User talk:Gdo01/Archive/Archive 03

RE:WP:SPOILER
Be that as it may, I think that the note does provide a compelling reason to keep the spoiler warning. --tjstrf talk 02:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree but if anyone were to contest it, they could easily state that it is cannot be enforced by a policy that is not yet policy. Gdo01 02:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but anyone going around mass-blanking spoiler warnings will be doing it based on that pseudo-policy. So they'd rather undercut themselves if they made that argument. --tjstrf talk 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you (in the note on Aizen's page) and Poetic Decay in edit summaries both used WP:SPOILER as justification or a link to it. Gdo01 02:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because I mostly agree with it. If someone here wants to revert me, they can, I won't edit war over it or anything. --tjstrf talk 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV Request
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 03:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See my reply on AIV below and please don't use a generic template, I have over 9000 edits and have been here almost a year. Gdo01 03:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The warning was at 3:40 and the next vandal edit at 3:43. How isn't the vandalism obvious? There is no French queen born in the last 10 years. Also, the blatantvandal template can be used in place of other warnings. Gdo01 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Three minutes after the final warning isn't that long of a time. It could be that they vandal didn't see the final message after making that change.  You are right about the vandalism, however.  I must admit I didn't look too closely at the content, but the changes and edit summaries looked legit.


 * In general, vandals are to be given several warnings before getting blocked. If this person performs any more vandalizing, report them and they will be blocked. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 04:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason the vandalism was blatant is precisely because the vandal tried to pass off as a normal editor. That clearly shows an intent to blatantly vandalize which is why the blatantvandal tag was appropriate. As the blatant tag says, a vandal can be blocked immediately after vandalizing after a blatantvandal tag is placed. I was courteous enough to put a test4 but I did not have to. Please read the blatantvandal tag clearly, vandals can be blocked after just getting that one tag. Gdo01 04:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 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 05:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarify
Explain to me what you are accusing me of! Cause if you are examining (as a patroler) dicussion pages are made for opinion and comment, tell me where did I go wrong? Where do you see a problem with me and my comments? I have not cause no problems. Send me some feedback. Thank you. LILVOKA 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your commentary on the Simpsons feud was completely a forum topic, it had nothing to do with improving the article. The same goes with the commentary you put on a radio article, advice to buy satellite radio does not belong on Wikipedia talk pages. Gdo01 05:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, anything else aformented in this dicussion? I see that the dicussion of the WROU radio station was wrong, I didn't mean for that one to end up on there. But for other dicussions, tell me you have many others who do that? Where does the time go when there is not just me but others? Cause I am still not convinced that this warning you placed on my page was necessary. I mean there is many others who do that too. LILVOKA 05:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't go fishing. Of course, there are others out there but that doesn't make your violation any less. Frankly, if you are resorting to that defense, it seems that you know you did wrong and want to justify yourself somehow. However, you are partly right that I do not often go after Talk violations but going through my contributions you will see that I do do it semi-often and you just happened to do it on several articles on my talk page. Not to mention the fact that the same stuff was posted on 3 pages and if you look at the 3 pages you will see I am not the only one who finds what you wrote to be misplaced or inappropriate. Gdo01 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, that seems like a better conclusion. Although disagreements are necessary for the better of Wikipedia, I do agree that is essential for your position as a patrol administator to do this. I will make contributions more reasonable. Is there are anything else needed for me to improve on? LILVOKA 05:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats it. Thanks for the level headedness, I've lately dealt with lots of immature impulsive editors and you are a welcome change. Gdo01 06:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No Problem! That's why we're here! LILVOKA 06:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion...
If you got into an "edit war" with an anonymous user, and felt that your reversions were accurate, and said individual was vandalizing, would you give them a 3RR warning, or ask another editor to do it? For some reason, which I cannot easily explain, I simply feel that giving him the warning (which he so richly deserves) myself would be inappropriate. I would very much like to hear your opinion. Thanks. ---Cathal 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if its obvious vandalism, reverting it is exempt from 3RR. It really depends how obvious the vandalism is. 3RR can be a pathway to blocking the anon but it being vandalism is a better and more understandable way to get the IP blocked. Gdo01 01:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is, then, was it vandalism? The same user made a number of good edits whilst, at the same time, continuously reverting the title of a book that had been altered after a talk page discussion.  I asked him to provide an edit summary with an explanation for his changes, which he did not do.  I then warned him not to change the title again, because there was good reason for the change I had made, and he changed it back again, without explanation.  The good edits aside, he changed the title intentionally, willfully, and maliciously.  It's a 3RR violation, without question. ---Cathal 01:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is and if that were the only case then I would tell you to warn the user yourself no matter if you have done it too. In that case, you would hope to get an observant admin that would see the true crime is with the IP. Other than that, it depends on how solid the consensus is. Going against a unanimous decision would definitely be vandalism and so should going against other more minor consensus. If you feel comfortable going the 3RR case go ahead but I would try to justify myself as defending consensus from a non-responsive user. Gdo01 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As it happens, whilst I was off doing more important things, another editor reverted one of the IP's changes, and he has not done it again. So, I will avoid any action at this point, and see if this comes up again later.  For now, all is at peace, and I intend to keep it that way.  Or, at any rate, not do anything to stir things up again. ---Cathal 04:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for reverting the vandalism to my userpage, I wonder why that user did that. Very odd. Thank you very much none the less. K O S |  talk  03:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Gdo01 03:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Steven Colbert at the 2006 Dinner
