User:Redwolf24/Archive15

Can you have a look please
I have to sign off now, so can't pursue something I was about to do. Can you have a look at User:The Fish from Florida ? Four edits, four bits of vandalism, the an edit to his user page. Has he actually protected his own page? Gotta go. Cheers Moriori 04:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Will look. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Something you may want to see
Please see User talk:Radiant!. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Radiant seems to be on a break this week. No edits since Sunday. --Tony Sidaway Talk  04:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

User categorization
Greetings, Redwolf24! Please accept this message as an invitation to categorize your user page in the category Category:Wikipedians in Washington and removing your name from the Wikipedians/Washington page. The page will be deleted when all users have been removed. Even if you do not wish to be placed in a category, could you take a moment to remove your name from the Wikipedians/Washington page? Thanks!!

To add your name to the category, please use the tag   to ensure proper sorting.

For more information, please see User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. -- Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist 04:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, thank you for that help on how to add a category ;) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, yeah, yeah. Nothing like a form letter to insult the experienced ;-).  Have a good one!   Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist 20:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Haha, see ya around the pedia! R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Need Help
Hi. I saw your tagline on the list of administrators... And I need help! Lol!

I have recently created a page on the comic series The New Avengers, and it has been put to a vote to merge into the page for The Avengers comic series.

Some people have a personal dislike to the page, and I think that since they have been around so long, and been building the Avengers page, they are unwilling to see it end, despite the fact that the comic itself has ended and The New Avengers is a different title.

All of the facts that have been presented are in favour of keeping the two pages seperate, but these people who have been around for some time together are all voting together and using that to bully newcomers - even accusing one new member who voted against the merge of being me! While we know each other - we are not the same person! There is a general concensus on Wikipedia to have individual pages for individual comic series' (The Spider-Man comic series' all have their own individual pages).

I know my New Avengers page is limited at the moment, and I am not the only member to have contributed to it - but I thought the point of Wikipedia was to expand, and as I have said, the only facts that have been brought forward in discussion suggest that The New Avengers is deserving of its own page. I don't want to see my work deleted. Is there anything I can do to stop my work from unjustly becoming just a footnote on another page?


 * K, I'll try to go over this point by point:


 * Yes, I am willing to help.


 * I think I may just support the merge.


 * Before you think of anything else, try to keep this in mind: Experienced Wikipedians may know more of The Wikipedia rules than you. This is not meant as an insult, or taking sides, I'm just sayig to keep that in mind.


 * About the person who's not you, but you know them... there's a such thing as Meatpuppets. Meatpuppets are Non-Wikipedians, such as your friends, who come in to vote on polls, often the same as their friend.


 * Your work wouldn't be deleted, it'd be more of a merge than that, and the New Avengers would redirect, you'd still have credit. Their theory is that the New Avengers page and the Avengers page aren't really that long, so merging would make them look better. Plus there are other Avengers comics merged to the main one, aren't there?


 * But this is all a content dispute, there's nothing that I can do for you, besides tell you what I have. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. As it turned out the actual merge was just a deletion of my work until someone else added the information later. Whether it continues to exist remains to be seen.

I'd just like to say that I wouldn't bring in a friend to vote - that's so not like me.. While a new member, she has been contributing to Wikipedia and didn't join solely for the purpose of voting - she wants to do a lot of tidying up of some Farscape pages...

As for the page itself, which was already in excess to the preferred length, (which was the main reason for creating the seperate page) the only Avengers comic covered by the Avengers article was The Avengers(There was an in-brief paragraph on the new comic at the bottom of the page)... And now The New Avengers... The West Coast Avengers comic title has its own page.

While some have argued that the information was irrelevant, it is exactly modelled on the The Young Avengers page, containing just as important information...

I know that reading this, the tone may sound like I'm complaining, but that's not my intent. I just thought I'd tell you how it turned out. -- Avengers fan 22:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was glad to help :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

e-mail
I replied to your e-mail. Did you not recieve it? -JCarriker 13:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I saw it. Charter related. I was gonna copy and paste to the ESP page, but didn't. Nice to have you back! R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Bootcamp typo?
From your bootcamp page: "Or with a pound sign (#) (this will make a numbered list, including the period):"

Did you mean the -number- sign, as the pound sign is £?

