Jump to content

User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

the 666 joke

From what the user says, he is a supporter just attempting a joke. So he's not a bad faith opponent that should decide your vote. It might be better to change your support reason or else if you are otherwise neutral delete it before too many see. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I sure do not find it funny at all. Thanks for looking out for me, but my reason stands (I was going to support anyways) - there have been a lot worse support !votes out there before. Tiptoety talk 03:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You are not obviously using bad supports as role models. ;) You presumably have loads of decent reasons anyways. He's stated it's not serious ... so unless you can think of any osbcure reason not to, just remove his vote and change your own. I'm thinking also of him, giving him opportunity to recover from his misjudgment with a minimum of fuss. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"You are not obviously using bad supports as role models." <-- Well said, I have changed my support reason. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Tubby11

While I agree that his edits so far constitute vandalism, they were all made within the last hour. It seems a little premature to call it a vandalism-only account and slap it with an indefinite block. We should only do that after we've blocked him more than once and he's demonstrated that he won't shape up. I'm commuting his sentence. — Gwalla | Talk 23:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that there are edits this user has made that you are unable to see because they are deleted, those pages are clear vandalism. There should be no reason that we extend this user our good faith and blocking as a vandalism-only account without blocking for a shorter period of time first is perfectly fine and is done quite often. Tiptoety talk 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I only see three items in his deleted contributions, all of which were also made on that same day. Are you saying that he has made other vandal edits in the past that are not showing up under deleted contributions for some reason? At any rate, it may be a moot point since he doesn't seem to have returned after his 3-hour block was up. — Gwalla | Talk 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel stupid, I was totally unaware that you are a admin. :P Sorry that I said there was edits you are unable to see. */me feels really stupid right now*. I do have to say though that not every user needs to be given gradual blocks, and when a account is clearly being used for vandalism then it should be blocked as one. Either way the user has not returned as we will never know if they do have any attention of contributing constructively. Tiptoety talk 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Knock knock

  • who's there?
    • Ida
  • Ida who?
    • I'd a left a' couple of questions for ya at the RfB, if you please.

-- Avi (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

:P I have just responded, best of luck might I add. Cheers my friend. Tiptoety talk 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You did ask for knock-knock jokes. Thank you, my friend, for the quick and clear response, as well as the good wishes. Now, if I can only brainwash you into becoming a zombie-like supporter......... . Seriously, thanks again, and I still hope I can amicably tell you "I told you so" six months down the line about my participation in all of the crat duties -- Avi (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. Just for you -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"Not only can't you please all of the people all of the time, ya cant even please some of the people some of the time" <--- that is why I give you huge props for even submitting a RfB, which is one of the strangest process we have here. Hmm.....maybe your credit card number and pin code would change my to a zombie-support :D And I know that with a little more username experience/participation and a few more months you will have proved me wrong. I hope your next RfB (if not this one) you can say "I told you so", I really do. Always remember to be yourself, and do not simply change because the community wants you to. Cheers and best of luck! Tiptoety talk 18:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

File:ANI lolcat.jpg⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your opposed to my RfA

While I’m sorry that you cant support me, I must remind you that just because a user doesn't have 5k Edits, doesn't mean they cant do the same job as another admin, should they be qualified. Edits isn’t everything. Dell970 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, but I feel that your lack of experience is the issue, not lack of time on wikipedia. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig

Regarding this, I've opened a thread at WT:RFA. For the record: I think it's unacceptable to just remove a comment like that without prior discussion. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 04:13, May 7, 2008

