User talk:OwenX/Archive 7

livejournal mindmap

what do you mean by (change to redir. all contents seem like OR.)? I will eat you alive, there will be no more lies www.livejournal.com/users/memeworrywort www.livejournal.com/users/realityvortex 18:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for reverting a vandal on my userpage. --Tone 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Thanks!--1568 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just thought you should know: I deleted Indianapolis and Detroit as well! ;)

Belgrade Vandal

See here User_talk:Naconkantari#Kosovo problem and User_talk:Naconkantari#Kosovo again

Daily vandal

Perhapse I am a daly vandal but the ChrichO clique is permanetly vandalin Kosovo article. I know thate Kosovo article is full of Propaander. But the minimum is the intro must be neutral and this is a UN version.

Why you dont bloc they. They are editing souch mist like me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.208.140.80 (talk • contribs)

The president of souch serbs is in Moskwa now. He has maket his country (1mX2m) in Moskwa. Ther are inof place for souch people witch are liven in the past. And ther capital city is now in Moskwa

Tolkein vandal

Sorry, I think I've been tripping over your toes reverting a vandal adding nonsense to various Tolkein-related articles (Rohan, Balrog, etc.). Hope I didn't make things worse... Cheers, Sam Clark 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually as far as helping goes, if you fancied blocking User:Raptorjesuspwns and User:Iheartrobojesus, whose mess I've also been clearing up, that'd be really welcome... Cheers, Sam Clark 18:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pythagoras Vandalism?

You recently blocked me because you said that I Vandalized a page on Pythagoras. The thing is that I haven't logged into my account for a long time. I haven't even been to that page. The only other explanation is that someone else used my account, which is highly unlikely. Dpoe2251 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpoe2251 (talk • contribs)

The fact that you can edit this page shows that you are not currently blocked. Owen× ☎ 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Forgive my ignorince.

Winnipeg

This is 207.195.51.1, and you have to understand that the Winnipeg Blue Bummers, arent a good team and what I edited and wrote is totaly true - why did you change it then? (e@mail me at signious@hotmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.51.1 (talk • contribs)

Sorry for editing it outside of your rules... did not see your note at the top of the page 207.195.51.1 sig.

Im sorry, but it is not an opinion, it is a fact, and everyone needs to know that that particular team does not even deserve mention in this encyclopedia due to their 'talent' (or lack their of) and is an embarasement to this very ball of elements we call home 69.11.19.72 04:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC) (yes, a different IP - i twas at work)

PS. 1) I didn't know that you were a Canadian... (I sould have changed the arog's site - jj, they actualy have a team) 2) I just want to know where you went to school, I am currently taking mechanical engineering at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. -- I would apreciate a response beucase I don't realy like the school here and will probably to a transfer to another University, and I saw you were an Areospace engineer

Your Mom

A little while ago you semi-protected this page because it is a vandalism magnet. It was recently unprotected and is again recieving almost entirely vandalism edits. Could you please re-semi-protect it? Dgies 16:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Already Annouced Disney Channel Movies Page

Owen X since people keep editing the List of Disney channel movies I have decided that the Disney Channel Original Movies page should from this day forward no longer be a redirect link. Instead it will be a page for all Disney Channel Original Movies that do not go beyond the current year. So the list of Disney channel movies page can be edited by anyone and not have people complaining about fake Disney movies. I hereby decree that the list of Disney channel movies page can be edited by anyone and not have people complain about the page having fake information that has not been officially announced by the people at Disney channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrek976 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid it is not up to you to "decree" anything. All Wikipedia pages are meant to be edited by anyone, whether you like it or not. The Disney Channel Original Movies page is included in its entirety in the List of Disney Channel movies page, so I reverted the former back to a redirect, as it should be. Please do not create "split" or backup versions of articles to preserve your work. That is not how Wikipedia works. Read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for more details. Owen× ☎ 21:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 209.139.106.25

Recently you left a message on this user's page indicating that they would be blocked the next time they vandalized a page. Today they vandalized Vasco Núñez de Balboa. I leave it to you to take any necessary action. Thanks and regards, Rodney Boyd 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