Why did you remove my edit? The Clawed One 04:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because interpreting what happened Tuesday as 9/11 violates WP:OR unless you can find a citation that proves it. Gdo01 04:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 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 06:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 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 07:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 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 07:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 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 02:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrongly Accused
In my eyes your vandalising my page by changing what I put please just leave me alone Soupman15 20:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Soupman15
 * You altered my words, that is vandalism even if it is on your page. I would advise that you should stop doing stupid things like calling yourself an admin and thinking you are Jimbo Wales Gdo01 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think im Jimbo Wales first off and second off just because you can sit around all day and change things on an internet site dosnt make u god. âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Soupman15 (talk â¢ contribs).
 * Then why did you copy the commentary from his profile as if your page is as visited and as edited as his. Further please read WP:NPA, you can be blocked for personally attacking me. Anyway, I can do whatever I wish within the bounds of the rules of Wikipedia, something you keep on violating by vandalizing Wale's page with useless commentary, changing my words, and impersonating admins. Gdo01 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert FAC2 possibility
I see you have been quite active in editing Steven Colbert although you have not done much in the past 6 or 8 weeks. Is this ready for a 2nd run at WP:FAC? TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 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 08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 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 07:35, 26 June 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 07:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR
Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:18, 10 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 07:41, 10 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 20:14, 17 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 06:14, 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 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 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 08:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 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, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 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 05:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 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 05:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 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. R Delivery Bot 03:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tobiume shikai.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tobiume shikai.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tatsuki2.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tatsuki2.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart received heavy editing today by unregistered users and may benefit from a good review. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 07:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 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. R Delivery Bot 20:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 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 03:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 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. R Delivery Bot 02:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 02:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 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 09:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --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 14:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 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 05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CopyNight Orlando
Hi ! I see you're from Florida. If you're in the Orlando area, please check out this brief survey. I'm looking to start a meet-up of CopyNight, a monthly social discussion of copyright and related issues (like Wikipedia, Creative Commons, and open source). If that sounds neat, please answer this short survey to help with scheduling the event. Thanks! --Gavin Baker 11:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 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 07:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 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 (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 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 (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 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 09:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 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 (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 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 (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Ill stop.
Hello there.

I know, it seems like I am some rampant vandal, like most are (Ironically, I bust vandals at school).

However, I do have my reasons.

I won't vandalize the jamie Lynn Spears article again. I just wanted to send a message across about how bad the people of this generation are ending up. Drugs, sex, the big enchilada are all included int his generation. I should know...

I have to deal with these total idiots like these at school all the time.

I became cynical on the inside since Middle school.

I have strong views on the future. I consider myself a futurist. I like to make up new technologys, but I also predict possible landslides caused by these total idiots.

Sumimasen

OMGWTFBBQ  BLAH  01:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)