User talk:Random832/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Random832. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

Wondering what you can do today? Here are some open tasks:

Fascist manifesto needs to start with a concise definition.
Tian Han needs to be rewritten in coherent English.
Arms trade only contains tidbits of information and some lists.

More can always be found at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and Wikipedia:Cleanup.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 01:12, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(from ip)

Thank you for making this edit; I was going to do it after seeing the thread on m.t.r. --NE2 23:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Habbo Hotel

Do you mind elaborating on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habbo Hotel? You made no assertion on why it is "non-notable". As a new user, I would strongly suggest reading WP:NN. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, you're signature is missing a closing tag ( </small> ) which makes all the following text small. Please fix. Thanks :) --Quiddity 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - should be fixed now. —Random8322007-01-23T20:55:29UT C(01/23 15:55EST) TEST

Your sigature's timestamp

What's the deal with this? It's extremely difficult to read, and I see no practical reason to include your time zone. (It happens to also be my time zone, but UTC is the standard around here.) —David Levy 04:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's mainly so I can remember when I made the comment - though I also dislike that it doesn't translate the timestamp for the reader [which could easily be technically possible, if only there were a parser variable for the reader's selected timezone] and it's a small token protest. I've changed the format, what do you think? —Random8322007-01-25 12:31 UT C (01/25 07:31 EST)

Bob and Tom Show Edits

Hi Random832,

I am not sure that merging these two articles into Bob and Tom in their current state was the best thing to do. Neither of these characters should take up this large an amount of space in this article. You'd have probably been better off leaving a small amount and a pointer to the other article. I'd like to work with you to improve the B&T article. Thanks!

Take care,

Larry Lmcelhiney 07:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an article Recurring characters on The Bob & Tom Show would be best - I took this action mainly because the Kenny Tarmac article got prodded.

Yes, great idea! My concerns with just stuffing the bits into the B&T article are:

More impact on the B&T article than the importance of the characters warrent. (% time on air, etc.)
Self-linking, since they are listed already within the B&T article
A greater probability that they would face continual editing with possible edit wars.
Cancerous growth due to folks putting every remembered quote in the article.
Reducing the significance of the dozens of other "characters" and guests who simply have a single entry.

I think that there are numerous characters, even beyond the ones that you've added so far (good job) that deserve a ::portion of your "newly devised" split.

May I work with you on this?

Thanks for your foresight.

Take care,

Larry

BTW: Reading through your Userboxes gives me the impression that we might be close, physically. Also I see lots of ::"UNIX-related" stuff, but no Linux-related. Are you running a stand-along BSD box or a Mac, possibly?

Lmcelhiney 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I use a Mac, and also used FreeBSD at the time I last updated my userboxes. I assume you're referring to the fact that I'm in Indiana - well, that is, after all, Bob & Tom's home market. --Random832^T 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Got my first Mac in 1984 and have had one since. Long time UNIX user as well, so I love to have the ability to run a shell script to do something that would take forever with the GUI. I live in Indy and I know Dean. Lmcelhiney 22:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

ah. Well, anyway, feel free to edit /The Bob & Tom Show recurring characters. --Random832^T 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

del rev

Copy of a related discussion on User talk:Simply south#del rev

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Assburger Syndrome. Since you originally nominated this article for deletion, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Random8322007-01-25 17:10 UT C (01/25 12:10 EST)

I'd like to note that the pronunciation that this redirect is based on is how I, my parents, and my doctors have always pronounced it, and while obviously we know how to spell it, that doesn't apply to anyone who hears about it secondhand —Random8322007-01-25 17:27 UT C (01/25 12:27 EST)

Thanks for telling me about this. I think this stems over pronounciation. Simply south 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a reason why i am starting to question myself. How it is spelt and pronounced differently in different countries. Simply south 17:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

lol

Sup, /b/. 192.138.214.106 18:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you are a /b/tard. I have nothing against that, but I hope you aren't here to cause trouble. Yanksox 18:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me, or to the IP who left the original comment? —Random8322007-01-25 18:38 UT C (01/25 13:38 EST)

Or are you referring to my use of "/b /" in the discussion? I didn't even make the connection —Random8322007-01-25 18:40 UT C (01/25 13:40 EST)

