User talk:Gator1/Archives/September 2005

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Ragdoll
Sure, I'll help. Even better, I'll tell you how you can do it. There's nothing to it, really. First you need to come up with a name for the Ragdoll computer modell article. Let's call it Ragdoll (computer modell). Now you can just click on that red link and get to a blank page where you can cut and paste in the text from the Ragdoll article that you want moved there. In case you want to try doing it your self, I'll wait some minutes and give you time to try it out. If you don't feel like doing it, I can do it for you. But it's really easy.

To make the disamb link, you just edit the Ragdoll article, and put the following at the top:

That's it. Shanes 21:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. But actually, I misspelled model, in the link I gave you. Putting in an extra l at the end. That's what you get for taking advice from a Norwegian. I'll fix it by moving the article to the properly spelled name. Sorry about that. Shanes 21:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And there's one more thing. If you really want to do a good job when splitting an article like this, is making sure that articles with links to the original Ragdoll article are pointing to the right one. It's not a big deal, since people following a link to Ragdoll from a computer-related article, will see the disambig link on the top and click on it, but to save people a click, the perfect thing to do is to go through the various articles linking to Ragdoll (click on "what links here" in the toolbox to the left for a list when viewing the Ragdoll article). And then go through all the computer-related ones and change the links in them to point to Ragdoll (computer model) instead of to Ragdoll. But I'll do that myself now. Just FYI. Shanes 21:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

YOU CAN BELIEVE ME
There are 4 people using this computer and 3 of the post on Wikipedea! What the hell am I supposed to do!? I am NOT a vandal! I thank you! (65.175.173.87 17:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC))

1) Use another computer

2)Find out which of the other 2 are doing it and kick his ass

3)Stop posting all together

Is it really everyone else's problem that you have to share a computer? I don't think so. Do you? Do you honestly think that Wikipedia shouldhave to put up with this because some people aren't vandals? The fact is that your computer is compromised, so it should be bocked until you can take care of this. Good luck, I don't envy you, but it really has to stop. Don't you agree?Gator1 17:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I agree! listen here great news in fact, Gator I had just sent a text message from this computer to the primary account holder who uses the Wikipedea forum! She immediately called me since then and told me to change the password on her administrator section till we meet on monday! She and I will be the only persons using this system from here will be cathytrek or me!, and im getting a regular screen name in a min!, it will be Landru-Loki, and there will be no others after, and you have my word on that! but also at least this I know, the one troll/vandal we are sure of, will be getting the boot from this house here on tuesday next! in other words, no more trolls/vandals from this place, its gonna be locked down and password protected all the way! (65.175.173.87 17:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC))

And here I am! no more problems from our place as you shall see! (Landru-Loki 17:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC))

Question
Sorry about the tone, I had no intention of affending. Actually, the questions were not meant as mean, they all make sense if you look at them through your answer on my talk page. Consider them now: What do you have against the inclusion of Katrina material in the Hurricane Andrew article? Your answer was nothing, you support informational updates, just as long as they are not rumors and guesses. Do you just hate those of us who are updating the information? Your answer says no, you have compassion for the victims and want the end number of deaths compared to andrew as low as possible. Do you want the glory of the Katrina edits? Absolutley not, otherwise you answer on my talk page would have had one of those tones that suggested you already had a claim staked. Lastly, the question of whether you would rather we wait until after new years to update the information? This one would probably be a yes, beacause some news reports are estimating the amount of time it will take to get the city drained and the body count finalized will easily be into 2006.

When looked at like this, your answer says alot about you. Out of respect for those efected by Hurricane Katrina I will refrain from editting Andrew until our numbers - both lives lost and cost- firm up some. Again, I apologize if I came across as rude. Have a good day. TomStar81 19:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

merging two articles
Sorry for my late reply. I've been busy with other stuff elsewhere this weekend. When you need quick help or response on things like this, the best place to ask is probably the Village pump, where lots of people are watching and answering questions like this all the time and all the week.

About your question. I see you've been bold and already gone through with the merge, which is fine, I guess. So this is just a late reply about how I would have gone about it.

