User talk:Scimitar/Archive 007

This archive covers the time period from February 25, 2006 to January 26, 2007.

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg<|thumb|right|250px|Dialogue on this talk page should be at least as respectable as that of the world's greatest reporter.]]

Welcome home

Welcome home. Encephalon 21:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But of course, Scimi. The good leave a gaping hole when they depart, and fill it brightly on their return. ;-) Yes, much has changed. But much remains the same. The French say it well. Encephalon 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!!

Howdy Scimitar,

The rapidity of my reply will give you some indication that I haven't left as much as I've wanted to; I do find, at least, that anonymous editing reduces my heartburn level. In any case, I'm very, very happy to see you return, this being the first positive wiki-sign to cross my sight in quite some time. The 'pedia has suffered during your absence, in no small measure because of your absence. Sanity is a precious quality these days. Best wishes, in admiration, -- Xoloz

Since you're back...

Feel like talking smartly about something that actually important: evaluation and use of sources? The thread is at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Self_reference if you're interested. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 Year Old Girls

Seeing as you voted on the previous AfD, I thought I would alert you to a new AfD on 14 Year Old Girls. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 20:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For many contributions (especially your Administrative work) with limited reward, I present you with this Original Barnstar. Sharkface217 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No valid reference for "removal of Gaza settlers was ethnic cleansing"

I've posted the following at [1] and repeated it here for you to see .....

The article in question, Israel unilateral disengagement plan, does provide a reference to a reputable source, The Guardian, that use this term; and in a pretty much neutral (i.e., non-extremist) way. Therefore the removed piece stays. I suggest the opposing parties to sometimes (re)read the already written, rather than write-write-write. mikka (t) 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. My concern was verifiability, and that's now been satisfied.--Scimitar ^parley 21:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We weren't given a reference for this use by the Guardian, but I presume it's this one: [2]. And (even though it's entitled "Disengagement and ethnic cleansing") it does not attempt to claim that the removal of the settlers is "ethnic cleansing". Actually, it's not very clear what the title refers to, the sub-title reads "Israel's pullout from Gaza is openly justified by demography - in other words, the need to maintain a Jewish majority". This doesn't read to me as "ethnic cleansing of the settlers".

PalestineRemembered 16:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shtalenkov.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shtalenkov.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 freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. --Chowbok ☠ 20:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:1989

I was going to unprotect it a while ago, but I guess it slipped my mind. Anyway, I unprotected now. =) Thanks for reminding me. Nishkid 64 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed Nishkid 64s talk page to yours regarding 1989. I was the one who originally asked for protection of the article. Why do you feel otherwise? Have you seen the amount of reverts we've had to do on that page?

Bkissin 23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: ezrakane

Looks like it needs help... SatuSuro 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like its all over... SatuSuro 02:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use image removed from your user page

Hello, Scimitar. I've removed Image:Jeremy Brett.jpg from your user page, as it is a copyrighted, unlicensed image that is being used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy and Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. This image has not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it with a free alternative. —Bkell (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Auld

Hey. Sorry if you're taken aback by the review/removal already, but I can tell that it needs more work. A peer review would be a great way to figure out what else this article needs. (I think that's what you were really lookign for anyway.) --Wizardman 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Pfeiffer

This article really should be taken the afd route; it doesn't meet speedy criteria. --Scimitar 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My replacement of the db-bio tag was purely procedural and not my personal preference. The creating author deleted it in the process of adding the hangon tag. ju66l3r 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough--Scimitar 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I'm interested in the deletion, it seems. The more I look into the SEO category, I'm finding articles that fail WP:BIO left and right and appear to be largely COI (or friends who established the articles). I think I'll do a bit of defluffing in the category over the next day or two. How did I get hooked into this mess over a simple missing db-bio? Heh. :) ju66l3r 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals-R-Us

Oops, sorry. I reached right for the WP:ANI instead of WP:AIV. I better put that on my list of User:MrDolomite#Things_I_Can.27t_Seem_To_Remember. Thanks! — MrDolomite | Talk 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jrapidfire