-- Starfriend 14:37:12, 2005-09-08 (UTC)


 * Replied at page. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I stole your code
Hey, I thought I'd tell you that I stole the code from your page that creates a link that lets people leave you messages. I put it on my user page. It's really cool, thanks. I guess it's not really stealing if you give credit for it and tell them about it, is it? Joe 19:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You already told me :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Illinoisian
Illinoisian has been blocked indefinitely by Zoe for trolling, vandalism, etc. Although I tend to support the block, he asked that you be informed. --Scimitar parley 22:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Replied at Illinoisian's talk page. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Picnic??
Where, where, I smell cake. :) Aww.. false alarm, so I brought my own.  &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  02:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll bring the milk! R e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Illinoisan
I see nothing that would change my mind about blocking him. Zoe 05:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't blame you. I just thought you'd like to see. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Zoe 05:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Joolz's RFA
Hey Redwolf24, thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, your support was appreciated :) -- Joolz 11:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Gacy
You should read about John Wayne Gacy if you liked those killers. He's the guy that dressed up like a clown, killed little boys and put them in a crawlspace under his house.66.115.235.199 22:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've read up on him. A good read too :D R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

the Welcome Wagon
Hey. I noticed that you've been doing Newcomer Patrol today (so have I) on the recent huge surge of registrations.

There's a problem, though, that I don't think you've noticed (and it's annoying the hell out of me, so I'm relieved that I have a chance to bitch about it to someone).

A huge number of these registrations are bogus. They're created by people who have no intention of using them, but just... I dunno, want to fill up the database, maybe? Trying to flood the system in some way?

Think about it. How often does someone register as a user... and then not do anything, not even comment on a page or tinker in the sandbox?

So it vaguely irks me to see someone like you, so well-intentioned, falling for it and leaving them the message.

What I do, to see if they're real, is (if their userpage is still a redlink) I click on the User Contributions. If they haven't contributed anything in the hours since they registered, I feel safe in concluding that they're just garbage accounts, and I close that window and move on to the next on the list.

It's damn frustrating to think of the dozens of genuine new users going unwelcomed amidst the throng of hundreds of empty accounts. DS 23:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well think of it this way... most of us started out reading pages, right? We may see the login button and decide to register an account. We may not immediatly make edits. However, yes, there are many garbage accounts. But I don't think that good users are going unwelcomed because I'm welcoming other users, notice how I welcome about 15 users a minute? I think it would take five times as long to check the contribs. There is no harm done in welcoming garbage accounts, they could be used one day anyway. Though it is useless, I admit. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Redwolf is right; I often register on a wiki I visit for the first time, although I have no immediate intention to edit. I do so for a few reasons, none intending harm: I like to switch to Cologne Blue for performance reasons; I like to reserve my username soonest. If I were to get a welcome message on my return, it would improve my perception of the health of the community of that wiki. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 09:35, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. Of all the 77 supportive votes, yours must be among those that means the most to me. We didn't get off to a great start, a fact that was my fault, and I'm both glad and relieved that we seem to have gotten past that. You have indeed been of help to me, and I hope you will help me out in future, too. So please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 23:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Haha, my first adminly action was pressing rollback to some anti-semetic edit... see when I saw malathion's edit summary it said rv vandalism, and then I saw [ Rollback ] in boldface, thinking it was a link to some project, so I clicked it... stupid shiny new buttons. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Losing your edge
Red, your last few vandalism attempts prove you have no idea what you are doing. Vandalism is an art, my friend; an art that you seem unable to master. Sure, "angry parsely" was a cute little reference, and blanking that guy's userpage was funny until he posted back "you've had your fun" yada yada, but when are you going to get to some SERIOUS trolling, man? The redwolf I know and love torments new users simply because they don't spend 25 hours a day on their computers, and blanks pages, throws tantrums, and makes people hate him. What happened to the Redwolf24 of old? My guess: esperanza has made him soft. Happy editing (and congrats on 7,000! That's a lot of redirects and blanked pages! --kidding) - [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]] 05:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * :O Oh noes! must join gnaa and destroy wikipedia111!!11four R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

List of non-admins with high edit counts
Hey, thanks for moving me up on the list. I didn't even know this list was around, just found it. And not having much net acs for 2 weeks doesn't help with my edit count :( Not that I'm really worried about that, just all the stuff that needs to get done that I help out with.  Having Wiki withdraw, and feel like everyone will forget me :)   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  08:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That was at least two weeks ago :o R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, I haven't either had power and/or cable (net & tv) since Katrina hit. So I wanted to thank you, even if its a bit late.  &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  00:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Aw, nice to have you back. And I was thinking we retry the ol' RfA in October. I'll write up what I'm gonna do in my Sandbox. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Be sure to put that Sandbox at least 10 feet from any active projects, as it seems to attract a lot of bad joojoo :)  &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  01:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We'll balance out that joojoo with mojo. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh darn, I keep all my mojo in a jar. Looks good though.. I especially liked the eat more carrots vandal :) I'm not blind, I just can't see.   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  22:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Jack Thompson. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, thanks for voting for me in my RFA. I was really touched at how many people voted for me! --Angr/undefined 22:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I really, really thought you were one :o R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Kdbuffalo (Ken)
Hello...Mkmcconn (Mark) and I have been observing some ongoing edit concerns at Biblical scientific foreknowledge. Aside from the fact that the two of us have ZERO interest in the subject, an edit war has been taking place between MickWest and Kdbuffalo (also known as Ken). The page was protected briefly.