69.205.46.96

Could you keep an eye on User:69.205.46.96? They're up to it again. I've reverted their most recent stuff and warned them. ... aa:talk 18:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Maccabee beer.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Maccabee beer.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rumored Disney Channel Orginal Movies

Just letting you know about this article creation. You seem to be the one on top of the user who created it. Pan Dan 20:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I made it for people who justed wanted to create fake movie names so that they could use that page for rumors instead of making rdits that are fake to the list of disney channel movies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrek976 (talk • contribs)

Selling Short

Why did you delete the link under external links for http://financeandinvestments. blogspot.com/2005/11/selling-stocks-short.html. That link was orignally added because it explains what actually happens when someone sells short. None of the other linked articles explain this information. It is highly relevant and I don't see why that blog post should be considered spam. Did you even look at it before you deleted it? Investor55 22:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I removed the link from Short selling (not Selling Short) was that it was added to the Wikimedia Foundation's list of spam sites, which means the article could not be edited until that link was removed. This was not my decision. If you manage to add the link back into the article, be my guest. Owen× ☎ 22:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I know the guy

Stop saying i'm vandalizing elefuntboy's page. I'm not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.241.127 (talk • contribs)

So you're one of those guys eh?

big man behind a keyboard.

An attack on you by Dyllanisawesome1

You might want to check his talk page, he has attacked you personally.
slippered sleep 01:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't sure you were an admin or not.

Posted a message on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about User:AJCinc, but he's a non-issue now, so... HalfShadow 02:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:144.139.3.77

Might want to put a lock on it. I don't think he's the brightest son'bitch... HalfShadow 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And a longer block, if he's going to be like that. Z388 03:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

fuck you

I don't give a shit, I'll get a new ip and vandalize your talk page more. It's funny. 69.179.113.170 03:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. My talk page is here for your comments. Owen× ☎ 03:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

Owen you made a vandalism comment when I edited this page|this page . I removed a section that was clearly posted by a campaign organizer of a 3rd Party. It was definitely not appropriate for the page. How does that constitute vandalism?Leahcim506 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this anonymous edit. Firstly, my apologies for reverting it. However, please note that massive text removal without any explanation in the Edit Summary field, especially by unregistered editors, is often assumed to be vandalism. In the future, please accompany such edits with a brief explanation in the Edit Summary field to avoid future misunderstandings. Sorry and thanks! Owen× ☎ 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

krio

sorry it was totally an accident, i had clicked edit to copy and paste the basic stuff from the article--the intro and refereances/links to start a translation into spanish and i forgot got ctrl+z and revert what i erased before doing so, i was actually in the process of cutting and pasting my the edit previous to mine to restore my blunder. thanks for doing it for me though! you can check it out [here!]Qrc2006 02:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem! That's why my notice mentioned that this may have been an accident. Happens to all of us! Owen× ☎ 02:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Damn fast block!

Edit, edit, edit, block! You got him before I could even put him on the Administrator's Noticeboard... good job! — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 03:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from 203.122.237.74

This IP address is a school, and as such we really can't help vandals. Feel free to contact me, a responsible admin ;) from THIS ACCOUNT Taylor 23:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalsm from 83.*.*.*

This is a dynamic IP on our Irish ISP eircom.net

There is no point in replying to IP's that are static as it is of no relevence to me.

86.42.66.240 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Vinny

Just gimma one sec to review...

Get back to you in a minute or two (as they'll be some reason Ive articulated badly no doubt) Thanks  Glen  16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I see how it happened but what a muck up on my part. I have unblocked - check his talk page soon if you get a spare mo. Thanks a lot for that mate  Glen  16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

AOL User Issue

Greetings - I saw that you were recently involved in blocking 152.163.100.10 and that user is at it again, deleting an entire section of the Mike Krzyzewski page without an edit summary, and despite the recreation of that section several times. I don't want to hit my own 3RR on the thing, so I was wondering what should be done and how this user might be politely invited to the talk page versus an edit war. Thanks much! DukeEGR93 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR rule does not apply to the reversion of obvious vandalism, so feel free to revert vandals as often as needed. For more decisive action, you can post the details on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where an admin will usually respond within minutes. Owen× ☎ 04:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

accumulated error in binary vs decimal exponents

How about this?

