User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 7th November 2007

My RFA

I just wanted to say thanks for your constructive contribution to my recent unsuccessful RFA. Especially in regards to this, which you mentioned. I have taken your comments to heart and aim to improving my editing ability. Useight 02:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverting comment

for some reason spectre is going around reverting edits and trying to get pages deleted, while he is ignoring the ongoing discussions for most of the articles. For example, the American Dad episodes are already under debate as whether to be merged or not, but until thats resolved deleting should not take place. So please don't assist his vandalous edits. Grande13 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additionally all my edits have valid sources that are standard within wikipedia articles, or have been officially sourced. There have been discussion on many of the talk pages if Spectre would even take the effort to read them discussing how the info is official with sources and such. Grande13 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I read Talk:Family Guy. Nada. The LOE's talk. Nada. The episode's talk. Nada. Your last few hundred contributions. Nada. Seems like the sources aren't on Wikipedia. Will ^(talk) 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grande13

Unfortunately, there is no {{uw-test22}}. (Or rather, he's been doing it for two dozen articles, he knows (or should know) it's against policy, so I didn't see the need to go drmafd1, 2, 3 when I can give him a drmafd4) Will ^(talk) 22:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't really talk with people to break fundemental policies. Will ^(talk) 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at my past edit history, everything til the unwarranted and justified mislabeling of articles has been constructive and a quality contribution to wikipedia. Im aware of the image tag thing, and i will fix it properly within a day or so, besides that I have a history of watching articles, removing vandalism edits, and have added sourceful material that adds to the articles. Grande13 22:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grande, I've ran in to you multiple times… I personally know this isn't the first time you've edit warred against policies such as WP:NOR/WP:V. Matthew 22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Verifiability and Original Research policies are non-negotionable. (There's a WikiEN-l post where Jimbo actually says that). If other users do that, it's a violation of policy. Will ^(talk) 22:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with future episode titles as long as they're adequately sourced. Take for example, List of Heroes episodes. I kept reverting there because the episode titles were un/poorly sourced. When I found a reliable source with the same titles, I used that to include them. Will ^(talk) 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Magnavoxodyssey.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to Offer You Some Support

Check out the recent history on Nick's discussion page. He didn't like my comment in support of your point, so he deleted it, as is his wont. He also criticized me on my discussion page. I don't delete things from my discussion page, as a rule. I did redact an admin's name, multiple times, once, but that was a special occasion (and actually my first disastrous interaction with our over-eager friend Nick). Cheers!David in DC 19:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was when you were trolling (quite badly) a fellow administrator, and for which I blocked you. This petty vendetta is hilarious, but if you're now finished, I really must get back to doing something more productive than worrying about you. I seem to recall you were annoyed at being blocked, and now, you seem to be annoyed I unblocked someone. Hypocrisy, you've gotta love it. Nick 20:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Unblocking

I'm sorry I didn't contact you prior to unblocking. There was an edit war going on, and I didn't see any point in keeping one user blocked while the other users continue to edit. The user said he wouldn't edit war, and I protected the page as a precaution. Again, apologies for not contacting you earlier. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up

I just wanted to send you this explaining the recent changes i made and am about to make to family guy and american dad. Matthew and I have had a few arguments in the past, so im guessing he might be closely watching my actions for a chance to call me out, but not like that really matters as it doesn't really matter as long as I follow guidelines as Ive served my time and wont be deleting any more AFD notices unless its been approved, as i realize that wasnt the best plan of action. I've already posted a note explaining my note one one of the American Dad talk pages, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Future_American_Dad%21_episodes], and [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_American_Dad%21_episodes], as well as the family guy talk page [1]. I figured i'd lay this out for you incase anymore edit wars ensue, although i give you my word I won't revert them, but i'll come to you before I decide to do any reverts. I'll be explaining all my edits here and why they are valid and have a place on wikipedia, as well as on the talk pages previously listed.

Regarding the copyright database as a source. This was already discussed on one of the simpsons discussion pages, but i believe it was archived at one point and I am unable to track it down. Anyways, for verification you can talk to User:Scorpion0422 as I am fairly certain I recall him being part of the initial discussion between a few editors and administrators on being able to use it as a quality source.

