User talk:Causa sui/Archive 5

3 RR, cont.
From the Revert Rule:

"I've been blocked under 3RR! What do I do?

First, check if you actually did make a fourth revert in 24 hours or very close to it.

* If you didn't, you should email the admin who blocked you (or another admin), politely point this out and ask to be unblocked."

An even cursory reading of this shows that it takes 4 reverts in 24 hours to trigger the revert rule. Just because administrators have misused, or abused, the rule before does not mean it was the right decision under the rule. That it had "popular support" is similarly not evidence that it ws the right move.

I get the idea. Nobody wants stale revert wars, and this rule seems like a reasonable way to prevent them. But it is a rule, with specific parameters, and if an administrator wants to interpret it in a manner completely inconsistent with the "letter of the law," that's his problem, not mine. As far as the "spirit of the rule" goes, I don't quite follow. This rule is bright line, and sets our specific guidelines for when one should and should not be blocked for violating the 3 revert rule. Hence, the "spirit" of the law is found in its "letter," and not in the clearly erroneous interpretation of overzealous administrators.--Freemarkets 01:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User:68.249.240.230
Thank you for reverting the edits of, and banning 68.249.240.230. He had been terrorizing me on every chatroom or website he could post on! The Wookieepedian 09:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject MMA
Dear Ryan, I would like you to think about MMA statsbox because Lakes and me are aguing about it. If you have chance, could you put your opinion in discussion page.Thank you.--Yappakoredesho 14:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You Closed the AFD just as I was gathering quotations.

 * "According to the Bahia Gay Group, there is an average of one homosexual murder every three days in Brazil, putting the country in first place worldwide for "homocide," as the group calls the murders (LP, Jan. 23, 1997)."
 * "But when a few of us in GLF began scouring libraries and the basement archives of museums and the public record office, we discovered buried fragments of past queer lives. It was shocking to learn that gay men faced the death penalty until 1861, and life imprisonment until 1967. Via contacts with the queer rights movement in Germany, we began to piece together details of the Nazi bid to exterminate homosexuals. From this history of "homocide", we liberated the pink triangle that the Nazis forced gay concentration camp prisoners to wear - turning it into a symbol of pride and defiance."

Gemini6Ice 23:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

- I've placed an entry on the Votes for Undeletion page. I'm going to fight for what I believe in here, but I'm going to my best not to be seen as a vandal. :) Thanks for the reply! ^_^ --Gemini6Ice 23:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Bad edits by prev banned user
Hi you blocked this user User talk:69.119.119.178 for bad edits back in August they are now making large number of edits of dubious quality including adding "profiles" to numerous pages including star signs and favourite foods please take a look at some of their contribs Special:Contributions/69.119.119.178 Thanks Arnie587 02:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page
Thanks! Molotov (talk)  19:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope you stick your finger in a live mains outlet. I hope you slip in the tub and crack your head open. I hope your car smashes into a wall while you're in it. I hope you die from thirst or starvation or by bleeding to death. I hope ants sting you to death. I hope you get cancer. I hope a piano falls on you head. I hope a bus hits you and you end up as pizza pie. I hope you digest some poison that leaves you paralized for 48 hours and rats eat your flesh. I hope you die in pain and suffering. There! You have now been cursed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.229.232 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 October 2005

68.113.223.195
Looks like Drini blocked him for one week -- which you then appeared to change into a 24 hour block. Is there a reason for reducing the length of the block? --Nlu 06:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

68.113.223.195 has been posting comments claiming to be a TCU administrator, and that the block is causing the block to 75 computers. I believe that the IP has already been unblocked, but he/she indicates that that wasn't the case. Can you look into it? --Nlu 03:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
THere's two sections in the article, on the albums Blood on the Dance Floor and Invincible, that are filled with bloated text and POV written by an anon user. I've cleaned them both up before, but the anon (whoever they are) insists upon reinserting the bloated versions. Can you do me a favor and swap out the sections in the current article with the sections from this version? Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 04:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Userblocks and proteins
A couple of weeks ago, you blocked user:C1289H2051N343O375S8 for having an inappropriate username.

