User talk:GDonato/Archive03

User_talk:Dune-o-phile and his edits to Sandworms of Dune
Hi, I've also cut the plot summary in Sandworms of Dune, apart from being very badly written its only source came from an Advance Reader Copy and because the book is not going to be published for several weeks it is WP:OR. Hope that clears it up Mike33 12:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, good enough reasoning. I didn't like the look of the allcaps and out-of-policy message there but entire removal in this situation seems OK due to WP:OR. GDonato (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What is Your opinion about Red Army crimes?
What is Your opinion about Red Army crimes category and articles about military (comunistic or not) massacres? Ttturbo 20:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * None in particular, I didn't realise what your concerns were at first- and please don't abuse the "helpme" tag. Happy editing, GDonato (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, GDonato. You may be interested to know that Ttturbo has just put the template back - on his talk page. Jim Dunning who had just convinced me that the best way to deal with Ttturbo was to leave him alone, is at his wits' end now. What to do? --Pan Gerwazy 00:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: it seems like he needs to write a historical treatise very fast (within the next five days), and he may be only here on English Wikipedia to get help on that treatise, because he got banned from Lithuanian wikipedia . Googling, I found that metai means a "year" in Lithuanian.--Pan Gerwazy 09:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed and he has been indef-blocked here so no more problems. GDonato (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops :-)
It was me editing my RfB. I just came back from the market and forgot to log in. Sorry for the trouble. :-) Regards, Hús  ö  nd  22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hiya it looks like you are going to pass RfA (45/1/0) very, very cool. Well good luck, your reply to me the other day was prompt and very civil, so and 45 out of 46 cats can't be wrong :-) Again Good luck Mike33 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. GDonato (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA result
I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:
 * Administrators' reading list
 * Administrators' how-to guide
 * Administrators' Noticeboard
 * Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
 * Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Redux. GDonato (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, GDonato. :) Acalamari 22:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Politics rule 22:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!..G-Man.. ....-- Cometstyles 23:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, me thinks congrats are in order! Well done - you deserve it.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, congratulations, now you can clear up the backlogs at AIV instead of contributing to them ;) Good luck! ~ Riana ⁂ 00:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's right. Thanks all for your support. GDonato (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Speedy
I placed the CSD tag on Template:Infobox UK Office series 1 episode list because it seemed like the template was not being used and was a test. If you feel the page can be kept then thats fine. Thank you, -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, actually it was being used - see the "what links here", although I understand your reasoning looking at it. GDonato (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Haco
Thanks for your quick actions in reverting the spam links left by this user. Pretty quick for your first day as an admin! You might want to put the block notice on the user's talk page. Thanks again! Malson 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Second :p day and I knew I forgot something! Thanks, GDonato (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know that our friend has started to readd the external links to cruise ship articles. Only 2 so far and I've already undone those. Might want to reconsider the unblock. Malson 21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, not blockable but the user said that they would work on article content and pay attention to the external ilnks policy. I will be very careful and am watching them closely.
 * They have re-added the links today to the same 2 articles. I have left them for the time being. The site they are linking to is merely a repeat of the same information that is already on the pages as well as several non-free use images. I'll let you handle this from here. Thanks! Malson 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ferenc Gyurcsány editprotected
Actually, a third opinion was requested already twice (by me) on the Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. In the two cases, two different Hungarian editors reverted the article to my last version without much further ado. There is a reason why BS presents no arguments about facts but resorts to empty personal attacks against me (like calling me "radical" right here, something I can actually prove I am not). KissL 11:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to build consensus with this radical people. Please take an POV tag on this page (Ferenc Gyurcsány)!  Thanks--Beyond silence 16:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try to communicate with the others involved in the dispute, if it appears they have lost interest then request unprotection If you still can't agree – try getting a third opinion GDonato (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look for a version which you can compromise on then, this constant reverting is not good enough and I am not going to be a proxy editor for you. GDonato (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Log archive
Thanks for cleaning out that upload log &mdash; and congrats on your new adminship! Feezo (Talk) 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, any time- just shout! Thanks, GDonato (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

Image:Francesco Madonia.jpg
If you are so keen to delete the image, go ahead. The whole rationale thing is so incomprehensible I could not be bothered to figure it out. I rather contribute in a positive way, adding information instead of deleting it. I gave you the source, do whatever you like. You seem to be the expert here. - Mafia Expert 21:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've asked someone that knows about this, to take a look. ShakespeareFan00 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate the positive approach. Sorry for the initial grumpy comment. - Mafia Expert 21:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear G!
[Barnstar from Phaedriel moved to awards page]