I don't know anything about the subtle differences between Betta and Siamese Fighting Fish, but assuming they are the same, the prefered way of merging, is to pick one of the existing articles to merge the other content to. I see you chose a third brand new title, like we did when we split the cat-article. But in merging, sticking to one of the existing names is usually the best thing. For one, we then get to keep the talk-page and edit history of that article. Now finding the old talk-pages and edits are trickyer. Second, you save a redirect for other articles linking to that old page. And third, one of the original names are usually better. That's why they were chosen to begin with.

Then when you've desided on what article-title to keep and what to move, you add a Template:Mergeto tag in the article with the name you want to move the content from by typing, say on top of the Betta article. And then add a corresponding Template:Mergefrom in the other article, the one you want to keep the name of. Like this: to the top of the Siamese Fighting Fish article. Then you write a short note on each talkpage with an explanation for your request. Like you did. And then you wait a few (3-4) days. Now you didn't wait very long before going through with the merge, and if it was an obvious one, it probably didn't matter. But usually it's best and more polite to give people watching the articles time to notice the request and comment on it. Just in case there were reasons for why they should be kept seperate. But asuming there were no objections after a few days, you could go ahead with the merge, and when finnished put a redirect on the article you merged from to the article you merged to.

You should also check for any double redirects after a merge like this. I see there are quite a few now after your merge. Example: If you go to the Climbing gourami article, you'll find a link to Siamese Fighting Fish near the bottom. But clicking that link, only brings you to the old Siamesee fighting fish, article that is now a redirect. And the reader will have to click again. This is because the Siamese Fighting Fish already had a redirect to Siamese fighting fish (low caps), and now that page is yet another redirect to the article you made. That's what is called a double redirect, and we try to avoid them. Use the "What links here" link in the toolbar to the left to find more.

Anyway, I don't think what you did was very bad or anything, and if there are people disagreeing strongly with what you did, I'm sure they'll let you know. ;-).

Hope this was educational. On Community Portal you can find an endless amount of documentations and howto's and what not if you want to learn more about things like this. But please do ask me again if anything about anything is unclear. Or try the Village pump if you want to be make sure you get a timely response. Shanes 21:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

from Paul
Hey, Gator1,

I've not spoken with you a lot, but I have seen you sticking up for BigDaddy. I myself have been coaching/mentoring him. He's a nice guy, he knows what he's talking about, he just needs to learn to fit in with WP culture to accomplish what he's setting out to do -- reversing the trend of glutting as much negative junk from any source on the article about any conservative.

I agree with that goal. There are a lot of reasons for it, which I think are obvious.

Anyway, I have noticed some strange things myself about double standards -- once in a while -- at WP. Also some disturbing observations about a couple of users. I wonder if sometime we could talk in private, and share notes to see how much we see eye to eye?

If so, send me a private e-mail. Regards, paul klenk 12:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've just sent you an e-mail.  paul klenk

Cutco and Vector Marketing
Cutco seemed to have a compromise in place. Good job. Vector Marketing had a similar tag with absolutely no discussion. Hopefully, this will resolve the immediate issue or at least draw it out so it can be discussed. Let me know if you encounter more problems and I'll try to mediate. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No, don't.
No, don't. The RfC, as far as I can tell, needs to follow certain formatting guidelines. It caused me confusion, too. Take no action and say nothing for the moment; I don't want anyone annoyed.

The signatories, if you will, of the RfC "own" a large portion of that page. It is for their exclusive use, and rightly so.

My section "evidence of improved" was created by Hip after I mistakenly added in their section. It really caused confusion, but now I'm beginning to understand it. Check in with me to acknowledge this message, pose any questions, and let me answer your questions in detail.

Looking forward to your reply,

paul klenk talk 02:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. I re-read your message and you didn't indicate you were going to do anything; sorry.


 * It may seem a bit biased, because it is their RfC, and their opinions. However, you are allowed to add content.


 * The problem is, I don't know exactly how to advise you to format it -- yet. I am working on it, and will share with you when I know.


