User talk:Radon210/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Twinkle Help

Hi, I noticed you commented on my convo about my problems i am having with TW, i was wondering how you would change/fix a presistent proxy? I think that that has to be the problem as my monobook is correct, and i am using Firefox (which TW is compatible with), and i am still unable to use TW. Tiptoety 02:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem has been resolved, thank you for your help. Tiptoety 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle revert

Please do not call my edits vandalism. A simple look would have told you that I was cleaning up the portal. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i noticed after and undid the revert sorry for the misunderstanding--AFUSCO 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Daptardar revert

Ditto. Take a look at the Daptardar edit your bot reverted, the original user had copied a large article from elsewhere on WP unformatted into that one. I removed that content because it shouldn't have been there - and said so in my comment. You want to fix it? Bazzargh 01:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a bot--AFUSCO 01:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I misread your edit message - it was that its been misidentified as vandalism by Alaibot. But your revert was still a mistake. Can you fix it. Bazzargh 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

fine if you feel it is not vandalism--AFUSCO 01:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Its absolutely not - the article just looks bad once its done because it isn't very good anyway. It looks like Siddhesh23 thought that too and decided to pad his work out by copying and pasting a monster of an article into his 2 liner. Anyway, thanks Bazzargh 01:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for fixing the vandalism to my user page. 02:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem :)--AFUSCO 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Marlith

You're right. I had already removed the vandal tag from the userpage, but apparently forgot to unblock. I've now unblocked User:Marlith. Thanks, NawlinWiki 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz on television

Please do not undo the changes I made to The Wizard of Oz on television without examining them more carefully; they were not vandalism. I added more information to a footnote, and I cleared away a lot of unnecessary and redundant citation verbiage from one footnote that was automatically generated by the ProQuest Historical Newspaper database system, and which does not conform to Wikipedia citation guides:

Document types: article

Dateline: HOLLYWOOD, March 15 Section: THE LIVING SECTION FOOD STYLE ENTERTAINMENT Publication title: New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Mar 16, 1983. pg. C21, 1 pgs Source type: Historical Newspaper ISSN: 03624331 ProQuest document ID: 119488872 Text Word Count 701

Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=119488872&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientId=55008&RQT=309&VName=HNP (ProQuest-by subscription) Retrieved April 13, 2007

I removed NO narrative text from the article. — Walloon 01:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK please specify in the summary next time--AFUSCO 01:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will, and I recommend that you look at the text before you call something "vandalism" and revert it. — Walloon 01:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And I am still waiting for you to show me the same respect you showed Walloon or show me the chapter and verse where cleaning up an article (ie removing vandalism) and adding a stub is considered vandalism. It has been about two weeks so I guess you are either too proud to say you are sorry/made a mistake or you are still looking for the rules showing me that you have a valid charge of vandalism. And as I said before, and as Walloon seems to be saying as well, if there is no edit summary, don't take a bots word for anything. Compare the pre and post edited version of the article and make up your own mind. Postcard Cathy 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

i am sorry you feel that way--AFUSCO 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Jerry porter

No information connecting Jerry Porter to anything involving cats or kittens was found on google. I removed this information to make Wikipedia more accurate, not as vandalism. To avoid tripping your vandalism-detector again, I put the info in blockquote and qualified it before and after. The best solution is simply to remove the whole thing, however. Please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.195.177 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

ok you can redo it but next time please use the edit summary, this will make it less likely reverted--AFUSCO 20:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my page and I can move it if I want. Also, THE ONLY DAMN REASON I DID MOVE IT WAS BECAUSE SOME A HOLE SPELLED MY F***IN NAME WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please Leave me alone. It is my page and I thought that the move was apropriate. Please do not contact me again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Jungwirth (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism revert

Hi. Its no big deal but would you mind letting the people who actually do the revert, put a warning tag on user pages. I reverted this but you left a warning here. Thanks. - Rjd0060 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry my program said i did the revert if i knew you reverted it i would have let you warn the user:)--AFUSCO 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Asking

Why am i not allowed to blank out my user or talk page. User: Icerainbow--Icerainbow 20:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

you can remove old discussions and are encouraged to archive but unless warnings are moved to an archive they must not be removed--AFUSCO 20:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. You're not supposed to template regular members and they can blank their pages regardless. Egyegy 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Page blanking and/or, in most cases deletion of notices does not apply when a user decided to deleted them from their own talk pages. Thanks. Jeeny 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK--AFUSCO 00:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mowbray Park

