User talk:John Reaves/Archive10
| This is a Wikipedia user page.
If you were looking for the football player named John Reaves, you want this article: John Reaves.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Reaves/Archive10. |
 |
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:John Reaves. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
protect
Hi __ I was blocked while rewriting my talk page. Please, allow me access.Mig 18:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, yeah thanks I kinda did know that already, dunno why I did that! I then went to brush my teeth and by the time I'd come back... well the rest is history. Thanks anyway! :) Paulfp 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Virginia Tech massacre
John, can I ask why you unprotected this page without consulting me or Mackensen who had originally protected it? Especially with the summary "this should not be protected". Perhaps you could trust us your fellow admins to know what should and shouldn't be protected? WjBscribe 12:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- The edit thatw as added several times by IPs contained the name of thr alleged perpetrator, his email adddress, phone number and a picture. The need to avoid such a flagrant potential breach of WP:BLP (and the legal consequences that would have arisen even had that person been deceased) clearly justified the protection the the talkpage. The announcement of the actual name of the shooter today confirms that the name and details were of the wrong person. And it was not easy to remove the revisions in some cases when 20+ revisions could contain the improper information in a short time given how fact moving the page was. As I said at ANI, the need for protection would have been obvious from discussions on my talkpage or Mackensen's. In addition a request to unprotect the talkpage at WP:RFPP had been turned down by Steel. I am disappointed with your conduct in relation to this matter. WjBscribe 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- With respect you did not see the problematic revisions- giving real world contact details of people in connection with a shooting soon after the event is highly irresponsible. It is damaging to their reputation (never mind that of Wikipedia) and could even place them in danger. The speed with which material was being added to the page made it difficult to spot the info and then difficult to remove it without deleting large segments of the talkpage- with is also bad for Wikipedia. In any event, your actions overruled at least 3 admins (others had expressed support for the protection on the article's talkpage earlier) based on a single request at WP:ANI. WjBscribe 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Once the name of the actual perpetrator was widely released the protection stopped being necessary. And no, the fact that other admins reached a consensus does not mean we were right- but at least we were not going it alone and didn't unilaterally overrule another admin. This matter is obviously closed given that I agree protection is now no longer required, but I would request that you exercise more care before undoing others' admin actions in future. WjBscribe 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think we'd better or we'll discussing it all night :-) !! WjBscribe 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Once the name of the actual perpetrator was widely released the protection stopped being necessary. And no, the fact that other admins reached a consensus does not mean we were right- but at least we were not going it alone and didn't unilaterally overrule another admin. This matter is obviously closed given that I agree protection is now no longer required, but I would request that you exercise more care before undoing others' admin actions in future. WjBscribe 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- With respect you did not see the problematic revisions- giving real world contact details of people in connection with a shooting soon after the event is highly irresponsible. It is damaging to their reputation (never mind that of Wikipedia) and could even place them in danger. The speed with which material was being added to the page made it difficult to spot the info and then difficult to remove it without deleting large segments of the talkpage- with is also bad for Wikipedia. In any event, your actions overruled at least 3 admins (others had expressed support for the protection on the article's talkpage earlier) based on a single request at WP:ANI. WjBscribe 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear John Reaves, you unblocked (for 24 hour) a user User_talk:EOKA-Assasin to allow username change. User posted request at relevant page, but he insisted to take another provokative name there and -most importantly- he/she is continuing his edits in wiki -without any attemp to change his/her user name- since tree days.This is a obvious injure to wiki rules, abusing your good faith. Here;Special:Contributions/EOKA-Assasin. Please review your unblock decision.Regards.Must.T C 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Could I also add, for the sake of defending my position at the very least, that this who process initiated by Makalp has been very underhanded. For a start, he took issue with my name, I discussed this with him on his userpage in a civil manner (which was not returned I might add), I then took the time to look at the page dealing with Offensive Usernames, I could not find any criterion which would have led my username to be deemed 'Offensive' in any way (though of course these things are open to interpretation). This issue, of whether or not it was against Wikipedia policy, was not discussed in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, when it was finally brought to a vote, it was a rather unprofessional affair. Makalp (as can be seen from his contributions), rallied users that he knew would be in support of voting in favour of blocking my username (for example CoolCat and others) and thus my name was declared to be 'offensive' and I was ordered to change it, I think I've explained just how underhanded this whole process was, but I assumed good faith, and I took my case to Wiki: Changing Username, I asked my username to be changed to 'Afxentiou', an administrator took exception to this also, claiming Afxentiou was not an acceptable name (though again he never cited any policy that states as much), so I replied to him explaining this and have yet to recieve a reply. Regardless, every single article I have edited since I have been unblocked (barring one) has been an article that has virtually no 'controversial' status between Greek and Turkish wikipedians, see for example, my Environmental Issues in Greece article. The one exception to this was the article Taksim, which I had edited before I had been blocked (and sourced), the User Erolz took exception to this edit and so we are currently discussing reworking the it on the discussion page of the said article. The User Makalp's only issue with me is that I am Greek Cypriot in my opinion, and he deems this enough of a reason to continually harass me in every concievable way possible.
