User talk:Guanaco/archive4

Katelyn Faber
Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 18:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Totalbox
Thanks for reverting. John Reid 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding the photo of Caroline_Thompson to Deceased_Wikipedians. --Alabamaboy 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't add it; I only added clear to fix the formatting. —Guanaco 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Re MarkSweep, did you know about his deletions of Chechnya-related userboxen?
They were and. BTW, I think highlights rather than the full text of WP:UBD#* would be more effective. StrangerInParadise 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks for fixing my comments at the RfAr. I believe MarkSweep is way out of control. There's a line to be drawn and he's past it. —   nath a(?) nrdotcom (T • C • W) 12:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
While in the course of investigating some requests at Requests for Checkuser, it was discovered (and later confirmed) that you were behind a string of grossly inappropriate sockpuppets, including (but not limited to) User:Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!, User:A. Beesley, and User:AIDS reappraisal. user:Jack Bauer, Wikipedia admin, user:Jack Bauer vs. Chuck Norris, user:Nina Myers vs. Wikipedia, user:Tony Almeida on a wikibreak, user:Walt Cummings, Wikimedia steward. Since the subtle approach was ignored, I'm asking you plainly - do you have anything to say in response? Raul654 05:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice the talk message. I would have explained it there, but I logged out before I received the message. The accounts were a test of Curps' bot and the other methods of dealing with borderline-inappropriate usernames, impostors, and vandal accounts; it's good to know that these are being handled seriously. I am trying to coordinate the efforts of Curps and the freenode channel #vandalism-en-wp (CVU) to make the system more efficient.
 * I am curious how this came up at Requests for Checkuser. I am not responsible for any of the usernames listed there. —Guanaco 21:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody on #vandalism-en-wp knows anything about this "coordination". Kelly Martin (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * One of my ideas is to filter accounts that will be autoblocked by Curps from the account creation reports, preventing wasted effort and channel spam. Accounts like "Crups on wheels" would not even appear in #vandalism-en-wp, but no such plan is actively being implemented yet. —Guanaco 01:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then by all means, please direct us towards some user who can vouch for the fact that your sockpuppetry was done in good faith. Raul654 02:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for hard evidence or users who trust me? The only thing concrete I can find for now is Assume good faith. Please review that page before posting here again. —Guanaco 03:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You said you were coordinating your efforts to test the various bots, so presumably somebody knew of your activities (As Karynn said, nobody in #vandalism-en-wp has heard of you). We are looking for one of those people, so they can confirm your story - please direct us to him/her. If you cannot provide such a person, we cannot help but face the possiblity that you are lying to us Raul654 03:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I will ask a few people to confirm that I had discussed the coordination idea. If I had been acting out of malice, I would have actually vandalized Wikipedia. I could easily write vandalbots or secretly add inaccuracies to articles, yet I continue to clean up vandalism, with the exception of today. Today I have been unable to rollback actual vandals; please unblock 68.103.186.123 to remedy this. —Guanaco 03:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (As Karynn said, nobody in #vandalism-en-wp has heard of you) - If no one in there has heard of me, then I cannot confirm anything with anyone. —Guanaco 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * C ould you please just tell us who you discussed the coordination idea with. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not going to subject anyone else to this lynch mob. I will ask them myself. —Guanaco 20:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

- brenneman  {L}  07:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Main Page
Wait...there were goatse images?! What? Hah &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  05:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your barnstar award to Sjakkalle
Dear Guanaco: Although I wouldn't presume to censure when or under what grounds people award barnstars to other users, the widely accepted practice when encountering administrative action is to discuss the matter with the administrator who carried out the action, not simply revert the action; doing so is widely considered "wheel warring", which is frowned upon by both the Arbitration Committee and the community at large. Such reversion is, besides, discourteous and liable to increase editing temperature, which is not what administrators should be encouraging on Wikipedia. I do think it is inappropriate that you awarded Sjakkalle a barnstar with the reason "I award you this Editor's Barnstar for your efforts in reversing unfair actions by other administrators" as you are essentially attempting to encourage wheel warring amongst administrators which is not acceptable on Wikipedia; you did so under my request that he follow standard levels of courtesy in letting me know he reverted my administrative actions. WP:POINT violations are not acceptable under any circumstances, in my view. I would ask that you show slightly more sensitivity to the needs of community versus your own ideals of what constitutes unfair action on the part of other administrators. Please think over this, and try to please remember that Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative effort where people work together and discuss, not where people attempt to create battles with one another over decision making. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

 * Thanks for blocking those guys, I was at my wits end. pm_shef 04:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me know if they return. —Guanaco 04:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam
If you check Saxifrage's or Sam Blannings talk pages you will see that I am actually using the Bold-Revert-discuss method to try to get the link added. There was a message posted about the link in the talk page that was not responded to and Sam said that after a week I should add the link and see if a USER protests the link being added. Thanks for understanding. Also, if you were to look at what Pro-lick actually posted it was vadilism. I have been reverting those pages to an appropriate page for awhile now, and have been thanked by admin for doing so. I'm trying to edit wikipedia in an appropriate manor now, please help me. (Emoholic 16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

Lou Franklin block
I assume you're following his Arbitration... you should probably mention your block over on the workshop there. Georgewilliamherbert 07:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The block has been reset to a week anyway. —Guanaco 21:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case. Raul654 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Feeling stressed?
Cheer up. Let the guys with the sysop tools take care of the vandals. Now you should have plenty of time to do some "real" editing. I suggest taking some time to work on developing the content of some articles. And, of course, if you happen to run across one of those pesky little vandals, just report it to AIV. -- Tantalum T  e  lluride  05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Desysopped
Please refer to as proof that you are no longer an admin and should therefore no longer mention yourself as a current admin. --69.117.7.63 02:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter!
Please put all tasty Easter wishes here!