Ok....the user clearly stated that it was a joke, and they were going to remove it in the future. I saw no harm in removing the !vote from the RfA, but I always welcome discussion. Tiptoety talk 04:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. If you welcome discussion, please go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#removal of RfA comment. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 04:40, May 7, 2008
Okay, if you want to forum shop, so be it. Tiptoety talk 04:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I want this to get the attention it deserves. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 04:48, May 7, 2008
And that it will. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently yes. Well, nevermind then and sorry for the stir. For the record: I still think it's wrong to simply remove an oppose (or any comment) from an RfA like that, but the community doesn't seem to mind it, and so be it. Dorftrottel (complain) 14:51, May 7, 2008
No worries, like I said I always appreciate discussion. And your opinion is duly noted, and I will tread more carefully in the future. I assure you that I agree that the removal of almost any !vote from an RfA is unacceptable, but I saw this as a exception to the rules. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100% with your removal of that "question" from the RfA. It in no way deals with the candidate or really asks them any questions related to their ability to preform as a administrator. Good work! Tiptoety talk 21:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Thought I'd make sure to ask someone, given.. well.. the above exchange. :) Dorftrottel (complain) 21:53, May 8, 2008
:D, I do not blame you for asking. I went ahead and left the user in question a note. Like I said before, good work! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Coppertwig's RFA

I am very sorry to have offended you. I did ask on Coppertwig's page, and I was fearful of a retribution from him for doing so, as he has made it very clear that he will tolerate no negative comments about User:Redthoreau on his page or any involved article talk pages. I do not know how to stop the continuous attacks. It is just that typical helpless feeling one gets at Wikipedia. However, I have weathered them this long so I will survive. Thanks for your comment. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that you did not offend my by any means, I was just simply informing you that an RfA is an inappropriate venue to ask the type of questions that you did. If Coppertwig has asked to to refrain from saying negative things about other users on his/her talk then don't, you can always just take such issues to WP:WQA. Hope that helps, cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of my comments on Coppertwig's RFA

Do not bring this here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please stop User:Redthoreau from changing my replies on Coppertwig's RFA. I have reverted his changes twice now, but do not want to get into trouble for restoring my words. I have also asked User talk:Dorftrottel as I do not know who is appropriate to ask. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The first course of action you need to take is bring it up with Redthoreau oh his/her talk page, if he/she continues to remove a comment that you see appropriate to be on a RfA (remember comments on RfA's should only relate to the candidate and their potential as a administrator) then bring it to WP:ANI for a wider community discussion. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You were spreading lies about me, which is why I reverted them.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Click me.  :)--InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No! Do not bring this here! I do not want to get into the middle of your immature dispute. Staying away from each other is the best way to handle this, tattle tailing and accusing each other is not. Tiptoety talk 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Account creator

Dude, I already have it and secondly SQL and me got Brion to implement it.. thanks for the offer though :) ..--Cometstyles 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

/me feels stupid. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, we were all born stupid, except Jimbo :DD ..--Cometstyles 02:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Put my name alongside Jimbo's then ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

File:All-hail-jimbo-lolcat.jpg Tiptoety talk 03:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Accountcreator

It looks like it's already in place. If it isn't, let me know and I will comment. If it is in fact in place, I can haz plz? :D --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 02:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[1]. You now have accountcreator! All it allows you to do is create more than 6 accounts during a certain time period, it is just there to stop trolls (which you are not). Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Collapsable table

Hello Tiptoety,

Thank you very much for your prompt reply and help. I have created the two templates and every thing is working fine.

I just require one more help. Can you please tell me the exact section of the codes that needs to be copied from the common.js file of this wiki to my common.js. I do not want to copy the entire code just for the sake of enabling this feature.

I am not a technical person. So can you please help. Thanks in advance.--Shijualex (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dell970

Hi, just to let you know about this thread. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Tiptoety talk 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Not related, could you please delete my userpage, I'd like to get rid of the history. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done Tiptoety talk 20:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Account Creator flag

Can you give me the Account Creator flag? FunPika 20:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... Let me check a few things first. Tiptoety talk 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done Tiptoety talk 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Blow me!

