User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 10th October 2008

Orchestral Colour

It doesn't seem like we reached any consensus to delete that page, as no one was able to provide a specific reason that the sources were unreliable. Since you closed the discussion, I'd appreciate it if you could answer the questions I had posted for everyone else. Your response might explain to me why you felt justified in deleting the page. Brendan Vox (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to thank for something. You've blocked me before (and yeah, it was because I was edit warring over genre delimiter; no surprise there, as that is what got me all 5 of my blocks) and I've tried to change my ways and I think I am now very helpful to wikipedia as far as edits and vandalism protection, though I was blocked somehwat recently again for genre delimiter edit warring again. I have to be more careful. But anyways, I'm thanking you because I saw this comment, "but I blocked Navnlos and the significant similarities between the IPs locations and reverts meant that I felt I had to block them too, to be even handed," on the 156 IP user's talk page (yes, I know it was a month ago, but I just saw it). It's not that I'm tahnking you for blocking the 156 IP man, I'm not. I'm thanking you because of one simple reason. The admins who have blocked me before always seem to block me whether I "started it" or not and the other user(s) recieve no warning or anything. Those admins claimed it didn't matter, that I was warring, and that wikipedia is not supposed to be fair and punishments are not punitive but preventative. Now I understand all this, I do, but I still believe in fairness and I guess it's nice to see an admin who checks out both sides and make a just decision, even if that means blocking both users who were warring. So, thanks, I guess. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why blocking?

I wish to inform you that I am not the lease bit happy about your previous action. Granted, I am at fault here, but it wasn't orthodox for you to block me without a warning message first. This comes from the fact that I was never aware of WP:Edit war, or that there was an article for WP:Dispute resolution. It would have been easier for me if you mentioned these articles instead of blocking me and telling me why. That, I believe, is called "stabbing one in the back." But don't get me wrong, I did have some time to cool down, and I thank you for that. But for future issues (either me or others), please consider warning, they help out. — Nuclear Vacuum 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an Editor Review

Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

The semi-protection of Juventus F.C. is caused by a continuous submission of erroneous information by a number of IP users who kept on adding a player who is not contracted yet to Juventus (he will be part of Juventus only from the 1st of July), and thus not eligible to be included in the "Current squad" (namely, Olof Mellberg). This information is obviously erroneous, as the transfer will not be accepted before the new football season officially begins (that's why a disclaimer was included in order to discourage wise users from adding him in the squad, but it proved not to be enough) and the player is obviously not even listed to Juventus FC's website. This is definitely not a "content dispute", as you can see. If you do not agree with it, please consider the July 1 deadline is a widely accepted practice by users involved in the WP:WPF project. Bye, --Angelo (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I consider inclusion of misleading and erroneous information as being disruptive. Please note also such additions always came from anonymous users, rather than more experienced ones. This should mean something, don't you think so? Anyway, if you feel my decision is bolder than WP:BOLD, feel free to unprotect it, you have the rights to do so. --Angelo (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see my concerns, just have a look at A.C. Milan's history immediately after your unprotection. IP users re-adding Flamini to the team squad (despite the guy is still signed to Arsenal until the 30th of June) and even putting completely false information, such as the transfer of Alberto Gilardino's to ACF Fiorentina (even citing an alleged price); unfortunately, there's no official confirmation of this from both clubs and the main Italian media, so it's merely a rumour. Considering my previous experience in Italian and European football articles, I can ensure you this will keep on going for the whole summer (at least for major teams such as Juventus, AC Milan, Inter Milan and a few others). When such these things become excessive, I think these contributions can be easily considered as disruptive (especially when an editor ignores a disclaimer warning not to include unconfirmed and premature information). In these cases, semi-protection is obviously an option. It's not that different than, for instance, editing George W. Bush, defining him a "former" president before his successor is officially named by the U.S. Congress. --Angelo (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

Whilst i found this amusing, at the same time all i think about is what if i wasnt on my guard for it, how long would it have been there?

Vandalism1 Vandalism2

If i set up an anon talk page, Would it be ok to semi protect my talk page? Prom3th3an (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here have a cookie!

Prom3th3an has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Re: WAGS

Yeah, that was a major cultural misunderstanding on my part. I am not at all familiar with acronyms associated with British sports and the only definition of "WAG" that I knew of prior to my "initiation" today is purely derogatory. I'm really sorry about that. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your comment.

Yes yes, I understand. I thought I had given the user other warnings for the other pages they had vandalised, but I'm thinking it has something to do with my Huggle not responding, but I will double check next time. My my my, this patrolling will be the end of me, I can see it. =) -Cam^T^|C 09:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion of 60.42.252.111

The IP user, 60.42.252.111 (talk · contribs) was blocked by you just about 30 minutes ago, but returns as 222.150.193.35 (talk · contribs). The both IP should be blocked, I guess. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TigerShark, I think there is some misunderstanding regarding Blueshirt's unblock between administrators. Rlevse took a look at the sockpuppeter's block evasion and bogus SSP report per my request. I of course came to you first, because you blocked the two at the first place but you were inactive for a while, so I went to Rlevse because he was active at that time. I guess Sandstein who asked Rlevse to consider unblocking Blueshirts seemed to think of Rlevse being the blocking admin. I hope everything would be settled down.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See response on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I may be partly to blame. I mistakenly thought Rlevse was the blocking admin. That's why I contacted him instead of TigerShark. Sorry. Sandstein 15:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just keep our feet on the ground here. Caspian blue, as a Pro-Korean editor, is investing their time in gaming the system against myself as a method to block the development of the Comfort women topic. Understandable perhaps but not in anyway admirable. If anyone cares to invest the time checking, I think the diffs will bear me out in this one.