Happy Easter from someone you not long ago blocked apparently without thinking twice. But let the bygone be bygone. All the best from your Friendly Neighbour 12:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC).

Arbitration
Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco%2C_MarkSweep%2C_et_al You are no longer an admin, and therefore I removed your name from the mediation committee.--Freestyle.king 07:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems untoward. I don't see anywhere on Mediation Committee that adminship is a requirement, nor on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee that this has been discussed. -  brenneman  {L}  07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither could I. I've reverted Freestyle.king's edits until he can show there's either consensus for Guanaco to be removed or that there's a rule stating mediators must also be sysops. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This removal seems to be based on a personal vendetta. —Guanaco 00:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A false assumption.--Freestyle.king 04:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Guanaco
I saw you on the stress list at Esperanza. I just wanted to let you know that I know how nasty it can get around here. I'm on that stress list, too. I'm new but have had a large group of mean manipulating people come down on me for making some edits on their page.

One was an admin. I told her what I thought about the way she was acting and now she's probably watching me or somehting. Not that I care what any of them think, because honestly, I don't.

I don't know what's going on around here, but I don't like it. There's definitely a big group of people that like to swarm in on certain others and harass them till they finally drive them out.

I'm getting tired of it already and I haven't been here long at all.

Anyway I hope you feel better and it works out well for you. If you need anything please leave me a message anytime. peace Maggiethewolfstar 05:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Alankeyesreporters.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Alankeyesreporters.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi
You might want to take a look at the NAMBLA page. There's another dispute regarding the categorization. And will beback has, as usual, opportunistically decided to champion the cause although he raised no complaints about the categorization for the past two months. It seems as though editors are trying to insert changes to the categorization without first reaching a consensus on the issue. Corax 01:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Guanaco, I also invite you to look over the matter. The more experienced editors the better. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

np
Hopefully it help, at least a little! Comments welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. — xaosflux  Talk  00:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw
This might be interpreted as a personal attack -. Please consider withdrawing it. --Doc ask?  17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not withdraw it. It is not a personal attack; it is an impersonal attack directed at users who try to defeat Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making process. If it offends you, I ask that you seriously reconsider your decision to edit Wikipedia. —Guanaco 17:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Knock it off. Let's debate the issues and not attack people, personally or otherwise. I've reverted it for you. --Doc ask?  17:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't like my comment, respond to it. Do not delete my comments. —Guanaco 17:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (ec) Guanaco, I don't agree with the removal of the comment, but could I ask you to tone down your comments a bit? Calling people "bullies" and ideas "bullshit", and then reverting several times is inappropriate; remember that discussion should always come first, and that you should extend good faith and civility as much as possible. I know that this is a heated debate, but such remarks tend to antagonize the situation further. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith, but my assumption was disproved. Certain users are bullies, and certain ideas are bullshit. I have expressed this in more politically correct terms in the past, and I didn't seem to be understood, but out of respect for your request, I will try being politically correct one more time. —Guanaco 18:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If some ideas are wrong, then let's debate the ideas. If some users are acting wrongly, then let's debate that. But hiding behind 'Certain users are...' without being willing to name names and debate the matter is frankly less than helpful, and not at all civil. --Doc ask?  18:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked you for three hours for edit warring over, and repeating, this personal attack, despite polite requests by other editors that you remove it. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly a partisan gesture. I'll discuss this further when I am able to edit freely. —Guanaco 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to see WP:AN. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There was an autoblock, which I undid. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User_independent_Quebec
Hi, I saw that you've restored the "User Independent Quebec" template in March, well, it has been deleted, again. I don't know why, it's a political stance like another, it's neither racist or inflammatory. It seems unfair, if this template is deleeted, why the templates for capitalism and social democracy can remain ? -PhDP 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured article status
Will you help me get some articles to meet featured status?? --Sunfazer | Talk 21:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned users --> RW77
I've reinstated the language related to Rainbowwarrior1977's ban; the Arbitration Committee was asked specifically to clarify whether he was indeed banned, or just blocked indefinately with thier approval, and did so. He is banned, not blocked, but banned, for an indefinate period of time. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  01:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon Damage Formula
I noticed that you seemed to be the only one changing and updating this formula. Do you have a source for this formula or is it original research? --Crossmr 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's someone else's research. I just algebraically simplified it. —Guanaco 20:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)