File:Cartoon cow.png
The BSE epidemic on wiki can only improve our sanity, but then that would be no fun. Don't look at a new infected cow having a nervous breakdown every minute, it's so boring.‎Merkin's mum 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I'm going to leave a few articles for you to lock up. Have fun :) Gary King (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I surely will! (/me likes working over at WP:RFPP) :D Tiptoety talk 05:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
RPP is often not patrolled as well as AIV so I feel my tummy turn when I find articles that are in dire need of the semi- :( Gary King (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I could not agree more with you, it seems like their are often admins not interested in doing a whole lot of work that requires a little bit of investigation firs other than just checking a users contribs. Oh well, leaves more for me I guess. :D Tiptoety talk 05:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
AIV is easier in that if someone is malicious, then you can tell by their edits. If someone adds a punctuation mark to an article, chances are they are just trying to help. They add swear many times, then it makes the decision easier. RPP is more like dealing with the intentions of a large number of people, which I guess is harder to decipher. Gary King (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
All I know is RFPP is my favorite area of the project, well...next to WP:DRAMA :D. Oh, by the way, Happy Birthday! Tiptoety talk 06:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:DRAMA is a scary place. Definitely not for me. I'm more of a article-fixer-upper; WP:RPP is included under that definition, as it's article-based. I can't deal with all them people! Oh, and thanks for the birthday wishes! I'll, uh, take that article and fix 'er up to FA! Yes, excellent... :) Gary King (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Here comes User:Gonzo fan2007, who's usually the one to respond to my RPP requests. I guess I can't avalanche the page anymore :( Gary King (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Just noted the same thing myself when I edit conflicted with him. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you noted Cuban Missile Crisis when you meant to note Venus. Gary King (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I think that's all I will look up for now. Feel free to let me know if I incorrectly reported one! I'll move to another task now while you clean up the mess over at RPP :p Gary King (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I went ahead and fixed the mistake I made. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hello, Tiptoety. I now have 3 DYK's. Do you mind reviewing me? Just click "Review" in my signature. Also, I'd like you to mention my edit count in my review, just to know what I should focus more on. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 16:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this message? I've noticed you editing all over and I'm getting curious. :P--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I have seen it, but I am currently busy attending to other matters. Please understand that when reviewing and editor I like to have done some research and as such it may take me a little while to get back to you. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's okay. I know that your always busy. Whenever you have time, feel free to review me. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent message on my talk page

Thanks for the warning (left at User talk:JeffBillman). Could you point me to my error, please? I'm not sure where I'm in an edit war... However, I have been trying to diffuse one at LeBron James. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My relpy here. Tiptoety talk 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, got it. I made one edit to that page wherein I tried to call for sources without reverting the info. Seeing that the dispute was more heated than I initially thought, I have since moved on to talk pages. Thanks again for your help. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

RFCU cases

When you block and tag RFCU cases, such as [[2]] can you put a {{clerknote}} in the case so that others know you've done it? That way we don't duplicated efforts. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh...erm...guess I forgot that step...hm....not sure why I have been forgeting to do that. Thanks for the heads up! Tiptoety talk 02:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB remarks

I was just re-reading your comments under VanTucky's statement; there is one sure-fire way to see more of me at renames that I can think of . BTW, if you ever think about an RfB of your own, please make certain to let me know, so I can invest in Pepto :) -- Avi (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:D And there is no way I will ever go up for a RfB (well probably never), I dont think all of that is for me, but who knows. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 14:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? You do not want a few hundred people all over the world analyzing your every move? :-P -- Avi (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I will leave that to the crazies like yourself! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of interesting things that occur during an RfB, Ryan did switch his opinion, for which I personally am very grateful :) -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

<ping> -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I must agree that it did make my oppose a bit more weak than it already was, but unfortunately for yourself I still stand by it. I respect Ryan's statement very much but still feel that bureaucratship is a big deal and there must be close to no concerns for me to support a candidate. Like I said before only someone completely crazy and with a deep dedication to the project would even go through a RfB and I respect you for that, and still wish you the best of luck. Sorta off topic question, was the passing percentage for RfB's ever changed? Tiptoety talk 03:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not know, I think I may be the test case although where I am now is pretty iffy -- Avi (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I defiantly supported 80%, which you are past but only by a hair like you said. I have noticed though that it is slowly increasing, who knows.... Tiptoety talk 03:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Less than 90 minutes left, though. :-) -- Avi (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, i'm a' comin -- Avi (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to save you the trouble.....but OK :D Tiptoety talk 19:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fattyjwoods Push my button 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.