- Regards--EOKA-Assasin 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock
Can you please explain what was happening BTW? That was totally un-expected. Regards, «razorclaw 20070417234904»
Blood purity
Hi. Someone's performed a copy-and-paste move of Blood purity to Blood purity (Harry Potter). Amongst other things, it's messed up the talk pages. Would you be able to sort that out? Thanks. Michael Sanders 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Gizwidget issue
Please read my reply to your response on User_talk:Gizwidget Giz Widget 2 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)(gizwidget)
Are you Afraid of the Dark?
Why were my edits reverted? 205.237.164.127 04:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Help me!
Please tell me what template to inclue for my picture - Image:Wikipedia User.jpeg . I got it from a website: flamingtext.com and I can use it, but I do not know which is the appropriate template. Please help me! Littleghostboo[ talk ] (Win an argument and leave your mark in history.) 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Wikipedia User.jpeg Click on it. Littleghostboo[ talk ] (Win an argument and leave your mark in history.) 06:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Click here. Littleghostboo[ talk ] (Win an argument and leave your mark in history.) 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you be able to restore the talk page for this article, please? Michael Sanders 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
86.145.105.149
Hi. I wonder if you'd consider undoing your reversal of my decision, and unblock this guy. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk) 22:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Accounts Creation
Hi, I just wanted to know if you had just created this 3 accounts
The account creation log says that you did..--Cometstyles 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Kool..hehe..--Cometstyles 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I figured that out moments ago regarding WP:ACC would have loved to help but Iam not an Admin and I cant do much..Cheers..--Cometstyles 18:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I read what you said and I did pitch in a bit with the WP:ACC, I hope you dont mind..Cheers..--Cometstyles 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You unblocked the above; fine, but the edit warring he was engaged in and blocked for on Severus Snape was clear and protracted, so rather than wheel war with you I've protected the wrong version of that article for a week to try to cool the situation. Both editors need a tap with the cluestick, but Mr Sanders is likely to view this as an endorsement if I now administer the stick to his "opponent", so this seems the best/only alternative remaining. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- You have not protected the "wrong" version, but the good. The wrong version is the one with rampant unsourced original research and vandals trying to impose it.Folken de Fanel 20:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
John Reaves, explain "invalid". As I have explained, Michaelsanders has received the 3 levels of ""unsourced" warning templates, didn't listen, was given 4th level of "vandalism" template (and I remind you that "adding unsourced or original content is considered vandalism and may result in a block", he didn't listen, so he gets blocked. Reaves, that you have your little favorites here on Wiki doesn't justify the unblock of vandals like Michael who spit at the rules. Folken de Fanel 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe because Michaelsanders doesn't understand revert warring and taking WP for his personal blog isn't contructive...Just look at his talk page, more particularly the last comments in "Queen of the Romans": I'm obviously not the only one having serious problems with his disruptive behavior. See what I get when I try debating with him: "All I can think of is that you are having trouble reading the English, because otherwise, I fail to see how you could miss it"..."Your last post on my talk page was incomprehensible: I suggest you write more slowly and concentrate on your English, otherwise you mispell and are unintelligible"... "And, quite frankly, I suggest you visit Mythomania"...