May I also state clearly, my ISP is giving out dynamic IPs, I have no option but to accept what they give me at any time I dial up. Thank you--222.150.190.12 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:90.199.49.250

Hi TigerShark. This user has been jumping IPs for about a month now, persistently changing UK date format to US date format on UK gameshow articles. The unblock requests are the first time this user has responded to any message left on the talk page of the several IPs they have used. Their editing is disruptive both to the articles concerned and to other editors who work on them (not I am not one of those editors). They have ignored issue this despite attempts by several editors to engage them in dialog. If they are willing to discuss this issue either at their talk page or on one of the appropriate article talk pages, then I would support unblocking them. However a return to disruptive editing would result in a longer block across all their IPs. I am happy to explain this issue to the user on their current IP talk page, and if you want to unblock them under an agreement to discuss rather than edit war to change date formats, I'd happily support that. Best, Gwernol 17:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sayoni AfD

Saw here that you marked the talk with the old AfD as delete but as I understand it, it's customary to G8 the talk page once the article has been AfDed. Have I missed something here? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for raising this. The deletion of the talk page is optional and if there seems to be a lot of discussion, or discussion that may be useful in future (including if the deletion is reviewed), I prefer to leave it there. In contrast I deleted Talk:Enrico Rocce Verilano yesterday, because it only had a couple of tags on it. Hope that helps to clarify. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does indeed, thanks so much. Turns out in the interim someone G8ed it anyway. Whoops. HAve a nice weekend! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Huggle must have been confused by the vandal's blanking of former warnings. The report, however, was legitimate... four warnings ([1], [2], [3], [4]), and vandalism past final warning. Gail (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that placing {{uw-vand4im}} (instead of {{uw-vand4}}) was inappropriate... it must have been a bug in Huggle. If it happens again, I'll file a bug report. Thanks for drawing my attention to the issue! Gail (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello. I have replied to your enquiry regarding Tim Carter. Hope it helps. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by Yasis

Just thought you should know, I've updated Yasis's sockpuppet case with info about him evading your block: [5]. NJGW (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like you're not around so I reported it here. NJGW (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing a block of yours

Corticopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked by you for a month.

I'm discussing the situation with him on his talk, if you'd like to take part. If you'd perfer not to take part, please indicate that and I'll consider the responsibility having been handed over to me.

brenneman 23:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InternetHero

I noticed you left a comment at a comment[6] at User talk:InternetHero. I have been having a problem with this editor at Telescope re: the continual addition of POV material about Ibn Al-Haytham's contributions to the telescope, the last edit[7] stating flat out that Ibn Al-Haytham invented the telescope. I have pointed out that the references do not support the edits, that they are POV and UNDUE, I have tried "walking away to edit another day" ... expanding articles, adding "cite the controversy" type edits...etc. InternetHero is back making the same edits apparently following his/her personal policy of "great minds of these men should be recognized at all costs". Not sure what the next step should be with a problem editor or if this is even considered problematic editing on Wikipedia. Input appreciated. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TY for your advice. I would love to follow it but the editor in question is now getting banned for edit waring and I don't think this tiger is going to change his spots. And recent comments of "you are a racist person"[8] and "Take your racist views elsewhere, you bigot."[9] means the gloves are probably going to come off sooner rather than later. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TY again for your input. One can always hope but I don't see this going anywhere but a probable ban. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by Corticopia

Hello TigerShark. You recently blocked user Corticopia for 1 month because of his long history of 3RR violations and edit warring. It seems that he's evading his block by using the newly created account Depoyster.dick and revert the article Northern America. For us it is easy to know it's him because of his behaviour and the fact that for months (almost 1 year and a half), he is the only user in Wikipedia spreading his POV fork against Mexico being included in North America.

Corticopia is a user from Toronto, Canada that also edits anonimously to avoid scrutinity [10]. As you can see in that edit, the anonimous IP is from Toronto, Canada and its edit pattern is the same of Corticopia's, besides the fact that in the link I provided the IP is erasing a 3RR warning in Corticopia's talk page.

I think Depoyster.dick made kinda the same mistake by editing anonimously with an IP from Toronto [11].

I believe that a simple Check User will clearly reveal that in fact, Corticopia and Depoyster.dick are the same person, and that he is evading his block, again, gaming the system. I think that you should file the request because you were the Administrator that blocked him.

Thanks Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did what you suggested and opened a check user here [12]. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Hi,

Note. You've obviously figured out that Clubota was Serafin, were you aware of other accounts as well? WLU (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into him/her at Scientific Revolution. They all have *exactly* the same contributions. WLU (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Smallwood

He hasn't made an appearance for the first team in a non-friendly. The uniform consensus on youth footballers is that such an appearance is necessary for notability. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Wilshere. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show me any article about a youth footballer who hasn't made a first-team appearance in a league game that's been kept after AFD, then I wouldn't oppose your reposting. But there have been a ton of these (several AFDs of multiple articles, in fact), and the consensus has always been to delete. Why create the article just to have it result in a doomed AFD? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- My understanding is that U-18 or other appearances for national youth teams isn't enough. I don't want to have an extended argument with you -- if you insist on reposting, repost, and I'll mark it for AFD, and it'll get deleted like all the others (see WP:SNOW). NawlinWiki (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Maybe if they make an appearnce at a friendly level the article should stand. People are intrested in youth football in England.--Buzza69 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for defending my students and friends. Could you swing by my talk page? There's a conversation going on I think you'd be intrested in.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing is a very good article, I contributed a lot on this.

User:Florentino floro has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Florentino floro (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPvandal on WIXO

Heads up... the IP that you blocked last night is back at it again on WIXO. --Winger84 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]