User talk:The Evil Spartan/Archive 1

Bob Dylan and Menstruation slang
Re Bob Dylan -- another admin has blocked the IP for a WP:3RR violation.
 * Yeah, I didn't post the thing about bob dylan, believe it or not - I just fixed an error on your talk page, and the server was confused, because someone else placed a ~ on the page before.

Re Menstruation slang -- I think there's enough there to avoid a speedy delete. Post it for deletion at WP:AFD if you like. Thanks, NawlinWiki 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I was worried about this link: The Evil Spartan 16:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

RE: Baseball Templates
Alright. First, why would you link Los Angeles Dodgers to 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season? It's stupid, first of all, as the standings are talking about the "Los Angeles Dodgers", not the season. And what's the point?

Second, the templates are updated almost as soon as the game is concluded. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to say "Updated as of May 4" for example. It doesn't add anything, as the templates for the standings are kept updated as much as possible. It only wastes space and doesn't add any information that is already assumed.

So, please don't revert this again, as I have given you a sufficient explanation for why I did what I did. Thank you. And I'm also sorry. From now on, whenever I revert something, I will try to give a reason in the edit summary (space pending) when I make the revert or the user's talk page before making the edit. Thanks for your cooperation. --Ksy92003 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, I will be reverting it, because often times the stats are not up to date. Take, for example, Template:2007 NL Wild Card standings, which is now many days behind, or your very edit summary here.. Secondly, for navigation purposes, this page is only linked to from 2007 pages, so this is much better. From a perusal of your talk page, I suggest you better learn to cooperate with other users considering formatting, as you've now run into trouble several times. The Evil Spartan 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. I don't think the note about when the standings are updated is necessary; I think they shouldn't be out of date in the first place.


 * But this is what I really don't like. Why did you just go and change the standings so that Los Angeles Angels links to 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season?  This is just stupid.  Los Angeles Angels should link to Los Angeles Angels.  Los Angeles Dodgers should link to Los Angeles Dodgers, not 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season.  What you did to that was just stupid and unnecessary.  Unless you have a good reason, please don't revert this again.  Tomorrow, I will go and change it unless you give a good reason.  Please don't make any more unnecessary edits that don't improve the article at all.  Thanks.  --Ksy92003 02:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may inject my opinion, I like the wikilink that points to the 2007 season as opposed to the main team page. It's nice when looking at a team's 2007 article for their name to be bolded in the standings (such as here: 2007 Detroit Tigers season).  It appears that the 2007 team articles are the only ones that include the 2007 standings (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:2007_AL_Central_standings).  I can see both sides of the argument, but now since there's a disagreement, I'll throw my opinion into the ring.  X96lee15 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * X96 said it fairly well, but the point is that these templates are only linked to from 2007 baseball articles. If I'm looking at the 2007 Phillies baseball article, and I click on Atlanta Braves, it would be nice, and I would expect, to go to the 2007 Braves article. Also, it makes navigating team seasons and results much easier. The Evil Spartan 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On the flip side of the coin, if I'm looking for the Atlanta Braves on 2007 Philadelphia Phillies season, at the standings I'll click on "Atlanta Braves" thinking that that's where it's gonna take me. I'm not gonna click on "Atlanta Braves" thinking that it's going to take me to "2007 Atlanta Braves season".  That's very confusing and very misleading.


 * And either way, that the very bottom of the page is 2007 MLB season by team which links to all the season articles. It does the same job, but creates links to every single article.  I really don't get why something should be linked to something else instead to what it says.  I really don't get that.  --Ksy92003 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But it's not like you're clicking on "Atlanta Braves" and it sends you to Special:Random. The 2007 standings are related to Atlanta Braves, but they are equally, or more so, related to 2007 Atlanta Braves season.  There are many places on wikipedia where, for example, "1968" wikilinks to 1968 in baseball.  I don't think it's unintuitive to link to the season article as opposed to the main team article.  And in my opinion, it's not about easy of navigation, it's more about bolding the team when viewing the standings on a team's 2007 page.  Think if you're looking at , does it make more sense to link to Detroit Tigers?  Or to 2006 Detroit Tigers season.  I think the latter.  X96lee15 00:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And I think the former. Let's look at it this way:  the way that Spartan did it is the same as something like clicking on color and the link taking you to red.  Wouldn't you click on color to go to the page on color?  Don't you think it would be confusing and misleading if it took you to red?  It's the same thing here.  Atlanta Braves is a general subject, while 2007 Atlanta Braves season is a branch of that.  Why click on something that takes you somewhere else?  There's no reason for that, is there?


 * And your example about "1968" is a false claim. We are in the process of changing all this because it's misleading... for the exact same reason.  We aren't going to put 1968 and then link to 1968 in baseball.  We are in the process of editing those pages to avoid the links being misleading.  See the page history for some of the season articles, like 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season, to see what I mean.  I don't have the time right now to look for those examples, but I will find them and post those edits here as I can find them.  But we are trying to avoid any misleading links, which is what Spartan's edits are.  They are misleading readers to believe that clicking on Los Angeles Angels in the template will take them to Los Angeles Angels, but then be taken to 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season.  There's no excuse for this.  It's really confusing, very misleading, and needs to be avoided.  --Ksy92003 00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Please do not edit my comments. 2) You must be confused very easily, because it isn't really misleading at all. 3) You never addressed the advantage of the team being bolded in the standings when viewing its 2007 page.  I find that very useful.  4) IMO, changing 1968 in baseball to 1968 is quite dumb.  When you post those pages, I will give my opinions on the subject there. 5) Sorry for clogging up your discussion page Spartan X96lee15 04:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confused any easier than anybody else, X96lee15. It might not be misleading for you (I can't imagine how) but it is rather misleading. When I first went to 2007 AL West standings, I wanted to go to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim page. So I clicked on. And I saw that it took me to. That's not the page that I wanted to go to and that's not where it says it will take me. It says it will take me to, so that's what I want to go to, not. Take this for example:

Without the actual mentioning of the teams, this is what the template would look like. Granted, this isn't misleading at all because clicking on the link will take you to that page. But you wouldn't say "The 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season lead the division by ½ game", would you? The reason why Wikipedia implemented this feature is so you could link to an article without having to use that article's title word-for-word in the link itself by  RE-WORDING  it, not by making it entirely misleading. You might not think it is misleading or confusing, but when I first glanced at the template it was. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who would have these problems. --Ksy92003 04:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ugh, you never address any of my points, you just keep beating the same point over and over. --  No, I do not want to list the entire name of the article for the team name.  In your proposal, you're not using the article name word for word anyway when wikilinking the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, so I'm not sure if that point is valid.  But if you really mean that you don't want to use the '|' when creating wikilinks, then I guess we'll have to go through all the game logs for each of the teams and put the entire pitcher's name that won and lost the games instead of just the last name.  That's the point you're making, right?  Regardless, this discussion probably belongs someplace else though, so more eyes can see it. X96lee15 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'm going to sleep now since I've got school tomorrow.  So, if you want to move the discussion to the WikiProject Baseball page and I'll reply there tomorrow when I have time, alright?  I'm not going to discuss any of your points tonight, as I haven't got the time to.  But I will say that you are completely wrong about my argument.  I'm not saying your argument is wrong; I'm saying that you haven't identified the point I'm making.  Tomorrow, when I get on Wikipedia I will try to express my opinion stronger.  But my point is completely the opposite of what you think it is.  So don't think that I'm completely against this kind of stuff.  That is not what I'm saying at all.  I'll get back to you tomorrow.  Again, please move this to the project page.  --Ksy92003 05:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review your accusation
Sir,

With respect, I wish you to review your accusation that I have committed vandalism, and, once you confirm your error, please remove the warning from my talk page.

I am 68.218.223.16. My edit to Thomas McKean High School was itself specifically a revert of several consecutive acts of vandalism by 68.36.41.218.

I know you take vandalism seriously; I hope to discover that you are just as committed to accuracy. 68.218.223.16 20:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I assumed that since you were in the same IP range as the vandals, that you too were vandalizing. Again, my apologies. The Evil Spartan 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with your accusation
You recently sent me a message about vandalizing the Ashley Massaro page (I am 206.253.155.139). I did nothing of the sort, if you look at the page prior to my changes I got rid of a guy saying things such as "She's hot," "Hey Nick Joe Michael says hi" and "Joe Michael is better than anyone she has met." I know I made three changes, however I didn't spot all the mistakes at once (they were spaced out throughout the page). I just want a further explanation to what I did wrong other than cleaning up filth on a page.
 * Again, I have erred. Vandalism cleanup is a quick job. Please accept my apologies. The Evil Spartan 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for understanding.

