User:Fvw/TalkArchive/11

CSDs
Hmm, not sure what you mean.... can you show me the example of what I did? I typically do add it and not delete the page content. gren グレン 00:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ehmm, well I deleted them (I can undelete though if you want to check). The two articles tagged by you I came across (One In Ten and Buckley Meyers) had the problem; Still as long as it's just accidental there's no problem. Thanks for helping out on RC patrol! --fvw *  00:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * It wasn't an accident, I was probably doing something wrong... maybe  I wasn't paying attnetion when I did it.  One page I deleted some nonsense... from it... hmm, sorry for belaboring this but I'm not sure what I did. If the page was

Fish are cool is a mean person made of cottage cheese.


 * I would change its content to

Fish are cool is a mean person made of cottage cheese.


 * Is that correct, or did I delete the content when I did it earlier (which I don't think I normally do). gren グレン 00:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the correct way. What happened was this (I've undeleted the page temporarily and moved it to my user space to illustrate, let me know when you've seen it and I'll delete it again). --fvw *  00:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry... I wasn't really thinking. I went through two-thoughts at once... firstly to reform it... and then I realized it should be deleted and forgot to re-add content.  Thanks for telling me, and sorry for wasting your time. :)  gren グレン 00:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-English
Good Lord you're right! I would have bet the house on it...I must have scanned article #2 and not read further. And one of my pet peeves is bending the rules on CSD. I'll laugh about it after my face stops turing red :) Rx StrangeLove 00:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: nowcommons
I usually tag images that are duplicated on the Commons with speedy deletion because they are of lower quality/resolution (as in the case of the Mikulski image), which is a criteria for speedy deletion, but is good to know in some cases. Thanks. :) -- tomf688  01:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * The CSD only applies to images on wikipedia, not those on commons I'm afraid; even if the image on wikipedia is of lower quality. --fvw *  01:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm well thanks for the info. Also... could you make your talk link in your sigs a little easier to click? ;) -- tomf688  01:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean I should get a longer name? Hmm, I'll consider it. --fvw *  01:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * No no, I was just referring to the little * next to your name in your signature. -- tomf688  01:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, that. Yes, finding a way to make that easier to click may merit some thought. In the mean time: --fvw * 01:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, was just a thought. ;) -- tomf688  01:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Link
My link on AntiNeopian met the criteria for an external link. 24.49.226.26 02:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Dear Fvw: Follow your own NPOV injunction in future, and try to take care to edit stuff you understand or in which you have had even some education; you are an idiot. mitchellanderson
 * NPOV requires including all viewpoints, not merely the one you think is right. Furthermore, please adhere to our No Personal Attacks policy. It makes harmonious editing a lot easier. --fvw *  20:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
WTF are you talking about? WillC 03:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "merge with star trek shit" is not a proper AfD nomination. Specify under what part of the deletion policy the article should be deleted, add proper headers and add the subpage to the main AfD page. Basicly, follow the instructions at WP:AfD. --fvw *  20:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

re: 3RR
I know, but I'm seriously of the opinion that those edits were vandalism. I would have had no reason to start an edit war about Urdu language, simply because I didn't know anything about the topic previously and I have no POV whatsoever about it. Those edits just read like vandalism to me, and I reverted them as such. - ulayiti (talk)   (my RfA)  12:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Anal sex
It's been a full 7 days since Sam participated in any discussion on this article's talk page (though he has been online and editing other pages). I think it's time to unprotect. Exploding Boy 00:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Steven Kerckhoff
He he, the outcome of this one surprised me, I have to admit. I absolutely love AfD. I wonder if the Michigan guy ever existed? --Tony Sidaway Talk 12:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Accident
Yes, you're not only right, but rather scarily fast. I'll move it. thank you. --bodnotbod 21:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