No, I referring to what I am quickly seeing over the list of your contribs. Most notably the Habbo Hotel. Yanksox 18:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was listed as an example in WP:ABF, #47. I had never heard of Habbo Hotel, at least not enough to care about it, before that point in time. —Random8322007-01-25 18:48 UT C (01/25 13:48 EST)

Incidentally, #47 seems informative; I'll reproduce it here: "This person is insinuating that there were ever raids on Habbo Hotel/Child grooming leads to Child pornography/other standpoint I irrationally defend. They must be an ED spy, so it's best I just write a script to revert everything they do."

Whatever, I go on ED and /b/. It's probably because you're from Indy. Yanksox 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob & Tom

You are correct about the "Man Boobs" album. I have been adding the albums as articles as I've had the time and that was what I'd been listing there. I'll just go ahead and put the recent names up there for now and then wikilinx later as the articles are completed. There are over 40 albums as I recall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmcelhiney (talk • contribs)

I'd think it'd make more sense to just redlink them. —Random832^TC2007/01/22 16:30:31 UTC (11:30 EST)

Yes, I was going to do that, but discovered that many of their title names already exist in WP, so I have been renaming them as I go. I added the titles to the Cat at the bottom as well.

Lmcelhiney 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use / free speech

Did you see my response on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_24#Template:User_against_Fair_Use? It seems pretty hypocritical to contribute to a "free as in free speech" encyclopedia, while simultaneously campaigning against fair use, whose sole purpose is to protect free speech. Just makes no sense to me. — Omegatron 02:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that fair use is seen as "not free enough". This is present to some degree in policy; look at WP:FU and WP:FUC - it's not as extreme, but the point is that there are already significant restrictions in policy on posting fair use images, and the idea behind that userbox is, as I understand it, just one step further. —Random8322007-01-27 03:09 UT C (01/26 22:09 EST)

In other words, it's not a protest against the legal doctrine of fair use, it's a protest against the use of "fair use" images on wikipedia since their presence makes the encyclopedia less free in a very real way, by prohibiting commercial usage, usage in certain contexts, etc. —Random8322007-01-27 03:12 UT C (01/26 22:12 EST)

I understand that it's a protest against the fair use of copyrighted works in the Wikipedia, but I still think it's a very misguided notion. Including fair use content in our encyclopedia doesn't prohibit commercial or other downstream use in any way. The free content is still perfectly free. The only way it could harm the overall freeness of the project is if it displaced free content, like if our fair use of a copyrighted image prevented a free one from being uploaded. But that's it. And there are other ways to encourage free replacement besides deleting everything. When no free equivalent exists, it's our responsibility to include the non-free content anyway, to make sure our encyclopedia is comprehensive and to benefit as many people as we can. — Omegatron 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think inclusion of non-free content hurts the overall freeness of the project? —Random832(t c) 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Notags.png

Nice! >Radiant< 16:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

SNOW

Hi there. I was just making my way across Wikipedia and stumbled into the tempest over at Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause. From what I gather, you're one of the principle parties involved in the discussion/debate/dispute/whatever. As a neutral party who is new to the discussion, I'm wondering if perhaps I can offer an outsider's take. To that end, would you care to tell me your take on things? If you'd rather not, I understand. I just figure a fresh perspective might help. Regards. —DragonHawk (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I joined it late myself, to be honest. Go ahead and offer your take though —Random832(t c) 02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

[1] would appear to violate our policy on civility. Please try to express yourself in a more civil manner in the future. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. However, my point still stands. "Even the impression is something to avoid"? --Random832(t c) 14:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. It may not have been intended as an attack page, but it certainly looks like one. I just caught your note on my talk page - again, I'm having an issue with your tone, given the edit summary - and I salted it because it had been re-created a few times. Any admin can undo it, and I would undo it myself if it appeared that there was a consensus of established users that I should do so. For now, I'll let the DRV take its course. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Given the edit summary"? My edit summaries on talk pages [and other discussions] are mostly meaningless; what was in the edit summary you're referring to? I typically use "meh", "pfft", or "asdasd" as a placeholder. And, well... you didn't need a consensus of established users to delete it in the first place, and judging from the general direction of this discussion (which, as I read it, is for deleting everything nominated BUT Assburger's syndrome) you wouldn't have gotten one. One thing that's not clear to me is - how does a redirect hurt anyone? It is a plausible misspelling, and the fact that it's offensive is almost completely cancelled out by the fact that it's virtually invisible to anyone who doesn't go looking for it. And, I know it's not really relevant, but I have Asperger syndrome and I'm not offended. --Random832(t c) 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S., "certainly looks like one"? Let's read CSD G10: "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity". The fact that it serves another purpose, that being to redirect from a reasonable misspelling^*, automatically contradicts that claim. --Random832(t c) 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

