User talk:Antiuser/Archive 3

Response to message on my alk page:
The article has a footnote, a "[1]" in it. Torkmann (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)!

No, I didn't actually. It looked legitimate to me at the time. Sorry. Torkmann (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see that reference now, read it, analyze it. I am going to withold judgment until I can read the article in question. Torkmann (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Well like why then was it in footnote form with a "1" number by it? Torkmann (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well I thought there was a bot or filter that didn't let users link http sites that weren't considered "reliable." Torkmann (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry I was thinking you deleted my The Rocky Peckers page. Wanna be friends?--72.241.241.220 (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I going to be blocked forever?--72.241.241.220 (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move List of gestures → Comparisation of gestures
I am notifying all contributors who have made more than two edits to List of gestures of a Requested move discussion. If you are interested, you may contribute to the discussion here. Cnilep (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The requested move discussion has closed. Sorry to have clogged up your talk page. Cnilep (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

revert of prod removal
Just what did you think you were doing here ?

Please read WP:PROD and don't do this again. 86.40.54.87 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A lapse. Be more polite next time, and maybe create an account. X X X antiuser 05:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't fuck up next time, and maybe look at the edit. 86.44.43.10 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What part of be more polite did you not understand? X X X antiuser 19:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the part where you apologized, gave thanks for it being brought to your attention, and pledged to take more care in future, rather than the part where you used your mistake as an opportunity to attempt to give a lecture to the person pointing it out to you. 86.44.43.10 (talk)
 * Don't feel like you are owed anything because you aren't. This matter was resolved when the prod was removed, so you should just let it go. X X X antiuser 00:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ira! image
Indeed, the image is very unlikely to be free. But I don't really know how to deal with it. I tried to read some help pages at Commons, but I couldn't understand what exactly to do when finding a probable non-free image (I've read both Portuguese and English pages). Victão Lopes I hear you... 22:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Oofneg
Hello Antiuser, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Oofneg - a page you tagged - because: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW ( Talk ) 23:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what happened there, I wish there was a tag for "not quite nonsense but just stuff that was clearly made up", because that's what I see the most. Thanks for the heads up. - X X X antiuser 23:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That would fall under criterion G3 - vandalism or blatant hoax. Cheers, NW ( Talk ) 23:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Viscount Furness"
I've had a look at Viscount Furness and Earl of Cumberland, both of which appear to have been vandalised tonight to support the "3rd Viscount Furness" position. The IP 90.213.105.157 made the first change, and then the account User:Viscount-furness, who created Daniel Robert Turner, 3rd Viscount Furness. Hope this helps ... Shem (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've noticed that as well. Hopefully an admin will catch it and block them. X X X antiuser 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I saw your report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Seems to have gone to bed for tonight. Shem (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (November)
Apologies for the slight lateness! – Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Ja Ga  talk 04:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of gestures
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of gestures, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (December)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  11:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My defense
Hi there ANTIUSER, VASCO from Portugal here,

Yes, my edit summaries do get a little out of hand, i do admit it, i am sorry. Everytime i do such a summary i have the intention of making it my last, but i fail everytime :(

But just see this my friend, about one of the vandals i attack the most (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive) - 20 socks and counting?!? How can you defend yourself against that (not that my antics are any excuse, no sir).

One guy that is really not a vandal, User:Zombie433, i have tried to help him, telling him about overlinking, writing in present tense in an encylopedia (his English is very poor, although he gives himself a "level 4"), etc, and what does he do to my messages? Erases them the minute he sees them, without any reply. Pretty tough to work in these conditions, but i apologize nonetheless.