 * I do urge you to weigh in on this RfC, though, with a well-rounded view of the situation. You don't have to necessarily do it refute them, unless something there actually needs to be refuted -- in that case, by all means refute.  You can give as thorough and thoughtful a view, organized and written well, as you can muster.  You should really be honest about valid criticisms about BD as far as they are presenting it with respect to WP policy; but if there is context to that criticism, that will help a reader give BD a fairer hearing, you need to add it.  RfCs can be a good mechanism for helping a user change behavior, and tracking efforts to help him do that.  By not participating, you are not really making the point you may think you are making.  When we respect RfCs and the people who bring them, even if we disagree, we do actually help the whole process.  I am becoming increasingly trusting of the process when it is used correctly.  If the RfC was brought for the wrong reasons, etc. etc., the evidence will speak for itself.  By providing the evidence and trusting the judges to review it intelligently, we are doing what we want all WP'ians to do.


 * I haven't added more, because I just have too many questions about how and where to leave remarks. Let's both review the rules of RfCs and examples thereof, so we can go about it the right way if we do.


 * Hipocrite has offered by guidance on this if I come to him, but I want to respect his time and do my own research first, instead of expecting him to do my work for me. I will format it how I think I want to submit it, but place it on a sandbox page for him to review before I place it on the RfC.    paul klenk talk 02:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't know about Nightshade, but there does seem to be a view out there that the "motion to suspend" may not even have been okay to do. I don't know enough about the process and rules to comment intelligently on that.  Let's both do some reading, and I have additional thoughts for you.


 * To try to head off some questions - you can do anything you want in any section you want as long as all of the people that have signed that section agree, or could be expected to agree with your actions. The proponents have the responsibility to lay out the dispute, and justify that they have attempted to solve the problem, so they have substantially more space. Because Kizzle and myself wanted to make it clear that our dispute was not about content, we wrote substantially more than is typically included. You can certainly change the section headers if you feel they are biased - Outside View 1, Outside View 2 is a typical convention, but Outside View of X is much more common. The RFC page is currently terribly formated with way too much discussion on the main page, but I do not intend to move anything else to talk at this stage. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Hip -- that's helpful.   paul klenk talk 10:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Cutco
Sorry for responding this late. Looks like it's been setled. Never heard about the knives, but I made an edit, moving the simpsons ref down to it's own trivia section (and add what episode it was, hope it was the right one, think so). The intro should be a short description of the subject, and I don't think having been parodied in the Simpsons is that notable.

And, yeah, claims like the ones you were disputing should preferably be backed up by a reference. Not sure if that bulletin-board like reference he added is very authorative, but it's better than nothing. Shanes 04:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Checking in
Just sent you an e-mail. paul klenk talk 13:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking forward.  paul klenk talk 15:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Further Cutco

 * You aren't doing anything wrong. I am surprised that someone sophisticated enough to understanding POV tags isn't able to detail his objections.  All I see are links and no presented recommendations.  What I have seen from your edits is an ability to compromise and include some criticism.  If he will only tell us what he wants it might be good to add.  Hopefully we can convince him to work with us instead of stomping off without a discussion. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

User talk:64.231.169.58
Thank you for reverting my user page. Do you know what it meant? I don't recognize the language. I hope you don't mind but I modified your message to User talk:64.231.169.58. test4 should never be the first message on an IP talk page, especially if their contributions do not show any other vandalism. I usually give the benefit of the doubt and start with test (user test) and move to vandalism after that. I'm guessing that you attributed this edit with a returning vandal so I changed it from a threat of immediate block to a test2 warning against nonsense vandalism. I also added blanking to warn against blanking pages. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[Big Daddy]
Gator1 writes: "because we didn't know each other then and I had forgotten all about it."