If it's possible can you see WP:AN/I regarding this user as soon as possible, since I posted that he has gone in a vandalism rampage, thanks in advance for your help! --Dark Dragon Flame 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New vandalism templates

Hi, first of all I wanted to thank you for you help on vandal patrol :). I don't know if you are aware of it, but starting today, there are new unified user warnings in place. The idea behind this rewamp was, among other things, to add some consistency to their look and wording. Check them out at WP:UTM! You can of course continue to use the old test templates, but please give a shot of our shiny new {{uw-test1}}, {{uw-vandalism1}} and {{uw-delete1}}. The numbering is still 1 to 4. I hope you'll appreciate them! Happy vandal fighting! -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. To be honest I still need some training, but now that I have updated my tools (lupin's RC filter) I am starting to catch up. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User 205.202.195.183

Hi Scimatar,

I just reverted Jurassic Park River Adventure as the above anonymous user had severely and very obviously vandalised it - I'm not sure if the warnings you'd placed had been in response to this or if it is another example of vandalism from that address. I haven't listed him in the list of requests for blocking as to be honest I couldn't find it this time round, will have to book mark it in future. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. Rmkf1982 | Talk 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:67.175.157.96

You have given this IP address a 'final warning'. They returned to vandalize a single page. I have applied a test4 warning. --Mdwyer 04:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User 128.193.182.54

I've made a major change to the Ampache article as the previous version appeared to be an advertisement. The new version describes its history and place in Online PHP Development referencing relevent articles and people of note who worked on it. Unfortunately I forgot to leave a comment to that effect on the page, hence the revert, sorry about that. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.193.182.54 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please resign as an administrator

Firstly resign as an administrator because you are unfit for the task, as your talk page shows. Secondly concentrate on dealing with the ideologically biased editors who plague Wikipedia. You have confirmed my suspicion that Wikipedia is just a playground for ideologues, so I will not waste any further time on this pointless project. Hoylake 19:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Elmoknowswhereyoulive

I'm fine with it. Thanks for the note on my talk page. Gwernol 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:204.108.196.2

Just as a reminder, every page this user got on to he either altered or destroyed. What I recommend is a permanent block of anyone editing who is not registered and logged in. Carajou 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:204.108.196.2)[reply]

A suggestion...Get a hold of the Pheonix School system with the evidence from the pages and the I.P. addy. They can track the addy to a particular computer and who was on it during the times the pages were vandalized. Then the school would handle it from there. Carajou 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:202.75.194.3

This individual just vandalized the following pages on this link within the past thirty minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.75.194.3 Carajou 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a page in which the padlock was removed by an adminstrator because he thought that the attacks have ceased. Unfortunately, the subject is the Bermuda Triangle, and it has been hit at a bare minimum of once a day before that. I warned this administrator that to remove the padlock would be to invite the vandals back in, which is exactly what happened today.

This is not to find fault with that particular adminstrator, but there are just too many people who are working hard to make Wikipedia articles as good as they can make them, and to have others come in and ruin it because they think it's funny shouldn't have to be tolerated. Carajou 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chrislk02 2

You might want to have a second look at Question #4, which was poorly formatted before. ~ trialsanderrors 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for expressing your concerns on my current RFA. I respect your concerns and would gladly address any of them. In all honsety, I did not plan on running for another week or 2. I have had several reccomendations to wait 2 months or so, and 7 weeks isent far from that. The only reason I finally accepted the nomination from Husond was that I have had several editors ask if i wanted to be nominated since the last RFA. the second concern, regarding the persecuted editors, I apolagize that I missed the formatting issue at the top. As now noted on the RFA, the question was asked by a concerned editor, and my answer bolded in with the question making it appear as one statement. I hope this has addressed your concerns, however, I am always open to better myself through constructive criticism, so feel free to drop some by at my user talk page. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to claim that I had been asked before so, here are the times [3], [4] and the most recent [5]. These were all completley unsolicited, and the latter being from a current sysop whom I have alot of respect for. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]