History of the Internet
I take it that's a vote for rewrite? --John R. Barberio talk, contribs 20:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's a vote for "voting is bad, let's discuss things." --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 20:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Totaly agree. Hence why the poll is worded the way it is. Running it as a poll since Third Opinion, and RFC posting just hasnt brought anyone in to help get past the deadlock. --John R. Barberio talk, contribs 20:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, the question in the poll has been edited to be a little less conflictive. Now, "Was ARPANET the sole significant contributor of culure and methods of use for the Internet as we know it today?". --John R. Barberio talk, contribs 09:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What??
What personal attacks did I make? And if there are in reference to Gadugi, note that he has been spreading lies about me around this encyclopedia. Molotov (talk)  20:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Idiot" is a personal attack. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, personal attacks are not tolerated. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 20:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This guy has put me through a lot of crap. I am sorry if I was angry...but I am pretty sure if someone was spreading lies about you, you would get pretty made to.  He should be banned for the kind of stuff he is doing.  Orange Tournesol.png]] Molotov  (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg 20:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

NPA
Thanks, I edited my comment on WP:AN/I (I assume that's what you were referring to). I know it's not good admin behavior, but sometimes the weird individual politicking on the Wikipedia is difficult to deal with. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the warning though, I can tell you are a dedicated editor:



Take care, Molotov (talk)  20:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg
Hi. Sorry for the delay. I have copied the image to the english Wiki, and updated the license. Not sure if it can be kept, though. I also listed it for defeaturing. Shame, was a nice pic -- Chris 73 Talk 21:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Costello photo
You may not have seen this exchange

What is the status of fvw's comment? Who is in charge of this process? Can I get a clear, definitive and enforceable ruling from you that photos I upload using the formula I have used on the will not be deleted? Adam 00:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It has a fair use rationale on top of the permission. I think that makes it not-a-speedy-candidate.  Of course as with any image, it could be vulnerable to deletion if the community eventually deems the fair use rationale to be thin (unlikely in this case) and it could be replaced someday with a properly licensed image (likely in this case), so of course there can be no iron-clad guarantees given.  But I am happy to say that the fair use rationale, done well, is still reason enough to keep.


 * We will be having a significant tightening of "fair use" on the site in the near future... but the direction of that is going to be the outcome of a lot of very admirable work going on to refine the fair use tags.--Jimbo Wales 01:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam 07:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, so that was a fair use image not a used-with-permission one? To avoid confusion in future, you'll want to tag them as fair use (accompanied by a rationale if you want to be really thourough). --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 14:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

NPA
I have not made any personal attacks on you. Adam 10:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but NPA goes for attacks against all editors, even those you believe are acting in bad faith. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 14:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Adam 14:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * this --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 14:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll repeatedly vandalise your user page and call you a faggot a few times and see how you like it, shall I? I suggest, with the greatest respect, that you mind your own business. Adam 15:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a community effort, so it is my business, as it is everyone's. If you don't like the policy, propose changing it. Incidentally, I've been called a faggot and quite a few more creative insults on my user page and I've always managed to cope with it without stooping to their level. I suggset you try doing the same. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 15:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Mud afds
I noticed you afd'd a non-notable mud earlier today. Much as I dislike campaigning for afd votes, could I trouble you to comment on Articles for deletion/Aeon of darkness and Articles for deletion/Shadow codebase? I'd hate to see these end up closed as no consensus. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Costello photo
The text under the photo you deleted said: "This photograph is held under Crown copyright by the Commonwealth of Australia. The responsible Commonwealth agency, AUSPIC, gave written permission on 2 August 2005 for this photograph to be used at Wikipedia (see following). The use of this image by is contended by Australian Wikipedians to be fair dealing in Australia and fair use in the United States. (Letter from AUSPIC to User:Adam Carr: "Dear Dr Carr, Approval is granted to reproduce images nominated below [photographs of Members, Senators and Governors-General appearing in current and past editions of the Parliamentary Handbook] on the Wikipedia website. Subsequent use by a third pary will incur reproduction fees if that use is of a commercial nature. Copyright remains with AUSPIC. Peter West, Director, AUSPIC auspic@aph.gov.au)"