*I don't think anyone's saying that a phrase that is pronounced /æsbərɡər/ isn't a plausible mishearing of /æspərɡər/ when the distinction between /p/ and /b/ after a voiceless consonant is virtually nonexistent (if it exists at all, /b/ would be [p] and /p/ would be a very slight [pʰ]. But I'd have to be shown a minimal pair to be even convinced of that.) Even most of the arguments in the DRV about it not being a plausible misspelling are based on (in the face of reliable sources to the contrary) "asperger" being pronounced wildly differently rather than it not being a plausible misspelling of the correct pronunciation of it

I don't find it to be a plausible misspelling at all. Never have. If I had, I wouldn't have speedied it. Asburger? Maybe. Assperger? Silly, but not outrageous. But Ass + burger? Nah. That's a playground insult. Look, all this stuff is open to interpretation, and I have never tried to claim that my word on this was gospel. I think you're making too much of this - if the DRV overturns it, that's great, because it's what the process is there for. Anyway, it seems to me that you're getting worked up in a way that's not productive, given the tone in your last responses, so unless you have a different question, this will be my last answer on this thread. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference there is precisely that it's ass+burger - that it's composed of english word parts. That means, when someone starts from having NO idea how to spell /æs(p?|b?)ərɡər/, it's the most likely first conclusion. I don't think there's any reason to stop someone from finding what they're looking for when they enter it into the Go box - and THAT is what this is about. No-one's suggesting we rename the Asperger syndrome article. No-one's suggesting we even put the phrase in the text of any article. And, besides, It might not be a likely typo, but not all misspellings come from typos. You don't think the complete and total lack of consensus to delete Assburger's syndrome when it did get a full RFD debate (I imagine that was only because you weren't watching closely enough to come rushing in to speedy it) carries any weight? --Random832(t c) 16:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems I have is that the DRV is heading towards no consensus - which means it stays deleted even though the original deletion was out of process. The status quo should be that it's there already and the debate should be an RFD, not a DRV. --Random832(t c) 16:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that anyone with any common sense would dismiss out of hand any name containing a profanity. The same logic would mean that "Assmann" (no less a german name than Asperger) would be similarly dismissed, and - well, I don't need to rehash the list of improbable names that someone posted. Other than the fact that it is in fact incorrect; to someone who doesn't know a priori that it's incorrect, "assburger" is no less plausible than any of those, and it's derivable from the pronunciation, whereas to someone who doesn't already know it, the name "Asperger" is completely random. --Random832(t c) 16:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ksipmann images

User:Ksipmann's images are of an appropriate license for the commons. He hasn't been around in months. If you think some of them are encyclopedic, please feel free to upload them or mark them with {{move to commons}} and/or suggest it in WP:IfD. I don't know enough about martial arts to decide if they would be useful or not. ~ Bigr Tex 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding to Userboxes

Thanks for fixing my userboxes, I did however notice them earlier, and I planned on getting them fixed sometime, but no, in regards to your comment, I don't mind that you fixed my userboxes. Thanks again, I appreciate it ^_^ --OdinReborn 19:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Offensive?