I, um, don't see why? Is it just because it's so long and difficult to retain, or.....? DS 01:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

48 times
ho hum... 48 times now. or maybe counter not updated. anyway, he's on the vandalism-in-progess page now. good luck. Mat-C 22:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

A Thanks
Thank you for this article; it was just what I needed in order to have a clearer, more coherent discussion with a friend. --63.85.132.5 02:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

CVU
I noticed you aren't in Category:Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikipedia/en and wanted to let you now that we'd appreciate you adding yourself! Also, consider using one of the identification templates:   wikipedia/en or wikipedia/en

Thanks for your involvement with CVU! -- Essjay ·    Talk 00:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose this proposal!
Quick and dirty Checkuser policy proposal  Erwin 

an AFD
Hi. I notice that you closed an AFD (specifically Articles for deletion/Extinction (band)) as "keep, no consensus". It didn't gather any votes, though. Band articles seldom attract many voters. But isn't it, in such cases, common policy to re-list instead of close? I request that you re-list the AFD. Punkmorten 10:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would if I knew how to make a "second nomination". If I put an afd tag on it now, it will link to the old afd. Punkmorten 14:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Deontological ethics
Hi - I left an explanation of my edit on Talk:Deontological ethics. FranksValli 08:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Space Cadet
How is violating policy and going against a nomeclature poll a "Content Dispute"? --Antman 14:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:FranzBoas.jpg
The image is actually in the public domain. It is from the collection of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and dates to 1915. I have updated the image annotation accordingly. Regards, Fawcett5 12:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

about me being blocked from editing
not that i care about editing or anything, because i don't even have a user account here, but why am i blocked from editing? like i just said, i don't even own a user account here, so i can't really vandalize anything, can I? 207.200.116.69 21:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Jake


 * See . If you share a computer with other(s), please warn him/her/it/them not to vandalize, if you don't want to get blocked.  (Will also post to Talk:207.200.116.69.)  --Nlu 21:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Deontological ethics
Cool! Thanks for the barnstar. :) FranksValli 03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverts on Intelligent Design
I did discuss my edits on the talk page. The responses to my concerns were not convincing. Please read them, they are at the bottom of the NPOV section on Talk:Intelligent_design. The argument is very simple: The topic of "Intelligent design" is ambiguous. People visiting the page might reasonably expect to see a discussion of Theism or teleology (already present in the original version). This is demonstrated in my posts on the talk page. Additionally my addition to the page is very small. I don't see what the problem is and it is very frustrating. If you could help it would be appreciated. --Ben | Talk 06:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Background colors
I noticed your monobook.css, and want to know how to change the background colors for the edit box and table of contents. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-10-26 03:25

Matt Hughes (fighter)
You added an "original research" tag to this page. I'm not disputing this, but I wanted to ask you note which parts of the article you have suspicions about on its talk page so that we can figure out what needs to be sourced or removed. Thanks. --D Monack 18:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

WDMA Discussion
How is reverting and re-adding my comments, which have been censored, abuse? Also if you look today there is only one edit so far. People have been continually removing my comments. It is a talk page. I should allowed be allowed to have my say, if people are going to chop out half of my comments it is like they are making me say something else? These people are not adding anything to the discussion, they are removing my comments. If they add comments and remove my comments I make sure I keep their comments on the next edit as I wouldn't want to censor them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippolami (talk • contribs) 02:51, 27 October 2005

Stairway to Heaven Backwards
Somebody has re-created the article Stairway to Heaven Backwards which was deleted about 3 months ago. Could you delete it again? --Nova77 01:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Counter Vandalism Unit Elections!
Just a reminder: If you haven't already done so, you have until November 1st (00:00 UTC) to vote in the Counter Vandalism Unit Elections! Fir  e  Fo  x  18:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

WDMA
Here is a comment I left on the WDMA page.


 * Comment Golbez has removed comments from Talk:WDMA regarding the new location of WDMA . Comments on a talk page should NEVER be erased, especially by a Wikipedia Administrator. He has also reverted edits on the main article because he found the information displeasing. He didn't bother to ask for some verification of information being added, he just deleted it  . Golbez had no problems with the article prior to this week, when WDMA came back. He would revert vandalism every now and then  . He even contributed to the article  on August 12th. Hell, on August 9th he even reverted someone blanking the page with the summary of rv - give a reason for blanking. wdma is dead, no need to fear talking about it anymore. But now, months after his first edit to the article the information has suddenly become unverifiable, and Golbez nominated the article for deletion. Geregd 21:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Dvyost RfA Thanks
Thanks for your support on my RfA! Rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dave 14:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Firefox extension
Would you happen to know how to make a firefox extension using Javascript? It would be very simple and used to fight vandalism. The basic idea is to feed RC diff's into firefox, and let it determine which pages contain text (such as an obscenity) listed in a file. For pages that don't contain anything on this list, the tab is closed. The others remain open and ready to be examined. If you can't figure out how to hookup the IRC RC output into firefox, then it could be used with WP:CDVF to open new tabs in firefox to be checked. I found a guide to making extensions, but it says you need to know Javascript. Thanks. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-10-30 03:51