So it both used-with-permission and fair use. I don't know how much more clearly it can be labelled. Are you now agreeing that photos tagged in this way should not be deleted? If not, on what basis are you arguing this? If so, can you retrieve the Costello photo or do I have to scan it again? Adam 14:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant with the image tagging templates (though I'd advise against using the used-with-permission template as it doesn imply the image should be deleted. The fair use rationale is quite sufficient for keeping the image on wikipedia for the time being). --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 14:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm afraid images cannot be undeleted, you'll have to reupload. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 14:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could get a straight answer on this topic from someone. I am not going to upload any more photos using this or any other template under I get a firm guarantee that they will not be deleted - not just "for the time being," but anytime. I asked Mr Wales for this guarantee but all I got was a lot of equivocation. Who is actually in charge of this policy? Who is in a position to give me a straight answer about this? Not you, obviously. Adam 15:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I can give you some very simple straight answers.


 * Who is in charge?
 * The community, though the board and jimbo can overrule (but rarely do).
 * Can I get a firm guarantee that fair use images will not be deleted?
 * No, we are in the process of replacing all recreatable fair use images with free ones. However, though I have no crystal ball, I suspect we're going to be keeping unreplaceableFair use images with a strong fair use rationale for a long time yet.
 * Does that clear things up? --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 15:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales
. No sense of humor? Aleichem 18:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No, but thanks anyway. Adam 23:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox
Sorted. Forsworth 16:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandal 66.24.233.50
Thanks for helping out with this vandal; however, please don't skip over when warning vandals. I've removed your addition and replaced it with that template. Thanks! Kurt Weber 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no wait for sufficient vandalism to pile up if it's clear where things are going, I usually sort of seat-of-the-pants it in judging which warnings are necessary. Anyway, I've blocked them now so they shouldn't be any more trouble for today. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 17:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I responded to your comments on this on my talk page. Kurt Weber 18:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

TracyT1800
Sorry about that. I'll review that document and watch how I mark stuff. Tracyt1800 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A note from you on my Talk page: Heya, thanks for helping out with RC patrol, but please stop marking articles that don't satisfy one of the speedy deletion criteria for speedy deletion. Use WP:AfD instead."

Thanks anyway
Although you voted oppose on my RfA, I wanted to thank you for participating anyway. Molotov (talk)  18:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Already? Wait for the fat lady... :-) --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 18:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to be nice. Some vandalism had just happened on your talk page.  I have reverted it...but I guess a guilt trip wont work. : (.  Anyway, I don't go to many operas...the fat lady can wait. Lol.  Take care, Molotov  (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 18:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * See that IP you just put test3 on? I can handle it, man. : )  Molotov  (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 18:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

207.188.79.177
Why is this user engaged in a content dispute?

Jim Apple 18:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The text entered isn't wikified; the user has been informed about this, but doesn't change habits.
 * The text is copied wholesale without attribution from an old version of Afrocentrism; the user has been warned but doesn't change habits.
 * There is no content dispute between this user and deeceevoice, but even deeceevoice reverts the changes.
 * user:Rd232 has already called this user a vandal.


 * You may not like the formatting of the text, but in essence the dispute is about whether a piece of text is included in the article or not. I'm not saying you're wrong or right on the matter, merely that it isn't vandalism. Have a look at WP:DR. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 18:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your work on merkey related stuff
I wanted to thank you for what is probably otherwise a very thankless task.

Here's my reading on the case. This is a fight that's spilled over from somewhere else on the Internet. None of the participants have much of a clue about Wikipedia's culture of kindness. There are people who love trolling Jeff Merkey because he's easily excited.

We should do our best to encourage all of them to take their fight elsewhere, before their poisonous attitudes start to make us irritated with each other.

