User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive2

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Archives	2005 First half, 2006 Second half, 2006 First half, 2007 July - Aug, 2007 Sep - Dec, 2007 Jan - May, 2008 May - Dec, 2008 Jan - May, 2009 June - Dec, 2009 Jan - June, 2010 July 2010 - Dec 2011 First half, 2012 Second half, 2012 2013 2014 Current

Fictional characters

Hi TexasAndroid Thanks for the great effort in cleaing up the category, it is apriciated. However the appreance of Dolph as an animated chracter is only minor, please see the Dolph article talk page entry I made. Because Fox Mulder appaeres in the x-file comic books series, does not make him an animated character. Keep up the good work, it is great. Angelbo 19:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept critisism, and you are right. I will look into rewriting the article intro, in the near future, again thanks for your effort in the wiki. Angelbo 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

While cleaning up the category you removed Laura Ingalls Wilder. Although, I don't necessarily disagree with the removal, the situation is not a simple one. It is widely recognized that the Little House books are historical fiction based on LIW's life. As such, the character Laura is a fictional character based on LIW. The character Laura marries by the end of the series becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder. I can see the argument that this article is about the author and not the character, however, it is a bit difficult to disentangle the two. Dsmdgold 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Gratitude

Thanks for the barnstar! :) --Zereshk 19:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bohemian or Czech? Anachronism?

I see you have changed Gassmann from being Bodemian to being Czech. May I ask your reasoning?

I believe Gassmann spoke German. The Czech Republic did not exist in Gassmann's time.

Kleinzach 15:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I am fairly new here and I am not sure I understand the problem with red categories. If I start a (blue) one for Bohemian composers, I assume that will be OK, right?

Kleinzach 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't worked out how to make the category - so I have just deleted it.

Kleinzach 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your long explanation about categories. Most appreciated.

I still don't completely understand about making a category. I click on the red link and it offers to make a category - but what code do I put in the box? I need to put something, right?

Regarding 'parent categories', do all categories have to be hierarchical?

We have problems with the opera categories in general because they appear to have been made by people who (a) didn't understand opera, and (b) didn't understand Wiki categories. Is it possible to merge or delete categories altogether?

Another thing is that the sub-genres of 'operas' include (plain) 'operas', 'grand operas'. 'comic operas' etc. however I guess 'operas' can't be a sub-category of 'operas'. Regards.

Kleinzach 15:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Very helpful.

This is just an idea, but is it possible to get the system to map out the tree of existing opera categories as a graphic? Has this ever been done? Regards.

Kleinzach 16:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Gisborne Deletion.

Hey,

Thanks for that. I understand where you're coming from actually but I have no idea how to change something from a catagory to an article. So it's fine by me if it gets changed.

CheersOriginalsinner 02:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Criminals

Just wanted to drop you a word of thanks for your efforts to clean up Category:Criminals by nationality, much appreciated, since it affected several of my "own" articles. Just thought I'd let know such things are appreciated as they improve the WP :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 17:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jade Response

Hey TexasAndroid, Tell me how to delete it and I will, unless I have to wait. You're absolutely correct about all three of your points. The one other thing I think you didn't mention was that the page had to be factual. And I guess the reasoning I came out with was it would be fact, just "non-official." No, you haven't driven me away and thanks for the advice. - CaptainJade9

Part 2

Thanks again. No, you're not a nag at all. I need to remember some of these things and stop getting too anxious. Thanks. Also, I knew I shouldn't have deleted the page. I had a feeling I did something wrong and I'm kicking myself for it.

Re:Marine Park Race Attack

One word - whoops! Sorry. ComputerJoe 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Dear TexasAndroid, I would like to invite you to my 1st poll, Best DCOM. Thanks! : ) Tcatron565 9:47 am CST 2/04/06

Thanks

My apologies for messing up those cats - I'm not particularly experienced with Wikipedia, really. But thanks for fixing them up for me. Michael Ralston 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply

You cant slander me without prove. Inanna 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference note for later. Above user was blanking IP user pages and a category that accused the user of sockpuppetry. I started reverting the blankings, and left the user a "test2" warning on their page. The above is their response to those actions. - TexasAndroid 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Tell me, how come you've been here so long, have made so many edits and are not an admin yet? May I nominate you? Yes or no? :-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to sign your acceptance. RFA contributers don't like it if you don't (believe me). --Latinus (talk (el:)) 21:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I've added two questions to your RfA. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to the first one, I just realized I had a wrong word in 2.2, the question has been corrected, and is related to converting Lists to Categories. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused you. Thanks! xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 14:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Feature article-San Antonio Wikipedians

Hello, I'm a features writer with the San Antonio Express-News and I'm working on a story about local Wikipedians, who they are, how long they've contributed, their area(s) of interest, and their thoughts on the recent Wikipedia scandals. Please contact me as soon as possible via email at jtavitas@express-news.net or phone (210) 250-3420. If you're not interested, please do me the courtesy and let me know so I won't pester you further. Kindest regards, Jeanie Tavitas-Williams Features Reporter San Antonio Express-News 210.250.3420 800.555.1551 ext. 3420 jtavitas@express-news.net JT Williams 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

our votes on categories for american sportspeople

somehow our votes on this got wiped out. there no evidence on the history page for the page of vandalism - weird. wanted to let you know so you could recast Mayumashu 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

re:Yugo page protection

I was asked to lift it Thursday, but there is no reason it can't be lifted now and I'll take care of that.--MONGO 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

the yugo page is ruining my TEXAS business. aren't Texans supposed to stick together? there are a lot of untruths on the page like the porsche engine thing. it is like saying bill gates wrote DOS. it just ain't true. i tried to edit the untruths and i was blindsided by someone with bad POV. i can prove eveything i edited. that does not seem to matter though. you can't judge my edits because they were rolled back, and erased. i thought anyone could edit. if someone slandered your business, and would stop, wouldn't talk to your attorney? thank for listening Jay

i don't understand, how do you edit the last paragraph? i ended up editing the one above thanks Jay

