This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
warnings for Funnypop12
Funnypop12was indeed warned about his repeated deletes to Muhammad. Look nearer the top of his talk page. The issue was discussed at length a couple months ago and it was decided that the images would stay. He deleted the images again a couple hours ago. This time (and last time) he has a new canard: that the pictures are really of Persian kings, for which he offers no evidence. He refuses to engage in any sort of conversation. -- Frotz661 20:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
AIV is for simple vandalism, disagreeing about whether or not an image should be in an article is a content dispute. I see no evidence that Funnypop12 is acting in bad faith, he just disagrees with you. If you can't reach a concensus that everyone agrees to stick to, try making an RFC. --Tango 21:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This person has been repetitively reverting my edits to continue to put their incorrect information on the page, and have ignored all of my attempts to have a civil discussion with them. I have left comments in the talk page, on his talk page, in the comment for editing the article, and within the article itself as hidden comments in the lines the person is editing. I put a "dispute" tag at the top of the page, but the person also deleted that. This edit war has been going on for at least two weeks.
I would gladly accept my error if the person would prove me wrong by citing facts, but because the person chooses to make no contact with me, I believe he/she is either trying to harass me (considering the way he/she reverts the pages) or has problems understanding that they should discuss disputes on wikipedia. Either way, I don't want this incorrect information left on the page, but I don't want to break the same revert rules this person is breaking. What am I supposed to do? Miriam The Bat 23:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
AIV is for vandalism, and it's only vandalism if it is in bad faith. This could easily be someone that just doesn't understand about discussion, as you say. If you have proof that the information he's adding is wrong, I suggest going to WP:AN/I. You can give a full explanation there, and someone might block him for being disruptive (which it looks like he is, even if it isn't vandalism). I've only logged on for a second to check something else, though, so don't have time to do it myself. --Tango 10:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
MOS (writing about fiction)
In the past you have participated in discussion about this guideline, or voted in it's acceptence. There is currently a discussion about a partial rewrite of this guideline. The discussion could benefit from some more input. Thank you for your contributions. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Your RFA happened to be at the top of the page when the first discussion about splitting RfAs into sections took place on WT:RFA, so I used yours as an example for my suggestion (which I think is finally being implemented in a slightly tidied up form). I barely knew who you were at the time, it was entirely chance. --Tango 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for reversing my erroneous speedy delete request on Jesse Barrera. I did not realize that there was a separate page for this band. Had I realized, I would not have added the tag. Thank you again for helping me out. --Commodorepants 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor has nominated University Business, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Business and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --Eastmain 02:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Unblock of 63.3.19.1 / 2 / 129 / 130
I understand you're trying to give the IP user that's been harassing me the "benefit of the doubt". But I think it's extraordinarily unfair to me. I've been trying my best to be a good contributor here, but it seems my incentive to even make edits dwindles when someone's given the leeway that this user has. If you need proof that those 4 IPs are connected (the same user), I can show you. The fact is, the user threatened my life and on top of that has vandalized/defaced pages on a consistent basis, despite numerous warnings. Please reconsider this. --Ubiq 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I unblocked the IP address because I felt it looked like a dynamic address, ie. one that is used by different people at different times. The fact that the person harassing you has used 4 different, very similar, addresses is evidence of that. I think blocking those 4 addresses is more likely to block innocent users than they are likely to block the person harassing you. It looks like they are addresses that are assigned at random by the ISP whenever someone logs on, so the only way we could stop the user that's been harassing you would be a block of the entire range (we could softblock the range, allowing registered users to continue to edit, so it is an option, but not an ideal one). The address I unblocked has made 3 edits since I unblocked it about a week ago - only one of those edits looks like vandalism to me, and even that wasn't particularly malicious vandalism (I don't think any of the edits were particularly helpful, but that doesn't make them vandalism). Is the harassment continuing? If so, from what addresses? I think for now the best option is 24 hour blocks on any address that is used by this person. If it continues much longer, we can consider a range block. I understand that it is very frustrating to be harassed like this and the person not be stopped, but because of the way the internet works it is often very difficult to stop one person without stopping lots of innocent people as well. Please let me know about any further harassment, and I'll see what I can do, but I really don't think long blocks of these addresses will help. --Tango 17:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern. My other annoyance, as seen on my usertalk page with Cool Hand Luke, is that anon IP users are given this kind of lenient treatment because of the fact that other users could be using the same IP. In a sense, they're allowed to hide behind the fact that they haven't registered. To me, this policy can/should be changed. I don't see why (assuming there actually are a few different users on this IP), the innocent one couldn't just register an account.
