User talk:NrDg/Archive 090228

--

HM Page (Cont.)
Here what I've come up with for the new List of HM Episodes Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alec2011/(HM_Episodes). It's about the same, just a little more color, and the colors have stayed the same too. Is that a big difference? - Alec2011 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you discuss any changes to this article with . He did a lot of work on this including creating the transclusion templates used in the season lists. The major thing he did is that you only have to update a season episode list and the header information is automatically included in the overall episode list without the summaries. If you change things a lot of his work gets undone and I expect he will strongly object. What you did looks aesthetically fine to me but I also had no problems with the original formatting. --NrDg 03:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Warnings
I usually just use
 * article
 * article
 * article

I think it's clearer than using spam warnings, and gives them a direct link to the guideline.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was reading Articles for deletion/Hot100Brasil and got the impression that the people who were inserting this chart are doing it to drive traffic to http://www.hot100brasil.com/ thus the spam warnings for this particular chart. I will follow your advice on warnings in the future though. --NrDg 03:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some certainly are spammers, but I think the majority of them are good-faith editors that honestly believe it to be a good chart. It is really surprising that a country the size of Brazil hasn't got an official chart.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you check this one out?
It seems as though User:Dammiery is a sock of banned user Gerald Gonzalez, based on his style of editing and the habitual flagging of non-minor edits as minor. His tone and writing style seems to be peculiar, too... Blake Gripling (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert
Revert the false positive please.
 * You have been warned and failure to obliged will result in your accounts termination.* 125.236.154.70 (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

hey whats up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajhv (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for double checking. I've recently noticed a lot of gossip coming from a site called justjared. I've blacklisted it due to copyvio, speculation issues, etc. Not to mention the site isn't reliable. I thought you might wanted to know. Best regards, -- Kanonkas : Talk  20:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I let that one stay when I was first evaluating the add. It is referenced to an interview in a gossip mag but it is believable to what Osment thinks her genre will be. Primary source and all that doesn't necessarily mean it is correct. I agree on JustJared and JustJaredJr as they are unlikely to ever be usable as a reference. (cool my edit was rejected as I used the JustJared link)--NrDg 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But the JustJaredJr link was allowed - it should be blacklisted as well. --NrDg 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ JustJaredJr is now blacklisted. You are experienced with regex, aren't you? -- Kanonkas : Talk  20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not enough to play with the blacklist. Too much chance of unintended side effects. I'll leave that to the experts. --NrDg 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can certainly help you with the basic. -- Kanonkas : Talk  21:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My RfA
I want to thank you for supporting my RfA, which ended unsuccessfully last night. Your comments were especially appreciated and I learned a great deal through this process. Thanks for taking part! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to see your RfA not succeed. I am certain you will pass the next time you try. --NrDg 16:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NrDg




 Thanks to everyone who participated in either my successful RfA, or the trial run, whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks to I'm Spartacus! and Cyclonenim for nominating me, and for those of you who treated this as a !vote not a vote and reviewed your position as the discussions developed. I am deeply humbled by the trust that the community has put in me. I'd also like to thank my tallybots, the closing crats, the vandalfighters who wiped vandalism from my RFA, the users who initially welcomed me and gave me rollback, everyone whose worked with me here, those who created the various guides and tools for aspirant admins, the Lolcat who nommed me in my first RFA and everyone else who has helped make Wikipedia such a wonderful site.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers   The lycanthropic loquacious fruit tree.
 * To copy this elsewhere type

 Ϣere Spell  Checkers  00:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal
I noticed that you gave 69.112.43.77 an extended block a while back. Could you take a look at 24.187.254.242 as well? It's the same vandal. Dancter (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is the same person - corruption of facts is a common form of vandalism and IP's resolve to different locations. I am surprised that there were no warnings about the factual corruption. All I can do right now is issue a vandal warning. I can't block without seeing vandalism after a final warning or some reason to believe block evasion. Also activity has stopped for now and it probably is a dynamically allocated IP so blocks won't work. --NrDg 14:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was basing my assessment primarily on the recreation of a particular talk page for a non-existent article. It has since been deleted. I understand about the lack of warnings. I'd just been tracking this particular vandal for so long, and was frustrated at how difficult it was to get administrators to take notice. Dancter (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The deleted pages were pretty much identical with some small additions at the latest creation. Pretty conclusive in my opinion and also that it was a talk page which is uncommon. WHOIS indicates owner is static IP with a range of 24.187.254.240/29 (24.187.254.240 - 24.187.254.247) but no activity on anything but .242. Previous IP was dynamic from same ISP. I blocked .242 to expire at the same time as block on 69.112.43.77. Watch for other activity in the range. If it continues, I'll do a range block. --NrDg 15:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

New HM Episodes
I've added some new HM episodes for the month of March. PLEASE don't delete them as they are linked to the official press release off of Disney Channel Media Net (The Networks Press Website). Also, The descriptions are the OFFICIAL ones from Disney. PLEASE don't delete them. I'm going to be making them into my own words soon (as you said that it's copyrighted by Disney and is bad for me to post). I need to add them, because it's bad to have a description less episode so I've added them, but I will edit them soon. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a good source from Disney. As long as you accurately report what they say there should be no problems. --NrDg 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OKay, that's what I asked before, but you said putting down the official summaries from Disney would be a violation, but now your saying it's alright? Am I missing something? - Alec2011 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Paraphrase the summaries so it is not a copyright violation, you said you were going to do that. This is directly from Disney which is what makes it a good source. It is not someone else reporting on something that Disney put out. Since we can see what Disney said directly we don't need to be concerned with the accuracy of somebody copying the info. --NrDg 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OH Yeah, I'll get to that tomorrow. I'll also be changing the look of the season pages that I made so the text is smaller and more simple. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i see youtook off the episode descriptions (sorry I forgot to change them, as I got busy), but I've added new ones that I've changed. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion question
Hi there, I have a quiock question for you. Yesterday you deleted File:Akron Beacon Journal front page.jpg. The image was still in use when you deleted it. It was later replaces, and I went to restore the image to the article, as it follows the style set forth by other major paper artickes like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc. When I added the image I saw a red link and checked its log, the reson for deletion was that it was used outside of NFCC. Was the image missing a rationale? That's the only valid reason I can think of for deleting the image, and I'm pretty sure at one point in time I added one to that image's summary. Thanks, §hep  Talk  04:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored the image. It needs a fair use justification and a reduce such that the text of the articles cannot be read. Purpose is to illustrate the layout appearance of the newspaper. It is a copyvio, in my opinion, if the actual article text can be read. --NrDg 05:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you added the fair use required tag. . Were you planning on adding the justification or were you looking for the original uploader to do so? --NrDg 05:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the restoration, I'll fix everything up. Maybe it was another image I added the FUR to? Oh well. I don't see why I would have tagged it, when it' just as easy to fix it...I try to take time with images of interest. Anyways, thank you for your help and explanation. §hep  Talk  20:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you did all that was necessary for a fair-use of this image. I deleted the larger original. --NrDg 21:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. §hep  Talk  21:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)