Anyway, it's good to see you in there.--Jimbo Wales 01:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Koranic annotation signs
Hi, This arose out of the nonsense that's being going on with articles for unsearchable Unicode articles (U+06DE etc). I moved the content of two of them to Rub El Hizb and Ayah and then thought it would be worth consolidating those and anything similar into an article. Some of the others e.g. PLACE OF SAJDAH seem to have more widespread uses, but I still need to research the topic more. Dlyons493 05:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mike
As a heads up, the arbcom has previously established that they do not feel Mike Garcia is within their jurisdiction, as his parole is granted by Jimbo, who's decisions they do not have the power to overturn. Snowspinner 01:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you give a link? I agree that the Board and Jimbo can overturn any arbcom decision, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the arbcom can't do anything barring intervention from Jimbo. Still, if that's their decision and they're sticking with it we'll have to see what else should be done. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for lodging the arbitration request for this long overdue matter. As I have been involved in this particular dispute from the very beginning (back when I was unregistered and editing from 66.36.x.x), do you think I should make a statement? Or should I not get involved. Pasboudin 00:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would really add anything, the necessary points have been made I think and the less verbose we make the entire affair the less time is wasted on it. Thanks anyway though. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 01:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:UTAH SR-12.PNG & Image:UTAH SR-24.PNG
I did not recreate it. The original deletion was in error, as it was deleted for no source the day after it was uploaded (without giving 7 days). The original uploader re-uploaded it. I'm still not sure the image is OK to have here, but it deserves discussion, not a speedy deletion. --SPUI (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's currently not got an associated image and is an orphan image info page, created by you. Maybe someone deleted it while you were modifying it? Anyway, the seven day wait isn't necessary here, as it's a "used with permission" licence uploaded after may 2005. See WP:CSD for more info. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 02:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was deleted as I was saving. It's not really a permission license, which applies only to Wikipedia. I talked with people on IRC and they're not sure if it's OK or not.
 * And if this keeps up, I'm going to go into "YOU FUCKS, I MARKED THE THING AS NO LICENSE AT FIRST, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S FINE, BUT OTHERS ON IRC THINK IT IS SO I'M GIVING IT A CHANCE" mode. So let's get this over with. You really should be talking to the uploader, not me. --SPUI (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

'''Why did you delete Image:UTAH SR-12.PNG and Image:UTAH SR-24.PNG? These are MAPS not photos, maps need to be modified to fit the specific area talked about. I ask Jimbo if I got a letter for copyright release, we could use it.''' What is the deal? I didn't think that I had it tagged right and ask for help with the right tag???? So if we have a letter of release we still can't use it? WikiDon 03:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we can only use them if they're released under the GFDL or a similar free licence. Images only wikipedia is allowed to use are speedy deletion candidates, as they severely hamper the free redistributability of the encyclopaedia we're making. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 03:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * PS Just mark it GFDL and call it good? WikiDon 03:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very bad idea unless the copyright owner expressly licenced them under that licence. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 03:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The State of Utah is giving "me" the right to modify the image, I then create the new image that I want, and to that image "I" give it the GFDL tag for free distribution. WikiDon
 * It doesn't work that way. You're creating a derived work from their copyrighted material, so the redistribution and copying of the end result is limited both by how you and how the state of utah allow it, i.e. it's more restricted or at the very least just as restricted. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 03:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

So what can I do? WikiDon
 * You can either ask them to licence it under the GFDL or creative commons (once you explain what and why you'd be surprised how many people say yes), find a different source for a similar map that will licence it under an acceptable licence, or you can make your own (you won't be able to make a map anywhere near as nice unless you're an experienced cartographer, but maybe you can make something that will get the gist of the matter across). If none of that works, the article is just going to have to survive without a map for a while. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 04:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Where do I find the text for "GFDL" or "creative commons" that would be appropriate to send them? WikiDon


 * It's linked off the GFDL article, but Boilerplate request for permission might be the best place to get you started. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 04:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I can create a nice map, but it takes me forever with the tools that I have. MSFT Paint. WikiDon