- He's involved in dozens of agressive content disputes each day, most of them not even HP related. If today was probably the first time he crossed the fine line bewteen opinion disputes and vandalism, and may deserve your clemence for this time only (and I'm not really convinced of this), there at least an obvious and pressing need to place him on probation. Because many users are fed up with his disruptive behavior.Folken de Fanel 20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- At least if you don't want to answer me, avoid meddling with this issue and don't unblock Michaelsanders next time.Folken de Fanel 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm reverting vandalism and OR/NPOV violations, so no problem. Well, people certainly aren't fed up as much as they are with Michaelsanders. If you meddle with this, you'll have to stop Michaelsander's disrupting behavior. Folken de Fanel 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Reversions Recent
Hello, John. Sorry for the late reply, I'm really trying to catch the vandalism, if you check on Lupin's it's cascading. In fact, I was just about to update WP:DEFCON when you contacted me. I know that edits cannot be deleted, but mistakes can be. I apologized to the user in the first instance just after I realized my error. I apologized for the other minor mix-up's my ability to completely discern vandalism, especially on Userpages, needs improvement. I will slow down my editing, and strive for better vandal fighting. Regards, Dfrg.msc 02:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
... if you'll pardon - our RPP patrols crossed. I just semi'd it for a month as, though it's low activity, vandalism can stay up quite a while. Shall I unprotect it? - Alison☺ 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments at 3RR
Per your comments at the 3RR notice board: if you feel my actions warrant it, you're welcome to block me. I think my history of having been editing on the project for 3.5 years speaks for itself. You might note that under WP:BLP policy, "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply."
As Jimbo has pointed out, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living person."
Are we to assume this applies to everyone's biographies, except Jimmy Wales's? --LeflymanTalk 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Need another opinion
Can you please check the reverts of Mel Etitis, who is an administrator like yourself. He feels that it is fine to revet work on the basis of having no edit summary which are often labeled: rv unexplained & unsourced edit. From what I gather from the various Wiki help pages and wiki policies is that filling the edit summaries is highly recommended, but not a policy or grounds for a revert. Also these types of reverts also seems to go against policy in the Simplified Ruleset (number 7) which clearly states: "don't revert good faith edits". I have left these arguments on his talk page, but he continues. I have no problem with reverts, but I do believe you have to look at the changes made by comparing it to other versions in the history tab which I question if Mel Etitis does. If you don't look at the changes, how do you know if they are either good or bad faith edits or if you are reverting corrections to the article back to when it had mistakes. (Duane543 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
- The reasoned I mentioned it, is that I have been doing copy editing on the manga articles (fixing spelling, formating and add infobox). I ran into Mel after he reverted by edits on the Futari Ecchi article. At first it was no big deal and I thought I cleared it up and that he understood. Soon afterward, he reverted my talk page and this bothered me. Sometimes I check back on these pages just to look to see how they have changed and I noticed that Mel reverted HaroFreak's (on 12:24, 21 April 2007) good corrections. This is why I believe that Mel doesn't look what changes are made. If he had, he would have seen that the corrections were in good faith since manga in magazines are collected in volumes and not in episodes as he reverted back to. Anyhow thanks for your time and effort and good luck in trying to control Michaelsanders, who is one of the most persistent editor currently working the HP articles. (Duane543 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
I did fix my signature
Something was checked or uncheck or whatever. I fixed it. It should be all right now. Sorry! Sincerely, --Mattisse 03:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did you take away Netsnipes award?
I awarded Netsnipe, I think he's done well. I looked at these Barnstars on Wiki and they encourage you to give them out to people.--Nosxalc 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a shame, I guess there's no pleasing some people. Hey if I notice some outstanding wiki work from you and I awarded you then you'd accept it wouldn't you?--Nosxalc 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a good attitude to take, I'll look out for some outstanding wiki work in future.--Nosxalc 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Nova Scotia
Re: the banner - fair enough. My concern was with a seemingly random deletion by a relatively low-contribution IP, apparently without discussion with the project team. Certainly not a big deal, though. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Signature
I hadn't realised - thanks for pointing it out. Pufnstuf 23:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Las Vegas
You closed the RfD discussion but left the template in the redirect. Today, another user moved the template within the article and redirection is now broken. Could you remove the template now that the discussion is closed? Vegaswikian 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
User Rambutan
User:Rambutan is giving me a hard time, he is trying to antagonise me deliberately causing a feud between us. He is being petty about things such as spell corrections i made to his previous comments. As you yourself are an experienced Wikipedian, I was just needing some advice on how to deal with these situations. He is being very persistant. I tried warning him yet he ignored it.--Nosxalc 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I can understand where I have gone wrong in this situation and have learned from that, but isn't there any policy in Wikipedia to not be a jerk because it's frustrating. I suppose it comes down to civility, right? Hey thanks man.--Nosxalc 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:ACC
Thanks..I didnt know what to do(JJonathan) because he was a banned user..--Cometstyles 20:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Untitled
Hello, please read my talk page, i have someone harassing me and giving me warnings for trying to fix my own talk page! I tried to archive my page and now this jerk keeps reverting it and telling me he's going to ban me wtf??? [1] He already undid your revision and is giving me warnings for trying to fix my talk page, now this is just BS CINEGroup 04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
he blanked it again! CINEGroup 04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If you read the edit summaries, you would see that the editor after me moved discussions from the array of talk pages, rather than me blanking anything. Please be more careful before you accuse people on here! Also, I don't want to get into an argument with you, esp. on someone else's talk page!