Your productive!
Damn, your productive! You've got 300+ contributions in just 4\5 days! I've got 1300+, and it took me over one month to do it! Keep up the good work mate, your really helping this site! -)-(-H- (&#124;-&#124;) -O-)-(- 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's vandal fighting. See User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool; automated script makes it much quicker :). The Evil Spartan 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

TFD
See my comment under your "Important note" comment on the uw-homophobia TFD. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal IP
Hey, I noticed you were helping me track. You may want to check out this edit, which is the only one that hasn't been reverted yet. It's essentially a basic blanking, but it looks like the material is controversial, and I'm not quite bold enough to revert. -- NORTH talk 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When a user goes on to vandalize userpages, reverts my reversion of a previous blanking as "vandalism", and edits in a way that suggests (s)he's not at all new to this project (banned user?), my good faith/charity is stretched. Text restored. The Evil Spartan 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion
Hi The Evil Spartan

The category with CSD-I3 images in it at that point had around 400+ images to be deleted. I deleted them all, removing the red links and leaving a clickable, explaining message for every user. It took me 3 hours. Each day it takes between 2 and 4 hours. I have been doing this job for 10 weeks, every day, day in day out, getting nothing but complaints and nitpicking and death threats.

Your suggestion is very good, but it assumes I would have time to look into every single addition to see when the image was added and to hit revert. Leaving aside the fact that reversion is a very bad idea in this context (it will just be undone, the clickable message is very important in that respect), this would take the job from "boring but do-able" into "boring and impossible". Your tiny contribution of adding back the previous image would take seconds.

I'm sorry to heap this on you personally, but your message has been the final straw. This is one backlog I'll be fucked before I clear again. ⋐⋑  REDVEЯS  18:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redvers, I was wasn't even criticizing you. I also had no idea you spent this much time on images. Damn, I didn't know I was going to cause so many problems on this encyclopedia. Damn. If you quit, then I quit too. Not to mention it's a bad idea to be on this place so much. The Evil Spartan 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Christianity by Country
Greetings The Evil Spartan. If you look on page 11 of the Eurobarometer 2005 pdf you will se the statistics for those who believe in god by country. Obviously one cannot be Christian if one doesn't believe in God. Giving fair dues to other religions I am basing the approimation on the Eurobarometer figures less about 5%

Europe is largely a secular country these days and the previous figures are really unrealistic, and indeed mostly unsourced. The general consensus on the talk page is that the euro figures are way innacurate.

Thanks for your message

Smeggypants

p.s I will edit the reference to include the page number of the pdf

Re:
Was the suspected sockpuppeteer reported to WP:SSP before? Find me the link and I will block him. Aquarius &#149; talk 18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, duck test: he's on WP:RFCU right now. All the other socks have been blocked. Check the WP:RFCU section on asking for IP listing (at the bottom). Thanks. The Evil Spartan 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Aquarius &#149; talk 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The Evil Spartan 18:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed
Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr talk, checkuser clerk, 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Christianity by Country
Please see my talk page for my answer Smeggypants 02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kelly O'Donnell
Her page notes that she plays "operation." Is that some kind of gag? I'm not familiar enough with either the rules of Wikipeda nor the implications of playing "Operation." I thought I'd bring this to your attention.
 * In fact, you are correct (though I think it might be referring to Operation (game). The person who added this also added several other doubtful figures without a source - I've removed all of them. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Block of 209.80.153.114
Hi Evil Spartan. I understand your concern about the length of the block placed on this school ip, but I wasn't convinced that the ip is likely to reoffend in a hurry. I am inclined to see whether a block of a decent length will act as a deterrant before coming down with a harsher block and preventing not only further vandalism, but constructive editing from others at the school. If the vandalism starts again on Monday, then a longer block should be imposed, but apart from the trouble in the last few days, met with a much too short original block, it has been quite a while since the last persistent vandalism from this ip, and there is no reason to think the same people are involved, so their vandalism may not be as persistent as you fear. JPD (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This situation is now at RfC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RFCU case
You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation.  Cbrown1023   talk   14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Joel Hayward AfD req
I think the article's in pretty good shape now, and it caused Dr. Hayward to reveal another of his sock-puppets :-). Care to withdraw your AfD nom? Groupthink 11:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies; your message got lost in the mix. I've now withdrawn the AFD. But may I ask, was it smart to lock the article? The change he made indeed may have fixed BLP issues: . If I understand, isn't BLP applied quite liberally? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Username
Is your user name a play on characters in 300 or God of War? Just curious! --172.165.11.237 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, all is good - email me if you want to talk about the account some more - glad to be of assistance. In any case, no, it was just me trying to sound clever. I originally wanted Big Bad Wolf or some variant, but they were all taken. And so I went for evil, and this was the best alternative. :) The Evil Spartan 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hello, on ANI you commented on how I should negotiate with the IP user I was having trouble with. After asking him to comment (yet again), he wrote a complaint about me, always referring to me in third person and talking about my apparent vandal tendencies (he has clearly not read WP:VANDALISM). This is similar to previous attempts to make contact with him. But I tried to tell him to reply to me on Talk:Malhotra. But instead he pasted a complaint about me, again referring to me in third person. Asking admins to take action against my vandalism. How can I, or should I even bother, to make sure this person discontinues their false editing. dishant 08:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please make extra efforts to be civil
In this diff, you link to another user's comments, with a tone that implies you think they were wrong. I know that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. However, when the editing is hot, taking extra efforts to be civil are often good. Sarcasm is also often unhelpful. GRBerry 18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've editing the comment a bit for civility. I guess the argument that "he was uncivil first" is a bit-um-playgroundish. The Evil Spartan 23:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:216.56.60.82
Yes, sounds reasonable. I've increased the block period by a month. Regards,  An as  talk? 23:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it! Thanks. The Evil Spartan 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Joel Hayward
Thanks for the AfD withdrawal. As regards the changes he made, I personally thought he put a weaselly positive spin on things, much like the spin in the non-apology apologies he's offered regarding his thesis debacle. However, that's just my opinion, and not why I asked the page to be locked. I requested semi-protection because he has a long history of sock-puppetry (see User:Rafairminded). If he's going to make edits like that, I'd prefer that he do so openly. Groupthink 00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Callas / Fair use
Thanks for your help here. I wasn't quite sure how to solve the problem. NewYork1956 21:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Anytime. My pleasure. The Evil Spartan 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

block template
Hi. I was wondering what template you use to make the blocked announcements in the brown square, like the one you used on User_talk:66.199.212.7. Thanks. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be (not to be confused with ). :) The Evil Spartan 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Reversion
Oops..Sorry..actually this is the 6th time this has happened to me since I joined and its usually caused by two editors reverting the same page and the one with the faster internet connection gets it while the one with the slower connection (usually me) reverts the right one back to the vandals edit..Sorry..I'll take better attention next time .. -- Cometstyles 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI
Thanks for your comment at the ANI page regarding me and Bishonen. There were no diffs of any harassment prior to when Bishonen first mentioned "harassment." Maybe I did not react perfectly after Bishonen mentioned harassment and threatened me with a block. But there had been no harassment (at least not by me). Have you reached any conclusion about it? I'm not trying to stir up trouble here. I'm just having much difficulty understanding how this type of thing can happen. KC blasted me for --- essentially --- following her own advice, even though I pleaded with her to assume good faith. And then I got slapped with a harassment charge.Ferrylodge 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly, we differ. I disagree almost entirely with Ferrylodge's view of events. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evil Spartan, sorry for the delay responding to your post at ANI (job, sleep, you know). Anyway, I have responded here, and would appreciate your thoughts. Thx.Ferrylodge 15:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

State College Article
Dear Mr. Spartan,

My revisions on the State College, Pennsylvania are true. it is a total nightmare living in state college, pa. What i have said is true about state college, pa. the public has to know. i have run into several problems living here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmase (talk • contribs)
 * Ah, well, I suggest reading up on our neutral point of view policy. As it stands, saying that a town is full of racists, hicks, and "its cops are full of shit" is considered vandalism. Please be careful to read our rules before adding further commentary to articles. The Evil Spartan 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine then.

How do u create new articles on dis thing? -- Jmase

Bad idea
Please do not encourage people to misuse Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, guess you're right. The Evil Spartan 19:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being understanding. Friday (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Christianity by Country
The Catholic Website is a violation of the guidelines for valid sources already on the page. Please do not escalate this by reporting me for reversion,. I shall simply do the same to you [ dont forget that YOU were the one who started the reversions ]. Which of course is counter productive. I have no problem with properly sourced figures, but Christian websites are not acceptable.