Yeah, me too. It took awhile to remember that exchange and I do apologize. I think it was at a point in my Wikipedia existence where I was being attacked from all sides and so often that it didn't take much to set me off. I just opened up both barrels and started shooting lol! Sorry you got caught in the crossfire, I admire your contributions here greatly. Big Daddy 15:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

King of the Hill vandal
Hey there. I remember coming across a request from you somewhere on Wikipedia to help deal with that vandal - another user happened to request a similar thing on my talk page, so I did not get a chance to properly respond to your request. Thanks for keeping a sharp eye on these things, it's very much appreciated! I'll compile a list of addresses where the vandalism is originating from. After seeing that some of these addresses are being used by multiple users, I'm not sure how effective long blocks would be anymore. The user would simply jump to a different IP and propagate the nuisance once again. --HappyCamper 20:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

re:Belfast, Maine
Not encyclopedic, but no longer inflammatory. Much too much POV.

Visiting Big Daddy
Gator1 - I'm glad to see you stopped by for a visit on my Talkpage while I was out this evening. You're always welcome as you know, but did you have to bring along such intemperate friends? :)

I mean, seriously, coming in uninvited and badmouthing both me (and you!) on my own talk page. Wow! Where do these people learn their manners? Take care, Big Daddy 03:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This is TOO Rich
Gator, to learn more about this Kizzle who's been hassling you (on MY talk page of all places!) check out his talk page. You'll find, if you click on his renegade version of the George Bush page, a photo of a pierced penis he actually uploaded to replace the photo of The President of the United States with on Wikipedia (and was promptly booted for.) (WARNING: Very sick pic.) Nice to learn a little bit about the guy who's lecturing you on what's appropriate behavior in Wikipedia, huh? Big Daddy 08:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ps There is some controversy regarding whether he actually uploaded this piereced penis photo or not. Considering the alternative explanation - Kizzle scouring Wikipedia in search of  a pierced-penis photo, I feel confident that my explanation is far more charitable... Big Daddy 19:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are curious, I came across some other user's page that had a list of images he didn't think belonged on Wikipedia. I didn't upload it myself.  I needed to get some shit done and since I'm a wikiholic, I wanted to get banned.  Check my userspace for the context in which I put it on.  I certainly didn't scour Wikipedia for a penis photo, it was on this person's userspace. --kizzle 02:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting and thanks for clearing that up. It sounds like you are struggling with a severely underdeveloped impulse control mechanism. It's good that you recognize the problem since the first step in recovery is self-awareness. That is a heckuva way to get banned however. The George Bush article is likely a very popular page and something a gradeschool child would typically visit to help with his homework. It doesn't matter how quickly it was taken down, you put it up and if it were up to you, it would still be up, as you were trying to get banned so you wouldn't be able to get access to Wikipedia.  Even if just one child saw that disturbing image on Wik it would do incalculable damage. Not necessarily to the child (although one could argue that) but to Wikpipedia. "Hey Mommy, look what's on this Wikipedia President Bush site!" is all one parent needs to hear to create huge PR problems for us.  So, while I sympathize with your condition, the childish and reckless manner in which you chose to get banned is far too serious to merely punish with a one day slap on the wrist.