Chrisch 04:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Albus Dumbledore external linking
Hi John,
I did not want to SPAM wikipedia nor increase any sites' ranking. I read the article on Albus Dumbledore and knew of a page which had similar information, so that particular link was added. So that if the reader of the Wikipedia page wanted to cross check some more information, he/she could look up an alternate resource. I think it made sense. Kindly revert back if you find my reason invalid. Regards. Jib intelli 12:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the jerk. Do you have any particular comment to make, or was it just a general bout of abusiveness due to a full moon?--Rambutan (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, would you care to explain exactly in what way I was behaving like a jerk?--Rambutan (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I gathered that you meant that, since the "jerk" message was left there. I meant what I said, which was about "exactly in what way", not "on which user's talkpage". If you don't want/can't be bothered to give me a proper answer, that's fine, but it'd be quite polite to do so - even if I'm an antisocial jerk, I don't think you could honestly say that I'm rude.--Rambutan (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can you suggest a more polite way that I could have informed Nosoxalc or whatever he's called that an argument requires two people, and that he passed up several oppurtunites to withdraw quietly?--Rambutan (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Like what, for example?--Rambutan (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but if you're going to make unpleasant remarks you should at least be willing to defend them and offer remedial advice.--Rambutan (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise for getting you involved in this dispute John. I had only asked for your advice, unfortunately User:Rambutan would let the arguement rest.
Thanks anyway for your help in this matter.--Nosxalc 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise for getting you involved in this dispute John. I had only asked for your advice, unfortunately User:Rambutan would let the arguement rest.
You don't have to offer advice, I just pointed out that it would be polite and proper to.--Rambutan (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, just as long as you're aware that you may be violating WP:CIV and - arguably - WP:NPA, since you made a rude comment and refused to back it up.--Rambutan (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
jordanguenette
stop what —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordanguenette (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
sorry bout that twas an axident
Val Ross
Hi John, you've just deleted this article that I had only just added a hangon tag to. I was part way through explaining myself when it had been deleted. It tagged for deletion 1 minute after creation. I added hangon 3 minutes later. It was deleted 2 minutes after that. The article was created by a new user who may have been contributing incrementally. I can't help feeling they could have been treated with a little more patience. Thanks, Mallanox 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article was Val Ross and I did sign with four tildes. Mallanox 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- John, Mallanox's signature is perfectly fine. FYI, Mallanox was just promoted to admin two days ago. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Disruptive in what way? You're using this word, and I see no justification for it. Anyway, you can tell that there is a difference in background color from the text and Mallanox's signature. Also, why would someone say "Thanks," and then write "Mallanox" of all things, if it wasn't his signature. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, from what Mallanox tells me, it appears it's only "disruptive" to you. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase. You are the only one to vocalize your belief that his signature is "disruptive". Anyway, I only picked up the matter because of the way you were using the word "disruptive". From what I have seen on Wikipedia, that word connotes something very negative--something you wouldn't associate with a confusing signature. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, from what Mallanox tells me, it appears it's only "disruptive" to you. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Disruptive in what way? You're using this word, and I see no justification for it. Anyway, you can tell that there is a difference in background color from the text and Mallanox's signature. Also, why would someone say "Thanks," and then write "Mallanox" of all things, if it wasn't his signature. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- John, Mallanox's signature is perfectly fine. FYI, Mallanox was just promoted to admin two days ago. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you aren't aware, a policy was recently implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding access to nonpublic data (see [3]) Please note if you do not comply with these rules you should remove yourself from OTRS volunteering where your name is listed. Otherwise, please ignore this message :) Kind regards, Majorly (hot!) 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I’m writing to encourage you to take a second look at your decision to delete List of Philippine Presidents by longevity. In the deletion discussion nearly all editors who commented after the relevant precedent was brought up determined that the arguments in favor of deleting this article were insufficient to justify deleting the article. No editor cited any policy that the article violates. Since the article violates no policy, there is no reason to reverse existing precedents. You may have overlooked a dominant “keep” argument supported by several editors: this article should be kept to avoid bias. Avoiding bias is a legitimate reason to keep an article.
