been blocked by you.Any explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeshivish (talk • contribs)

look at my contrib. history. all my redirects are there.you blocked all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeshivish (talk • contribs)

[1] This was blocked by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeshivish (talk • contribs)

  • That's because your redirects were in the incorrect format. You were redirecting articles to [[insert text]], which I had deleted. Try using "#REDIRECT [[(target page)]]" instead of "#REDIRECT [[insert text]] (target page)" and it should work. --Ixfd64 07:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ClearSpeed

[edit]

A tag has been placed on ClearSpeed, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say ClearSpeed is a fairly notable company. One of the supercomputer systems that uses ClearSpeed is currently ranked #9 on the TOP500 list. Also, a Google search for "ClearSpeed" returns about 115,000 hits - if that isn't notable, then I don't know what is. --Ixfd64 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've just added an assertion of notability to the article. I'm not sure if it's adequate, though. --Ixfd64 11:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dude

[edit]

I was looking at this guys page and I saw it was vandlized , )the nazi solgan) so I left a note for him

I am NOT a vandal . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.154.97.110 (talk • contribs)

Unprotecting templates

[edit]

Please do not unprotect these templates at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. Like many other templates, they are used to put obscene photographs that are difficult to root out on the highly trafficked page above. —Centrx→talk • 20:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, please re-protect these pages. This is going to create a lot of work for someone else when someone puts more penises on the templates. —Centrx→talk • 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought those templates were supposed to be unprotected as soon as they're off the main page. Did I miss a policy change or something? --Ixfd64 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double exponential

[edit]

You recently created a redirect at the page above. I replaced the redirect with a page discussing its meaning and some examples drawn from mathematics and theoretical computer science. I hope you don't mind; the content at exponential function was a bit short for my taste. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after making it I considered making the same move. I'm actually not that well-versed in naming conventions, though, so it's good you moved it. Thanks! CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Vandalism

[edit]

Wikicolor.jpg was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (and I presume that is the case for the other images you mentioned). This vandal obviously knew what (s)he was doing. -- tariqabjotu 16:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chloroform

[edit]

You got the wrong IP adress bud. I don't know how the wikipedia mail system works, but somehow it contacted my IP address and sent me a message.

The message said I vandalized some article on chloroform, and the person who sent me this message was you. I am writing this to say that I did not do that. I love wikipedia, I use it all the time for information that i probably couldn't find anywhere else on the Internet, and the fact is sometimes I contribute to wikipedia (good, accurate stuff) and edit mistakes (gramatical or factual).

Now I'm thinking the jerk who vandalized the chloroform article has an ip address switcher thing or whatever and that when he vandalized the article my IP address was the one he used. Or either I was high on drugs or something and I forgot. To me, the former scenario seems more accurate.

I don't know much about wikipedia's disclipline system, but I hope I don't get any bad marks or anything. I didn't write that crap on chloroform, and I just wanted to address that.

I really don't know how the wikipedia message system works, and i don't want to read an article about it, so if it's possible, please can you message me back. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.135.49 (talk • contribs)

  • If you didn't vandalize anything, then you have nothing to worry about. However, if you don't want to be warned for edits that you didn't make, then I'd suggest that you register an account. Also, your IP address might be blocked from editing if someone else vandalizes on it, but the block will be less likely to affect you if you're logged in. --Ixfd64 03:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by deletion

[edit]

I was editing an article (Virtual Iron), which was deleted and redirected to your user page. Why the deletion?

(Updated) Sorry, I think this may have been my error and that I fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.88.115 (talk • contribs)

KnowWonder Digital Mediaworks

[edit]

A tag has been placed on KnowWonder Digital Mediaworks, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calton | Talk 00:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elbert Hubbard on deletion review

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Elbert Hubbard. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cjs56 01:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as to why you deleted the Elbert Hubbard page. The article clearly outlined his notability, was generally well written by numerous editors, had numerous links and citations, and to the best of my knowledge had no copyright violations. I'm going to post on deletion review too, but now I'm just looking for an explanation from you. Thanks --Cjs56 01:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

[edit]

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

[edit]
 Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words.

I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?

Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.

Again, thank you. –Luna Santin
Glad to see you're still around, for the most part. :) We need all the good people we can get, some days. Luna Santin 13:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template:Infobox_country

[edit]

Some users are engaged in an ever so avid discussion about introducing some new entries to the infobox. One would be the Gini index, the other, a link to Wikitravel. Please join the discussion and help us reach a consensus. Danielsavoiu 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

[edit]

I like the Karnaugh map you put on the Polyhedron page. I was reading it last week and I thought to myself that it needed one. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eassin (talk • contribs)

TfD nomination of Template:Tpv

[edit]

Template:Tpv has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

[edit]

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 03:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape

[edit]

Heh, saw your post at RSC. Nice to see another RSC-er (or RSer) as an admin here at Wikipedia. =) Nishkid64 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, mine's the same as my Wikipedia username. Anyways, I looked up your stats and they aren't bad at all! :) --Ixfd64 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy dang, nice skill total and 99's. :-P I was going for 99 cooking, but then I stopped playing, so I never got it lol. IIRC, I'm still at 93 cooking. Nishkid64 21:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ixfd64/archive_6&oldid=1139220067"