User talk:John254/Archive 4

Protecting children's privacy
Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks.

RfA thanks
Hey John, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Radiant!
You were revert warring over Vandalism earlier tonight, and you have been gaming the WP:3RR by asking other people to do the fourth revert for you. Both revert warring and gaming the system are disruptive. Do not do that again.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  00:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule states that "the policy specifically does not apply to groups." The spam guideline only prohibits repeated posting across multiple editors' talk pages or project pages -- it doesn't prohibit posting information on a single project's pages.  Indeed, WikiProject Inclusion frequently contains boldface announcements about ongoing AFD discussions, such as those seen in the example here -- and it doesn't appear that the involved editors have ever been warned that they must not engage in this practice.  Furthermore, Radiant! has been engaging in genuine internal spamming to solicit support for the protected version of Vandalism by contacting four different editors who oppose the warning removal language on their talk pages:   , but not contacting Blue Tie, who restored the warning removal language. John254 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have objected to: the edit starting the war, to the edit war itself and to the block. See my comments  [here].--Blue Tie 04:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, John, it would be helpful if you would simply talk to me instead of talk about me. Blue Tie's response on my talk page is far more constructive in this matter than your complaint on ANI.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you have removed the statement from Vandalism regarding the issue of warnings. Question:  Is this because you believe that the concensus is in the direction of NOT prohibiting the removal or warnings?  --Blue Tie 04:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. You should express your objections on the talk page so that they are part of the history of the discussion.


 * 2.  Yes the current version expressly permits the removal of warnings by a user on a whim.  It says: "this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."  And you were the one to put that language in there, even after Radient put in a two sided (weasle word) version.  You may not "read" your edit as permitting such removals, but the "reasonable man" would read those words and say "I can do almost anything with my talk page".  If that was not your intent, you should re-edit your words.


 * 3. Interesting that you say there were only two editing in favor of one way.  I once said on the talk page regarding concensus and voting that wikipedia does EVERYTHING by a vote.  I was lectured by someone about how this is not the case, and I used the example of how, when there are disputes, the party with one extra vote will win the edit battle and thus the whole war.  This was rejected at the time but it is (again) shown to be the way wikipedia works.   Not concensus... but rather raw democracy, of only the interested.  Which brings me to my final point:


 * 4 there were many people who wanted to see restrictions.  Where have they all gone?  Does it mean that they do not care so much? --Blue Tie 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

blinkchillie90
Dude there was no need to revert the edits on User:blinkchillie90 that was actually done by me blinkchillie90. I just wasn't signed in. but thanks anyway User:blinkchillie90

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my userpage back to its' original state due to vandalism. Luke! 04:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops!
I wasn't paying attention enough and I reverted _to_ the vandalised page.

Thanks for the revert. Aazn 14:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks
Thank you for removing vandalism from my editor's review. Best regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  00:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox
No, he's here, just not all the time. He checks it a few times a day. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Db-spam
Regarding your request for undeletion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration relating to WP:STRAW and Radiant
Hi, I just put together an arbitration case at Requests_for_arbitration. The case is about some users who have been abusing some guidline and proposal pages (including WP:NNOT and WP:STRAW). Since you've been involved with STRAW, I thought you might be interested in giving your comments. I would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks! Fresheneesz 05:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:DRV
Hi there. Our discussion at WP:DRV doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. Would you mind if I notified a few people about the discussion so they can contribute if they are not yet aware of it? I was specifically thinking of the people who made good-faith contributions on the talk page of the proposal, as they are the ones that are most obviously involved. See the copy of the talk page preserved here (as pointed out in my opening comments at the deletion review). Carcharoth 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you don't understand
All right, I will stop vandalizing. But this is the reason why I was vandalizing. You see, Aaron Carter lives in my neighborhood and he always comes biking along the sidewalk next to my house and says very crude and malicious things to my kids. So I hate him. Everybody else thinks he is some kind singer but he is not. If you live in my neighborhood, you know the real Aaron Carter. He is one of the neighborhood bullies. One time, he left a malicious letter on my doorstep which said he was going to beat up my children. I really hope you understand and forgive me. 12.73.122.46 03:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Verifiability, No original research, and Biographies of living persons. Per these policies, unreferenced negative information shouldn't be added to Wikipedia biographies, and will be reverted on sight. Extreme cases of insertion of unreferenced negative information are treated as vandalism. If you wish to insert your critiques of Aaron Carter into his Wikipedia biography, please provide credible references. Thank you. John254 03:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)