I DID NOT vandalise Mowbray Park, I added a potted history of the park several days ago which, until you started a witch hunt against me a few minutes ago, had been left well and truely alone. However, I DID remove it just now , as I intend to remove ALL my contributions to this stupid site. I will NOT, however, remove anything that anyone else has written. Seahamlass 21:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And FYI - I can delete my own page! Seahamlass 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

it is not a witch hunt i revert vandalism on pages and it is not your page once you add it to wikipedia it is an article. That warning was justified--AFUSCO 23:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mowbray Park follow-up

Just to put you in the picture - TWO Wikipedia moderators have backed me, NOT you, over your claim of my alleged vandalism on the Mowbray Park page. I have listed their comments below:

"I agree that you did not vandalize Mowbray Park; I'm not sure why the above user (AFUSCO) interpreted your edits as vandalism, but I don't see it." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And

"I have just had a look at that article and I agree with User:FisherQueen in that I can't see why the edit would be considered to be vandalism either. But that's the nature of Wikipedia - People make mistakes." B1atv 07:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Seahamlass 21:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry for mis understandings--AFUSCO 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

East Lancashire Railway

Please read the edits before classing them as vandalism. As you can see from the history page I have done a lot of work on said page over the last year so 'vandalising' it would be rather unlikely. How can you say such an edit is vandalism? Dave Martin —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it may have been a simple misunderstanding--AFUSCO 00:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries mate, we all make mistakes! Dave Martin —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Angels & Devils

I don't know what the problem was, I was trying to make a minor edit and half the page disappeared. I'm not a vandal, look at my history. I honestly don't know what the problem was, I was trying to fix the fact that half the page was gone when I started receiving messages claiming that I was vandalizing the page. Darwin's Bulldog 00:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you based on your history but i have to admit your story sounds very peculiar--AFUSCO 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the edit I made. I was fixing some minor things. I've been a big contributor to that page, why would I vandalize it? Darwin's Bulldog 00:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I know when i said it was strange i meant that it is strange that it happened considering you have no good reason to vandalize it--AFUSCO 00:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing your statement up for me, I appreciate it. Darwin's Bulldog 00:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(:

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Anytime:):):):)--AFUSCO 00:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

TWINKLE warn tab

So, do you know what I have to do to get my warn tab back? (You were talking about it on AzaToth's talk page) Thanks! —Signed by KoЯnfan71 ^{My Talk} _{Sign Here!} 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have twinkle installed change importScript('User:Azatoth/twinkle.js'); to importScript('User:AFUSCO/twinkle.js'); which includes the twinkle warn from before the edit that made the tab disappear--AFUSCO 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

not vandalism

Hey, you just reverted a change I was making the Legal working age page on grounds of vandalism. It's not vandalism when one:

• Consolidates information from one section to more relevant sections.
• Adds a section for references, and moves the sole reference on the page to that section.

I'm sure this is just a misunderstanding, and an apology would be appreciated. 68.238.158.226 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to assume good faith on your edit and i am sorry for the misunderstanding--AFUSCO 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. To help avoid future misunderstandings, I've gone ahead and created an account (finally). So thanks for providing the impetus to do that. :) Captain Smartass 16:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to get AfD's deleted the discussions are still in progress. That is vandalism. Get it or leave. --Mellespor 01:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The AFD is vandalism based on content, also if it should be deleted so should Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, and Kevin Youkilis. Understand?--AFUSCO 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

NO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellespor (talk • contribs) 01:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Joy!

Marlith ^T/C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith ^T/C 02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection requests for user warning templates.

I don't think you want them unprotected. I think you want them to remain protected, but redirecting to the new {{uw-*}} templates. I could be wrong, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, i do the templates that they redirect to might need to be protected--AFUSCO 18:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, shouldn't {{test2a}} have gone to {{uw-delete2}} rather than to {{uw-test2}}? It was a warning about section blankings. By the way, I'm not sure if the redirection has consensus, there was something that sounded like opposition on its talkpage not so long ago. People were concerned about the new ones not having the same flexibility about arguments or something. (No opinion from me, just saying.)

Another thing, I will probably want to make the same content correction to the {{uw-delete}} series that I did to {{test2a}} recently. No template ought to say: "don't remove content from Wikipedia". They all ought to say: "don't gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia". Old pet peeve of mine. The blanking warnings are all too often misused by POV-pushers trying to discourage other editors from making good-faith cleanup edits involving legitimate removal of content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know, i am just following Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview--AFUSCO 18:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That page outlines a proposed setup (some of which has been rejected by the community). In the future, please follow consensus (or the lack thereof) instead. Thanks! —David Levy 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just before you posted here i posted on your talk page, i am awaiting a responce there--AFUSCO 19:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

template reverts

Just a question on reverting the redirect, i understand your reasoning, however both templates send the same message to the user that is warned and Template:TestTemplates says that the proper WP:UTM template should be used instead. You may be correct but i just want an explanation AFUSCO 19:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The instructions to which you refer were written by proponents of the new template setup. There is no consensus that this is preferable to the old one (which many users prefer and wish to continue using). Therefore, whenever it has been proposed to redirect the old templates to the new ones, there has been no consensus for this.