 * Personally, I think you should be banned for life. And I would feel exactly the same way if it were Paul Klenk, Hippocrite, Katefan, WooWookitty or anyone else. In fact, acts of page vandalism far less egregious than yours have forced Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales to re-consider our open editing policy at Wikipedia. Check this article out.
 * According to Mr. Wales, although "The picture was only on the page for a minute...whoever opens the article at this moment will get annoyed--and therefore doubt our credibility." And here he was just talking about a Star Wars character! Have you considered the  credibility fallout Wikipedia may be laboring under due to your careless yet deliberate actions? I wonder how Jimmy Wales would respond if he found out what you did... Big Daddy 04:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, "severely underdeveloped impulse control mechanism"? Yikes, I clearly got under your skin at some point. You don't get banned for one vandalism, otherwise you'd have been gone long ago.  What you do get banned for is repeatedly violating WP:AGF, WP:NPA, which you have inarguably done so.  So thanks for writing a 2 paragraph essay on why I should be banned for one minor infraction in the year i've been here, why don't you do something more useful like read Wikipedia policy which you time and time again (like this example) demonstrate your ineptitude towards, or work on curbing your civility, or really anything else that will actually be productive. Or stay bullheaded and combative, that's fine by me, as long as you accept the consequences of your behavior. --kizzle 05:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, don't get so defensive, I was only trying to help. But, if you think that posting what some would argue is a pornographic picture (a tight shot of a pierced penis) at the very top of our article on The President of the United States in a willful and deliberate manner is nothing more than a minor infraction, than this helps me to understand your capacity for exercising judgement and editorial discretion in other matters. And for illuminating that reality, I must graciously thank you. You knew darn well that a young person could have very well clicked on that Bush page. Your 'minor infraction' is tantamount to a man exposing himself to a child in a public place. Doing it even one time is one time too many... Big Daddy 05:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah totally, one act of vandalism in the year I've been here. It's actually quite humorous to hear this coming from someone who has an open RfC filed aganst them for repeatedly breaking Wikipedia official policies after 2 weeks (LOL!), so don't lecture me on "judgement and editorial discretion".  It's also funny coming from someone who is spreading blatant lies that I uploaded the image in question. Maybe you should start analyzing your own behavior to reach illumination, or at least fact-check your own allegations before you make them. --kizzle 05:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, don't say I didn't try. It's obvious at this point that you're more into confrontation than collaboration. Nonetheless, I do thank you for revealing a little bit about yourself and your motivations. It's always helpful to get a better understanding of what makes people tick. Have a good night. Big Daddy 05:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're confusing a user's talk page with an article page. Here, I am free to tell you that your second sentence is possibly the most ironic sentence I have ever heard in my life, I actually did LOL!.  On the article talk page, we should keep it to making the article better.  Maybe if you wouldn't spread lies about me on other people's talk pages, or were civil, I wouldn't have to focus on you. --kizzle 05:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hope you have learned your lesson. It is true that when I first arrived here almost four weeks ago, I was less enthused about building consensus than I was about correcting what I believed to be egregious violations of the public trust in the way Wikipedia presented information on conservatives. I have since begun to learn that consensus building is the best way to effectuate these much needed changes. But, speaking for myself, (and I'm sure the OVERWHELMING majority of other Wikipedians) I would never...ever...ever think for just one second...to do what you did to the President's article. Or anyone's article for that matter. And I further believe the light punishment meted out sent you the wrong message, the fruit of which has been a continuation of less reckless but still petulant behavior on your part. However, I'm the forgiving sort of guy, so I hope you've put this incident fully in your past and now understand how important fairness, neutrality, impartiality and credibility is to the greater Wikipedia community. I look forward to a much more reasoned discourse in the future...Big Daddy 08:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You have put the biggest smile on my face I've had in a long time, so thank you for that. Here's the difference between you and I: I apologize for that incident.  It's so easy, isn't it?  And yet so hard for one bullheaded editor. I'm glad you're the forgiving type, too bad your pride and stubbornness won't give me the chance to forgive you. --kizzle 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I'm delighted that I put a smile on your face and happy to share the forgiveness as I've got a ton in store to go around. But when you characterize me this way - You know as someone who, because of pride and stubbornness won't ever admit a mistake, it's evocative of how people of your political persusasion criticize President Bush. I hope you aren't thinking that I'm President Bush just using the 'Big Daddy' moniker as a sock puppet. Rest assured that's not true. He's far more intelligent than I...Big Daddy 19:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Truly I'm sorry about your perception of your own intellect. I characterize you as stubborn and full of pride because its the only logical answer for why you won't examine your own countless demonstrated examples that inarguably violate Wikipedia official policies. --kizzle 19:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Love the freespirited debate. Unlikesome people, I have no problem with that occurring on places other than the articles. Just a note to kizzle. In the future, please refrain from using curse words on my talk page. If you do it again I will consider it deliberate and, therfore, an act of vandalism. You've been warned.Gator1 12:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Will do. --kizzle 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

YAY a Bush is dumb joke. Was wondering when I'd see one of THEM again! Thanks kizz, you never disappoint!Gator1 19:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem Gator :) --kizzle 19:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Although BD earns SOME credit. he set that one up pretty well. Opened the door and you walked right through...classic Kizz. Although calling the President dumb is NOTHING compared with...well YOU know.Gator1 20:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Gator, sometimes you crack me up :) --kizzle 20:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)