Hi, just to make sure you’re not too hungry, I gave you a cookie! I would’ve given you milk – but the cow just died and I tried to milk the bull but it kicked me in the face. *sob*. Anyway, enjoy the cookie!! Fattyjwoods Push my button 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

*munch, munch, munch, munch* Emm...yummy! Hey thanks for the cookie, and to be honest bull's milk does not sound all that great anyways. Thanks for trying though! :D Tiptoety talk 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Tiptoety.

As promised, I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. We discussed your continued opposition, and I respect your opinions, although I may disagree with them :) I hope we continue to run across (not over) each other in wikispace, most liklely around rfA's :) Thanks again. -- Avi (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your RfA

Well, I answered it, but obviously not to your liking. I apologise. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate the fact that you answered, though like you said I was not impressed with the answer. (I have been known to be a bit harsh on admin candidates, so do not take it personal) Either way you are surely going to be granted the mop and bucket so do not worry too much. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not taking anything for granted (although it is unlikely that a flood of opposes ruins my week). I won't take it personally, just thought I'd point out I don't plan to be at RPP often, if at all. Thanks for the question anyways =D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for dropping me a note, it does relieve me a little to hear that. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's why I put "promote" not "contributed too. Also, you removed baseball uniform which I created and signifcatly contributed too.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught my mistake and made the correction. As for the other two, Ronald Joy is not a DYK, and the other one....I see no reason to state that you helped to promote the article when you did non of the writing yourself. It would be like saying, look at all these articles I successfully nominated for deletion. Tiptoety talk 01:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I guees so. But Ronald Joy is a DYK, try looking at it's talk page. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Err...oops my bad. I guess I did not see it when I looked at the talk page. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have cause, but I still ask you to keep them off your userpage as they are misleading. Tiptoety talk 01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't be a DYK, it fails the DYK criteria.


Ronald Joy is a stub, therefore, not a DYK. Should never have been listed as a DYK. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It's okay. I guess I will work harder for DYKs. Thanks fro the help.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Addshore

Wow, more users in the support section mentioning my name. "Support to piss Wisdom89 off." And another soon after that. That's comforting. Sigh. What's wrong with opposing about diminutive article and article talk participation? Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, they are just playing with you. Look, at least you have one supporter: [3]. Tiptoety talk 03:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess it might be "playing", but you can imagine how it can be frustrating for me. I mean, I have my own reasons for opossing and supporting, which I feel are vastly far removed from some of the more contentious rationales I've seen in both the support and oppose sections. I'll AGF though. Thanks for the diff. I commented of course : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can understand how that might get under ones skin, but you just cant let it happen to you otherwise you will go crazy. Just in the next RfA you participate in give the best rational you have ever given in you wiki career and show them! :D And you are welcome for the diff, I just happened to stumble across it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Addshore's RFA