• User has been indefinitely banned along with User:Orphan1 for making legal threats against another user. See also:[1]--MONGO 03:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

City of Heroes pages

On my admin vote you made a comment about the two pages needing improvement. Mind letting me know what you had in mind? - TexasAndroid 12:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi TexasAndroied, I don't usually like to criticize, but since you listed them as the articles you are most proud of, I had to say something. Specifically, I would be happy if 1) the articles had more context, 2) they were written in a more encyclopedic tone, and 3) they were less "lists of data".

For example, City of Heroes enemy groups starts: Paragon City, the City of Heroes setting place,and the Rogue Isles, the City of Villains locale, are full of organizations that players must confront. This is confusing, especially to someone like me, who doesn't know what City of Heroes or City of Villains is; and the sentences need copyediting. Consider this representative section:

1.9 The Family

Known Leaders:

* Emil Marcone

The Italian mob. Very stereotypically so

This is not written encyclopedically, requires a lot of copyediting (it's not even written in complete sentences), and is not written from a factual / neutral-point-of-view. Also, since each section is so small, the article may be better without all the sections and instead have a list of bullets or a table. I think part of the article can simply be removed because the information is not encyclopedic -- Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or GameFaqs.com. Cheers —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 12:40Z

Hey TexasAndroid, I was about to write a message to you concerning one of the zones updates but I saw this first. I ,frankly, am quite annoyed about the first comment, not because I wrote it though. This person comments on how he/she does not know what CoH or CoV is. Well, there are two duh factors to that. First, there are links to both main pages and it would be easy to find out that way. Second, the pages we wrote are not meant to explain what these two games are, that is why these pages are more sub articles and main ones. Not trying to be nosey but that angers me, keep writin. -- CaptainJade9

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 09:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 10:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! --Syrthiss 14:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! I am very happy for you. Hope you do well! Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

re tagging for bots

Sorry, I have kbdank71's page watched and figure I can help with at least one of those questions... To tag something for the bot, you need to:

1. create the target category
2. on the source category, usually all I do is change the {{cfr}} template to {{category redirect}} or {{categoryredirect}} with the new category name after the pipe ie {{category redirect|The Importance of Being Properly Categorized}}. User:NekoDaemon (a bot) will notice the tag and copy the files over to the new category...or Kbdank or I will go after it with WP:AWB by hand.

Hope that helps. --Syrthiss 17:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keral Yoavuz

It doesn't really matter, since the article will be deleted anyway, but this "character in written fiction" is actually part of a book the contributor has yet to actually write. I just found the recat amusing, on that basis. But much appreciate the effort of recatting. NickelShoe 20:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Goldenboy Updates

Hey texasAndroid, Out of curiosity, due to my non-policing over the past few days, did this Goldenboy copy and paste the info from the CoH website? That's what I'm assuming, just curious? - CaptainJade9

That woulf be great because I do not know how to check the previous changes and stuff. So yeah, thx. CaptainJade9 PS Check the response I wrote under you CoH Pages topic.

newbie has a question

Could you please tell me what '"Remove "Controversial television shows" debate to unresolved"' means? I couldn't find anything under "wikipedia: unresolved". Is there another page somewhere that contains unresolved issues or defines what that means? I would like to continue to follow the debate, if there is one. I have put your talk page on my watch list so I can catch your answer here. Thank you for helping a newbie. pat8722 14:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Check the main CFD page, near the bottom, just after all the daily votes. There's a section there for unresolved debates. That's where I moved the debate. - TexasAndroid 14:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there a link that explains how something ends up on the "unresolved" list, rather than being "closed with no consensus", and how something gets "off" the "unresolved" list, or from the "unresolved" list to "closed with no consensus"? Are things allowed to remain "unresolved" indefinitely, or are they automatically closed with "no consensus", if none is reached, after a given amount of time, or will I have to monitor the "unresolved" list forever? As the vote on this matter seemed to be about "delete" v. "keep", but the nomination was only for rename, is there a way to close the debate on the deletion until someone actually nominates it for deletion? Thank you.pat8722 15:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In a way, that's what I did. Check out my comment on the debate. I have given the debate an extra seven days as more of a delete vote than a rename vote. As for how it happens, it's mostly a judgement call by the closing admin. The debate had enough delete votes that I could have closed it with a Delete result. In the end, CFD is a debate looking for consensous more tha a strict vote. The nature of the result is changed by the direction of the debate all the time. That's simply how things go on the page. Delete votes on a rename debate really are not out of order. That said, because of your complaint of the change in direction, I decided to give the debate a little more time instead of closing it outright as delete. I also changed the tag on the category itself from CFR to CFD to reflect that this is now more a delete debate than a rename debate. - TexasAndroid 15:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the category was deleted after only TWO more days permitted for discussion, rather the seven you indicated. Should that have happened? Can something be done to permit the full seven days of discussion? It appears to me the premature delete of the category was arbitrary, and the decision to further delete all the articles was made without that even being discussed... pat8722 18:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I received your response at my talk page. I'm just trying to understand how wikipedia works, and I appreciate your patience. When I saw the decision was "empty and delete", I just assumed that meant empty (delete) the category and delete the articles, otherwise the terms seemed redundant. You are right, the articles have not been deleted. I don't want to take anything to deletion review that doesn't warrant it. Was your move to leave open for seven more days, just an advisory kind of thing? Was there no technical problem with his having deleted the category after only two days? You can answer here, as I put this on my watch list. Thank you.pat8722 22:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the descision to leave it open based mostly on your complaint that the category had not been tagged for deletion. It had only been tagged for rename. I figured it did not do much harm to give it more time. But then I tend to not be in a hurry around here generally.