Please discuss this on the Christianity by country talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeggypants (talk • contribs)
 * I have made a report to AN/3RR. However, I made a note to not block if you self-revert. In any case, I have not violated 3RR; I have made only 3 revisions today. And, I did not start the reversions: you started by reverting what another user had properly added before. The Evil Spartan 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have self-reverted to avoid escalting this at this time. The other user had NOT properly added the figures. Religious websites are in violation of the page guidelines. I shall place this matter on the talk page for discussion, and evntually remove the biased website reference. If need be I shall take this further through WP:DR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeggypants (talk • contribs)
 * That is good - I suggest we wait a little more until going to DR. In any case, I already removed the report from AN/3RR. The Evil Spartan 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of courtesy, as you've been participating heavily in the editing of this page ( and warring with some of my edits ) I am letting you know that I have spent a good length of time improving the table. You might be suprised to know that I have included the CIA factbook as a source probably around 30 extra times. There were still many completely unsourced figures in the table. Now while I don't agree the Factbook is totally reliable, I do agree it is still much better than something that is completely unsourced at all.


 * Indeed there were quite a few unsourced instances that I replaced with Factbook figures that did reference a Census. As I said before, where the CIA factbook lists a source such as a census I am in wholly agreement with it ( although the original census link would be a better source from a worldwide trust point of view )


 * Giving the CIA factbook source to thse figures has meant that some have increase, some had increased and some have staryed the same. In most cases not my much. Obviosuly some of hte CIA factbook figures don't have a source. But at least a link to the factbook gives it some kind of anchor. Hopefully there is very little excuse for anyone to change figures for propoganda pruposes now. I Hope this is much more acceptable to you now. My intentions for this page are purely accuracy and common sense.Smeggypants 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting page moves
The moves as proposed originally were supported by community consensus, with no dissenting opinion put forward. I suspect that the original reverting user did not understand the naming conventions and the MOS. Also, the reverted moves were accompanied by redirect sabotage, which makes them speedily reversible. 81.104.175.145 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I apologize if I got that wrong, but I can't find that in the page logs, which is why I made the move. Can you give me the links to the discussion and the move that was inappropriately made? The Evil Spartan 00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I direct your attention to WP:NC, WP:MOSTM, and WP:MOSCL, to name just three locations indicating community consensus was in support of the move. There's also a link somewhere to an ArbCom reference stating explicitly that moves that are deliberately made irreversible by pointless edits (the user reverting the moves simply removed a single space from each of the redirect pages) do not need a WP:RM discussion, and may be summarily reverted.  Probably in the moving guidelines somewhere, and should be in RM history from when I noted it next to the requests.  81.104.175.145 01:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well naming conventions are guidelines, and different interpretations thereof don't always hold up in a specific move. What I'm getting at is this: can you point me to the link that shows there was a bad move to begin with? What I mean is this: you placed the request at RM, but it clearly was controversial. This probably should not have occurred in the first place, unless there was a poor move beforehand. If you can show this poor move to begin with, I would understand better. The Evil Spartan 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are prejudging it already by saying it was "clearly controversial", when it was not. It was uncontroversial, for the reasons I have already provided.  To dismiss the naming conventions as "just guidelines" is to undermine the whole nature of consensus.  81.104.175.145 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry sir, but I must politely disagree with your reasoning. I am a big fan in favor of using the process given where it is appropriate (though product over process is important too). In fact, if you read my userpage, one thing it explicitly says is, "Being bold is an excellent idea; however, don't get offended if someone questions you, as you might have been too bold.". It was a good idea to support the move, but once someone reverted it, no matter the reason, it would have been best to go through WP:RM rather than revert war. I simply moved it back to its original state. In any case, there's no point in making a big deal, and I'm sorry if I caused any hurt feelings over the matter - let's just take it to WP:RM now. The Evil Spartan 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW. Consensus clearly favours the move, so there is little point in wasting time over process.  81.104.175.145 07:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.
Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I really am reporting you now
You have just undone a lot work I have spent improving the Christianity by Country Page. This time you have no proper reason. I am reporting you to Wikipedia. It seems you are going over the line of good faith now. Please do NOT revert my work a 2nd time!!! Smeggypants 23:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I even took time out with curtesy to inform you of the improvements I had undertaken.Smeggypants 23:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Further just for reference, In your haste to undo all my work you also just undid the work of another user Yom who correctly updated the Ethiopia entry with a census, which I subsequently further improved by correcting the totals. You just trod all over Yom's work and mine. I have assumed good faith on yoru part for too long now.Smeggypants 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a mistake, I was editing an older version of the page. The Evil Spartan 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 31
Next time, notify those people who have an interest in seeing the templates remain. -Jeske ( v^_^v ) 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My images are now are listed at Possibly unfree images
His Evil Spartan, you told me to feel free to comment on you about images. The screenshots were from a movie I created and took production stills from. I also too the other photos so, I listed them as my own work because they are. I listed them as free images beause I'm okay if anyone wants to take them or keep them, etc. JoeyC5 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I will remove the movie screenshots. But may I suggest you add this rationale to all those images? The Evil Spartan 13:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to ANI
As you may or may not be aware, the discussion you reverted is currently under discussion at WP:RFAR. ANI is not the place to discuss the merits or behaviour of administrators or editors in closing the Allison Stoke DRV. Please be aware of the 3 revert rule and don't reopen this discussion again. Thanks. Nick 14:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you close this? For the love of everything good, I've watched Wikipedia for months, and I've never seen anyone cabal so badly and create so much bad blood by refusing to let the other side even speak. The Evil Spartan 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of other places to discuss, ANI is not one of them. Nick 14:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Surprise! Yet another closure of discussion which Nick just happens not to like. The Evil Spartan 15:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop insulting me and calling me names
I am not a "jihadist" or a "terrorist sympathizer". I do not sympathize with anybody who kills innocent people. Just because I am in favor of the truth and reject misinformation (which in this case happen to be negative against an Iraqi insurgent group), does not mean I support them. Also blanking out whole sections of an article is considered vandalism and I have every right to restore valid deleted content. Thank you. -Lft6771 18:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my assessment of the situation was unfair - however, I was only going by what appeared to be the case, as I was not involved in your edit war. However, I still disagree with your term "misinformation" - saying that literally any information put forward by western media is unreliable as "propaganda" and calling killing campaigns to be "purging" (or whatever term you used, according to Hanzo) is seriously testing the limits of my assumption of good faith and neutrality on your part. The Evil Spartan 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste move
what? --HanzoHattori 11:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Scuse me, but you're wrong. I started exactly from zero (null), used the 2006 Congress report, and then put it through the google search for more. You can see the history of gradually expanding. --HanzoHattori 16:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Here, I started with this: (Congress' stuff info + my infobox I did two days before -- do you mean the photo or what? I even changed the caption) --HanzoHattori 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC) You can even see the original version of my infobox here: (I even changed it a lot in the meantime - because I decided AQI should have their own article, so I used it in both) --HanzoHattori 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, then why is this page exactly the same as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad? There was a copy and paste move somewhere, whether by him or you. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Both articles are completely different! Did you open one in two windows by mistake? (oh, and he reverted your revert on JTJ) I say "what" a lot, because what you say is very strange! --HanzoHattori 17:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you please properly indent so I can respond to you - or at very least append to the bottom of my talk page? I've said something below anyway. The Evil Spartan 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So, actually, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STOP SPEAKING IN SUCH A RIDDLES, please? --HanzoHattori 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not speaking in riddles. And you would STOP SPEAKING IN CAPS, TRY TO BE MORE PRECISE, AND USE PROPER INDENTATION? I agree with you in this edit dispute, BTW. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think "TruthSeeker777" may be very related to "Lft6771": (before this, there was a page on AQI alright - this one I built myself) I have no idea whatever happened to the original page. --HanzoHattori 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I advise you to list any other socks at Requests for checkuser/Case/Lft6771. If the checkuser refuses the case, I will open one up at WP:SSP. The Evil Spartan 17:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you do speak in riddles and talk in caps (quote: STOP COPY AND PASTE MOVING). How am I supposed to "STOP" doing I-don't-know-what-because-you-refuse-to-tell? Is "I don't COPY AND PASTE do now you can revert your revert" precise enough? --HanzoHattori 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant was taking information from Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and putting it into Al-Qaeda in Iraq. If I was wrong about this, then I apologize. However, even if I wasn't wrong, and the two are the same organiztion, then one page should redirect to another, not have a separate article. The Evil Spartan 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you were wrong, so now revert the revert so you will get suspended and not me this time :P The thing is, JTJ was not AQI. They changed a lot: new name(s), new flag, and most of all new alliegance (bin Laden). --HanzoHattori 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's the same group, and not an offshoot group, then it should still be a redirect. Compare with Pittsburg Alleghenies - the old name for the group Pittsburgh Pirates. If it's the same group, it's a redirect. The Evil Spartan 18:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not the sports group, better compare Reichswehr and (after alliegance to Hitler) Wehrmacht (same people, yes). Anyway, I did two completely different articles (which you claimed were the same, somehow). So if you want the redirect, you do it after a vote, but now just revert the revert. --HanzoHattori 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hanzo, if they're the same group, and just changed their stance, it should be a redirect. Secondly, we don't have "votes" on Wikipedia, especially on if something is a redirect. I'm sorry, it's confusing to have two articles. I still suggest you take it to WP:RM, and I will fully support a move. The Evil Spartan 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell this to NKVD, NKGB, MGB, KGB, FSB and so on. Do you want to merge them all to Cheka or something? They just changed name. --HanzoHattori 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, frankly, the entire secret service of Russia is more notable than one small group in Iraq who just changed their name, and carried on as the same organization (did those Russian ones even carry on as the same org?). Sorry. And, also, please be more precise, and use the uw-preview button. Finally, in light of contributions like this, I suggest you try very hard to use correct grammar. The Evil Spartan 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Russian secret police is the same organization, with the headquarters on Lubyanka, since it's founding as Cheka in 1917 (there was Okhrana before, but here there is no so direct connection). But they used many different names, so they have different articles (even the little stub of MGB - I don't think it's really more known than the AQI among the general public). Actually I don't think most people heard of anything more than KGB, or maybe current FSB. I can't use correct grammar because I don't speak correct English. That's why I tag my articles for copyedit. I try as much as I can anyway. Also, like how "no votes" when there's a vote? Also still, returning to the discussion, why do you think there are previous= (Originated as) and next= (Became) lines in the Infobox War Faction? Do you really think sports groups have anything with armed groups? Another example: Ludowe Wojsko Polskie turning into Wojsko Polskie (again) after the fall of Communism - and so on, really.--HanzoHattori 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