John Marshall
Aw! Thanks for the kind words. I just figured with all the Supreme talk flying around, old John Marshall deserved better than he was getting from Wikipedia. :) Anyway, the notice is appreciated and makes all the work worth it. Thank you! jengod 08:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please unprotect Criticisms of communism
As far as I can tell noone requested protection and progress was being made. You also appear to have prejudged the outcome of the RfA by reverting before protecting. If you prefer a particular version, you probably should not be the one implementing the protection. Keep in mind that that the named party in an RfA, is not necessarily the wrong one, if there is a wrong one.--Silverback 14:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why did you revert the version that Ultramarine and I were editing then?--Silverback 09:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your reversion was improper. You have taken sides.  There was a clique that controled the communisms articled and wouldn't allow criticisms of communist states into it, even though for over 50 years of cold war communism was those states, and still is in the minds of most people.   A couple of that clique followed the critics to the critics of communism article, not to edit in good faith but to frustrate the efforts there, and you have decided that because they outnumber Ultramarine that he should have compromised with them.  You are prejudging part of the arbitration case, and should not have reverted if you felt the protection was necessary, which it wasn't.  If you read the edit summaries, you will find that you protected right after both 172 and the unspellable guy decided to let the improvements to the Ultramarine version to continue without unnecessary interruption.  You should not have been the one to put protection on, if you could not be neutral on the content and the case.--Silverback 12:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to give you a chance to correct the mistake yourself. I'll seek another admin.--Silverback 12:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime you might want to review the protection policy, here are two apropo parts:


 * In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version. In cases of 3RR violations, admins may protect the version immediately before the first violation i.e. immediately before the first occurrence of a fourth revert. See Wikipedia talk:Revert for the discussion on this.


 * Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice, a link to Accuracy dispute or NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies.

This is an attempt to resolve a dispute over your inappropriate use of admin powers.--Silverback 12:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Trimming links on Jujutsu topic
Hi. Today I posted a link to the IABC at the foot of this topic, only to find it cropped with about 14 others. Have I broken the rules? The association is made up primarily of ju-jitsu clubs in the UK and Russia, although there is a smattering of aikido, aikijitsu and karate. It is also the electonic home of Professor W. Rankin (10th Dan Ju-Jitsu) who has been performing his art for over 76 years (see http://www.iabc.org.uk/clubs/profbillrankin.html), so I thought it would be relevant. Mark 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

ChessGames.com
Since you have it listed on your userpage, I thought you might want to know that I've created the article recently. Perhaps you might want to help in de-stubbing it? Themindset 19:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

consensus comment requested at talk:the eXile
hi, sorry to bother you but I noticed you've made some edits to the eXile before and I was wondering if you could leave a comment on some edit wars we've been having lately on the talk page, where I've put up a request for consensus comments. I'm sorry to bother you with something so trivial, but...well I think you'll understand when you see the page, or the article's edit history. If you don't have time, no problem. Dsol 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Carlsbad
I think the edit history on Carlsbad made it confusing to see who the vandal was. The version you reverted to had vandalism in it, while I believe 65.19.95.22 was trying to clean it up. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 18:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