Also, as I've said, it's very common around CFD for debates to go off in different directions from where they started. As for "Empty and Delete", those are actually two separate actions that are part of the process of deleting a category that is not empty. First the articles should be removed from the category, which can be done by anyone, then the category is actually deleted, which is an admin only action. Much of the technical process of finalizing deletes/renames actually require no admin powers. The only parts that actually require the powers are the actual delete, and the fact that Nekodaemon, the CFD bot, only recognizes category redirects from admins (for security reasons). As for the early deletion, it's mostly a matter of one admin coming to a different conclusion than another. In this case, since I've been an admin for such a short period, I totally step out of the way to the larger experience of most other admins.

As for deletion review, This is exactly the type of case it's there for. A debate was closed for delete/not delete, and you disagree with the evaluation that the closing admin made. OTOH, I suspect you will not have a lot of luck there, but it's your choice. At this point, that's really the only chance you would have to revive the category. - TexasAndroid 00:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually non-straightforward category name changes

Hi there, I just lodged a "complaint" about the "nationals by ethnicity" category name changes which unfortunately happened before I was aware of the related discussion and vote. Please take a look at the comment, and feel free to respond, at the Norwegian Canadians category talk page. --Wernher 23:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Category

MarkSweep deleted Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents deletion log. There are worse outcomes: I didn't like standing myself. But could you deal with this? A lot of work on CfD, including yours, has been wasted by this arbitrary and arrogant action. Septentrionalis 02:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:People_shot_by_standing_Vice_Presidents

Hi there. I disagree with your closing of the CFD on Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents, and I've put it up for review at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Any comments you can make on your reasoning, and whether you think my criticisms of that reasoning are valid, would be most helpful. Thanks, SCZenz 06:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I hope you don't take any offense at my bluntness in calling for the review—certainly none was intended. Erring on the side of keep is the right thing to do when closing XfD's the vast majority of the time; occasionally funny things happen, and that's what we have WP:DRV for. -- SCZenz

re: closing deletion discussions

On WP:DRV, you asked "what constitutes reasonable suspicion" that a user might be a sockpuppet and might need investigation. The easy answer is that it's an experience thing. Do enough and you'll start to pick up the clues. But that's not really very helpful when you're starting out so let me see if I can describe some of the more obvious clues that I have learned to look for when closing AFD discussions.

1. If someone on the list tagged them as a new user or sockpuppet, their contribution history definitely gets checked so I can make my own determination.
2. Pretty much any redlinked name gets checked. A few experienced users (including at least one admin) deliberately leave their userpages blank. Most users, however, add something within their first few hundred edits.
3. Anyone whose name I recognize as a regular contributer does not need to be checked.
4. Anyone whose name I do not recognize is likely to be checked. It's a judgment call weighted by factors such as below:
   • Anyone with a complicated inclusion signature (such as fancy formatting or the addition of a link directly to their Talk page) is less likely to be checked.
   • Anyone really "voting" rather than participating in the discussion is more likely to be checked.
   • Anyone whose comment shows that they are unaware of our core policies, traditions or values is more likely to be checked.
   • Anyone making a well-reasoned, insightful comment that is in alignment with our core principles and values is less likely to be checked.

Of course, none of that means that a participant is automatically disenfranchised. If they make a fact-based and well-reasoned argument, I will count it even if the comment was from an anon IP. On the other hand, I will count a silly or irrelevant comment as "ambiguous" even if it's made by an established and long-standing Wikipedian.

I'll add that anytime I have to discount editors to make the decision, I explicitly describe my adjusted vote-count. I don't specifically call out who I counted which way because it just seems to create hostile reactions. But adding the vote-count does make it easier for other admins to validate my assessment. I generally use the format:

The strict vote-count was 8 "keeps" (2 discounted as suspiciously new users), 6 "deletes" (1 discounted as a known troll) and 3 as "too ambiguous to call".

I hope some of that helps. Rossami (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

IP 217.65.149.50

Hi. Forgive me if I'm talking out of turn, but the IP in question has been blocked for one hour..? Surely that's not enough, judging by the history of users vandalising consistantly from this IP..? When Monday comes, these kids will be back in school and may well engage in another spree. --Mal 15:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Texas - I understand more clearly now. As for myself, I'd be on the side of blocking the IP until the school sorted the vandals out. Vandalism repair takes time from editors whose efforts could be best spent improving other aspects of Wikipedia. just my own opinion. :) --Mal 15:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

School IP

Greetings. I saw on the block log that the IP was a school IP, so I agree with the 3 hrs. The shorter block should cancel the longer one, but I'll keep an eye on it just in case. --Fire Star 15:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Email

Hello wikignome,

Question: I have recently received three different confirmations from here for my email, which I have confirmed. It says "Someone, probably you from IP address 195.163.87.228, has registered an account "DanielDemaret" with this e-mail address on Wikipedia."