Maybe I have a different view on how to resolve disputes, but I don't like your view on Q5 for Addshore. When you have an edit war going on for 4 days between 10 editors, you can be really sure something serious is happening that desperately needs to stop and needs discussion. I've found that blocking for 3RR is sometimes useful, but is often times ineffectual; people just go back to edit warring. If you block those who don't take place in talk page discussion, they will simply wait out the block and go back to reverting after that. Instead, especially when there are multiple users trying to resolve the dispute, protection and personal administrative mediation is best to get all parties to debate in the talk page. Only then can a compromise be satisfactorily reached. bibliomaniac15 03:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection should only be used when blocking is not an option, and when a few of the users have clearly violated 3RR and the others can be blocked for edit warring allowing the constructive editors to continue to discuss the content dispute on the talk without needing to make editprotected requests every 10 minutes and allowing the active constructive users not even taking part in the dispute to continue to edit. You are right, do we know if blocking will work? No, but we will not know until we have tried. And sure of that fails and a edit war continues time to lock her up, like I stated in my oppose: "Protection should only be used when blocking is ineffective (eg. large amounts of vandalism, BLP issues, or when the edit war is so out of hand blocking would not work)". Or just block the disruptive users for longer. I think that everyone has different ways to handle content disputes, but personally I feel that wikipedia is "The free encyclopedia, anyone can edit" and to me that is very important. Thanks for the note! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I also have an issue with that question. Do you really believe blocking ten editors for an edit war is a better solution that a full protection? If an edit war between ten editors over four days is not the type of edit war provided for in the protection policy, the what is? I'm getting the impression that you believe that short of having dozens of editors for an edit war for weeks, full protection should never be used. I can understand why if it were one or two editors, blocking would be better. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would blocking 10 users be un-reasonable? (And might I add, the question stated that some of those user had began to participate in a discussion on the talk page). Blocking 6-10 user will do no more harm than locking a whole article if not far less. The users who refused to participate would be blocked, and if they came back and continued to edit war would be blocked for a longer duration, while the others would be given a final warn. And yes, full protection should never be used short of an all out vandalism sockpuppet mayday, or a content dispute so large that blocking would stop half of wikipedia from editing. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
A hit-and-run comment: I agree with Tiptoety, and it should be noted that quite a few admins hold this view as well. If editors cannot edit productively on an article and are causing disruption to the normal wiki processes, they should be blocked. It is unfair to fully protect an article simply because certain editors can't act appropriately. This is a wiki, after all, a site dedicated to the notion that anyone can edit. Punishing other users for the bad acts of a few is not a good idea when there are alternatives. Of course, a line must be drawn somewhere, however, if it's clear that ten editors are disrupting the wiki process for thousands, block 'em, and don't think twice about it. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that no-one has raised any concerns with me regarding my oppose, but really, that's what the RFA talk page is for, and personally, I agree with Tiptoety's reasoning for opposing, merely the fact that fully protecting an article, should be when no other option is conceivable, not as a first measure. If the issue can be resolved another way other than protection, then, that should be done. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

The Original Barnstar
Hello, my fellow Wikipedian I have come to congratulate you on a job well done. Thank You! Buddha24 (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Why thank you, I am not sure what I did to deserve it, but it is always nice to be recognized. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 14:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Northern Mockingbird sp - thanks

Thanks for semi-protecting Northern Mockingbird. It's not often I wish I had the keys to the janitor's closet but today is one of those days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI one of the two vandals along with another one are back. I've requested a week's worth of protection this time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Just request the abusive account to be blocked, that would better solve the issue. Tiptoety talk 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If only it were that easy. The only "repeat" account is a netblock from a school. It would be a shame to block the whole school on account of one student. If it keeps up though, that may be what it takes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, schools are blocked for up to a year at times to stop disruptive editing. I agree it is too bad that the whole school has to suffer for one moron, but it is better than making every IP who comes to the article to find it protected. Tiptoety talk 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and blocked this IP, hopefully all of this will slow them down. Tiptoety talk 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reagan edits 3RR

Hi, thanks for the warning message. I'm pretty sure I haven't violated anything, as I reverted the edits three times yesterday and once today. Those who made the disruptive edits (User:CyberAnth and User:Cryptographic hash) engaged in WP:STALKING, and followed me from the Jeremiah Wright controversy page, where I had requested full protection to resolve disputes. The two users were angry with me for implementing content that had been discussed on the talk page, after they chose not to participate in the discussions. I was labeled many times as a "POV cherry-picker", etc. etc., so I responded, notifying them of my two major accomplishments: getting Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan to featured article status. CyberAnth went over and immediately smaked POV and unbalaned tags on the RR article, and made an unverifiable claim on NR's. So I took it to the Wikiquette alert page, but nothing has come of that as of now. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Happy, I am please that you left me a note with this information as I had never really heard the full story. I am simply warning you that continuing to edit war will result in a block but recognize that your current actions are not block worthy. If you contine to have issues with wiki-stalking and attacks upon you, I encourage you to head on over to WP:ANI or do as you did in the past and head on over to WP:WQA. Let me know if there is any way for me to help. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well thanks for your willingness to help. I'm going to stick with WQA for now, and hopefully I won't have to go to to ANI. But we'll see.... My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome, but please keep in mind that just because you have not violated WP:3RR by making more than 3 reverts that has nothing do do with edit warring, which is about confrontational editing behavior. Be aware that you can still be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well your timing was perfect because I was right in the middle of filing a WP:SSP report, citing the WP:RFCU results. This will make it much easier to actually get things done at the Wright page. Thank you! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Aufs deletion