NOW, would you explain this? As always, you didn't. Do you always have to be so mysterious in your "popups"? Actually, I think you do vandalise my work. (-17,458 without uttering one word, when everything was sourced and actually double-checked) Revert your revert, or this will mean a war - especially, since you said you want to provoke me just to report me then (well, I guess - even as I hate doing this, because I hate learning all this stupid beurocracy). You do not own Wikipedia TOO, and you commited a mistake, so now just repair your error instead of being disruptive. If you have problems about it, discuss this like we were doing, and start a vote if needed (and don't say there's no votes, because it's a lie). --HanzoHattori 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. The Evil Spartan 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Evil Spartan???
Well, Evil Spartan, I'm Spartan-James. Peace. Spartan-James 17:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. Greetings! The Evil Spartan 17:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Images
Hey, The Evil Spartan, I saw your edit to Image:Ancient City Wall of Nanjing, World 1 Length.jpg. Just to let you know (if you are interested in doing some rote maintenance work), there are bunch of images which are definitely not screenshots that are in Category:Free screenshots (where I got this one from), and that category is populated with these non-screenshots quite often. I've been meaning to go through them all and nominate them for deletion and such, but any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Iamunknown 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. That thing's awful. Thanks for the heads up. The Evil Spartan 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

deletion review
I just e-mailed you a copy of the Research Video page at the final version before deletion. It's a really stupid rule not to undelete automatically for discussion, & I ask from time to time that it be changed. But it might help to simply ask at deletion review each time you think it really relevant. (if nobody beats me to it, I'll always email you a copy). (I'll also of course email if you ask at my talk page, but that doesnt get any public notice) DGG 22:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the email. Why do people delete stuff like that? It was an absolutely perfect stub. Even if it didn't officially "assert" notability (which it did), then it's a real wet cloth on everything to go deleting something that's notable, but didn't assert it properly. The Evil Spartan 19:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

R-Mean
So what do I do with the image ? I got it off his MySpace. He uses that picture to promote his stuff, and everyone else does. I don't understand what to do now :< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuplad (talk • contribs)
 * Well that's precisely the problem. It's copyrighted, and that tag states it's not copyrighted. I believe you want to provide the tag promotional - however, if you do that, you'll need to realize that Wikipedia does not use copyrighted images of people, and it will be deleted then too. The Evil Spartan 20:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, what if I can get his permission ? I actually communicate with the guy by email and I'm going to meet him soon. Tuplad 20:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the short version to your question, you can do one of the two following:
 * Speak to him, and ask him to license it under GFDL, which basically says that anybody can use the image and make derivatives (i.e., not just Wikipedia), so long as the original artist is quoted. Many people will be willing to allow this if an image is promotional, but some will not, as it allows anybody to use the image at any time without royalties, etc. However, you may need to verify that he allowed this image to be used; the best way to do this you can find at Example requests for permission. People may be able to provide a more complete answer at Media copyright questions.
 * Another, much easier option would be, when you meet him, to take your own picture and then you can upload it to Wikipedia under any free license which you wish, and you don't have to worry about all this bureaucracy.
 * I hope this answers your questions. The Evil Spartan 22:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I won't mail him about this, I'll just take a picture next time I see him. Thank you for your help Tuplad 08:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:24.3.29.247
Just vandalised San Marino, I guess it's time for a permanent block. Therequiembellishere 23:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make a report from here on at WP:AIV (and to make notice of the warning system as well). You can also see my userpage for a link to the anti-vandalism unit. The Evil Spartan 23:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

World War II
Thanks Sparty, I know you've got my back :) We must educate these people--Ilya1166 04:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, a blatant falsity of this measure surely can't stay on the encyclopedia for that long; someone will notice it and keep removing it. USSR as a member of the axis? Unbelievable that 1, let alone 3 people would edit war to have that in. Seriously, I can't stand 3RR violations, but if it's to remove patently awful information, that's different. The Evil Spartan 16:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My uploaded pics
I guess you have placed a whole lot of pictures that i have uploaded onto the deletion list. First of all I am trying to get the permission of the site admin for the pics i have put up..till then i have removed them from the articles i have placed them in. Will they still be deleted within a few days?? the web admin is not responding to the mails i have sent and asking for permission requests(Not even not granting permission reply)Sadashiv n 09:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in fact, you have now taken the right course of action. Of course, you shouldn't tag them as your own in the first place if they're not. However, if the web admin does not reply, yes, they must be deleted as copyright violations. The Evil Spartan 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Tagging commons images
Thank you for the notice. I tagged the picture for commons because I believe it has some use, to illustrate articles about barefoot. Also it is an open content photo. For these reasons I think moving it to Wikimedia Commons is appropriate. Of course, there are images on commons that are not used now, but have potential usage. Regards. WooyiTalk to me? 21:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Closure
I'm always happy to expand on my reasoning/review my own actions. On that one I guess it depends if you consider it controversial or not, to me it looked like a fairly straight forward endorsement. As the nominator stated they were trying to add "new argument" i.e. rerun the TFD, which WP:DRV pretty explicitly is not, the endorse contributors covered this. The key objection raised and more or less on your point was that the Wikiproject and/or original creators weren't notified, as there is no requirement to do so, that again is not a process issue. i.e. Those wishing to overturn the deletion were not adding any new information to the debate, or addressing process issues with the debate, they were either disagreeing with the deletion or impose some process standard which doesn't exist. Those endorsing are supported by both the deletion and DRV processes. (Totally aside to this review if we decide that X has some interest and should be notified wouldn't we to be "fair" have to start identifying the other parties who may also have an interest, we don't do that we let people keep an eye on their own interests. If we want to change to making deletion nomination an arduous process of trying to identify and inform all those who maybe considered interested and subject to the post discussion argument of if someone should have been notified an whose input *may* have impacted the debate, I personally wouldn't be convinced that it's practical nor desirable, but whatever it's a general process/policy issue not something for DRV to dictate) --pgk 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Funniest AfD close ever!
That pretty much says it all! Flyguy649talkcontribs 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe Wikipedia has too many editors doing the same thing on here. We might need to diversify a little... ;) The Evil Spartan 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Relaunching WikiProject Pittsburgh meetups
You are receiving this message because you are a member of the WikiProject Pittsburgh. In the past we have discussed a meetup idea - let's see if we can make it a reality during the summer. Please see this thread for more information.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Block
I'm not evading a block. It was reversed. Nonetheless, thank you for your input. I appreciate it. 24.160.241.190 00:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Teen_Spirit_2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Teen_Spirit_2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Forlì Images
Thnks for your notice. I took the photo myself. I will specify the source. As far as the licensing tag is concerned I used a CC tag by share alike. I hope it fits. Forli.tv 09:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep of Category:Bonesmen
See reply on my talk page. And please do check the List of administrators. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

certification
I think HH may have left me with a lower opinion of him or her than they left you with.