Um abraço cara, have a nice week,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to defend yourself, really. For all I know, I've got a little heated here and there - it happens. Uma boa noite para você! X X X antiuser eh? 23:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning
What's wrong with this edit? Why the warning? 72.65.205.49 (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing. It was my bad, I warned the wrong user. My apologies. X X X antiuser eh? 03:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. No problem then, thanks for explaining. 72.65.205.49 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Neuras
I'm sorry but I really have to question your logic in despeedying Neuras with the claim ""Speedy declined as notability is claimed." What do you see as a claim of notability in the text: "Neuras" are a German electro-techno music band with only 2 tracks available at the moment, both of which are on Dance Dance Revolution X."? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having tracks on DDR is a claim to notability, isn't it? DDR X has an article on WP, where Neuras is mentioned. I've seen speedy nominations declined for less... X X X antiuser eh? 18:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Vulnerable species. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. XXX antiuser eh? 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm removing data to put it back just after, but i have little difficulties to do it in one time due to the size of the list I created just before. - Galmicmi (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide an edit summary, otherwise it looks like you're just blanking stuff. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but you can see how that would happen. X X X antiuser eh? 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Are you logged into your phone
Hello Antiuser, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Are you logged into your phone) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ciao
Just dropped by to say... HI.... Happy Editing  Hitro   talk  17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! X X X antiuser eh? 17:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with citation vanity and hysterectomy
Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism on the hysterectomy page. I did look into one case and found a pretty grave case of citation vanity - see also Talk:Hysterectomy. I looked through a bunch of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.184.4.10 contributions and they all add citations to articles written by a certain "Walid MS". As it happens 70.184.4.10 is in Macon/GA (see eg http://www.botsvsbrowsers.com/ip/70.184.4.10/index.html) where this author apparently works or worked.

In the case of the hysterectomy article the added citation was irrelevant and certainly not good for the overall quality of the article, suspect similar could be the case for most other contribs from this IP.