No matter what, the high-risk templates should not be unprotected. Even if they were redirects, they would remain highly used (and vandals could modify them to insert inappropriate content on countless pages). —David Levy 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i agree with keeping the redirects protected but if the template is redirected couldn't any user use the old template to warn a user and just get the text of the new template--AFUSCO 19:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also shouldn't admins protect the new templates too--AFUSCO 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To which new templates are you referring? —David Levy 19:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but some users don't want to get the text of the new templates. They prefer the text (and overall styling) of the old ones. —David Levy 19:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes very true. Old ones were better. These new templates have already caused me to modify my monobook, as well as adjust the level of the templates I use. KOS | talk 19:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not finding a centralized discussion for this, so I'll just throw my hat in here. I also oppose redirecting the old templates to the new templates. I prefer the wording and style of the old templates, and do not wish to use the new ones. - auburnpilot talk 19:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning here and we might want to adjust the WP:UTM templates to be more suiting to the community before i try to redirect them again--AFUSCO 19:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Really consensus should be established before redirecting them. Those templates were protected for a reason. The style and wording is secondary. Those redirects were causing the use of some of the old templates in my monobook to stop working properly. Don't ask me why I don't know, but for example, [1]. KOS | talk 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

One final question, shouldn't some of the WP:UTM templates be protected as high risk templates?--AFUSCO 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

rvv collision

Sorry, indeed I thought I was reverting the vandalism edit which you had probably just reverted. Operator error. - Special-T 22:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We are all human, Please remove the warning if you haven't already--AFUSCO 22:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. At least it's good to know there's some avid patrolling going on.... - Special-T 22:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Primitive Koa-finch article

I think you jumped the gun on the Primitive Koa-finch. From what I saw on that page, the edits made by the annon user were formatting changes, as well as updating information about the animal. If I am wrong, please revert it back. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Thanks for pointing it out--AFUSCO 15:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work patrolling. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel

Twice you have reverted changes I made to Tokio Hotel. All I did was try to improve the flow of the article and remove unconfirmed and conflicting information. Could you please take another look? N. Robert Dow 15:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking quickly, i guess you are right. Next time, please use the edit summary,this makes it easier to tell legitimate edits from vandalism--AFUSCO 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a tip, if you see an edit by a relatively new user that removes and rewords content on an article but is not vandalism, it is generally better to ask the user why he made the change and to use edit summaries or talk page explanations in the future, than to immediately revert and issue a vandalism warning (WP:BITE). Keep up the good work, though :) Melsaran (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I usually would, however there was a lot of recent vandalism around the time of his first edit--AFUSCO 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection requested for Pluto

I didn't semi-protect it. If it weren't the main page FA, the level of vandalism it is currently receiving would definitely have been enough to semiprotect it, but the Main Page FA is such a high profile article the level of vandalism has to be much higher in order to protect it. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

warn

I thought I had been the one to revert it. I guess we tried to at the same time. --Tckma 00:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

understand:):):):):):):):):):)--AFUSCO 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Moosach

It's hard enough to edit through a proxy from China without people declaring editing errors vandalism. Please have a bit more patience. If you examine my editing history, you will find that I have improved articles about many towns and communities in Germany by translations from de:WP. You have a nerve calling any of it vandalism. Kelisi 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I can not see your de contributions on the english wikipedia--AFUSCO 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hidden link mistake

Sorry,I had created the page for a hidden page.I followed the instructions on the user subpage,so shouldn't it work?Coolgirly88 19:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Try creating that page here--AFUSCO 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I accept the nomination. But I will take about a week or two to write up essays. Marlith ^T/C 00:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting! Just remember to change the expiration time to 7 days after you finish--AFUSCO 01:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:OfficeWord.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:OfficeWord.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

I noticed this edit on User:Carnun's talk page. I thought he could do whatever he wanted to his talk page, except violating Wiki policies. I couldn't figure out what you were saying based on the diff. I think Carnun has a question, which I answered. Of course, this user has some other issues in reverting BCE/CE everywhere, but other admins are watching him carefully. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

usually this is correct however he cannot remove warnings--AFUSCO 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I think one can revert warnings, but you might want to explain that to the editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they can only remove them if they are an experienced user so other users know they have been warned--AFUSCO 11:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)