That may be some wiki-IP or possibly from the email, but it is not the IP on my personal computer. Should I be worried? DanielDemaret 16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I thought wikignome referred to "someone who knows a lot about wiki", but I see that it more refers to someone who works with details. Sorry if I asked the wrong person.DanielDemaret 16:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Korea still spanking China

Just an FYI, China still sucks! The score is 5-0!--69.155.217.116 03:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you the same TexasAndroid that was on 4chan in 2004?

I am just wondering as I remember seeing someone on 4chan with your username in 2004. When you were there, you posted a bunch of sweet hentai pics and doujinshi. If you are the same TexasAndroid, please contact me as soon as possible, if not, thanks anyway. I wish you all the best of luck in the future.

AOL listing

Re: AOL listing, Not a lot can be done about IP shifting AOL vandals. List NOT empty.

What about semi-protecting the pages from anon editors for awhile? This isn't the first day this guy has gone after these pages. Rklawton 21:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See question & links on my Talk page when you have a chance. Rklawton 22:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

The warnings are just a couple templates under the bots page User:Tawkerbot2/test1 and User:Tawkerbot2/test4 - I'm not really sure what to put in there, the content of the warnings has been in a bit of dispute, if you have any suggestions feel free to give me a shout -- Tawker 19:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

CFR-Speedy

I relisted Olympic bronze/silver medalists due to not being tagged cfr-speedy. I know Olympic gold medalists was properly tagged, but since these aren't I figured they should be given the required 48-hour notice; hope you don't mind ;) —akghetto ^talk 07:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also can you please update this protected page?? {{Office}} needs Category:Office Protected to Category:Office protected per CFD/Speedy. I did the move per /Speedy, but since I'm not admin I can't update the protected page that links to the old cat. Thanks! —akghetto ^talk 08:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

lol

I saw that edit summary at cfd. ;) --Syrthiss 16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 fix

I just thought you might like to know that I think we've finally solved the "wrong blamed" bug in Tawkerbot2 - it was a fairly simple change to the IRC RC feed that fixed it and in the last few hours under the new fix I've had no problems. Just thought you might like to know, it was driving me crazy and I'm happy to see it fixed :) -- Tawker 08:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess not, I've unblocked again, since the wretched autoblocker kept reblocking even if the #xxxxx was unblocked, so Tawker himself couldn't edit, but Tawker has disabled the bot for the time being. --pgk^(talk) 17:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 (msg 3)

Apparently I've got the diffs error bug fixed with the IRC feed change but the db lag is still screwing it up, I'll work on setting a filter where it checks the history page if the page wasn't changed within the last 10s or so (when its highly unlikely that another user beat the bot) - maybe thats the best way to do it. Sorry about having to request the pgk unblock, I was trying to port an explaination but that autoblocker was being stupid -- Tawker 18:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Normally I'm on a unique IP but when I'm at places where i'm using a shared ip which is often blocked due to it being a high source of vandalism I route everything via my server which also runs the bot, hence it causes the autoblocker to kick in when the bot gets blocked. No worries about it though. If you're ever on IRC there's a command that will turn off the bot without having to block it, might be a little easier for me :) -- Tawker 21:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

M&H of Ulster?

You have any ideas regarding closing the Category:Mountains and hills of Ulster discussion on the 13th page? I closed everything else on that page, but this one kind of has me stumped. I agree with grutness's comment that if we deleted the Ulster one, then the other three should probably be tossed as well...but I'm taking that to imply he opposes the deletion. As it sits, numerically it is 70% delete...but I feel the keep side has the stronger argument.

I'm sure there will be people annoyed on either side. =D

Any thoughts? --Syrthiss 15:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

The problem appears to be false attributions to edits, not the actual revert themselves. I believe its a problem in the regex in pywikipedia.py. I've attempted to fix it, and am monitoring it, to see if it does this anymore. Its a very tough thing to catch because it happens around 1 in 200 edits. joshbuddy^talk 19:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Joshbuddy beat me to an explaination, he's a lot better at this stuff than I :) -- Tawker 22:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

TotsTV Vandal

I see hes been at it again and blocked again. Will he ever learn? Penrithguy 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Charleston

Just wanted to apologise for the poor positioning of an image in Charleston (dance) - didn't know how to set it up correctly. Thanks for fixing it! Adam Cuerden 20:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Block of user Phillipsbourg

Thank you for your quick attention to this. I admit I have also reverted more than three times, but it was to restore my own talk page. I haven't broken that rule elsewhere; I did not engage in personal attacks; I tried to warn him off politely several times (at least five times) before asking for admin help. I also checked wikipedia policy on removing attacks from one's own talk page before I did the reverts. Thanks again. DMorpheus 23:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawketbot2 and it's warning

First off, you are complaining to a bot. The bot makes automated judgements as to what is, or is not, vandalism.

• No, I am complaining to the creator of the bot. Fix the bot to version 3. I don't do anything wrong to someone elses Wiki pages. If I change something on my own pages it is because I thought it best and it's no faulty bot's business.--Maury

Second, it was this [2] edit that triggered the bot. You deleted the vast majority of the data in a page. This is a very, very, very common action by vandals.

• I started working on that page and another today. It's my page and I later saw that the majority of my work really belonged elsewhere.--Maury

And if your edit was not vandalism, and I'm assuming since it was a page you had created that it was not, then I'm not sure what it was. What would be the point of chopping away so much of the content of the page like that? Assuming

• As stated above, it was my work and I learned later that the majority of it belonged elsewhere.--Maury

Thanks

I was sort of on a 4 hour Wikibreak there, that and didn't have a chance to reply, thanks for doing that, I'm still not sure exactly what he was complaining about, the log just showed a blanking by the book.