Also, when using the copyright database sourced episodes to detail the upcoming season there is also a disclaimer. Now while i haven't seen a wrong title in the database on the few shows I watch, there always could be a first, although im not sure how, as you have to go through a lengthy process with some fees to even register a title, so its not really worth the while of the companies to be changing things, but in the rare case something happens the upcoming season have an added disclaimer about list of upcoming television episodes . Its not necessary really but there are always extreme situations such as breaking world news or events that can alter the networks decision to air a specific episode.

Again sorry for all the hassles hopefully explaining all my actions in detail will be sufficient to keep this situation from escalating anymore, as I've been a quality editor for quite some time and haven't added any information that turned out to be invalid. If you were to check my past contributions to various tv shows and such you will find that all of my edits have been constructive and in good faith and added to the quality of the articles. Grande13 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please inform Sceptre that the changes I made were all according to policy and had reasons to back them up. After adding a lot of info he went about and just reverted everything again, even though everything was backed up this time as well as additional info being added, thanks Grande13 11:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre was quite right to revert you, as we've both told you: the copyright database is not a reliable source for your usage. It also does not confirm what you're saying it does. Matthew 11:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you read the discussion I discussed about how this conversation already occured and it was deemed an acceptable form of source. refer to American dad discussion for more, Grande13 12:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of users who think it's an "acceptable source" doesn't make it an acceptable source. I suggest you read the guideline: WP:RS and also read the several messages where you've been told it isn't a reliable source. Matthew 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i've already reported Sceptre for 3RR violation as he continues to change things at his discretion without valid reasons for his actions. There is a discussion going on, but he still hasn't mentioned anywhere on any of them why he keeps reverting. He also is carelessly reverting, removing other work that was added that he has no merit to remove. Grande13 19:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. You also expressed concerns about my article writing experience, while it is true that I haven't written much, I don't see why article writing is a prerequisite to being an administrator. The administrator tools are more for cleaning up (thus the term "mop") rather than writing other articles. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 08:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot: References and External links

Thanks for the clarification—GRM 19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Thank you. I have a question, though: why don't users Laveol, ForeignerFromTheEast, Decx, and some others, don't recieve such notice? And another thing: although I've read the 3RR guideline, I still don't understand whether I should refrain from reverting even though the other users revert it without a satisfactory explanation. Thank you again. iNkubusse^? 21:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my last response

I was typing my message when you must have been posting your response. Either that or it was because someone had posted to me a message while I was typing. Whatever was the reason, my post didn't go through when I finished and instead I got a new edit page. So I tried going back and copy and paste into the new edit window and it got blocked. But what I was trying to say was that the user's post was more personal than the typical random insult. He said something with "sorry you didn't reach candyland" which I find personally offensive since I have diabetes. Of course there is no way for him to have know that (but then again I wasn't originally planning on talking to him in the first place) but an apology would have been appreciated. My experience here seems to be that when everything is going smooth everyone is very nice to me. But then if something goes off there are lots of insensitive people whose idea of resolving a problem is to sweep it under the rug. Obviously an apology or a statement of even a bit of understanding is not forthcoming from anyone but I'd just like to express my thoughts. This experience has been unfortunate as I have at no point been rude to any of you. I could go for a new start on a new account and continue my contributions here on yet another ip but why would I contribute to an insensitive and intolerant community? I think I would rather spend my time on more enjoyable things with nicer people. Its unfortunate to be in a position to want to leave something like wikipedia which has tremendous potential if it were run properly. I can only hope people learn from experiences such as mine and that place becomes a better community in the future.Hardlyreared2 01:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor...

Can you extend User:Nexttubeban's block to indefinate, as a sockpuppet of User:AndreLapalme? If you look at User:SnarkyjSu, you'll see that he is a sockpuppet. --əˈnon gahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect

With all respect other users such as User:Scarian are the ones who continue edit warring on such a trivial issue, so why am I being the only one punished? I only wanted to protect the page from senseless editing. When I looked at in the past it had line breaks between genres in the music infobox, and then it was changed to comma breaks, which to me didn't make sense so I changed it back and then certain users continued to try to change the edit. 165.196.83.17 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded here. TigerShark 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read what you have written. I have e-mailed you. Scarian ^Talk 00:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand what you are saying and though I would appreciate further investigation, I also understand there is limted things that can be done. Please don't block me for sock puppetry again!! I only got on another computer to explain myself! I have no intention of abusing articles or anything with these IP adresses! Seriously! Uh, I guess that's it, other than the fact that I do mean well and I am not a vandal and only want to help wikipedia, though I admit I am opinionated on some issues such as the line break vs. comma break issue. I suppose I'll take a wikibreak for now. 165.196.83.22 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have replied here. TigerShark 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 00:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

1 day???? User:PeWiHrMn. Look at those contributions; vandalism, personal attacks, threats. And only a 1 day block? Please explain that to me. - Rjd0060 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the actual length of the block, the underlying IP address and therefore the individual is only auto-blocked for 24 hours. In all likelihood they will find this out and then simply come back under a new account, with little chance of us tracking their longer term vandalism or attempting to rehabilitate them into good contributors. Further incidents of vandalism will warrant longer and longer blocks, but there is little point in indef blocking or issuing long blocks initially. Thanks TigerShark 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That is what the term "vandalism only account" means. - Rjd0060 00:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Which part of my reasoning don't you agree with, and why? Thanks TigerShark 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why give a vandalism only user a second chance? A lot of first time blocks are indef blocks. This user was making blatant personal attacks, and blatant vandalism with misleading edit summaries. Im no admin but I would say if anybody deserves an indef block, this guy does. I am not even saying it should indefinate but are you really confident enough to say when the user comes back tomorrow they will not vandalize or make any more personal attacks? - Rjd0060 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But even assuming that the individual will always be a vandal, I have provided reasoning above for why an indef (or long) initial block will likely be ineffectual and possibly counter-productive. I understand that it is very common for these accounts to be indef blocked but, for the reasons mentioned above, I don't think such blocks achieve their aims. It would be good to hear your thoughts on my reasoning. Cheers TigerShark 00:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going on what I've seen every other day. I have no problem with your reasoning though. No big deal. Thanks for explaining that to me though. - Rjd0060 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and I will try to keep a close eye on this account. Cheers TigerShark 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I feel like a moron now. I wish that could have happened before all of this, and other people have told me they agree with you. Thanks - Rjd0060 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to formally go to WP:RFP or can you just fully protect my user page for a day or two? - Rjd0060 00:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected it for 2 days. Hopefully that will do the trick. Cheers TigerShark 00:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fine.. Thanks. - Rjd0060 00:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Cheers TigerShark 00:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass the salt please...

hi there! thanks for salting those band pages that kept getting recreated. looks like he got the hint after the final warning, so not blocking looks like also the way to go. wtg :) ~Eliz81 ^(C) 00:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ALein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It doesn't matter, it was a vandalism-only account. east.718 at 20:44, 11/7/2007

Edits like this and this do not signal a user here to participate constructively. Other users felt that the vandalism was so egregious, they reported it to the board which intented to curb "obvious and persistent vandals". Admins may also block indefinitely at their discretion for persistent vandalism. If you still disagree with my actions, please get back to me or start a thread on WP:AN/I. east.718 at 20:55, 11/7/2007

Yes the edits were vandalism, of course they were. Anybody can post to AIV, your role is to verify that the user's action warrant a block. 12 vandalism edits over a period of an hour cannot be considered persistent vandalism, it is a very minor incidence of vandalism. Blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive. How was this block preventative if the user had stopped long before the final warning? It is at the admin's discretion to block indefinitely, but that discretion needs to be used carefully. On the criteria of blocking a user who has made 12 edits, and stopped before a final warning, almost all vandals would be indefinitely blocked. That is not what we do. TigerShark 21:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you're also an admin; I don't have any objections if you choose to reduce or eliminate the block... although there is something to be said about a vandal-only account not posting an unblock request, that suggests a throwaway to me. east.718 at 21:07, 11/7/2007

To be honest, I didn't check the timestamp on the final warning; that was my mistake and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. Usually the only times I'll indef somebody is because of a vandalism-only account, serious harassment (Amorrow type stuff), or sockpuppetry. I've been an admin for only around a week, and am still learning on the job. :) east.718 at 21:37, 11/7/2007