But I don't think I qualify for certifying Requests for comment/HanzoHattori, because while my dispute was very similar, I don't think it qualifies as the same dispute. The instructions state the certifiers have to have tried to resolve the same dispute.

I'll happily add my opinion in the space set outside for comments from outsiders.

Cheers! Geo Swan 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Did HH respond at all to this rfc?


 * I had one rfc filed against me. I asked for a copy of it to be moved to my user space.  You or HH are allowed to do that.  I am glad I did because the person who filed it turned out to be a well-known sockpuppet.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

your notes
I got your message, I don't have a response. — Ocat ecir T 17:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reggie Jackson
just letting you know Soxrock reversed your edit of deleting Reggie Jackson's copyrighted photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.99.1 (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for the notice. The Evil Spartan 16:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bush/Carter
Probably because the source is missing, just the old copy/paste footnote is there. Do you have the source? - Crockspot 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because it was added by a newbie, taken right from the Jimmy Carter article. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Figured as much, I added another source directly from NBC, so that's TWO reliable sources. Hopefully it will stick this time. - Crockspot 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on the 3RR noticeboard
Hi. Just to let you know that your comment on the 3RR noticeboard was deleted by ThePromenader:. I've restored your comment. Hardouin 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, sorry for that - it wasn't at all intentional (contrary to the above insinuations). I had an edit conflict with Hardouin and must have cut and pasted the wrong thing in the crush. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It happens. No big deal. The Evil Spartan 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Phroth Deletion
Please explain to me your rationale in deleting Phroth's wikipedia page? You cited it as a "non-notable fraternity" and one of over 600 clubs at Penn State. I beg to differ, it is not a fraternity, but rather one of four notable media outlets at Penn State. Further, had you read the article, you would have learned that the magazine has existed for 99 years and has produced alumni who have gone on to win Academy Awards, Cannes Awards, Emmy Awards and work at some of the most notable publications of the 20th century. The article was based primarily on celebrating the history of that magazine, only providing a small part to its impact on the campus today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteaaaay (talk • contribs)
 * Well, you may be bringing up a good point that wasn't mentioned in the discussion. I suggest you could bring this to deletion review - though people usually don't succeed, you actually may have a good chance in light of the fact that there was little discussion on the page and you're brining up some notable information. You could do it yourself, or, if you ask me to do it, and I'm still around, I would complete the process for you. The Evil Spartan 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE One Night Stand
Why did you revert it back to that version? The newb (don't say I am name calling because newb is just short for newbie) is in the wrong here and his version shouldn't be there. The issue is him claming it's OR to say who is on the poster even though the poster is right there in the article. TJ Spyke 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I already unreverted it back. :) The Evil Spartan 20:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This fight isnt about Lashley being on the poster bc he OBVIOUSLY is. This fight is because TJ thinks Monty Brown is on it but refuses to provide a source stating this. He just won listen.BlueShrek 20:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You must be kidding me. He's right there. Or do you actually have reason to think that's not him? Please note that to avoid this kind of drubble, images are generally exempt from the WP:OR. If you know it's him, then why are you fighting it? The Evil Spartan 20:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Im not fighting it im fighting for Brown. TJ kept putting it on there. HE has stopped for now but Im positivfe he'll start again soon.BlueShrek 20:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not reverted since I voluntarily remove Cor Von and only mentioned Lashley (although I still think Cor Von is there). I have provided BlueShrek the proof he wanted about Lashley, and can't afford another 3RR block since it would likely be for several weeks (since my previous one was 2 weeks). We seemed to have solved the problem, so is there a way I can avoid getting blocked? TJ Spyke 21:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A violation is still a violation. When someone clearly knows 3RR (how it works, what it takes to violate, etc), they shouldn't get a free pass to do it. RobJ1981 20:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nittwits
Hi. I'm the de facto caretaker of the Nittwits article you nominated for deletion. I haven't had the time recently to update it, but in the course of the last year there have been many television mentions and articles published that I could include in a re-write of the article which will further solidify the organizations's notability. Could you kindly remove the AfD until I have the chance to do so? Thanks. BroadSt Bully 07:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn the deletion for now. It would be appreciated if you could find the sources. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 21:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sir. I'll compile the sources and re-write the article as fast as I can.  Any specific suggestions?  BroadSt Bully 01:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, try to find as many sources as you can from reliable media publications. The Daily Collegian is good, but as a school newspaper, it's considered rather minor. News stories from the CDT or local television are better, but it's still a local paper. The ideal would be something like ESPN, or any other national outlets. I would list any and all of them. Cheers. The Evil Spartan 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very nice of you to allow time and withdraw the AFD. After revision, it should be much clearer if AFD is needed.  Good luck user B. Bully (his name!) Fineday 01:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Chuck E. Cheese
Ugggh! What a horrorshow! I'll attack it if you and the anon IP are done. Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm quite relieved to see people are taking notice - I put up a notice at WP:CLEANUP, to no avail. Thanks for the help. The Evil Spartan 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:FlyGibM11.jpg
TES, sorry about that the double-listing. I was working on orphaning PUInonfree (as it is listed at TfD). Meant no harm by it. =) --Iamunknown 04:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

copyright
Where do you see the copyright violation in the present Economic Development and Cultural Change? all i see on the page is an infobox with a copy of the cover of the journal, and that illustration is accepted as fair use, just as an album cover is? (The paragraph in the original article wascertainly copyvio, but it has been removed.DGG (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hormone Foundation
Hi, I saw you delisted this article from Copyright problems by the comment on the talk page. Please don't do this unless confirmation really has arrived per OTRS. Just a statement on a talk is not enough. Garion96 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I will not do it again. How can we receive confirmation that it's OTRS? The Evil Spartan 19:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the OTSR queue and found it. I tagged it with the OTSR tag on the talk. This is not always the case though, sometimes people just state that they have sent the permission but in fact haven't. In that case it usually is better to delete the article after a time, if permission arrives it can always be restored. Garion96 (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And another minor comment, you tagged Image:Hitachi high south eastern speed train.jpg (deleted by the time you read this) as having no license. The page was simply blanked by the person adding the imagevio tag, which wasn't needed, but he also removed the license which stated public domain. Since the image was an obvious copyvio, I deleted it. Btw, don't see this as too much critique, you do good work on WP:CP, just be sure to check it all. Garion96 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear me, I must be sloppier than I thought. I remember that as being blanked by the author, not the CP person. Either that, or it was such an obvious copyvio that I thought it better to WP:IAR and just tag it nld than to restore a bad tag. The Evil Spartan 14:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No harm done. It was indeed a really obvious copyvio. The problem is that if the uploader would tag it again with a public domain license and remove the NLD tag, the copyvio would again dissappear until someone else found it and tagged it as a copyvio. Garion96 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Google test
I read WP:GHITS as you suggested. Yes, I found it interesting. I use the Ghit argument not for notability per se, but that, if you look hard enough, you can find something out there that something or someone must be notable. 345,000 Ghits are useless if they are all blogs, encyclopedia, and wikis; you must find clean Ghits: verifiable, unique, nontrivial sources. That's why I routinely add "-encyclopedia" or "-wiki" when I do clean Google searches. A rock band, for example, that generates 10,000 Ghits must have at the least a cult following. On the other hand, the lack of Ghits for someone who died in 1933 probably doesn't get many hits. In the end, the Ghit test is as useful as you make it. My own rule of thumb is that a living person, high school, or legal topic must generate 100 clean Ghits to be a stand-alone article. So yes, I'm still going to use the argument, but I'll be more judicious and careful in my logic. Bearian 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I might submit to you that this rule of thumb is a fairly bad one. Obviously, you have to type -wikipedia. The problem here is that first of all, 100 ghits is an abysmally low number. I have more ghits than that; my mother, who's hardly used a computer in her life, has almost 30. My father has about that many too. Also, they can be misleading: in fact, my father has 45000, if you don't know to remove the bad ghits. And this doesn't even take into account the fact that internet distorts results: many completely non-notable porn stars can have results in the 100,000s, whereas notable figures outside the net have 50 or less. Finally, if there are 100 clean ghits, then you should at least be able to find a reliable source among them. I've seen people with hundreds of ghits, and it was all shifty self-promotion (check out Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience if you're interested: currently the press agent link is broken, but it used to show that it was a press agent who used highly questionable means to create promotion). The Evil Spartan 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Blackdragon6
I have unblocked, per your request. LessHeard vanU 19:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Transaction Processing over XML
Whats are you planning on doing with Transaction Processing over XML? Is it still at Afd or not? John Vandenberg 04:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Oops, that was a mistake. My bad. The Evil Spartan 17:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shri Ram Chandra Mission page
Dear Evil Spartan,

Can you please take a look at the "revised stub" that's proposed two sections before your comments on the Sahaj Marg talk page? Please edit away to create a neutral stub. We need neutral editors on this site.