Hi, sorry for the annoyance, but you've just deleted the aufs article, my first one ;) I'm relativly new to Wikipedia EN, just a French editor. I understand that you did this in respect of the, deletion process as no one has opposed to this since a user applied the "PROD tag"... But I did spend time to greatly improve the article since the tag was implied. I had only not understood that I had also to remove the tag myself :( Could you give back to life to this article, since I think it is not only a dictionary article as it was once ? If no, please tell me why. Regards, SRombauts (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted on my userpage, I will generally not restore content directly to article space, but I would be more than happy to copy deleted content to a sub-page of yours. It can be found here. Do to the deletion being a PROD, you are more than welcome to recreate the article on you feel the concerns have been dealt with. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 14:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done so, aufs is back online :) . Regards, SRombauts (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Zzzz Oregon COTW

Howdy ya’ll, time for another Collaboration of the Week from WikiProject Oregon. Last week we improved Flag of Oregon & Detroit Lake, enough I think to move them to Start class, so great job everyone! This week, we have another request in Oregon Ballot Measure 47 and a randomly selected two sentence stub that should be easy to expand enough for a DYK in Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Block?

That edit came after a final warning; is the block not correct? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Tiptoety talk 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Right mate, I'll keep that in mind. Sorry for making a mistake on my first day... we all do it, right? (P.S. You may be interested to know I've changed my view on protection and editwars since your question.) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My reply here. Tiptoety talk 21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed two

Hi, at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam you stated all blocked but you missed blocking the following two:

You are right, I looked right past those. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WBOSITG's RfA

Hello Tiptoety, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Tiptoety; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw a good knock knock joke today:

  • Knock Knock.
  • [Who's there?]
  • Annoying Interrupting Person.
  • [Annoy-
  • I already told you who was there.

Thanks for your support. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you will do a fine job as a admin! And thanks for the laugh! :D Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead infobox photos at the Automobile project discussion page

Hello,

I understand that you are an administrator. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for awhile (for how long, I don't know). There is a discussion concerning lead articles used for automobiles going on about a really stupid subject. Instead of rehashing what has been said, I invite you to read, as if you don't have enough going on. Is this what Wikipedia is like? Please Advise. (Dddike (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Hi there, simply do to the fact that I am unaware to what page/discussion you are referring to (as I am not involved in the Automobile project), I was wondering if you could provide me a link so I can better help you. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link, I hope. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles then lead article photos. It is somewhat lengthy. The biggest issue I am currently experiencing is not the topic of discussion at this point. It is what I see as strident assertions, of which I have participated. After reading the discussion, you'll see what I mean. Thanks (Dddike (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, that made it easier to find. First off, wikipedia uses consensus, not voting to make important decisions (or decisions of any kind for that matter) as clearly stated here: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Now, understand that if you feel a clear consensus has been made and you feel there is no longer a point to discussing the topic than apply WP:BOLD and make the changed. I would like to also note that User:842U has been blocked for blatant sock puppetry and abusing multiple accounts, meaning that any of his contributions are likely to be reverted. Tiptoety talk 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Please help. Does consensus at Wikipedia mean the same thing as consensus in a dictionary? It seems that at the beginning of this discussion, my opinion was asked. But now I'm being asked to "shut up". What do you suggest?
I am not sure what you mean by Does consensus at Wikipedia mean the same thing as consensus in a dictionary? But all I can say is that you may want to request mediation. Tiptoety talk 04:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and suggestion, mediation has been requested.(Dddike (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Ethical Culture Fieldston School protection denial

Hi Tiptoety - I don't know, in the last month there were something like 42 edits, all but 6 or 7 clarify of which were bogus vandalizing edits, mostly kids putting their own names or the names of their friends into the article, and the 6 or 7 were reverts of the other 37. Seems to me to warrant semi protection for a while, but whatever you think. Cheers Tvoz/talk 05:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Understand that while there was a high amount of vandalism it did not appear to be moving at a very fast rate, the article looked like it was only getting hit one out of every three days and sa such not really requiring protection. You are more than welcome to relist or drop me a note if it gets worse. Tiptoety talk 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable - thanks! Tvoz/talk 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. Unblock request