But, then again, I see unreverted vandalism from that IP address, so maybe he wasn't. In any case, a diff of the version I left and the version you left after the revert still had junk in it, so I pulled it all the way back to that version. Not sure why this has become such a target the last few days. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 18:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You are one of the subjects of an RfC
You have been named as one of the subjects of an RfC at --Silverback 06:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please certify Requests_for_comment/Alleged_admin_culture_of_abuse_and_tolerance_of_abuse
Could you please help certify the dispute the dispute at [] since you have admitted the particulars. -- thanx, --Silverback 04:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Reason for reverting race and intelligence changes?
Hello Ryan, I am curious to learn your rationale for reverting my race and intelligence changes? Why did you use your admin rollback priv and didn't include a checkin comment explanation for the revert? I just posted my reasons for the changes on the talk page and setup a vote, please comment there. zen master T 19:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I await your comment/explanation on the race and intelligence talk page... zen master T 20:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

huh -00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)70.50.213.79

SubstBut
Nice job on the bot! However, I notice that the templates he works on are a subset of those listed on Subst. Any particular reason for that, or is it just that WP:Subst is being modified too frequently these days? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you should discuss with BlueMoose, Uncle G AllyUnion, they're all good with bots. BlueMoose seems to be working on subst'ing as well, you may want to streamline with him. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Broadway theatre
Hi Ryan,

Got your note. I had posted links to (daily updated) synopses of Broadway and Off-Broadway shows, from which we make no dime, most folks in niche link to us in their faq's as a decent site of record. It's an independent NYC event-guide, pages seemed to need some real-time content.

Also puzzled as to nixing the TKTS booth article - it's a NYC institution, I first linked their official site, and then linked our listings underneath, again, it's the best (only) listing, real public service, every faq in niche links to it, etc, etc.

I see where you're coming from (The Encore Tickets link currently on the bottom of the Broadway article is precisely the kind of thing you want to avoid!) but I'm linking to dynamic, white-hat areas of our operation - these listings change daily, and we're as valid (if not as famous) as the Times.

Any chance of a reconsider? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.171.38 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 November 2005

see below --141.155.171.38 23:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

TKTS
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

Actually, I have no interest in success of TKTS booth - it's an institution, been around forever, New Yorkers know about it, visitors don't, sells tens of thousands of Broadway tix each week. The two external links are the (not me) folks who run it, and the only real-time listings on the web ("these are the shows currently being sold").

What changes could I make in the approach (I just RTM before writing this) to make it wiki-kosher? --141.155.171.38 23:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Revised, let me know if it still rings false - again, I don't work for TKTS, and have no interest in their success, etc, etc --141.155.171.38 23:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

race and intelligence
If there is a dispute over the article why must someone else add a disputed header? Please point to that provision of my probation or an applicable wikipedia policy that supports your contention please? Why are there so many editors on wikipedia that subtly defend the false dichotomy that is "race and intelligence"? I call this technique "good cop, bad cop, neutral cop" with the goal being to control how the dispute is portrayed to third parties that come upon any controversy and don't have much time to investigate in detail. My challenge remains open for someone to explain the exponentially biasing and unscientific method of presentation in race and intelligence, the only conclusion I've come up for it is some people want to enduce racism and IQ based classism upon society. zen master T 23:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Adding a {totalydisputed} header can only be disruptive if there isn't an in good faith dispute, there is, read the talk page (not the recently added huge sections at the bottom that seemingly were designed to misdirect from core criticism sections above). zen master T 00:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

All I did was add a npov header to the article, where is the disruption? Either the article is fundamentally disputed or it is not. Feel free to disagree but don't mischaracterize the situation. zen master T 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

User: 67.70.128.19
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.70.128.19

Please block this guy, all of his edits are vandalism and he even attacks another wikipedian in one of his edits --Raddicks 13:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

zen master
It seems clear to me that you you are involved in race and intelligence from the edit history. You know it is inappropriate to enforce a probation ruling against someone you are involved in a conflict with. I don't know how I would go about changing the length of the ban, but could you tell me (or some other uninvolved admin) the background of why ZM should be banned from the article? You may well be right, but I think someone else should be the one to make the decision. Dmcdevit·t 02:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I asked you for a justification for a ban. You gave me "I don't edit it for content." As far as I can see, you didn't give your reasoning behind the ban at his talk page or at AN that I can see. I can see that, since you apparently only edit it to revert Zen master. Tell me how you being the one that reverted ZM adding the tag three times, and reverting his content changes like this make you not involved. Banning is a serious step, and I am unimpressed by your response so far. Dmcdevit·t 03:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"eating" other warnings? == ==

I'm having a problem right now -- when I try to add and save, the warning doesn't actually appear -- and the signature of the previous warning disappears! Do you know if there is something going on? --Nlu 05:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)