---

But note that this approximation is inaccurate for very large numbers because it "loses" one factor of 2 for every 292. Mathematically, this means that 2²⁹² is actually much closer to 2x10^87.6 while the approximation would have left out a factor of 2 and yielded only 10^87.6.

---

It's convoluted, but I maintain that's because of your original choice of wording, which only makes sense after you understand the math behind it. How is a reader supposed to instinctively know that you mean "every 292" in the exponent of the base 2 power, or that a "[loss] of a factor of 2" reflects the relative result of the conversion with the actual value? There needs to be a direct example.

I agree, both versions are a bit convoluted. However, please keep in mind that in most cases, people want to convert a power of two to a power of ten, not vice versa. Therefore, my "1 in 292" formula is easier to apply than your "1 in 90" (which is actually closer to 1 in 88...). Perhaps a better example in the article would help; I'll welcome your suggestion! Owen× ☎ 16:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I just think that a direct example would be beneficial because you'd have to admit that the phrasing of "1 in 292" is not a clear set of instructions of how to correct for this accumulated error. The example you provided could leave people wondering "Where's the 292 he was just talking about?" and "Where's this lost factor of 2? I see an extra factor of 10!". My proposed example is short, retains your wording, and provides an unambiguous explanation of your wording. I even emphasized that the factor of 2 is "lost" because I used 2x10^87.6 to compare with 10^87.6. Of course this is a minor matter, but the original version just didn't seem proper in an encyclopedia. Also, since I figure you'd have some idea, does it matter that the Large Numbers page is not in formal tone?

Story

Thanks for asking see Talk:Manuel P. Asensio for reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 15:09, 12 November 2006.

sorry

Sorry about all the vandilsim you seem nice you should not be vandilised. Cocoaguy 01:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is sought

Hey. I need help and would greatly appreciate any assistance you might be able to offer, since the scene is becoming incresingly heated. If you get a chance, could you please have a look at User talk:Deror avi#Your opinion is sought? Many thanks. El_C 10:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I'm currently undergoing an Editor review, and am trying to get a large amount of replies. I am sending messages to those who left me a message on my talk page as a way of getting the word out. I encourage you to add your two cents to the review! Thanks for your time, and Happy Thanksgiving! FireSpike Editor Review! 21:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2

For what it's worth, that's one of the most thoughtful,insightful, well-written AfD comments I've read in a long time. --A. B. 23:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

WP Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

• You can join a Task Force.
• You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
• You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
• You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
• You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
• You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
• You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
• You can help reference articles.
• Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
• You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Kingjeff 18:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Little v. bareme

Could you be a little more lenient towards the newbies, please? User:Elipsisdotdotdot blanking an article he himself had just created under the wrong name does not warrant a 3rd-level warning template. Henning Makholm 02:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

At the time, I had reason to believe he is the same user as the 70.153.*.* mass blanking vandal. Seeing now as this is not the case, I left him my sincere apologies. Owen× ☎ 02:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Great Wall of China

I wasn't the one that copy and pasted, I just decided that a history merge is in order rather than have a fork under a wrong title. _dk 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Then since you're an admin, would you please kindly move the page back to Great Wall of China? _dk 02:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Owen× ☎ 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for telling that to me. I was unaware that I had to be logged in to make changes to my page. Keep up the good work.Grayson d. k. 02:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I restored your changes. Owen× ☎ 03:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for your encouraging comments, and I hope I'll still have your support the next time around. Kafziel Talk 13:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfair block

Ive got blocked for six hours by User:Coredesat because other users claim that i changed assessments without assessments without reason, discussion, or consensus. If thats the case then whe we have WP:BOLD then and also it stated in their Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment#Assessment process that 'Current practice is that Stub-Start-B assessments are done by individual editors when looking at an article and that a discussion or concensous is required for further upgrade.