It seems to me that Ken's tone has grown increasingly unfriendly toward Mick and, at times, Mark. Both Mark and I have warned him about this. Mick seems to be trying his best, but Ken is close (in my view) to violating civility rules.

If you have the time, do you think you could review some of the discussion there and, if you deem it appropo, see what you can do about Ken's tone and approach to editing? Mark and I aren't sure there's much more we could do.

Thanks for your consideration...KHM03 23:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The only evidence I can present (and I am not an administrator, so I may be way off here) is the discussion on the talk page for the mentioned article. Ken's tone, and accusations.  I feel that Mick is being mistreated.  Again, I may be wrong, and I'm not asking for any specific actions...just another set of eyes to check it out.  A "look see" would be appreciated.  KHM03 23:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * See their respective talk pages. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks...KHM03 00:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Rudeness, in relation to BSF.
Hey Redwolf24, thanks for the notice. I'm trying to be polite to Ken, but it's a little trying. I think I'm done for the day. MickWest 00:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

GWB Vandal blocked
Thanks. I have been hit twice this week, one apparently for no reason, and the other by this vandal "Corbeh". The first vandal hit several random pages before attacking mine, and I have no clue as to why. Are admins allowed to block on site like that? I certainly don't mind vandals being banned that quickly, since they obviously have nothing to contribute. Voice of All  (talk) 01:49, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * First, the word is not banned, its blocked indef. Banning can only be done by Jimbo or ArbCom. Accounts used solely for vandalism are blocked on sight. Thus, Corbeh is gone. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I thougth a ban was considered an indefinite block. And if I ever become an admin, is it in policy to block acounts permanently like that? It should be IMO, and the blocked without warning notices on the edit pages should also stay, although vandals seem to get a kick out of removing them. Voice of All  (talk) 02:13, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Your (talk) link...
Does not work. It says Redwolf24(talk) but there is no link. It should be like:

'''Redwolf24 (talk)

And the "raw signiture" should be checked. Voice of All  (talk)

o.O uh, no. My signature works, just it turns to boldface on this page, like your talk link does at your talk page. Also you notice the signature you made is a red link and the talk links to my user page? o.O R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just fixed the redwolf link above. Odd, your talk link is just bold unlinked text, my user talk link does work(for me) on this page... Voice of All  (talk) 02:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Your talk link doesn't work on your talk page. All wikilinks linking to themselves turn bold. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, thats a pretty nifty feature...sorry. Voice of All  (talk) 02:08, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. By the way, YOUR talk link doesn't work! it links to your user page! go make it User talk:Voice of All(MTG). R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * geeez...now you got my face all red blushed...;). I think I fixed it now. Thanks. Voice of All  (talk) 02:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hooray! :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My signature looks soo awesome now!!!!:) Voice of All  (talk)
 * Aw, my talk page link doesn't turn bold on my talk page. I feel all alienated and stuff. :( Acetic  ' Acid  05:44, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Two reasons for that, first you have your talk BEFORE your user page, which I would recommend switching as its confusing, secondly, the font color is green, so you should get a bold green, whereas we never specified a color so we get bold and black. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's confusing? :( Can't be as confusing as what happens if you click the space between Acetic and Acid. I'd prefer not to change it, but if it's confusing, I will. Acetic  ' Acid  01:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah its fine. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet
Maxlor311 might be a sockpuppet of the corbeh. Both have just edited the Bush page with nonesence. This guy came after you blocked the first one. I would keep an eye on him. Voice of All  (talk)  02:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Only one edit. Nothing to care about yet. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Demarest Hall
Hey, I have copyright permission for my entry on Demarest Hall, I live with Enon Avital, the creator of the webpage, it's fine, email him here: dewfather@gmail.com Or sabrina.vargas@gmail.com and khennessey@echo.rutgers.edu who I both work with as Culture Studies leader of Demarest Hall. I'm Brian Zimmerman by the way, I run Culture Studies at Demarest Hall. My email is brizimm@eden.rutgers.edu


 * Hm, go tell the person who reported the copyvio, not me. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Build
It's not as hard as it looks: Build; don't destroy. As Mom used to say, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Or, "Do as you would be done by."