Well, the point is that they aren't essays. If you look through CAT:E, most pages there are people's opinions on how things should work. Such an opinion is different from a description of how things do work. There are a few people (both here and in articlespace) that do not like certain facts, and try to downplay them by calling them opinions instead. That's the theoretical part. The practical part is that novice users who attempt to learn more about Wikipedia tend to ignore essays (because they don't actually describe how Wikipedia works). So by calling a fact an opinion, we are misinforming our novice users, and that can hardly be a good idea. >Radiant< 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your new userbox

I suggest you increase the size of the font: it's unreadble! Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk) on 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Template help: Wikipedia Project: League of Copyeditors

Hi there! I am a member of the League of Copyeditors. We have a template which we place on the talk pages for articles we've reviewed.

{{WP LoCE}} {{WP:LoCE|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}

As you can see, it is currently substituting the month and year, but this isn't visible on the template. We'd like to automatically generate a month and year and display it in the template, perhaps with text like, "This template was added on: <Month> <Year>". Ideally, we'd then have a bot which would go through and delete old tags.

Can you help us modify this template? I am relatively new to Wiki, so I am sorry if this request is insultingly simple and/or difficult--I just don't know enough to tell, and you appear to be wise in the ways of Wiki. :o) If you have any suggestions for the bot, they would also be very appreciated. Let me know if you would be able to help, and thank you in advance for your time! Galena11 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the substituted template would be ideal. Would you have time to actually build this setup, or can you provide me instructions with how to do so? Galena11 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually edited the template so the date now shows up. It was just that someone forgot to code in the parameter for the template. I also proposed that we start putting the template at the bottom of talk pages in a normal comment (rather than adding to clutter at the top). That might render moot the necessity of a bot. See here for all the gory details. BuddingJournalist 02:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dave Winer

Random, I have a problem because in this article you talk about Dave saying he made RSS popular ,even thought it was made and promoted by a major company, yet on the Ramanathan V. Guha page inventing RSS is basicly a footnote. I don't understand how one man telling people to use it deserves more text in an article than is given to the inventor of the technology. I have given you the name of the technology's inventor and therefor proven that Dave did not invent and does not control RSS. He has nothing more to do with it than you or I do yet you still insist on trying to word the article as if he has some controlling connection to RSS. If the man didn't make RSS he didn't make it. The only reason to associate him with it is to make him sound important enough to have an article.

Blogging: It is clearly known that he didn't invent blogging, yet you still want to tie him to it by using words like pioneered or was one of the first to blog. The blog wiki clearly begins the history section in 1994 while this article says Dave started blogging in 1997. How can you pioneer something or be one of the first if you were not interested in yet for at least 3 YEARS that other people used to actually pioneer blogging and blog? Podcasting: I along with other users have shown you that he did make podcasting, or make anything that was needed to do it.

You can say I vandalized the article ,but even after I and other people have told you that these things are not true you merely change the wording a little bit. Bill Clinton can define he word is ,but the definition is still the same! Quit trying to associate him with things he likes.--(Nirelan/shout) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your help in trying to create a good article about Dave Winer, I realize that much off recent work has been to fend of vandals, but at least know that this user is appreciative of your efforts. Thanks!Tester er 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Meta!

Hello Random832, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!

--Slade ♠ 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

BAITING AND LYING

Once again, you are lying TED. MY POINT IS THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN BLOGGING. YOU show me where I have been blogging. The truth is you are lying once again. This is disgusting, and utterly reprehensible.Jance 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a trick. If I link to where you've been blogging, you'll have me banned for exposing your identity. So you nicely get to falsely accuse me of lying, because you know I'll get in trouble if I refute your false accusation. -- TedFrank 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No it is not a trick. Why don';t you email this person which you can do privately and show him how many times I have blogged? I dare you. You won't because you can't. You are lying. My name was posted as a guest editor on a website that you don't like - and I have not "blogged" there. I posted maybe once or twice, and have not been back since. I did not even know my and my husband's name were there as guest editors until YOU LINKED TO IT HERE ON WIKIPEDIA>

And would you, Random, please explain to me why I have to justify my reason for not wanting my real name linked to on Wikipedia? Can you show me the policy where it is acceptable to demand a showing of how it can harm me? As it turns out, there is valid reason. But I should not have to defend myself on my reasons. At all. IT is outrageous that you or anyoen even asked.Jance 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Random is probably dumbfounded at your claim that your life is at risk for editing on Wikipedia. He's not asking you to justify your anonymity, just your strange claim. -- TedFrank 06:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Then he doesn;'t know much about what can happen.Jance 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So why don't you explain it. If your life's in danger because of your work, wouldn't it be from people you interact with offline in the course of your work, rather than from wikipedia editors? --Random832(t c) 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS STALKING