I will now be away for some time and do not really know what to do in such cases, hope you could keep an eye on it or bring it up in some forum? Richiez (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No
No. Why the doubt?*FranklinG* (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fazle Haq
Hello Antiuser. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fazle Haq, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Notability is clear. I think you saw and tagged a vandalised version and got editconflicted.''' Thank you. Ged UK  10:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yikes! I think you're right, what I saw was this. Thanks for letting me know! X X X antiuser eh? 10:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's alright. I guess the lesson is check the history before tagging. Ged  UK  10:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I usually do, I'll jot that one down as a lapse :) X X X antiuser eh? 10:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's always the way; the one you forget is the one with an issue you would have seen! Ged  UK  10:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Direct Magazine
Hello Antiuser. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Direct Magazine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''There's a bit more leeway with userpages. .''' Thank you. Ged UK  10:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems rather murky, doesn't it, what's allowed on user pages and what isn't? I've seen user pages speedied for less. Ah well, second one today! What's happening to me? :) X X X antiuser eh? 10:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Jupaman
Hello Antiuser. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Jupaman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Give a user a chance to develop their page, that's what userspace is for. Three minutes is WAY too soon.''' Thank you. Ged UK  10:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely
Hi Antiuser. I loved this idea, with certainty'll support it. Of course, if there be any (or some) contradictions between us we have to talk to reach a consensus. Thank you for praising my work, I was getting a little discouraged. With nothing else to say, I say goodbye. Bye and see you later.*FranklinG* (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (January)
-- Midgrid  (talk)  20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Woooooooooooooooooooooooo. Hold your horses please, I was DELETING vandalizm, please check again that I was removing what the anonomous IP number did before but using single deletions. Think about that before dishing out threats. Mex Ray Trex (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That wasn't a threat, it was a warning. Since you didn't provide an edit summary and the recent changes log tagged your post as "repeating characters", I thought it was you who was the vandal. Sorry for the incorrect warning. X X X antiuser eh? 21:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Deleting others' comments from Editor Review
Re your message: You should not remove reviews, but you can respond to them as other editors have done with their reviews. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've addressed it on WP:Editor review/antiuser. X X X antiuser eh? 21:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to have an issue with criticism. When I tagged something for speedy deletion and you objected, on notability grounds, it was deleted anyway, prompting you to file an ANI against me and then lobby other contributors to support your position. When you solicited feedback in an Editor Review and I rated you "Good" instead of "Excellent" you began lobbying admins to intervene. If someone complains to enough admins anyone can get anyone else blocked/banned from Wikipedia. I have a feeling that's what's going on here and I regret I may be the one paying the penalty, however, in the interest of maintaining a good community will choose to turn the other cheek and not reply in kind, even if it means my opportunity to contribute to wikipedia may be ended. I'm sorry we weren't able to come to a more civil understanding. Nothughthomas (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with criticism. As I've explained several times before, you were using the wrong speedy deletion criterion. I did not lobby anyone to intervene anywhere, I merely asked an admin for advice as I've never gone through an editor review before. If you really want to make a contribution to Wikipedia, quit the disruptive editing, quit feeling like everyone is after you, quit the talk page hostilities and try to engage users in collaboration instead of arguments. This will be the last time I reply to anything you say anywhere. You don't seem to get it, so it's pointless. X X X antiuser eh? 22:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please WP:CIVIL. I don't think "everyone" is after me. However, I do think (and justifiably so, IMO) one contributor who is "block shopping" me is after me. This has nothing to do with speedy deletion criteria in the UFO conspiracy article that was deleted at my request over your notability objections. This has to do with you "block shopping" me. I think I am justified in meekly raising a quiet objection to that without being shouted down. Please WP:CIVIL and know that polite disagreements between contributors on content happens every day on wikipedia and does not = "disruptive editing" (particularly so since my "disruptive editing" were the edits that were upheld by the community). No one is out to get you. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After re-reading everything over again, this time more carefully, I realize that I didn't give you exactly the best advice. Sorry about that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all good, the debacle seems to be over. Thanks. X X X antiuser eh? 01:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That "review"
AntiUser, if you want that farce of a "review" to be removed, please just say the word. That was pure harassment, and thankfully it can't happen again as the editor is now indefinitely blocked. If you are OK with it there, then that's OK also, but if you want it removed just ask for this on your editor review talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was fine with having it there, but after seeing Bongo's reaction I'm afraid others might consider it a legitimate review and give it improper weight... so having it gone would not be bad. X X X antiuser eh? 06:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, just say the word on the talk page and I'll remove it (again). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. X X X antiuser eh? 06:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gone. I'm sorry you had to deal with this level of stupidity AntiUser. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia even editors who don't get into controversial territory can be waylaid by trolls and disruptive editors. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It gets really grinding sometimes... and the whole debacle got in the way of my recent changes patrolling! Hopefully now I can get back to it without so much disruption. Thanks for your help with the ANI and everything. X X X antiuser eh? 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's over now thank goodness. Many, many thanks for doing the unthanked tasks of Wikipedia - I just don't think I'd have the patience for RC patrolling! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to say thank you to NotHughThomas for being so civil and for withdrawing from the project without much drama. Perhaps it might be best to remove a number of user talk pages from your watchlist? Thanks! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm doing a major watchlist cleanup tomorrow anyway, there's so much junk that ends up in there from RC patrolling that needs to be out as well. Cheers, X X X antiuser eh? 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Methionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylala…
You tagged Methionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylala… for speedy deletion as a copyvio. But the only thing copied is the very long chemical name, and facts cannot be copyrighted under US law, and it is a fact (apparently anyway) that that compound has that name, do i don;'t think this is actually a copyright infringement. DES (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-petiatil &raquo;user&raquo;speak 15:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pay attention
Pay closer attention before you mark edits as vandalism. this list was moved to List of people named Sandra -- Also note that your continued abuse of a rollback tool will result in you being banned from that tool. JBsupreme ( talk ) 23:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, first of all whatever happened to good faith? Second, I apologised to you on your talk page. It's really difficult to tell with large articles like that when removal of content is legit or vandalism if you do not provide an edit summary. Try to keep that in mind. X X X antiuser eh? 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hypocritical of you to ask people to WP:AGF when you are handing out "warnings" due to your OWN assumption of bad faith. Stop leaving messages on my talk page. Take your own advice.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My warnings were low-level ones and the confusion is easily understood by your deleting a large amount of content from a page without providing an edit summary. Again, be civil, we're all here to build an encyclopaedia. I've already apologised to you for the confusion, you responded with personal attacks on your edit summaries. X X X antiuser eh? 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)