If we don't feel we can contribute usefully to a discussion, that's fine. We can move on to other stuff. There is no lack of good work to do. We read widely -- very widely indeed; here in this Project, on related wikis, and on dozens of other sites, collaborative and otherwise. If we try hard to stick to this principle, that often means we have nothing to say.

"Being nice" doesn't just mean shouting, "Oh, yeah, that's great!" Often, we can contribute usefully to a page -- policy, article, discussion, or other -- by criticizing it. But we must have something to bring to the table. If something does not work for us, we need to be able to express why it doesn't work, and what would have to be done to make it work. If we don't think something meets an expressed need, we need to tell what we think would meet that need.

It may very well be that we don't agree with the expressed need. That's fine, too. But others do see a need, and are working on a solution. They may not feel all of our needs are important -- and sometimes, they may not even be willing to help us with them. Sorry. But let's hope that they will be permitted to work to meet their needs; and let us meet ours.

Who knows? If we refrain from destroying something that doesn't seem immediately useful to us now, it may change and improve, and eventually grow into something that we do find a need for -- sometime later.

The key here is understanding that the world is full of people, full of needs -- and any two or three of us will only share a very, very small portion of those needs at any given time. But please, let's not go around burning wheelchair ramps today, just because we still have both legs today. Somehow, we all have to live together, and a big part of that is letting other people do the best they can to meet their needs.

Another big part is pitching in and helping others meet their needs -- even if they are not ours. Later, we might find those same people helping us with our needs -- even though they may not feel the same needs we do.

Above all, if we don't think we can help, please, let's not do any harm. Thank You! &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 10:37, 2005 September 11 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, templated... lemme just subst: that... R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I see the points you're trying to get at, but there is one very central policy to Wikipedia. And that policy is consensus. You seem to be saying to put in use every good faith proposal made. Well Xiong, take a look at that category of rejected proposals, do you agree with all of them just because you think some may have a use? By this logic, we should never cast oppose votes. On RfA's, AfD's... just because it may lower someone's self-esteem. I wasn't a fan of the opposes I got at my RfA, however I know they're still needed or Wikipedia wouldn't be running by consensus at all. One such proposal was to give all users the rollback button. Do you want every edit warrer to be able to rollback someone's edits? I guess you could say take away those who abuse it, but that would be thousands of users! Just remember one thing: Consensus is King. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing I said has the least intention to attack The Wiki Way. How do you imagine I'm arguing against consensus as our cornerstone principle? I'm arguing for it.

VotingIsEvil. Voting and consensus do not mix. Consensus has nothing at all to do with a mob of people trying to out-shout each other, and when they're all done, counting the warriors on each "side" to determine a "winner". Contentious, hostile debate and voting is the opposite of consensus. The process of forming a consensus does not begin by shouting down those who disagree with us -- even if we imagine them to be in the minority.

Building consensus means to listen to others honestly, and to respect and honor the ways in which their opinions differ from ours. It means to seek compromises and alternatives that at least partially satisfy others' concerns. It means to defer and modify our own pet ideas and open our minds to a wider range of possibilities. It means taking time and energy to build acceptance among a group of individuals, each of whom may have different needs, concerns, opinions, and methods by which they contribute.

Consensus begins by withholding judgement. There is always time to condemn later; but once we have condemned, we cut off any possibility of working together to improve. Consensus continues as we engage in discussion. We avoid making points and attacking; instead, we present our concerns and work on them together. When all parties to the discussion have had their needs addressed, then we can say we have achieved consensus.

It is not always possible to achieve consensus. There is no exception that allows us to examine the state of a debate, conclude that a minority can never be appeased, and proceed to ignore them. Consensus is not unanimity -- there may well be those who continue to oppose the compromises and improvements we have worked out. But we must not take the easy way out and dismiss objectors out of hand. If we have made no concessions to good-faith minority opinions -- if we are unable to so much as throw them a bone -- then we cannot claim consensus. If we take action without consensus, we are not thoughtful, willing, constructive contributors to our Community -- we are mere tyrants.

&mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 00:42, 2005 September 12 (UTC)


 * Another template... lemme just type subst: on it. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But we had consensus against both toby and zap. We were just fine by BEANS though. And please do not quote The Wiki Way when its an essay that you wrote. I know you're just saying it was something that always existed but you put it into writing. You've said that about several of your policies, and even the template you put on my talk page you wrote that in your summary. Most of us don't really agree with that. And The Wiki Way seems to have its focus on creating policies, which as we know is your favorite past time. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)