I should not have to explain my desire or need for privacy. PERIOD. This is a WIkipedia policy, as well. AND THERE IS A REASON FOR IT. My objection was the use of my real name, not a user name. Ted knows that. HE is now attempting to sling whatever mud wherever he can, because he wants me permanently banned,. That someone has not blocked him already for obvious harassment and baseless accusations is incomprehensible. Jance 06:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You also objected to the use of your former username. That is the only point I have had a problem with. --Random832(t c) 13:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fake message boxes

Thank you for your advice that the world's not going to end tomorrow. It comes as a great relief after talking to a friend, who said that we're only one random meteor hit away from that very thing happening. No doubt we will find out later today. However, I didn't say there was a "frenzy", just "a lot of pressure". I would not wish to continue in the former state, but the latter is not unusual, as the admin to user ratio decreases daily. I think it is time to take a wikibreak not when there is "a lot" of pressure, but when there is "too much" pressure. I can assure you that there was a good reason at the time why I did need to access his page (though I don't recall exactly what it was) or I would not have done so. Tyrenius 02:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question...

...on Derek Bell (baseball player), the AP sometimes doesn't credit an individual author with a a byline on a piece of work. In those situations, it's appropriate to simply cite the syndicate itself (adding an "unknown author" note if you want to do so). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Team effort

In the spirit of reducing the amount of Wikipolicies and obviating confusion (see WP:LAP), drafts are in progress for a unified deletion policy here, and a unified protection policy here. These should really be team efforts, so since you commented on the matter earlier I would like to ask your help. The intent is not to change policy, merely to clarify and remove reduncancy; thus, anything that inadvertently changes the meaning should be fixed. We should be ready to move the drafts over the existing policies soon, but this needs more feedback and consensus, otherwise it'll just get reverted by people who "like the old thing better". Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 13:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Glomps

Hey, what have you been up to? I've been running around sticking things in categories... and you know school and work and such. Shimaspawn 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not much lately, have fixed up some template code, gotten involved in deletion discussions and such --Random832 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's cool. I've posted a few things on AFD myself yesterday. I've been a bit bored lately. Shimaspawn 19:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah,uh...

Hi, remember me,I'm User:Trampton you helped me with my userpage,well,uh, I added something to my userpage list,and I need you to put a picture on a new one, "That I'm male", oh, that reminds, how come on the others, you did not put a picture,I'm just asking, not forcing you to put one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trampton (talk • contribs) 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ban the Guy

Hey fellow user, should we ban User:Batzarro, he has done nothing but vandal, and he has only been blocked over and over, why not come hard on him?Trampton 09:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

EMERGENCY!!!!!

I was putting up some more to my infobox and it got messed up, sorry I am NOT good at building infoboxes or userpages.Trampton 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Your query at Musical Linguist's page

Musical Linguist is working on a paper at the moment, and is unlikely to reply to your query, but I can answer it for you.

She goes by a lot more than just IP addresses when identifying Amorrow, although of course she includes these in her analysis too. From what I know, Amorrow uses dynamic IPs, usually from a cafe that he does his stalking from. Generally, if an IP is thought to be possibly Amorrow, an admin would click on the contributions to see what else the IP had edited around the same time. He has a group of favourite articles, quite often about women that he stalks. His talk page posts can be easily recognized, and sometimes he is involved in a discussion in a particular thread, and goes back to edit his post from a different, but very similar IP.

Some of his edits have been deleted from page histories, and can only be seen by administrators. Musical Linguist, as an administrator, would have access to deleted edits. Sometimes he makes reference in a post or in an edit summary to something that he has written in one of the threatening e-mails he sends to administrators.

In the edit which you referred to, the IP's other contributions showed that he had modified a talk page post he had made earlier from a similar IP, and that IP was very clearly Amorrow, not just from the style of his post, but from other harassing edits made to someone else that he had been harassing.