Confused
Hi, I was doing RC patrol and came accross 216.168.125.177. After more or less finishing for the evening, I went to check to see if the user had been blocked. Looking at his talk page, I saw that he had deleted all the vandalism warnings. I then restored the vandalism warnings and reported him to the vandalism page -- he had been warned against removing warnings before. I then went back to his talk page and saw this which looks as though I removed his warnings. It is conceivable that I did so by mistake, but my guess is that some of his edits were removed by an administrator because they contained offensive language. Either that or he has admin capabilities? I would very much appreciate your looking into this, if you are able. If it was my mistake, I apologize. I suppose I could have selected the wrong version to revert to? But I distinctly remember reverting to a version that had lots of warnings on it. Again, I would appreciate your looking into this if you are able. Thanks. --BostonMA talk 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, very beautiful pic on your user page. --BostonMA talk  02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Sorry that I accidentally deleted the block notice.  --BostonMA talk  02:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment from kingboyk
I'm not a vandal, I'm an admin and (as far as I know) a user in good standing!

I'm not sure what happened there though: I clicked through to the old AFD not AFD 2. I can only imagine I got a cached version of the page.... strange. Oh well, no bother. No reply needed. --kingboyk 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't rollback your edit "as vandalism". The edit summary in this edit doesn't mention "vandalism".  I rolled back the removal of the AFD notice because it was an obvious mistake.  I've used the same process to revert my own edits when I've made mistakes, as seen here. John254 19:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope I can offer an clear explantion for what I think happened. An unsigned vandal, not kingboyk, deleted the AfD tag. This was for the current debate. It was reverted by another user, since the debate had not been formally resolved. The vandal did it again. At some point (I would have to look closer) the AfD tag was replaced by accident with the AfD tag for the old debate, so if you click on the debate link it takes you to the resolved old debate. I assume that kingboyk clicked it, saw the old debate, and thought to himself (as he said in the edit comments) that the debate is decided? then why is this tag here, it must be a mistake. He then deleted it. There was a vandal, but it is not kingboyk. It was a user using an IP address. Kingboyk did well, and shouldn't be seen as a vandal. Both you and he tried to keep wikipedia in proper order, but the vandal confused us all. I would prefer for someone other than myself to correct the AfD tag since I am involved in the debate on the side of debate and would not like for anyone to see me tampering with the page right now, as this might make a user with a keep vote assume that I am up to no good. Thank you! Green hornet 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk page regarding Administrative reversion you did
User:Smeelgova is, I assert, using Wikipedia to promote copyright infringement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Sm1969_reported_by_User:Smeelgova__SEE_NOTES_RE_COPYRIGHT_INFRINGEMENT_Sm1969_19:10.2C_15_October_2006_.28UTC.29_.28Result:.29

Sm1969 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the procedure for dealing with copyright infringement? I requested that User:Smeelgova contact the Wikipedia administrators as I did not know how to do it myself. Sm1969 19:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit because you made the edit using an IP address instead of your account. When an administrator responds to the report on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, he or she will consider your claim that the disputed link constitutes a copyright infringement. John254 19:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not logging in, but I did violate 3RR even with my login + 2 times with IP because I forgot to login. In all cases, I have given significant evidence (I believe) of copyright infringement. Sm1969 20:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you for your fair response re: above discussion regarding User Sm1969's violation of 3RR. Yours, Smeelgova 03:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

Wr templates
Do you realise these templates are substed? This means users need to make two edits to a talk page when they use this warning, so that the TfD tags do not appear on user talk pages. Please re-add the noinclude tags to the templates. jd || talk || 08:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize that including TFD tags in usages of the templates is somewhat inconvenient. However, since the TFD discussion will be closed in several days, it is but a temporary inconvenience. However, if we use "noinclude" tags on the TFD notices, such notices will only appear on the templates' own pages, which few editors visit. Consequently, the number of users participating in the TFD discussion would be drastically reduced, and the templates might be deleted as a result -- which, I venture, would be far more than a mere temporary inconvenience. While the discussion currently seems to favor keeping the templates, I don't think that we should take any chances with it. In a couple of days, the TFD notices will be removed. John254 18:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

SafeLibraries.org
I have decided to leave another message to this user. It can't hurt, and I don't think anyone ever followed through enough on the warnings. Anyway, if you have any questions, please let me know, Prodego  talk  02:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Help
Can I get your help on the edits by User:81.154.252.34. He's passed 3RR on multiple pages, (I've reported him, but no block since this morning) and he's back reverting. -- Jeff3000 03:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting him on the Vandalism page, and all the other help. I appreciate it. -- Jeff3000 04:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)