Thanks, Renee    --Renee 19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment in my WP:ANI entry
If you don't want to help that's your choice, but was there really a need to disparage my concerns? Do you add condescending comments to all discussions, or just those related to Iranians? --Vitalmove 22:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your response to my comments only proves exactly what I was trying to say. Even criticising a poorly written article is seen as "condescending to Iranians"; it just shows what kind of ridiculous POV garbage is being allowed. But no, it is no more racist than if you were to criticize, say, criticize an article called Anti-English sentiment for using pages and pages worth of information claiming the movie Braveheart was anti-English. As for your ANI comments, I apologize if I was too curt, but I was actually trying to help: people often write very long messages in a complaint, but they're almost always ignored. The response was for your benefit. The Evil Spartan 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Callas
I have restored Image:CallasVioletta1956.jpg. It is, however, an orphan, so you may want to fix that. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Spigelman Photo
The photo was taken by my friend, of Spigelman CJ and myself. I have cropped the image to show just His Honour.

It was taken with my camera, for my uses. Hence yes, I own the Copyright in the image.

Tce2007
 * Understood. The Evil Spartan 16:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc/user for Shashwat pandey
Dear Evil Spartan,

Users Sethie and Reneeholle have filed an Rfc for user Shashwat pandey.

Because you have contributed to either the Sahaj Marg page, the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page, or both, we would appreciate it if you could provide your comments of this user at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shashwat_pandey

Here are the guidelines for responding :


 * Other users can endorse a view (under 1.7), by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
 * Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
 * You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement (under section 1.7), and/or the subject's response (under section 2).

Thank you for your time. It is greatly appreciated! 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneeholle (talk • contribs)

Reggie Jackson
User mghabmw continues to repost the non-copyrighted image of Reggie Jackson on his wikipedia page. You had removed this image several weeks back as it is not public domain but he continues to repost it. Can you please advise on action? 192.234.99.1 18:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, take it to WP:ANI. He's been told before. The Evil Spartan 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

bmi
Some muppett placed this in WP:RM and went through unopposed even if completely wrong. It is no acronym. Staff would even get disciplined if they ever said British Midland! Please help to move it back where it belongs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.20.21 (talk • contribs)
 * I must say, I don't fully understand the situation: I know next to nothing about this organization. I suggest you bring it to WP:RM yourself, set up the appropriate discussion, and give an in depth (though not wordy) reason why you believe this is incorrect. The Evil Spartan 21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pascack
He keeps on using sockpuppets to change reggie jackson.
 * Yeah, and you're at 21 reverts. Shame on you. And pascock, don't you dare delete information on my page. If I were an admin, you'd both be blocked for 2 weeks right now.The Evil Spartan 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Symphony X pictures
You just tagged three of my images (Russell Allen, Michael Lepond, and Michael Pinnella) for lacking sources. Check out if I just fixed it. Just in case, the pictures were taken by me in a recent concert. Cheers and take care. Thief12 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, yeah. I misread the tags. I didn't see the part about "I, the author". Silly me. Apologies. The Evil Spartan 23:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

sock puppet
told you i'm not a sock. i'm just an a**hole. Mghabmw 17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

HoverRace
There is no need to overturn the decision, as the decision was No consensus. That is the point of relist, to continue discussion when no consensus is reached within a normal AfD period. I do not understand your reasoning. If it is based on a guideline could you please link to it? ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 20:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The decision was closed. You can start another discussion, but you'll want to wait more than 48 hours: please see WP:DELETE. If there's a no consensus close, it's usually best to wait at least a month; but, like I said, you need to open a new discussion (e.g., HoverRace (2nd nomination)). And in fact, the point of relist is for discussions which are still open, and haven't had enough time to gain consensus (e.g., after only 5 days, only 1 person has left a comment). The Evil Spartan 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Boink!
You've got mail. &mdash; Rlest  17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thank you for the contact; quite informative. The Evil Spartan 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Eye
Are you eyeing me and my every single edit and upload? What is your problem? Mghabmw 19:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a goddamned sock, read the conclusion of the sockpuppetry case you filed against me. I've never denied my socks and EXCUSE me for not making sure I was logged in every time I made an edit. It does log me out when I get out. Stop writing that I'm a sock. Mghabmw 20:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are - that's not my issue. However, when I have seen a user engage in inappropriate behavior in the past, I have no problem whatever following their contributions to make sure they continue to follow policy. Please don't take it personally, and I have do it with any users (incidentally, WP:STALK says This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason.). As for your images, yes, I tagged them because I saw you uploaded them, and they clearly fail WP:FU, criterion #8 - fair use images of living persons. I have done this with hundreds of images elsewhere. However, there's no need to worry - I don't harass users if they continue to engage in good faith. If a user contributes faithfully, I usually stop paying attention. The Evil Spartan 22:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope you get your admin soon, because you're doing a helluva job being a fake one. Maybe then you could check up, see, and stop saying I'm a sock. Mghabmw 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh..
I just find it ridiculous that this has been going on for days and a not a single admin has shown up to respond to these block requests and take care of this once and for good...it just goes to show you how morons run this place and the most important people on the site, the ones who should be monitoring it, could care less... -- Palffy 23:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's just that admins are more worried about casting their ZOMG STRONG DELETE! votes on stupid things like if Cool Cat's userpage should be redirected or not, if Daniel Brandt gets his own page, etc., than actually doing stuff that, I dunno, might help the encyclopedia. The Evil Spartan 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ROFL!!!! Dude you just made my day, hahahaha -- Palffy 23:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. The Evil Spartan 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

re:Null edit
As much as I agree with you, I've been told that null edits to avoid redirection are at very least in violation of the spirit of previous arbcom rulings. The Evil Spartan 00:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I hated to do so, it wasn't because I prefered a revision, I would have done so to whatever revision it stood at. Revert warring page moves is worse getting an admin to perform a page move over it. — M o e   ε  00:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, then it would be appropriate to ask for protection then, as I've done at WP:RPP, right? I believe you could do the same, as you can't protect it for conflict of interest. The Evil Spartan 00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. You're uninvolved. Perhaps you could lock the page then? The Evil Spartan 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I think I just fully asserted myself in it, so maybe I shouldn't do anything else there. — M o e   ε  00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after I read your post at ANI, I would tend to agree. :) The Evil Spartan 14:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Alright, my first one! Thanks. The Evil Spartan 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whitey Ford
I uploaded a new Image:Whiteyford.png with copyright notices from the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Since Wikipedia is both informational and noncommercial and the image has not been modified, I believe it falls under the guidelines of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. Mghabmw 21:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, we still must tag this as copyrighted, because Wikipedia specifically doesn't fall under the noncommercial license. Or, I should say, Wikipedia does, but downstream usage doesn't: Anybody can copy Wikipedia's content at any time, and use it for any purposes, including commercial ones (see WP:FU). However, given that the photo you've taken is 45 years old, and a photo of this man would appear much different than this one does, I would say the photgraph can stay. However, you will probably want to remove it from the infobox, and provide a rationale (see Non-free media rationale), as well as a specific URL to the photograph. I know this sounds like a lot, but once you get the hang of it, it really isn't that bad (there really isn't much more to it than what I've just said).