Please reconsider your decision to disregard the consensus that consistency and precedent should be considered. According to WP:CCC, although consensus can change if there are good reasons for doing so, “This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent” - in other words, Wikipedia does not ignore precedent. Precedent can be overturned if there is a good reason, but precedent should never be ignored. Moreover, disregarding inconsistency is unencyclopedic. An encyclopedia is internally consistent: an encyclopedia does not contradict itself and treats similar topics in similar ways. An encyclopedia does not discriminate between countries unless there is a principled reason for treating them differently. Therefore, ignoring precedents from other deletion debates is unencyclopedic.
You brought up a few reasons for deletion, so I will briefly address them here. There was no consensus that the article was redundant. A likely reason that no editor said the article was redundant was that no other article includes the longevity of the Philippine Presidents. As several editors observed, the article is not now redundant but would become redundant (and thus should be deleted) if longevity were added to the List of Philippine Presidents.
I’m not sure what basis there would be for a consensus that the article was unencyclopedic; I've been unable to find that argument in the deletion debate. Since I'm not sure why the article would be unencyclopedic, I can only say that every person who argued for keeping the article thought that it was appropriate for an encyclopedia. Every editor who argued in favor of keeping List of Austrian Chancellors by Longevity thinks that articles such as this are “encyclopedic.” Every editor who argued in favor of keeping List of Austrian Presidents by longevity thinks that articles such as this are “encyclopedic.” Every editor who argued in favor of keeping List of Canadian Prime Ministers by longevity thinks that articles such as this are “encyclopedic.” Every editor who argued in favor of keeping List of German Chancellors by longevity thinks that articles such as this are “encyclopedic.” Every editor who argued in favor of keeping List of United States Presidents by longevity thinks that articles such as this are “encyclopedic.” Every editor who argued in favor of keeping List of Japanese Prime Ministers by longevity thinks that articles such as this are “encyclopedic.” This is part of the reason for considering precedent: referencing a precedent is a short way of saying “every reason given for keeping that nearly-identical article should also be considered as a reason for keeping this article as well, even though the editors who commented in that deletion debate do not happen to have stumbled upon this deletion debate.”
Although reasonable people can disagree about whether this article belongs in an encyclopedia, I hope that after further reflection you will conclude that there is no consensus on whether the article meets the requirements for deletion. -Fagles 19:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was trying to follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Deletion review: "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." I've now asked for a deletion review of List of Philippine Presidents by longevity. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Fagles 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Alternative theory RFD
John, I do not have a problem with you decision on this RFD. Radiant's suggestion was a good one. I wish I had thought of it and just changed it vs. nominating it. However, I do have a concern with your closing statement. You marked it as a keep. A keep implies that you closed it unchanged. In fact, it was closed as a re-target. While it's probably not a significant enough thing to bother changing this close, you may wish to note that for future closing. It would reduce confusion / misunderstandings. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't see at the top of the page where its says "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it." At any rate, I've reverted your edit. John Reaves (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, sorry, I must be getting tired. I did look, but didn't see it. Thanks for reverting. JoshHolloway 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Objection
I object to your speedy close of what I added regarding User:Ihcoyc at WP:RFCN.
Upon what grounds is it nonsense? Upon what grounds is it WP:POINT? I insist my renomination was made in good faith. Please explain what I've misunderstood. "Ihcoyc" is Greek for "Jesus", there's no two ways about it. Reswobslc 08:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Re-read the policy, there's nothing that states User:Jesus isn't allowed, the rules in there to stop names like User:Jesus is a cock, that people would be offended by. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- You'll have to point me exactly where. I read: "Offensive usernames include those that refer or allude to... The names of religions or religious figures;". That, to me, means you can't have the name of a religious figure as your username, and it seems pretty clear - English is my native language. It does not say "the names of religions or religious figures, used in conjunction with other profane or demeaning statements". I don't have a WP:POINT to make, and I'm not attempting to be disruptive, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and that's the end of it. But you can't tell me that's not what it says, because it does. Reswobslc 08:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't have thought you were making a point, it's just tension is raised at the minute, so as someone semi-involved, I appologise that you've been caught in the cross fire. Religious usernames have been discussed at WT:RFCN and WT:U, everytime with the conclusion that a religious username must be provocative to disallow it, a single name of a god, is also often too generic for it to be considered it's only meaning. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reviewing the archives, I gather that's true for names that invoke the name of a religious figure. But I will have to say it is quite unanimous that usernames that ARE the name of a religious figure should be disallowed - please show me even a single diff of someone even arguing otherwise. I couldn't find one - granted the archives are big, but I found plenty of comments agreeing that User:Jesus is definitely bad (it wouldn't be red if it weren't!) Reswobslc 09:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
OTRS volunteer
they're looking for people who are "courteous, skilled at resolving disputes, friendly even in the face of hostility, sensitive to the needs of those outside Wikipedia, and have extraordinary discretion". It can be seen from your on-wiki work, you've shown few if any signs of these qualities, and surely you're well suited for the job? Arfan 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Shutting Down Account.