I know Musical Linguist as an admin that doesn't block or revert unless she has very good reason for thinking it's Morrow, and that doesn't block an IP that last edited several hours before, as he hops from one to another. Admins aren't ever supposed to indef block IPs, unless they're open proxies. Someone else could use the same IP, which is why admins (ML being no exception) look carefully at the timing of the edits, and the choice of pages, and the tone of the talk page posts, before deciding to block.

Hope that helps. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Please do not remove entire sections of an article, especially when sourced by publications like the New York Times. If you wish to discuss such changes, please do so on the talk page. Thanks. Jokestress 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Onlinesource

Random832, oof, I left IRC without telling you that I will get {{onlinesource}} optimized. How it is now does work, however. See you around! Gracenotes ^T § 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT on the honesty essay

Howdy! I posted a comment at the honesty essay talk page about your edit, could you take a stab at it? If I'm plumb crazy, then that text you removed should be gone, but I want to make sure that it wasn't pulled because I was clumsy with the thing I was trying to express. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your RFD nomination of WP:POINT

Do not make bad-faith deletion nominations because of disputes you've been in. This is strongly frowned upon and can lead to the deletion debates being closed early as speedy keeps, and can lead to you being blocked for disruption. --Core desat 22:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't reopen closed deletion debates that you don't agree with without a deletion review, especially if you're not an administrator. This is also disruption and may result in a block if it continues. --Core desat 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would categorise Coredesat's close as being per WP:CSK not WP:SNOW. I think you should take it to DRV if you object rather than reverting. WjBscribe 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I was invoking the first criterion of WP:CSK and not WP:SNOW. --Core desat 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The first criterion of CSK reproduced here for reference:

No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves.

Fail. --Random832 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Without a withdrawal, "no-one other than the nominator votes delete" is WP:SNOW. Please reopen per the recent arbcom finding. --Random832 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Meant to say the second criterion, but I think both apply in some way or form. I'm not discussing this anymore - go to WP:DRV if you still have an issue with the close. --Core desat 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake with those comments at deletion review. Sorry! --sunstar net^talk 00:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please consider that there presently are 21 redirects to "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point":

-- Jreferee 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fascist Wikipedians

I overturned the deletion of this category to list it at UCfD, but since you volunteered to include it in a group nomination with all political user categories I'll give you precedence on it. ~ trialsanderrors 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The nomination is in. I had to decide how to go forward here, that's why it took a few days. --Random832 13:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I saw your last post to the workshop ... I just want to reassure you that I've read a fair number of arbitration cases, and participated in several, and this proposal of banning people from the arbitration pages is definitely not typical of how these things unfold. Please continue to contribute whenever you think you have something to add. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyooooo!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I, Deon555, award Random832 with this Da Vinci Barsntar, for his awesome monobook work. He helped me solve a nice little script issue I was having, fixed the lot, and it works awesomely. Thanks heaps, and keep up the good work! — D e on555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello once again

HI!How do you that to your userbox,that you just scroll down,Thanks Random!Trampton 08:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

A package for you

This user would like to wish you a happy St. Patrick's Day.

Best Regards!

Trampton 23:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template /doc pages

re: these edits and this non-standard thing: Template:Template doc(edit talk links history). FYI... but WP:DPP is somewhat contravened by this latter template and the inline call it makes from what I can see. Was this discussed somewhere that I missed? It's hard enough to Justify additional templates on WP:TSP, that using such pretty frills is contraindicated. If Quarl wants to adapt it so that it's subst'd, and includes DPP boilerplate (with it's proper auto-categorization to Template documentation, fine, but this needs broader consideration as it makes usage incompatible with sister projects at the moment AND adds a lot of bytes inside the template it's supposed to be documenting... which is contrary to the reasoning behind DPP. It's hard enough selling a sub-page there in some cases (Wikiquote, Wikisource, for two examples) despite M:DPP! // FrankB 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

and re: your answer here

I had discovered that on another template and assumed it was the new standard. If it's not, feel free to change it. --Random832 21:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be something 'New' Quarl's (talk here) came up with recently. I've asked him to rewrite and integrate it with the doc page pattern templates. It does have a nice look, in it's way. The 'good name' 'template doc' can be used to subst in the same nice look on the sub-page, vice adding to the pre-expand and expansion template limit sizes both, as it does when applied in the main working template. // FrankB 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy!