RE: Thanks!
And thank you for noticing. :-) C Maylett

Articles for deletion/John Boy Ryan
Why did you revert comments on this? They did express a positive opnion of the article. granted they were unsigned and by an anon, and so might well have been discounted, but why not let thm stay? am i missing soemthing here? DES (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering the IP's other edits, it seemed to me it was done purely to be disruptive and contrary to the opinion of the community and not to actually express an opinion. If you feel otherwise feel free to put it back though. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 22:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

chartwells
why did you kill it, there is a lot of information out there about it
 * It wasn't an article, it was just half a sentence. If you want to write an article on a subject that's highly commendable, but spend a little time working out what there is to be said about the subject and how best to say it. Even a stub really be at least a few complete, grammatically correct sentences. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!
It's my first. I'm all tingly! :D &mdash;Josiah Rowe 00:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Take two aspirin and call a doctor if you're still tingly in the morning. :-P --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Big W!!!
Actually, it's a vandal who's posting george bush pictures on user pages, but going just by the single username it was a good guess :-) --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Likely marmot, we are watching him closely on IRC, care to tag along? We got virtual coke and popcorn. --Cool Cat Talk 01:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I haven't been on IRC in ages. Be right there. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 01:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage...I'll keep a lookout for you too!--MONGO 01:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent 3RR block
Yeah, that's a correct address. It's publicly available elsewhere, but I don't appreciate his stalking. Please remove it from the page history, if you don't mind.&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 02:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks.&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Your Comments/Vote on Davien Crow

 * You say they are not notable. Please review the long rebuttle I posted on the discussion page before making a blind vote like that. It is blatant that they have much notoriety. Notoriety in the underground music scene does not mean they are not notable by Wikipedia Guidelines. The fact that MArilyn MAnson, Gidget Gein, Suicide Girls and tons of other things can be prooved to be involved with Davien Crow and his projects prooves it .. if that doesn't simply look at the sites they are listed on. Thanks for your time and your contributions, please reconsider. Feel free to message me back.


 * Look the point summarized is I am willing to work with you guys on why these were deleted but until now noone has given us any feedback and has even lied about stuff trying to get it deleted. All 3 of them meet the sufficient amount of requirements for WP:MUSIC, the guidelines in WP:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, Importance, Notability (the fact that suicide girls, gidget gein, and marilyn manson are involved and can be verified in those links should proove that), Fame_and_importance mainly the part stating "There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)" If you can't tell the community of Myspace.com and Livejournal.com alone are enough to meet this criterea you are blind. If you do google searches, go to forums and search their names, or visit internet archives you can find un-disputable information on the band from reputable sources, first hand accounts that are years older than these discussions, and intangible archives kept by internet archives. IF you want more detail read my above rant, your right I do sound mad about this, because I can't see how you can say they do not meet criterea or that this is a vanity page. Please accept my apologies for anything you have taken to be rude and please re-consider changing your vote. What Harm could it do ? BTW I am not trying to bully anyone, I can show you the location of the people threatening to come here and vandalize the hell out of Wikipedia. But I do not want that to be part of your decision at all. (please reference the large rebuttle on the discussion page itself)

I have posted this, I hope that some of you will consider looking for my information and reconsider your vote for now. A lot of people are simply responding to the rudeness of user:sin-thetik and some things I said are being misconstrude as threats. I am simply upset because of all the time it took to write these 3 articles, knowing they fit the guidelines, only to have somone delete them with the proof and verifiable facts right in front of them .. just their un-willingness to read them. Please think it over, I appreciate your time. I'm just a fan girl trying to be the first to get an article up about them since I have been running a fan site about them for almost 2 years now.