Indeed you've made quite an impact, dear G! ;) Here, just between the two of us - while it's the best thing to do not to feed the trolls... isn't it a satisfying sensation to know even vandals have noticed your excellent work? ;) The downside of it is, the barnstar he gave you wasn't meaningful... but that's something I can easily solve! :) Keep up the wonderful work, friend! Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, you are far better than me at keeping a smile, though ;) GDonato (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Notre Dame High School
I was about to block them for three months ... they have already been blocked several times before, each time returning to vandalism. You might want to consider a longer period of time, even if it is summer. Daniel Case 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ GDonato (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a whole bunch for blocking the 141.151.187.65 anon. It was getting kind of wearing having to continuously revert his vandalism, rather than dealing with anything else. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 10:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm here for. They made the mistake of vandalizing WP:AIV, number one way to get the admins' attention! GDonato (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's
Hi, I've already seen your move revert on Jimbo's userpage. Isn't it worth to consider move-protecting it? Cheers, Andrij Kursetsky   &#8855;  14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Haco and IP 89.98.105.183
Apparently, Haco is back adding his spam links to cruise ship articles using IP: 89.98.105.183. I've reverted the first 3 edits the IP made but would appreciate you looking into this. Thanks! Malson 14:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Haco Mr.Malson, I put my comments concerning your proceeding on your talk page. Please spent your time on other commercial and spam links on Wikipedia. There are plenty! Once again please call my hobby site NOT AS SPAM!!

THIS IS A COPY OF YOUR EARLIER MESSAGE!! The site they are linking to is merely a repeat of the same information that is already on the pages as well as several non-free use images. I'll let you handle this from here. Thanks! Malson 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

SEVERAL NON-FREE USE IMAGES. PLEASE I WISH THAT YOU APOLOGIZE FOR THIS!!! ALL IMAGES USED ON MY SITE GOT THE APPROVAL OF THE MAKERS OR CRUISELINES FOR PUBLICATIONS!!!

RFPP on talk page of user you blocked
If you're still online, is getting trolled by the user, whom you blocked. I also put in a request at rfpp, but I figured I'd see if you're still here. Cheers, Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. someone just got to it. Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, never mind. GDonato (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually GDonato, can you please change the block to idenfinte on 71.61.28.212? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AYuckyMachine (talk • contribs)
 * Indef blocks should only be used on IPs in extreme circumstances, a month should do here. GDonato (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: 3RR
I usually watch myself. But I guess some people are insistent on removing all humour from Wikipedia anyway, so :/ &mdash; $PЯIПG  rαgђ  18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yardbirds Live At The BBC
Hey There, I'm new to this so I understand the deletion, but I just wanted to let you know I tried to post the complete track information, including recording dates and authors. It clearly states on the archive copy I have that this record was released in 1999, though WP has it listed as 1997 (with no info). I just wanted to correct the facts. SO-if the track listing info would be enough, can I post the article again? Thanks, Stephen Jones