Excuse me John but what do you mean by "right to vanish"? (Kaisanxara2580 04:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC))
IP Address we were talking about on HELPME tag!
Hi again
The IP is 213.166.17.22
See if you can work your magic!
Andy
P.S I was talking to 'Clown Eat Me', the original Admin blocker, but he said I should get the netman to talk to him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leach139 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks
I appreciate your taking the time to clean up the vandalism on my talk page. Thanks. :-) The person in question has been harassing me & other editors of Microsoft Windows articles for months. -/- Warren 21:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Blimy!
Wow, that is intresting!
I will have to re-educate the school, and talk to you at a later date.
Thanks!
P.S Is the block Indefinte, or if not, how long for?
Images
It appears your salting of two windows-related images (Wikipedia:Protected titles/May 2007/List) didn't actually work, since they've been re-uploaded. I'm not sure what's going on but please take a look. >Radiant< 12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering
I reverted a comment User:Henry Gage left on his my talk page not long after finding out you'd blocked both of the accounts associated with him. Just so I know--role accounts are not considered part of the community, so can their edits be reverted on sight? I had a hunch this was the case, since it appears shared accounts are not considered part of the community, and to my mind there is no difference between a role account and a shared account.Blueboy96 19:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Meant to say my talk page ... happens when you work nights.Blueboy96 20:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
ANI
I would like the help of an admin. My edits are being moved out of order of discussion (SEE User Purgatory Fubar at ANI).It would not be appropriate for me to tell this annon to stop or take it to AIV. Thank you. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
RE:IRC
No, I didn't need help. But can I ask help there instead of using {{helpme}} all the time? Thanks! Wikiman53 t a 22:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
NYScholar
Hi John, just a courtesy note that I unblocked this fellow following further developments that Alison listed at ANI. Thanks -- Samir 07:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You've blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Wptfe but they look like a sensible contributor. They've asked for a rename (which I obviously can't do) but could explain why you've blocked them? Thanks. Secretlondon 10:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Soft blocking TOR proxies
Please don't undo hard blocks of TOR proxies. Edits from proxies are forbidden, period. It's quite clear in the Wikipedia:No open proxies policy. When I hard block a proxy, I do so for a reason. The people who deleted the Main page today were using soft-blocked TOR proxies, as soft blocks are worse than useless. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's O.K. Apparently a number of admins have been misinformed about this. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad taste
Since when is communicating with your friends "spamming"? Tony is one of the best contributers of content on this site, and is always unfailingly polite. He goes out of his way to validate people's contributions here.
And since when is it ok to attack someone for being a victim? Guettarda 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean it literally..."victim blaming" was what I was thinking. Guettarda 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Everything is now O.K.
We are O.K.
John, Your comments did bother me at first, but that is now in the past. The overwhelming support that I received made up for the negative and disrespectful attitude displayed by User: Tony Sideway. It never occurred to me that a hacker would waste their time hacking passwords in Wkipedia. I fixed my password and gained my admin powers back. Don't worry, as far as I'm concerned you and I are in good terms. Tony the Marine 22:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
PGP Example
To help with what I'm explaining to you:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is a test message, signed by Autocracy from wikipedia -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQVOFMvjE+YRiFeMRArbuAJ920VqKPu0WTnStPIWJCYm6UcUMKQCeP9zT jLOEpQ/KghDfOE46wbyJZpA= =XAip -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Admin help needed
Hello John, I need sysop help regarding a sort of move vandalism, so I looked who is active atm and clicked on you nick ;-) Please have a look at [4]. Could you move back the MediaWiki related part of Aveesa (nearly all versions) to Template:Latest_stable_release/MediaWiki (needs deletion before), and then keep that fruit juice importer stuff apart? The release information will need an update to 1.10 again after deletion and move, see the latest version of [5]. Thanks a lot in advance --:Bdk: 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
??
Key got stuck?Sandpiper
'may you live in interesting times' Sandpiper 00:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)