Hello Tiptoety. There was no checkuser for that user, I blocked him as an obvious sock after noticing one of User:Polscience's most evident signs on his editing. I can later send you an e-mail revealing what that pattern consists of. Of course, there's always the tiny chance of this user being the victim of an unfortunate coincidence. So I was going to ask you if you could ask Alison to run a quick checkuser on him just to verify if he is a Polscience's sock after all (as the user disputes, but Polscience also has a long history of shamelessly disputing his proven sockpuppetry). I would ask her myself, but I'm running late for classes and must run now. I'll be back later. Regards, Húsönd 12:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dmcdevit verified that he is indeed a sock of User:Polscience. I went ahead and declined the unblock request. Also it appears that User:Alwer, User:Elkarotter, and User:Armat are all sockpuppets of his too (blocked). Tiptoety talk 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Block, block

[Sock, sock]

Who's there?

Ewenss is still there.

It looks like Ewenss came back as an anon IP and unblocked himself. See [4]. Is it really that easy? --Hjal (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he has not unblocked himself but instead just moved on to using another IP. I went ahead and blocked the IP for 31 hours for block evasion. Thanks for pointing that out. Tiptoety talk 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Maddylouise96

Because of the type of edits from Maddylouise96 (talk · contribs), this account should be closed. The writing is on the wall. IP4240207xx (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The edits do not appear to be too disruptive and as such I will give them the benefit of doubt and AGF here. Maybe all it is is a new user trying to get used to wikipedia. If they continue to vandalize after their block I will block them indefinitely. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Call it a gut feeling...IP4240207xx (talk)
Well, we will see. Tiptoety talk 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris Hansen

Oh okay, thanks. I wasn't familiar with the case, so I went on the lack of problematic activity. I'll certainly bear that in mind when I next see that name. And thanks for spotting the incorrect full protection; I'm sorry about that, because that was something I was particularly keen to avoid. Blocking if two; protection if the dispute is such that editors will be willing to enter further discussion,otherwise it would be a pointless excercise. Got it. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about the full protection it is only what your third day as a admin? We all make silly mistakes, and having the article full protected for a few minutes did not really break anything. :D Tiptoety talk 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

undertow

You mean that Don Murphy is just lying to make himself look more important? Oh, well, thanks for the head up. Do you think I should delete my statement? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see that other people already commented on it. I'll just leave it there --Enric Naval (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The account is not under the control of Don Murphy, that has been proven by a check user (not sure how much clearer I can make myself). I recommend going over there saying that you redact your statement. Tiptoety talk 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Changed it [5] --Enric Naval (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, it was confusing a good number of users. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Joke

So these two antennas meet on a rooftop. They get to talking, and as it turns out, they have a lot in common. Eventually they realize they are in love, and decide to get married. Since I was the engineer who put them on the roof, they invited me to the wedding. I'll tell you, the ceremony was kinda boring, but the reception was excellent.

Have a great day, and thanks for all the work you do. --Mblumber (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:D Tiptoety talk 04:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping to see a pair of bots challenge each other to a duel. By the way, seriously check out bash.org. Too funny. Enigma message 04:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a question

I added this recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Differential but was wondering if I can copy/paste the same comment to the talk page of the other 2-3 articles which talks about calculus differentials. Is multiple copy/pasting allowed? It increases the chances of a better reply, but its not all in one place. My second question is for how to go about acquiring wikipedia policy information--"if there's anything else, ask me on my talk page"--is this meant like when I've given up trying to find it on my own. Do admins spend a sizeable amount of time answering policy questions? I see it as a way to reduce future admin work caused by newbie editors who didnt take 30 seconds to simply ask. Thanks. Sentriclecub (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy-paste rules do not apply to article-talk pages, or content that you write that will not appear in the article itself, that said you should not canvass users, or use copy-past to spam users who read the talk pages. As for policy questions, yes, we are here to help be answering policy questions, but you can also just look here: Category:Wikipedia official policy, every policy of wikipedia is listed there. Let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 14:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Delicate sockpuppet situation