 * One of the "restrictions" by the HoF is that you mark their work as copyrighted and owned by them, as I did. So I hope this is OK. Mghabmw 22:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Pirates
Whoever put "1882" in there was right. They began in the A.A. in 1882 and moved to the N.L. in 1887. However, that's one of only many issues with the article. The writer spent a paragraph or two speculating on why the team was supposedly called the "Alleghenies". They were "Allegheny", or "the Alleghenys" (not -ies) because they played in Allegheny. I'll work on this when I have some time. Or maybe right now. :) Baseball Bugs 23:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did some work on it. I noticed that someone had copy the history section into a new page for some unknown reason, so I changed it there also. It's basically duplicate info. Baseball Bugs 23:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the baseball articles seem to be fairly inexpertly written. They could all use some work. In any case, sorry for the reversion; I've gotten a bit sick of checking up on fact changes from single-use IPs when people don't bother to use edit summaries (90% of the time they're vandalism). The Evil Spartan 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom Lehrer said "The reason folk songs are so atrocious is that they were written by the people." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by the people. I don't say this on my user page in my "editing philosophy" because it would invite trouble, but when I see an IP address editing a page I'm watching, my first thought is, "What are they screwing around with now?" and sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised to find a useful edit. Baseball Bugs 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't disagree. IP's have heavily encouraged to Wikipedia. But, after seeing hundreds of changes to statistics that are often vandalism, I have trouble finding the patience to go searching the internet to verify a fact change, if the editor didn't bother to take the time to use an edit summary. The Evil Spartan 18:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I almost want to remove this barnstar, because I haven't earned it at all, as opposed to the one I gave you. You, on the other hand, have witnessed more trolling than the underside of most bridges... The Evil Spartan 19:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Donal Lang
Hi, I was bold and took the action of copying the content of this page to the creator's user page at User:Donal Lang. Bearian 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong RFC
Have there been any incidents since the Xterra/recall thing? If not, what prompted the RFC? Andre (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I sort of had the same question. I only see one questionable block since the recall request on his talk page. I do see a ABF as well. But I don't think we can expect him to completely reform immediately. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the RFC has been a while coming. Several people have made comments, and now is as good a time as ever. The fact is that, this kind of thing happens all the time; if any administrator did this kind of thing once, it would be a problem in and of itself. So the fact that he blocked yet another good faith user, without warning, and without mentioning it at ANI, is good enough in my book. The Evil Spartan 17:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack against user:Hesperian
The comment you made was completely unfounded and unnecessary. I ask you nicely to promptly withdraw it with an apology to Hesperian. &mdash;Moondyne 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A failure of WP:AGF, perhaps, but a personal attack? Really. And did you ask him to apologize for calling me a fool? The Evil Spartan 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, The Evil Spartan, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy  UCP 04:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Greece
Greece's %4.6 in Asia and the islands aren't their depencies, local people are Greek for centuries. See the image Image:AegeanIslands.PNG Islans in Asia shown with "yellow" User talk:Zaparojdik 19:57 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly avoid reverting without some form of attempt in discussion at least. This issue can easily be resolved just by reading up Transcontinental country.--Huaiwei 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Please note, that, however, I was discussing as much as anyone else, yourself included: edit summaries. As it appears you are in the minority, I would suggest you bring it up on the talk page first. If I revert again, I will bring it up on the talk page. The Evil Spartan 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Aegean islands belonging to Greece and on Asia's continental shelf are not territories, but as culturally Greek as the other Greek islands and mainland and fully integrated into Greece. However, this does not change the fact that Wikipedia's definitons allow these islands to be regarded as associated with Asia and justify the inclusion of Greece as a transcontinental state. The article text allows such islands on the continental shelf of a continent other than where the nation is based to count toward the nation being transcontinental. Heff01 19:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This belongs on the article talk page. I will be happy to discuss it there. The Evil Spartan 19:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested
If you are interested your input would be helpful at Featured list candidates/United States Secretary of Energy‎, Thank you.-- Southern Texas  22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori RfC
Can you certify an RfC for a dispute in which you weren't involved? I thought it had to be someone involved (which is why I'm anxiously waiting around for Murderbike to get online) -- but it would certainly make sense for you to endorse it or maybe better to make a summary for the "outside view" based on your own prior experience with HH. I remember your prior RfC -- that was just as I was first getting involved in the Battle of Washita River article, & first getting to know HH; I mentioned your RfC in the ANI report I made about HH and Custerwest that same day. HH could be a pretty good editor if he'd just please give up his so-very-witty incivility. --Yksin 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I originally had my RFC deleted because of a conscience attack; I didn't want to hurt HH. That being said, he is awfully uncivil - this user needs to stop. But no, I don't believe someone has to be part of the present dispute. I was involved in a previous dispute with this user (one in which, oddly enough, I took his side), and, looking at his talk page, I nearly every comment made to him was a warning to stop being uncivil, and nearly every comment he made was uncivil. It's not like he hasn't been warned over the past year. I think there's plenty of precedent for me certifying this RFC, especially as I did ask him to knock it off, and he clearly didn't. The Evil Spartan 18:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm asking an admin. --Yksin 19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC) And yeah, I understand you about taking his side. I've also done an RfC for the other user involved in this dispute, Custerwest, who is the real problem in terms of NPOV, NOR, and other problems on this article (including incivility & personal attacks especially on HH). But HanzoHattori simply cannot resist poking back & then some, & has made the whole process of trying to get enough consensus to get this article unprotected (it's been fully protected since 1 July!) that much more difficult; he won't cooperate even with "his own side".  So... RfC-time. Too bad, because I like him otherwise. --Yksin 19:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Update. Still waiting for the admin (User:Alison) to reply, but meantime the top of the RfC itself says at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page... -- so that looks like the only people who can certify it are people who've been involved with Battle of Washita River disputes. --Yksin 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you really want to remove my support, go ahead. But the fact of the matter is, the rules like this are made bendable on purpose (WP:IAR). The issue with this user has much more to do with civility problems than it has to do with specific Washita River thing anyway. The real reason that's at the top of the RFC page is not to worry about process-wonkery, but to avoid grudge RFC's where people with different grievances at different times decide to gang up on a good faith editor. The Evil Spartan 19:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well geez, I'd really rather have the support, but procedurally speaking.... Here's what Alison wrote to my question of if your certification was valid:
 * I don't believe so. From WP:RFC, "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it." - that would indicate that, as User:The Evil Spartan has not been directly involved in trying to resolve the dispute, they cannot certify it.
 * So I feel like I'd better remove it, & move it back to the category of not being certified yet. But I really really really hope you'll add an "outside view" or whatever to the RfC discussing your own experience with this user. I noticed that he just got a 3RR warning from edit-warring at The Holocaust -- which is now under protection. Anyway, if it looks like Murderbike isn't gonna show up in time (he's having sketchy internet time right now), I do have this RfC and the other in sandboxes, so you can make a sure bet that I will get it back up there. --Yksin 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're a second too slow. Already all happened. The Evil Spartan 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, & I can breathe now. Thanks!  Lets hope this has some beneficial effect. Please freely distribute news of this RfC to other users you know have had contact with HanzoHattori. --Yksin 19:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, a related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River. We could really use some comments from people outside the dispute. Thanks. --Yksin 02:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to provide a link to the earlier RfC on HanzoHattori you mentioned in the current RfC, I would like to check it out..! I scanned your talk page, but didn't see it..prolly missed it..;) Thanks!  – Dreadstar  †  23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Evil Spartan actually deleted the earlier RfC himself, but gave me permission to ask for it to be undeleted. But I don't really know how to do that, or who to ask... maybe The Evil Spartan could ask? --Yksin 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if this level of informality is ever allowed, but maybe it would be possible just ask Akradecki or Phaedriel or another admin who's been involved in the whole Washita River conflict to either undelete it or at least make the contents of it available somewhere. I really don't know though --Miskwito 01:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The proper action would probably be an informal one: just ask an admin to undelete the history, and it will be available in the history (I had this done with my talk page, incidentally). You could place a note at ANI, but it's probably to just go the informal route. The Evil Spartan 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack comment
Hello. On the admin noticeboard, you appeared to assert that I was guilty of Misaccusing someone of a personal attack. Surely a false accusation of "POV pushing" counts as a personal attack, and removing it from the talk page where it was posted is the appropriate action, or have I misinterpreted the guidelines? (Apologies if that is not what your statement meant) Lurker (said · done) 13:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A false accusation of a personal attack is not a personal attack. A personal attack is "Lurker is an idiot with a POV agenda". A personal attack is not saying an article will always have POV, and accusing someone of a personal attack for such a thing is as much assuming bad faith on your part as on his. I'm not meaning to sound too negative: just to clarify. Cheers. The Evil Spartan 14:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Billy Al Bengston
I've reverted the COI tag which you've placed on the article. It was created by an editor whose user name suggests a commercial interest. However, it has been significantly rewritten by several independent editors since then. Although COI may become an issue again in the future, I don't think it is one now. If you still feel COI is an isse, put the tag back and explain on the talk page. Thanks,--Ethicoaestheticist 16:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Regine Velasquez article
That article is full of WP:PEACOCK issues, so much so that I wouldn't even know where to begin. : ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How's here look? The Evil Spartan 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good but I can almost guarantee that the tag will likely be removed before too long. Most of the regular editors of that page are of the fanboy variety and won't take kindly to it.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * *Shivering* I'm all too familiar with those. As in Rain (singer), or a few other South Korean artists I've dealt with rcently. The Evil Spartan 18:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Took less than 10 hours. Wow, you sure are right. The Evil Spartan 16:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess I called that. Between the peacock text and the regular image problems, that article is a giant mess.  I love that one of the sections is titled "More Than Just a Pretty Face."  If that's not neutral I don't know what is.  ; )  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's actually not so bad. She is undoubtably the most successful Filipino singer of all time on the other hand (a text that sat in the article for at least 15 days and was added by your same favorite editor), certainly is a problem. The Evil Spartan 16:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ravi raj
Unfortunately, yes—User:Ieraj007. DrKiernan 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we're miscommunicating. I meant: was it the same person as who wrote the article 2 years ago? The Evil Spartan 15:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, the article from two years ago is much shorter and written by an anonymous IP in Delhi but is also about an Indian software developer, I assumed that they were. However, now I check more thoroughly, no, one is born in 1980 in Lucknow the other in 1975 in Bellary. Nevertheless, I am happy with the deletion on the basis of A7. DrKiernan 16:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Lama Shenphen Rinpoche's page
We don't understand exactly what you do want. We have rephrased many parts already of the article. Furthermore, there are many pages (not just two) in the category Lamas which are using titles (Lama, but also Kyabje for example): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Nydahl, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namgyal_Rinpoche, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_Kunga_Rinpoche, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyabje_Gehlek_Rinpoche, etc etc. So, where is the fairness? And what is the point in removing the fact that RInpoche has been trained in a Tradition but teach a more westernize Buddhism? You keep removing that part... Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmaling  (talk • contribs)
 * It has everything to do with the fact that the article is written in a way that makes tries to make the subject sound like a better person, as it does with the subject of his study. The thing is that this is a factually neutral encyclopedia. If you can write the article in a way that doesn't aggrandize the subject, please feel free to do so. And, in any case (I haven't time to look at the other articles), if the other articles are wrong, they should be fixed too. The Evil Spartan 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"as it does with the subject of his study" Do you know Buddhist studies well enought to judge that? Don't you think that in 23 years of being a monk, Shenphen Rinpoche didn't received numerous transmissions and has been trained correctly into his primary Tradition, so to be consequently able to adapt it so to be better understood in the West? Anyhow, we rephrase these parts, and hope this will be ok to your appreciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmaling (talk • contribs)
 * You might want to take a look at similar articles; such examples would be Charles Grandison Finney, John Wesley or Hudson Taylor, three 18th and 19th century Protestant preachers. While people have even claimed that those aren't neutral, they give a fairly decent indication of how to write an article without giving too much praise to the religious practice. Keep in mind that Wikipedia strives to be neutral in all things. I hope this brings clarity. The Evil Spartan 15:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Quebequois
Actually, I am an American citizen, but I have living in Quebec six days a week for almost four years. But aside from "Je ne parle pas Francais", I still can't speak a damn word of French. :) - Crockspot 17:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've talked to several Quebecois, and heard that it's quite difficult to get along in some parts of Quebec without French, though I'm not sure how much I believe it. Thanks for the correct word. In any case, I'm not quite sure I actually believe that someone decided to oppose your adminship because you're American; I find it deeply ironic that someone(s) with such Anti-American sentiment can claim to do so in the name of pluralism. The Evil Spartan 15:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Michael Lounsbury
You flagged my page as an autobiography. It is true that I posted the initial content, but I have now invited many of my colleagues to edit the page and encouraged them to also post academic stubs. My intention is not at all to violate npov policy, but to help build a community of prominent social scientists who will be committed to enhancing content of organizational and sociological theories in our scholarly world. To this end, it is important to include academic stubs of prominent scholars in this world, one of which is me. I could have easily had one of my colleagues post my stub, so this is an oversight on my part given my relative inexperience in wiki. However, I think this is a fabulous forum for our scholars to develop content for ourselves and future scholars in our area. Thus, I have invited colleagues to edit my page to assauge your concern of "autobiography". I believe a couple of folks have already edited the page, but more will join. Ultimately, I would not expect it to change dramatically though. Had I just had a colleague post the same material, my guess is that we would not be having this conversation. Again, my intentions are noble and I seek to get a number of similar academics involved that will only help build and contribute to the wiki community. I would appreciate it if you would consider taking off the autobiography flag on my stub and appreciate the broader aims of what I am trying to do. --Lounsbury —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msacks11 (talk • contribs)
 * I am glad that you've asked your colleagues to place the page, however, it still presents a conflict of interest if even they are editing. I will remove the autobiography tag, but I am going to place a note on the conflict of interest noticeboard so that others can check the article for neutrality. The problem is that when several people close to the subject create an article, it will often have a conflict of interest, and by defualt have NPOV problems. The Evil Spartan 17:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, one other thing: it would be best if you could try to stay to one username. I know sometimes people forget their old ones, or forget their passwords; but it makes keeping in contact with someone easier. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