The user has not bothered me since the death threat, but had bothered/harassed me for quite a while before this, both on my usertalk page and on the Ann Coulter talk page. I attempted to get some intervention/help on multiple occasions, and the death threat seemed to be the "last straw". If you could link me to the unblock request for the user, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm open to the fact that there could be a few different users editing from it, but I see no reason to believe that every vandal exhibits vandalistic behavior all the time. It's possible the user could like the Simpsons a lot, and want to add quotes for the show, and that the user likes [a political pundit] so much that he/she is willing to threaten another user's life into stopping editing of that article. In a case like this, I don't believe any amount of contribution would justify allowing that user to stay. But I digress, this is probably essay-worthy stuff I shouldn't be complaining to you about. If the user harasses me again (anywhere on here), I'll come to you. My wikiblood is on your hands, so to speak. j/k, regards. --Ubiq 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If the harassment does continue, then I can block the address range and force any innocent users to register, but it's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that we allow anonymous editing where possible, so I'd rather be optimistic and assume the abusive user has stopped until shown otherwise. Just let me know if my optimism ends up being misplaced. --Tango 13:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Two recent edits were made to my user talk from the same editor who you unbanned. This time under a pretty wide IP range. The edits can be found here and here. The references to "getting closer" are amusing, but not too settling. The 209.244.43.x is a pretty large range, and most of the IPs in it have some vandalism or another. Let me know what you can do about this. (I'll keep this page watchlisted) --Ubiq 16:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I've softblocked the new range for a month - I've allowed account creation, and registered editing, just anonymous editing is blocked, so the collateral damage is minimal. He seems to be persistent, so we'll have to take the risk of losing some valuable anon edits. Let me know if he either comes back after the month is up, or comes back from a different IP range. --Tango 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The user came back under a slightly different IP: 209.244.42.140 and made edits to my talk page here. It seems only some of the IPs in the range have vandalized wikipedia. The user seems to have a lot of IPs just lying around. It makes me wonder how he/she could change them so easily. I don't know a lot about dynamic IPs but I'm guessing they just cycle through a bunch of them. I wish there was a way to find out all the IPs a user has edited under. It would make this process a lot easier. --Ubiq 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked that range too... It might be worth trying to find an abuse address for his ISP and report him. I'm not sure they are particularly helpful with this kind of thing, though... --Tango 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:RFA/Danny
I'd normally respond over there but in this case I thought it would be throwing petrol on a fire. Anyway, in response to this comment, I would hope we can dismiss the opinions of over 50 people. A set number of opposers (which remains static over time) over which the result will be "no consensus" would result in, over time, every discussion resulting in "no consensus" on a project like Wikipedia (which is still growing fast). – Steel 22:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you're not alone in wanting clarification, so I'll reply on that talk page. --Tango 12:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Lagrange Point Colonization
I took all the parts about the Sun's corona out on the Lagrange Point Colonization. It is an active subject with valid links. Mrld 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It's still nonsense, I'm afraid. The first two paragraphs contradict each other. One is talking about the Earth-Moon points and the other is talking about the Sun and makes no reference to what the 2nd body is at all. Saying there are 5 Lagrange points in the solar system is complete rubbish, there are 5 for each pair of bodies. There is still a reference to the Sun's corona in the Benefits section. The only information in the article that is both useful and correct is the stationkeeping stuff, and that is already in the Space colonization article. --Tango 00:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed it up even more and this time I have removed all references to the sun's corona. Mrld 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It is still confused about the difference between Earth-Moon points and Sun-Earth points. If you want to keep the article, I suggest a complete rewrite. (Incidentally, I don't think you violated 3RR, I only count 2 reverts.) --Tango 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea. I (When the next 24 hours is up because I broke the 3RR) could separte the Moon-Earth and Sun-Earth points into separate sections in the article and add more things that clarify the differences between the the two things. I invite you and other editors to join in too. Mrld 21:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Seperating them would be good. I'll go and revert it and then you can start whenever you like. --Tango 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed up the article as you requested and made the separate sections in the places you put. Feel free to add anything you think that I might have left out.