Greetings, Tiptoety. Thanks for your speedy action to shut down this sockpuppet & puppetmaster. There's some ongoing difficulty on the project page that exposed this particular case, and I'm not quite sure how to handle it properly. Several of us, including at least two editors much more heavily involved in the project than I, strongly suspect that the user responsible for the 842U/BMWR1200C puppets is in fact also responsible for Vbclerate, Amarapura, Jingpho, and possibly Dddike. I can't speak for the others who suspect, but my own suspicions are based on the content, tone, style, and timing of these users' contributions to the discussion linked above, as well as certain of my suspects' having created their accounts very shortly after 842U's sockpuppetry was discovered and exposed, and/or having contributed only to this discussion. However, all of this is circumstantial, and I'm not clear on the standard of evidence required to initiate a puppetry investigation. I don't want to make extra work for anyone by filing an accusation that'll have to be tossed out as improper or frivolous.

Two further notes:

1. I do not regard disagreement with my opinions, interpretations, preferences, or actions as prima facie evidence of sock puppetry. I believe it is possible for reasonable people given the same situation to disagree, and I bear no ill will caused by disagreement (though I do take a dim view of those who behave badly and/or refuse to comply with the letter and/or spirit of Wikipedia policy, protocol, and rules).

2. It looks as if Jingpho and Amarapura are already categorised as suspected sock puppets of 842U. I'm not sure what the significance is of this categorisation. Does it mean they're under investigation, or just that someone suspects them? Who's authorised to categorise users as suspected sock puppets?

Any assistance or advice you can give will be much appreciated. Please respond here or on my own talk page, as you prefer. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are able to (any user is able to) start a sockpuppetry case, as I have no capability to confirm or deny your suspicions at this time, though there does seem to be some pretty good evidence. The reason that User:Jingpho and User:Amarapura are in that cat is because they have been confirmed though a checkuser. You are able to place any user in that cat by adding {{sockpuppet}}: {{sockpuppet|842U}} to the userpage of the user you believe to be a sock, but keep in mind that you should have good evidence to justify your actions before doing it. Let me know if this is unclear. Tiptoety talk 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, per this RFCU you suspicions were confirmed and all the accounts have now been blocked. Tiptoety talk 01:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Making each title more clear is tough, because we don't want the table to get too wide. By "adminship", yes, it refers to admin coaching, requests for rollback, RFA. Noticeboards, yeah, AN, ANI, COIN, whatever other noticeboards out there. Useight (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'll put one together. Useight (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Tiptoety/Archive 13, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Olympiacos F.C.

I made a null edit on the article pointing to the talk page and created a discussion there, I hope that it will encourage discussion. Something else, I was looking at the transclusions of Template:Uw-vandalism1, when I saw this page that you created a long time ago. Cenarium (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for doing that. I would always rather start a discussion than lock up a page. Ah...only my second month on wikipedia, it brings back memories of how I did not understand much of anything (as the edit clearly shows). Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like the situation is resolved, for now. Heh, I add this kind of feelings with my past contribs too, particularly my first encounter with vandalism... I'll try to get these template messages substed. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Great, I am so glad to hear the situation is resolved without the need for any administrative tools. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

don't do that

do not delete stuff from my page. I can have whatever I want on my page as long as it is not an attack on another user, and I don't have anything like that.Altenhofen (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually per WP:OWN, your userpage and all of its content belongs to the community (en.wikipedia) and as such should conform to Wikipedia's policies and should not serve the purpose of disrupting the project. I removed the content from your page because it went against WP:BEANS and was simply there to make a point. Saying "I have been threatened to be blocked, but never have" is like saying "haha..I get away with shit, and only someone with balls will block me". If you are simply wanting to state that you have never been blocked, there is really no need as anyone can check you block log. I will not be removing the content again as I strictly fallow a 1RR rule, but I do ask that you rephrase the statement. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

yea.

1. don't swear, it isn't nice. 2. I put it there so if I ever put in an RFA people will know I am an honest wikipedian who has made some mistakes. 3. I have had a horrible weekend, please don't make it worse.Altenhofen (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_13&oldid=1085420452"