Also, users keep saying their criteria for a start class season article is having every storm and 1990 Pacific hurricane season was marked as a stub even if there was one storm not mentioned. Also the, 1999 Pacific typhoon season was rated as stub even thought there are 20 paragraphs in it. I addressed it on that page but the repsonse was more the same with the;

Once it does, it will probably be B class with a possible FAC run and skip start

Which is incorrect because an article cant skip start class unless its B-Class material from the get go.

If you have any comments related to my message please respond on my talk page, cheers. Storm05 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Storm05, as far as I can tell, you were blocked not for choosing the wrong assessment or categorization. You were blocked for repeatedly setting or changing assessments against community consensus, and despite repeated warnings. Remember that while you may be an expert on tropical storms, Wikipedia works by achieving consensus among editors.

A six-hour block is a very short one; blocks against vandals (one of which you are not!), for example, are usually no less than 24 hours. The admin who blocked you realizes that you were acting in good faith and are genuinely trying to improve those articles. The purpose of the block was not to punish you, but to allow editors some time to figure out the situation, and prompt you to discuss these assessments first with the other editors before rushing to set/change them. Don't be discouraged by this short block; instead, use this as an opportunity to start a discussion among the editors about the reasons behind your assessments. Remember, you can get much more done by building consensus than you will by fighting it. The Wiki system is not always the most efficient one, but it's the only one that can work with such a vast number of volunteer editors.

And a note to User:Chacor: Any editor with a legitimate concern is welcome to seek my help on my Talk page. When in doubt, please let me decide what stays on my Talk page. Owen× ☎ 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List of songs that have been considered among the greatest ever

I've nominated it for deletion again. As a previous participant in the debate I thought you'd be interested. Duggy 1138 08:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

I listed at my sandbox at the WP:RM to move it over the redirect. And a user made a comment here after my posting. The comment over to the discussion page because WP:RM states that users should not discuss moves on the main page. And the comment looks like a move discussion rather than a general comment. He reverted it and accused me of vandalism when i only made a good faith edit [1] and removed the comment that i cut and pasted on to the move discussion page. [2]. I tried talking to him by leaving a note but he reverted it. [3]

If you have any comments plese respond on my talk page. Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storm05 (talk • contribs) 15:50, December 13, 2006 (UTC).

I cannot see how it could be characterised as discussion of the move if I've neither voiced my support or opposition to the move. All I noted is that the moving admin should check the article for possible false info or copyvios before doing the move. – Chacor 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Chacor. The statement a general comment, not a discussion of whether the article in question should be moved or not. --Ajm⁸¹ 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the adminstrator should check the article for possible false info or copyvios before doing the move is considered opposition to the move even if you didnt say the words "i opposed this or that" or "oppose". Storm05 16:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You should never make assumptions. I am not opposing the move. However, given your past record in introducing copyright violations into articles (as documented here), it is necessary to warn the moving admin that they could potentially be moving copyvio into mainspace and be held accountable for it. – Chacor 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all the two are compelelty separate, the Shanshan Aricle was deemed a copyvio because the info i from newspaper reports (which are copyrighted) however the Fabian article is different because much of the info is from the NHC which is (PD). Second, even if your comment is to warn other adminstrators about the article questionablity its still opposing the move. Storm05 16:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Storm05, Chacor: you are both overreacting. Firstly, any comment in response to a requested move can be considered a "discussion", and should be placed at the article's Talk page. However, having the requestor remove the comment himself is bad form. Also, Storm05, when you copy a signed comment to another page, please identify it as a copied comment, and specify the page from which it was copied.

Chacor: removing Storm05's comment from your Talk page using your popup 'Revert' button is rude and uncalled for. If you are not interested in what Storm05 has to say, you are free to ignore it, but your Talk page is there to allow other editors to discuss matters with you. I am not going to undo your revert, but please restore Storm05 comment yourself.

If there is an issue relating to possible copyright violations, please discuss them in a civilized manner on your respective Talk pages or on the article/sandbox Talk page. Removing or moving each other's comments is not a mature way of dealing with this issue. Owen× ☎ 16:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.