As for the double revert same IP thing, I'll take a look and see what can be done -- Tawker 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For managing to beat me to reply to talk messages Tawker 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories

Hi, I edited User:Vote Machine Malfunction, as the sockpuppetry was not just suspected but confirmed. I changed it from

{{sockpuppet|Pro-Lick|Special:Contributions/Vote Machine Malfunction}}

to

{{SockpuppetProven|1=Pro-Lick|evidence=[[WP:RFCU#AbortMe_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_Pro-Lick_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29|a user check]]}},

with the intention of updating the link for the evidence once the WP:RFCU page is archived. When I saved the page, I realized that my edit had removed his name from Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Pro-Lick, which was not my intention. I see it was you who created the category. Is it possible to have the confirmed sockpuppet template and still have the category? If not, feel free to revert me. And by the way, my personal opinion is that Pro-Lick's block should be extended beyond the 48 hours, but I've been involved with him, so I'll respect your decision! He has been very disruptive, and has edit warred, gamed the system, violated consensus, violated WP:POINT, deleted people's comments from his talk page, and generally made a nuisance of himself in a way that no other editors on the abortion page have done, regardless of their POV. AnnH ♫ 20:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And I see that while I was typing this, you had fixed the problem with the category. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 20:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the advice on my talk page. I've responded. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[10:16] <ctawkbot> Block editor User:Pro-Lick blocked by admin User:TexasAndroid "Unblocking to reset block because of continued block evasion" I'm sure you're well aware of this, he's Halliburton Shill/Cry Me a Shill/AbortMe etc....his socks were blocked the other day over the Abortion POV pushing/3rr vio. See AIV history, or RFCU, its in two different spots there. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know if you knew or not, I was just letting you know about the Checkuser result. I wasn't questioning your block, just pointing out to you that those were his socks. Sorry you were confused. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

SProtect on Abortion

I'm not sure that Pro-lick's changes constitute vandalism. They're part of an ongoing content dispute, yes, but that's not the same thing. My concern is that an sprotect amounts to a tacit endorsement of one side of the content dispute. Alienus 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

Please email me for access to the Tawkerbot2 logs if you want to see whats happening. Often, it warns vandals without actually doing the revert. It doesn't know if it got the edit or not. It would not be difficult to add in a checker to see if if made the edit or not. Do you think this would be a good idea? joshbuddy^talk 22:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction

I am at a different location, and therefore can edit. I'll let you know my other locations IP tomorrow when I use it again. Thanks

question: do you get paid to do any of this? you respond rather quickly.

Tawkerbot2 / redirects

I've never heard of that one either, to the list it shall go. Do we have a list of other correct redirect syntax so we can get em all with one shot? As a side note have you seen user:Tawkerbot2/FAQ, thats the well, FAQ guide for the bot :) -- Tawker 14:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the slack...

...at CFD again. I got busy at work these past two days. :/ --Syrthiss 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I going to have to look at Tawkerbot2 auto issuing barnstars to you for your great work

It's simply amazing what you're doing keeping track of the bots talk page and replying when I take short little wikibreaks and don't have a chance to respond :) Many many thanks -- Tawker 21:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Steven Seagal on CFD

Please reevaluate your closing of this CFD; it was 4-to-2 in favor of deletion, and one of the 2 keeps was a "weak keep." I do not believe this was a "no consensus" result. Postdlf 21:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Can you tell the user Miskin and NikX to stop erasing other's line just because they disagree, [3], [4], and also to stop making personal attacks on others. Many thanks in advance! Awaits to hear from you!

Best regards,

Albanau 13:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

... by the way I dislike if a user call me racist.... This racial attack came out of the blue. (comment by Miskin in talk page Arvanites, section "Extreme Greek ´Nationalist Propaganda") --Albanau 13:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that Albanau is permabanned from the Swedish Wikipedia for trolling - see sv:Wikipedia:Blockeringsomröstning om Albanau. Miskin did not call you a racist, he explained why he renamed your inflammatory section heading: he considered it a racial attack (regardless if that's how you intended it). --NikX 13:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

hmm... I wonder what this is "rv trolling, personal attacks against Greek users" [5]... I was banned for six month from the Swedish Wikipedia because of a dispute between me and two other admins.... and not from trolling... and stop calling me a troll, thats a personal attack... and also stop implying that I'm a racist... cause that was not even an "attack against Greek user", it was "criticism against extreme Greek nationalist"! Typically how rabit nationalist use personal attacks, and destroy a good topic, as this. --Albanau 14:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "rabit" nationalists are capable of doing that. Not to mention that calling people nationalists is a personal attack.

BTW, Albanau is a sockpuppet of User:L'Houngan. Apart from the overwhelming evidence on the Swedish Wikipedia, there is also the fact that L'Houngan uploads an imaginary flag [6] and Albanau defends it to the limit of the 3RR [7]. --NikX 14:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please guys. If you have to argue, choose someplace else beside my talk page to do it.

In general, you have the wrong admin for this. I mostly deal with categories and vandalism fighting. I normally try to stay far, far away from edit warring because I know I'm no sage judge of such things. I also generally don't have the emotional energy needed to dive into the middle of intense fights like this. It's one thing to revert someone sticking the word Penis all over a page, and issue blocks to them if it continues. It's quite another to sort through a morass of who's right and who's wrong in a complex situation and try to come to a fair and just evaluation and remedy. I'm just not the right person for the latter. - TexasAndroid 14:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

DMorpheus

1500 Hours, 11 April, 2006

DMorpheus reverts my contributions. He then says I must discuss changes with him before making them, and demands sources. I provide the sources, and he never responds. I try to move the discussion to his talk page, and he just deletes my comments and complains to you. I've requested that he revert his original deletions of my work in light of the fact that I provided a long list of sources. He never bothered to respond. He hardly seems to be acting in the spirit of cooperation. I think he is seriously threatened, particularly in regard to the Sherman page, by the fact that I am an expert on the subject. The page will never emerge from dispute status until he abandons his involvement or begins communicating with me regarding my sources and contributions.