Thanks for helping. Sorry for getting into an edit war over the article. I guess I just got carried away on my first non-stub article being redireced! Thanks again! Mrld 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think we should keep the benefits section? Mrld 23:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The benefits are different for each point so it should be included in the main descriptions of each of the uses. --Tango 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for confirmation
Hello, after a series of impostors, I found q:User:Tango eventually. Suspecting if this account is on a good faith, I'm going to block it for a while. if it belongs to you too, please reply me here on your talk, I'll lift it up as soon as possible. Sorry for your inconvenience, if any. Thank. --Aphaia 06:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea... I'll go and see if I can log in with the same password I use for this account... --Tango 12:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
None of my passwords worked. Then I thought to check the logs and it was only created yesterday - even my memory isn't that bad! So no, it's not my account, so if Wikiquotes has a rule against people having the same name as people on other projects (I'm not familiar with wikiquote policy) then it should probably stay blocked. Thanks for asking. --Tango 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your attention. So someone may have tried to be fake your identity. If you would like to usurp the account, please let us know. Until then, we'll keep it blocked. Cheers, --Aphaia 09:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Daedalus
Hey. See this edit. What do you think? Matthew 21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"The" is definitely correct. The article is about the class, which is singular. "A Daedalus-class battlecruiser is a fictional class of starship" doesn't make sense, since it is being described as a class and there is only one class being discussed. Is you want it to start with "a" it should be "A Daedalus-class battlecruiser is a fictional starship", which would be correct, but I prefer the way it was before. Your rewording does get round the issue, but I think it was better before - the current wording is only correct at once specific time during in the show's timeline, which actually makes it more in-universe. --Tango 12:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Tango, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Stargate Hathor.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tango/Hathor. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You removed the Speedy Deletion tag on the article whilst claiming it was notable. I sent it to AfD. I thought you might be interested in joining the discussion. --CyrusAndiron 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't claim it was notable, I said it asserted notability. Only articles that don't even try and claim to be notable can be speedied under A7. That article claims notability, so it needs to go through AfD or PROD to determine if those claims are valid. That's not a decision I can make unilaterally. --Tango 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's debatable. It mentioned awards that were only referenced by the organization that gives it out. How is that an assertion of notability? In your edit summary you claimed that the awards were the reason for removing the SD tag [3]. Did you even check to verfify the awards? Notability is asserted through the use of multiple non-trivial sources, which were clearly absent in the article in question. I was a little aggravated at having the tag removed without any reasoning on the discussion page. That aside, my point was to let you know that it was up for deletion in case you wanted to comment. I didn't intend to question your reasoning for removing the tag, but your explanation rubbed me the wrong way. --CyrusAndiron 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Verifying the validity of an assertion is subjective, and therefore cannot be done unilaterally. Nevertheless, thank you for letting me know about the AfD. In future, you might find it easier to use WP:PROD. --Tango 19:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I see, the references are grossly inadequate. Three of the four do nothing but define what a "Lagrange point" is, the remaining one seems to be from some game/fiction (mentioning technology levels). - Mike Rosoft 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point about the "technology levels" page, I hadn't actually seen that one - I've removed it. The 2nd one is just a dictionary definition, certainly, but the next 2 (especially the ESA one) do discuss potential uses of the points. --Tango 15:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Simple Wiktionary
Thanks for you past work on SE Wikt. I've set a goal of having 2,000 entries by the end of the month. I hope you'll be inspired to come and help us achieve it.--BrettR 17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Block
Ummm, how long was this block? Cause I'm able to edit now. I guess it must have expired before I got to my computer again. See, the whole problem is that a bunch of users (or as it most probably will turn out: a multiple account user) does one and the same revertions to a set number of articles. He is absent for let's say a week and then comes back and reverts them (including his own userpage despite all the warnings he got (from other users and admins). From all that he has done I cannot assume good faith anymore and consider him a real trouble user. There is no discussion possible - he says "this is so and so" and does not want anything more. He does not will to present any reliable sources ever. In the beginning I tried to discuss the issues, but it did not help one bit. User:NikoSilver and User:Mr. Neutron agree with me on those articles and the latter constantly gets warned by this (those) users to stop "vandalizing" articles. Take a look at the issue if you have the time and you'll see for yourself. --LaveolT 01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Your block was only 3 hours, since you had never been blocked before. It was intended more as a warning than anything. I understand the frustration in dealing with users that won't discuss their edits, but continually reverting them is not the answer. Take a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for some advice on what steps you should take. --Tango 13:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