PLEASE THINK IT OVER G4DGET 05:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't spamming I was making my argument against your vote personally without having to comment it throughougly on the site. Thanks anyhow and sorry you feel that it was Spam cause it wasn't X D G4DGET 05:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Format
No problem...I agree with you that dividing the votes into different section is a mistake, especially considering all the trouble that people undertake to make deletion less of a "voting" process. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes a sentence...
... makes an ocean of differences, don't you think? It can make your article be zapped in a nick of time. That's a lesson many users never learn... Shauri 06:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: Personal attacks
I assume you're talking about this? That's a personal attack? Do flowers and candy make you cry too? Be reasonable. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 06:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

They're all after me
Yeah, comes with the territory of occasional RC patrol and other admin-like tasks, I guess. Wouldn't be the first time I had ruffled a few anon feathers in one evening. Note to self: see what can be done about developing some consensus on "BCE" in articles about religions other than Christianity.&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and sorry about the edit conflict -- didn't know you'd get to it that fast! :)&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a tough one, you'll want to have a look at the evidence linked in the arbitration case between Jguk and slrubenstein .--fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 07:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And you edit-conflicted again. This confrontational behaviour of yours has got to stop. :-P --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 07:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfriendly attitude
Please remember that my mentors failed me, and I intend only to make one vote on one of the most important contributions I've ever worked on here. Temper strict interpretation with common sense. -- Netoholic @ 08:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dude, you're not being very friendly. Block me, but that ruling does not say you can revert my edits or REMOVE MY VOTES. -- Netoholic @ 08:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Edits by banned editors may be removed. You have been banned from the wikipedia and template namespaces. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not a banned user, read the friggin ruling. -- Netoholic @ 08:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop being this way. Block me, but removing my vote is about the meanest thing anyone can do. I will leave it be it you just restore my vote. -- Netoholic @ 08:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

µTorrent
Why do you keep saying this client is "non-notable." Yes it is new, however it is gaining quite a following and has been featured on many reputable websites. (e.g. Neowin.com, Digg.com) It deserves to be listed like the rest of them.

tedddee 08:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It takes quite a lot for a piece of software to be notable, there are so many pieces of software that look like they might become popular one day but then don't. But anyway, that's just my opinion, let's first let the AfD nomination run its course and see what everybody else thinks. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 08:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

E-mail
Fvw, check your wikipedia e-mail, please? Bishonen | talk 09:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing, perhaps wikipedia mail is still suffering from the causes of the outage earlier? Try resending or mailing me directly (fvw.wikipedia@var.cx). --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 09:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Or try IRC, I'm in #en.wikipedia at the moment. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for cleaning my talk page! Not a clue which deeply notable band I have caused Armageddon for, but you should've seen the follow-up email I got... -Splash talk 13:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You have me at a disadvantage
Who are you? The name rings a bell, but I can't place it. (Nothing I do is proper). Babajobu
 * It's hardly a disadvantage, I'm afraid I must confess to not knowing you either. As for you having met me before, I've been around the web a few times and used to edit here very frequently, but had a sort of wikibreak since the beginning of this year. Barring any sudden surfacing memories, let's just start again: Hello, I'm fvw. Pleased to meet you. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 23:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Was your edit summary not directed at me? ("I thought you were only going to edit proper articles") Babajobu 23:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I apologise for any misunderstanding I may have caused. Jeff Merkey (User:Gadugi and a few anon users) has been creating articles about the people he feels are attacking him. Yesterday he promised to stop creating these articles but Internet Lynch Mob is a continuation and partial reposting of the same material again, which doesn't exactly give me warm fluffy feelings. Sorry you got caught in the middle, for what it's worth your cleanup was excellent. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 23:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Yes, the topic seemed a little bizarre, like the author had had some pretty miserable experiences on the internet and was trying hard to pathologize whoever he felt had given him a hard time. Okay, cheerio. Babajobu 23:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * He knows what he did. Anyway, I got emotional for a second. I won't revert it, but you're welcome to if you like. Cheerio. Babajobu 00:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

articals for deletion
Hi

Just noticed you withheld information I inputted because you stated not for promo use or something..however fair point, but you deleted my expansion on ugly kid joe history, i spent ages writing that out?

OWW


 * Oh yes, that got caught in the reverts, sorry about that. I've put it back now. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Open proxy?
just blanked User talk:70.124.106.230 twice, where I left a {test2} for adding a bunch of vulgarity to George W. Bush earlier. Looks like a proxy to me.&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, blocked. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As usual, thanks. :)&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)