Philippsbourg

I am going to take a few days off to let this settle. User Phillipsbourg and I have reverted each other several times - no question about it. The difference between us is that he reverts against consensus and makes personal attacks as a matter of routine. I don't. In his short time here he has seriously antagonized several other people. His 'discussion' of topics is usually an attack. I frankly don't much like being equated with this user on my page and ask that you delete your comment from my page. I'll be very happy to avoid his talk page, believe me. Break time for me. DMorpheus 02:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the clarifications about bot messages. Manjithkaini 15:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions to appropriate divisions

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 15#Subdivisions to appropriate divisions

Could you please indicate whether I've covered all the bases pursuant to your recommendation? It took 12 hours or so. (watching here)

--William Allen Simpson 20:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the road map. That, at least, should be a big plus.

I do have major problems with trying to reuse the votes from the first debate. In the end, this really is not the same debate. You've maodified the debate based on suggestions, and given a full listing. This really is a new debate. While I can understand how nice it may be to try to start off at a 10-3 advantage, that simply is not fair. The nine others who are with you (and those against you) really should take the chance to look over the reworked proposal and give their opinions on *it*, not have their opinions from the first debate recycled.

So as itis, I think that there are still major problems. As it is you are giving your opponents "cause for appeal", as they say in courtroom dramas. You're also making it difficult for any closing admin to knew how to handle things when the time comes.

I'm going to give you a chance to respond before I take action, but I have some actions in mind to try to get this thing cleaned up once and for all, to have it hopefully go through clean, pass or fail.

1) I will take your road-map and basic arguments and relist them once more to give a good clean new debate. The votes will not come. The comments will not come. The current debate will be closed off, as it's veering horridly into a flame-war over procedural problems. Remove the procedural problems, and hopefully the new debate can get back to the issue at hand. A link to the old debate will be given so that the old arguments do not have to be repeated.

2) After the clean relisting, one of us needs to notify all who participated in the first debate. All. Pro, con, and neutral. No electioneering, just a simple notice that the debate is opened anew, and encourace them to return to again express their opinions.

Hopefully this will get a clean debate through the page. Again, I'll give you up to a day or so to respond before I do this. - TexasAndroid 19:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I followed the Wikipedia:Deletion process relisting procedure that said the entire prior debate had to be copied, and followed several examples found via searching though old debates. Admittedly these were all AfD, but I didn't find anything for CfD or TfD.

Since nothing has changed (other than many Conradi posts calling me a liar), why not just clean it up in place? If you'll handle notifying everybody, I'm willing to do that.

I hadn't bothered to notify new folks, assuming the CfRU would notify interested parties. After 12+ hours I spent adding the new CfRU templates and checking cross-references, I wasn't up to more. At least those templates won't need to be changed again....

--William Allen Simpson 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning for another relist was to give a fresh 7 days. But your arguments for leaving it in place make sense at this point. How about this then. I close off the old comments and votes, but leave them in place for reference, and add a note looking for new debate to start after the closed off section. Sound workable? - TexasAndroid 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It is done. Old debate is closed, but left in place, and a new debate is opened right below it. I felt, given you already have someone calling foul on you that it was best that I do this, as a still neutral party to the actual debate. I'll get to the notifications. That's really only a matter of cut&pasting a notice onto 10-20 user pages. Not a big deal. - TexasAndroid 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We just had an edit conflict when you did the hidden ... templates. I don't have high expectation that the level of discourse will improve. But thanks for trying!

--William Allen Simpson 23:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Observations in light of the recent television guest-star category debacle

I think I shall refrain from category work until the situation involving the CSI categories is finished. I'm confident that the final decision will, in fact, be to endorse Syrthiss' closure. If the end result differs from that, CFD has some serious issues that need to be addressed. Tim!'s rationalization for his abusive behavior seems, ultimately, to be that he wasn't aware of the CFD result until the moment I enforced it. The exact event that triggered this was most likely the removal of a category from an article he had watchlisted. I don't know which article it was, and I don't really care to know, that's his business. So then, he unilaterally invokes an 11th-hour "stay of execution" (as one editor put it), by blocking my bot and rolling back all its edits as if they had been mass vandalism, rather than backlog maintenance. So I've asked myself, how do we appease somebody of that... let's put it nicely... caliber? As he put it when he said "What a bizarre concept that CFR/CFD regulars decision to delete categories be interupted by people who actually create and use them...", how do we actually let all these people know? Spamming the user_talk pages of every person who has (even only recently) edited every article in every category would be neither feasible, nor appropriate. It would be quite obnoxious actually. But using one's sysop abilities to show the whole community that he or she knows (as he put it) "what is best for wikipedia categorisation", is also inappropriate, and a violation of WP:POINT. A wise troll once said:

Act out of process if you are certain that the process would have the same outcome, not if you think you know better than everyone else what the end result should be.