Trampton 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}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Trampton 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Username policy/Draft

I would like to move ahead with replacing the older version of the policy with the draft, and have posted notices to reflect that. Since you participated in writing it, please take a look at whether you think the current wording is acceptable. >Radiant< 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)== Wikipedia:Username policy/Draft == I would like to move ahead with replacing the older version of the policy with the draft, and have posted notices to reflect that. Since you participated in writing it, please take a look at whether you think the current wording is acceptable. >Radiant< 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sortkeys

I started a discussion at Template talk:Sortablename, since there seem to be a number of unconnected efforts to create sortkeys for sortable wikitables. ~ trialsanderrors 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego RfAr

I saw the edit summary indicating that the format of the talkpage for the Billy Ego-Sandstein arbitration talkpage wasn't clear. I've tried to clarify things; please double-check that I put your comment in the right place. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks ok. Thanks. --Random832 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I happened across this dispute by chance, but have found it quite interesting. I'm wondering whether it's worth providing input into this...the first thing that came to mind when I read through the history of the whole fiasco was McCarthyism. Does that strike you as a sound analogy? Zakath 20:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Template nts

Hello Random832! I have restored the version of this template as it was before your edit today as the templates using nts seemed to be broken after this edit. They did display all numbers in raw format in the first column leaving the following columns blank. Maybe you can have a look into this. Thank you!--VirtualDelight 10:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I really appreciate your work improving this very nice feature, especially as I don't have the knowledge to do anything useful with templates. Happy editing!--VirtualDelight 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Inkscape question

Have you noticed any problem with 0.45.x not being able to actually use the Measure Path script? It works on another computer with 0.44, but that lacks the options the 0.45 version has. It seems like the Python is not even running...weird. If you've got any ideas, please let me know. If not, sorry for bothering you. -- nae'blis 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't used Inkscape enough to know anything about that. --Random832 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Devil's advocate

Well, you tried. Thanks. You seem to be the only adminitrator that was reasoning through things. Billy Ego 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

HaHa. I just realized you're not an administrator. That explains some things. Thanks again. 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What an amusing comment, on multiple levels. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPILT

I gots just two woids fuh ya: join an' spread-da-woid. Eh, dat's two woids, right? >;-)

PS: I did see the fnord. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Biting

Random, we've had to oversight out 60+ versions because they have personal names for people who are being labeled the shooter based on nothing in particular. A warning needs to hit hard. DS 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Truthiness_dictionary_page.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Truthiness_dictionary_page.jpg. 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. 10:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Forwarded to original uploader, mine was just a minor edit

--Random832 22:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

IPA script request

I've responded to your script request at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests#Highlight the character "g" in IPA tags. Let me know what you think, preferably on the request page itself. Mike Dillon 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: click here?

Thanks for fixing that for me. No problem about the edit summary. —Sean Whitton / 09:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Reaction

Arg, had no idea that had exploded; drat. Thanks so much for pointing it out. —Sean Whitton / 12:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I will begin reading the talk page and making responses now. Apologies for not being clear —Sean Whitton / 11:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick message to say thanks very much for fixing my Space Station template - much appreciated! :-) Colds7ream 06:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Roman Numerals

I disagree, Unicode tables should absoutly be part of the article, as in any aritcle with Unicode values for it. I'm especially a fan of the joined ones, such as "Ⅳ". Epson291 12:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What you did is good. Epson291 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: thegodstemplate

Jedi Mind Tricks Pharoahe Monch

Check the discographies on there, one of 'em looks a lot better

Check the tracklistings...

Internal Affairs (album) Violent by Design

Once again, the normal shit looks so damn plain, why do you care anyway?

--PDTantisocial 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The text is different, looks better then the plain ass text used on everything else. And once again, who gives a shit? I use it on a few pages, what does it matter? --PDTantisocial 11:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't belong to me, but if I'm the one makin' em, I'ma make 'em look as good as I want em to. Your comp must be different or somethin', because it looks different to me. --PDTantisocial 05:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)