 * You will need to ensure the article shows notability. Read WP:FIRST GDonato (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Haco on AN/I
Please see thread on the Administrators Noticeboard regarding Haco's recent contributions here Malson 16:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've requested blacklisting:
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (Permanent link)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (Permanent link)
 * Thanks for your work on this. I'm sorry it ended up this way for Haco. -- A. B. (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi, without making any judgments about the merits of a particular case, I'd like to suggest that it's generally better not to post publicly about the similarities between two accounts when one is suspected of being a sock of the other. You know, WP:BEANS and all that. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't see how that falls under WP:BEANS but please tell me how I can improve. Such things are always done at WP:SSP. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't strictly speaking fall under WP:BEANS, but I notice that people refer to WP:BEANS in a broader way than a reading of that page would justify. What I mean is that we shouldn't tell people things we don't want them to know. If, for example, you have a tendency to spell a certain word incorrectly, and you're completely unaware of it, and you create a sockpuppet, and then someone posts on the noticeboard that they think you and your sockpuppet are the same user because you both spell privilege as "priviledge", then you'll know something to avoid for the future, whereas that might be the one piece of evidence that helps admins to recognise all your socks. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, yes, that's a good general guide, it maybe does not apply so strongly in this case, however. GDonato (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Puppets and such
You should do some homework, then rethink your suggestion.--Jonashart 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have and have concluded you edit the same articles as those mentioned and mysteriously knew when OWB was at work. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No mystery, if you'd do the homework (i.e., read). He emailed me. It' still a viable form of communication. Not sure what your goal is here other than to get on the wrong side of people. You'd also notice that I've edited LOTS of articles with which OWB has had no contact, and vice versa. This is quickly becoming silly and you're only adding fuel to a fire that should have died 2 days ago.--Jonashart 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also did read this response that you provided, unfortunately, I have no evidence. GDonato (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's called "good faith". I don't owe you 'evidence'. I don't owe you anything. That you actually brought me into this puts the burden on you, not me.--Jonashart 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I take full responsibility for my actions, you can say I didn't assume good faith but if we take WP:AGF too far we will never find any sockpuppets. GDonato (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you keep fighting the good fight then. This is amusing, at best.--Jonashart 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the RFCU says unrelated then you will have my full apologies. If you are innocent I don't see why you would object to this with great determination. GDonato (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) "Innocent"? This isn't a court. There are no crimes. 2) I've done what I can to help someone in a stupid, ugly pissing contest. For no good reason, my name is now on a list that suggests I've done something contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. You do the math.--Jonashart 18:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no list, I remain neutral until the results come. GDonato (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but there is very much a list:, and I'm on it. You put me on that list.--Jonashart 18:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That list in no way suggests you have done anything wrong., if it is followed by a CU saying "unrelated" GDonato (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fear not, no heads were called for. Just pointing out the flaws in the system. Like I said, I'm hoping there are some lessons being learned somewhere along the line here. Gee, now what am I going to do for fun today??? Cheers, --Jonashart 12:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag?
Hi, I was just wondering what the reason was for removing the tag from my userpage? If there is some sort of policy or rule behind it, could you direct me to it so that I am less confused on this matter? Thanks! --Godfoster 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My comments ar RFCU
GDonato, I know my comments could be construed as not welcoming your help, and kind of bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you-ish. I'm sorry, I just think Jonashart isn't a sock, and am so rushed trying to get things done that I'm losing civility. thanks for your help. --barneca (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I did not think you were being incivil. The invitation remains open if you wish to remove that user, GDonato (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A consideration
Sorry to bother you about this but I am inclined to think did not act in particularly bad faith and has been remorseful on IRC. Considering a growing opinion, I think he can be unblocked as he understands the situation now. GDonato (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Donato. I've explained myself a couple of times at the ANI and my actions have been reviewed by a few admins who agreed w/ my actions. If you have a look at prior discussions you'd see that i started blocking violators just after discussing the issue w/ other admins. If you believe his block deserves to be reduced go ahead and reduce it and post it at the related ANI thread. I'd not object anyway but i don't personally reduce blocks of people who have violated Wiki rules several times, otherwise everybody would ask for their blocks to be reduced and we'd end up having another mess. But again, if you are convinced by his words at IRC go ahead. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can tell this is something you are not keen on and I totally respect your opinion so I will leave it at the moment, GDonato (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks and please note that the admin who declined his unblock request is a member of the Mediation Committee and this means a lot. Again, it is up to you and not me. I really won't object or think bad about your action if you'd be unblocking him. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Kunjah Page Adeelbutt88
plz check my page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunjah you retagged my page due to shortage of the sources now i have provided all the due sources and references plz remove the tag of additional references.-- Adeelbutt88  talk  17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. GDonato (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image Image:TUBronzeStatue2.jpg
Can you please explain why you removed a dated dfu tag from Image:TUBronzeStatue2.jpg when the image is clearly in violation of WP:NFCC? It is both replaceable, and it is not used to illustrate the newspaper from which it was copied. Thanks. Rhobite 23:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * May I claim a lapse of judgement, I did remove one offending usage but not the other and so did not delete for some reason. Done now, thanks, GDonato (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think...
You could close this MfD discussion as I have userfied everything. Regards, Rlest 10:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Image:GoogleSidebar_Vista.jpg speedy deletion
You have removed the above image as per WP:CSD#I6, however Fair use rationale guideline, which I just read for the first time, states this: Fair use images that contain no rationale whatsoever should be speedy deleted 7 days after notification to the editor who uploaded the image is given.

I have received no form of notification whatsoever. Had I received the notification, I would have complied, but with no warning whatsoever, and the image removed with no notice whatsoever... wth?

anger2headshot 11:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale added
Thanks for undeleting, I've added the fair use rationale (first time writing one too... xD)... erm, is it OK? Thanks =D anger2headshot 12:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108
Could you have a look at the response I gave to the 24 hour block and compare it with the nature of the type of edits I actually generally make?

The user that reported unilaterally put in place the largest Articleissues tag possible on already over referenced article.

He Bksimonb is a member of the Brahma Kumari's World Spiritual University's (the subject of the topic; BKWSU) core Internet PR team and is working together with another BKWSU member Riveros11. They are seeking to control the topic along the lines of the organisations PR and appear to invest an inordinate amount of time in working the system and wikilawyering to do so. What you have walked into is a repeat of previous activity.

The issue was over the "articleissue" tag alone. It was put in place unilaterally with, in my opinion, clear intent to discredit the article, chosen as the biggest and broadest possible template. Was the article not so well referenced, I would not take offence at specifically place tags or efforts by them to provide reliable references. Effort which does not appear to exist.

Since it appeared another admin User:Utcursch has joined the topic and has helped up clean it up, the tag has stayed off and matters are back to normal and so it is not an issue any more.

Please note the previous arbitration process in which exactly such tactics by these two individuals were used on others and it was revealed that Riveros11 had also actually used a series of anonymous IP accounts to make similarly provocative revisions or complaints about others.

I wish make this explicit because I expect it to happen time and time again and then be used in further complaints elsewhere.

Thank you.

user: green108

My RfA
Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community.

- Philippe &#124; Talk 07:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)