That's good enough advice for anybody, I think. I think I'm going to start reciting it on RFA's. But back to the original question... how do we keep crap like this from happening? Perhaps we post notices on the talk pages of the articles themselves? At best, that would be instruction creep, but it could be handled by bot if need be, or worse, it could turn CFD into a vote-stacking festival like AFD. Is there any middle ground? Do we really want every Tom, Dick, and Harry showing up to defend "Category:Left-handed Capricorns"? I realize nothing ever sounds serious the way I phrase it, but some of these things really need to be discussed. — Apr. 17, '06 [16:32] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Reversions

May I ask what those reversions are for? :-) --HappyCamper 17:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A No Consensous CF-Rename. It was an umbrella rename, and had a large number of subcats involved. As part of closing the CFD, the categories needed to have the CFR tag removed. After slogging through the first dozen or so manually, I realized it was going to take a large amount of time to finish untagging them, and decided to just revert the addition of the tag when I could, which was on about 80% of them. The rest either had another edit since the tagging, or the tagger had other valid edits from before the tagging that I didn't want to revert. - TexasAndroid 17:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay - it's not everyday you reversions like that, so I just thought to ask. I hope you didn't mind. Thanks for taking the time to close that CFD :-) --HappyCamper 17:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

CHL alumni category for deletion closing

Hello. I see you have closed the CHL alumni category deletion discussion. I am curious about the action that was taken. Why did you close it instead of posting it on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved as per Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Controversial decisions)? -- JamesTeterenko 03:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. It would be nice if the policy was updated to reflect reality. I won't edit it, since I am not too familiar with CFD. If I have a bit of extra time on the weekend, maybe I'll pop by to help out with a bit of the backlog. Given my relative unfamiliarity, I will not touch any controversial ones to start. -- JamesTeterenko 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Although I am not intimately familiar with CFD, I am quite familiar with some of the other deletion processes. I have closed a number of AFD discussions, and I have been an admin for nearly a year. -- JamesTeterenko 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Subdivision category debacle

Thanks for pointing me to the new thread! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 07:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My thanks also for your message, TexasAndroid; I abstained from the original debate and will continue to do so as there appear to be plenty of more-informed folk involved (such as The Minister for War above). Your message appreciated, however. Regards, David Kernow 09:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Economics categories

Thanks for wrapping up the debate and fixing up the categories that overlapped existing ones. All that is left now is to rename the rest by deleting the JEL code and adding (Economics) to Mathematical and Quantitative Methods. Is there a way for a non-admin to do this? JQ 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on my talk page. I've done the first of these (Category:Agricultural and natural resource economics; environmental and ecological economics), successfully I think. Unless I hear from you that there's a problem, I'll do the rest over the next few days. JQ 00:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_9#Australian_Rules_categories

I apologise if this is premature, but the debate was closed with a result of 'rename', however the categories were not renamed. Is this still going to happen? Remy B 07:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your drive against my editing

• please provide evidence:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_Allen_Simpson&diff=49255054&oldid=49001337

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible oversight here?

Thanks for your relentless work on WP:CfD, TexasAndroid. I'm sorry it's taken a possible oversight to bring me to say so, but am glad finally to have done so!  Re the possible oversight, the votes for the above linked were in opposition, yet at present the decision is to rename. Unless I'm missing something, should this be to keep the current names?  Apologies in advance if I've misunderstood, David Kernow 17:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The editor who fails to recognize the perjorative nature of "Willy"

This really has gone on long enough. My initial response to trouble is to AGF and see if there's something I've done wrong; next, to AGF again and respond politely but firmly; next to step away and see if the foul wind does not blow over. But this editor is persistent and he's disrupting more than my personal peace of mind.

Suggestions? John Reid 18:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Your ongoing drive

why???

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_Allen_Simpson&diff=49527134&oldid=49287866

this time it's sufficient if you respond there. I'll check there. regards. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=49630736&oldid=49610634

regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Need Help Please

Greetings, I seem to have gotten myself into a pissing contest with an admin and needs some help. Someone wrote a little note on my user talk page. Someone by the username of User talk:Musical Linguist felt that the note was spam and removed it. I felt that this wasn't right and left a vandal tag on her talk page. Well, to make a short story long, another admin Jkelly has interperted my remarks as a personal attack. I feel I was justified with everything I have done. I don't feel that I should be punished for having a differing ideology. Please advise. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ring of Fire vs 1632?

This thing is a no consensus as I see it other than to rename. If you agree to 1632, I can set it to rename to that (as the anon's other statement shows what I take as some flexibility). So I just wanted to ping you as to how firmly you are for the Ring of Fire alternative history title. If 1632 is good for you, just reply here and I'll set it. Thanks! --Syrthiss 02:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Robaldinho

Hi, you just blocked the user for 24h. I am survivng his contributions, he has six surving contributions (see [8]) five of which are simple vandalism, he also has (see [9]) 31 deleted edits, all of which are presumably vandalism. Any objections if I will permablock the account? abakharev 15:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

CFD bot categories

I've responded on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 16:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi (arbitration)

I have written an extensive Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tobias Conradi. Originally, I'd thought the panel would be more interested in content issues, but early indications are they prefer inter-personnal conflict, and I've recast the request in that form. Note, I just discovered Conradi has been banned at de. Had my RfC been taken more seriously 4 months ago, this problem could have been nipped in the bud.

--William Allen Simpson 16:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Temporary blocks

You've blocked 70.91.131.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours. You mentioned that Wikipedia does not permanently block IPs. Let me ask you this..what stops this user from waiting 24 hours before returning to vandalism? I don't understand the reasoning behind temporary blocks. Imagine putting a criminal behind bars for 24 hours. That, of course, won't deter the criminal. Another question I have is..is the purpose of these blocks to encourage these members to become contributing members? I don't see how that works, because their use of Wikipedia is solely to damage it. I appreciate you blocking the member, nevertheless. Thank you. Stiles 18:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedist

Huh. That's too bad. But I guess it's what he wants.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

looks like one category got skipped

On Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_1, there's a little category nomination about category:Detroit's Five Major Avenues. It looks like you closed everything out on that day but that one. Just figured you'd want to know.--Mike Selinker 15:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming_Cat:Books available as eBooks

I'm given to understand a circuitous route that you are the closing Admin for eBooks_renaming proposal of 1 May 2006:

As there is some question on whether there is a consensus on the motion, please be advised I'm willing to change my vote towards the majority consensus desire for a shorter name. Rather than clutter your page with a long note, Please see: user talk:fabartus#RE:_Ebooks_move_(renaming), out of respect to not violate the closing notices.

Best regards, FrankB 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Deceased professional wrestlers

Hi there, just a quick query if you don't mind: I see the CfD resulted in a consensus to rename the above category, but I for the life of me cannot see what it was changed to! Would you mind assisting this somewhat clueless user? :) Thank in advance, - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 06:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Merci! Thanks for getting back to me :) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting Adams' catalyst. Tawkerbot2 made a bit of a mess of things and reverted my edit to the one before (which was by the vandal whose edit I had reverted). I have notified Tawkerbot2 of the mistake and I hope that this problem will not occur in the future. Again I thank you for reverting the page. Neokid 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

apologies and thanks

Thanks for your comments and message. I did the manual changes first before I realized my mistakes (that I have to nominate first, etc.). I was struggling to know the other intricacies of the editing process. I was hurrying too because I realized that many items on Philippine literary and cultural studies were all messed up. My apologies for my lapses. And I have re-read the necessary instructions on nominating categories for deletion, etc. Thank you for your guidance and concern. - 7258 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Jemma Hardy

Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing out that I had botched the redirect syntax. That explains why the bot didn't take action on the couple other similar redirects I did at the same time.... I should have been able to figure that out. 24.240.34.82 04:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Neil Garrett

Agreed, this is more than simple vandalism. I was just reading your message to User:Louizem when you added the message on my talk page. I'll be interested in where this all goes. Thanks for the message and the help. Gwernol 18:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:24 Hours of LeMans races

Thank you for deleting Category:24 Hours of LeMans races. You missed there talk-page though -intentionally? Also, the are many pages named like 1999 24 Hours of LeMans that were moved to the properly spelled 1999 24 Hours of Le Mans. Could you take care of them also? --Matthead 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tots TV vandal and IP 82.45.55.31

Thanks for the heads-up! :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is my attack

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Tots TV

That seems fair. Thanks for the info! :-) Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Young Lady

The articles were amended, please read them before reverting them again. SirIsaacBrock 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! I saw a revert on my watchlist. Apparently a "reply" from a vandalism revert I did with my sockpuppet. With WikiLove, ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Navi Map

Why ? "Regular clean-out of undiscussed links. Please come to Talk page if you want a link to not be cleaned out regularly" it seems it from you. I add my a adresse "http://www.navimap.org" on "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps" but you delete it.

What's wrong?

Thanks you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.254.175.14 (talk • contribs)

Please read the Talk page of the Google Maps page, including the archive. In order to prevent the total removal of the link section, the regular editors at that page decided to limit the link section to a small sampling of the best and most important links. And that if anyone wanted to add more links to the page, they would need to come to the Talk page of the Google Maps page and discuss/persuade with us as to why the new link should be included over the many, many links that have not been included. As long as you make no effort to come discuss the link first, I will continue removing it once a day. - TexasAndroid 12:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Piping of categories

Hi. I have noticed that you have been adding spaces to the piping of categories in articles such as Characters in Chobits. Unfortunately, the addition of spaces causes the article to fall out of sequence in the category. I am just letting you know that I will be removing the added spaces from each of the articles so as to restore the proper order. Please let me know if you have any questions. Road Wizard 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want, I'll edit the sub-categories while you edit the articles. If I make mass changes to your recent article edits the other editors might think we have started a revert war. :) Road Wizard 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

City of Villains Icons

I uploaded transparent pngs of the icons from the CoV fansite kit, however, they do not appear to have the crispness of the outline as those that you had uploaded. If you can, please upload the better versions, seen to the right (I've imbedded them so it would be easier for you to find and upload a higher resolution). Ryulong 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I should have just waited for you to upload them, instead. How are the edges so crisp for yours? Ryulong 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh… I actually took the original .tga files, then converted them to pngs and made the background color (a grey with RGB values of 123) transparent. Ryulong 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Annoyance on Election Page

I realize this is a tough spot to put you in the middle of, but I'm starting to get highly annoyed on the Texas gubernatorial election, 2006 page - almost to the point of abandoning it to its fate, whatever that may be (hopefully, it'll be reclaimed by mainstream thought and become encyclopedic, but I'm not holding my breath). I've tried my hardest to be fair, not bite the newbie, and keep the edit warring to the minimum, but I'm getting the feeling that this is not doing any good. I don't want a page that I watch, edit, and care about to be turned into Libertarian spin about how horrible the media and state election officials are and I don't know how to deal with him past reversions (keeping in mind 3RR, which I know I've come close to a couple times). I would like to edit in peace, gain consensus in the form of a good article from the community, and not get involved in asinine edit disputes - I'm not seeing how this will happen with our favorite anonymous editor working on that page (unless, of course, I extricate myself from the process first). Any thoughts? Souperman 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)