 * Er, pardon the templated warning, but I think you see what I mean. :) The Evil Spartan 00:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see what you mean. I carried out a split, which to my knowledge cannot be performed by a move. THe article covered both the river and the city, and so I split the river off to its own page, as described on the original page's talk page. I promise you I haven't done cut-and-paste moves since last year! - BillCJ 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
See this 81.77.251.19 has popped up on Template:AONBs in Northern Ireland now reverting my edits.--padraig 23:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Kilbirnie, North Ayrshire
Just so you know: it's possible to move a page over a redirect as long as it only has one edit on it. You probably could have moved the page yourself. The Evil Spartan 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I know, the page was originally at Kilbirnie before an editor pointlessly moved it to Kilbirnie, North Ayrshire. Another editor moved it back to Kilbirnie, and so I was just cleaning up by putting in a speedy deletion request for the now pointless redirect. :) --Dreamer84 23:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

But then what do I do?
If I make an argument that others seem incapable of refuting but they inhibit things by playing their numbers against me and using the 3RR technicality?--24.203.217.224 00:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

kumioko\TOC page
You can delete the kumioko\TOC page that you marked for speedy deltion. I created it on accident.--Kumioko 00:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Llandow Air Disaster
Understood, I'm new to this, but thanks for the advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FruitMonkey (talk • contribs) 12:31, August 13, 2007

Unicorn Museum
Update to Unicorn Museum article deletion issue and WP:WEB

We just got a mention in Dagbladet this morning (one of Norway's largest newspapers) and have been covered by Pharyngula (listed by the science journal Nature as the top-ranked blog written by a scientist ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TWIS (talk • contribs) 19:18, August 14, 2007

Aggie Bonfire Leadership
Why on earth did you put this article up for deletion? I don't see a rationale for such an action. — BQZip01 — talk 21:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well first off, I had no idea what it was talking about. After a bit of research, I see now what it's talking about, and it still seems to only be of vague notability to me (shouldn't this be merged into Aggie Bonfire?). Second off, it seemed to be full of original research; only now do I see that it in fact has citations, but the reference section is missing. The Evil Spartan 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Preview button
I use the preview button, I just sometimes change my mind or feel the need to add/change/remove things later.--Ilya1166 05:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hyperdrive summaries, etc.
Just a thought, wouldn't it be possible to contact the person who wrote the summary (from the forum thread you linked) to get their permission for the material? After all, it's even possible they put it on Wikipedia in the first place. laddiebuck 22:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would absolutely be possible - but we have to strictly follow the procedure: see template:sd-copyvio for instructions. Basically, he has to release them into GFDL - meaning anyone, anywhere can copy the text for any reason - provided they source the original author. In any case, the article needs some serious work; at the moment, it's not an article at all, just a list (see WP:NOT). Things should be written in prose. Hope this helps. The Evil Spartan 00:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My talk page
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Jauerback 18:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope & Faith
TV.com was used as a reference for text but not pictures. Neither did I copy text from the pages. I may of done this when I first started Wikipedia but that's aichent history now. I feel personaly offended by your suggestion on my talk page. Pafcool2 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can feel offended all you want, but the text I found on many pages was a word for word copy from tv.com. I personally did a search on almost every one of those offending texts, and every time I searched, I came up with a reference from tv.com. I'm not quite sure how else the text would have gotten there, unless you added it mistakenly. Hope this helps. The Evil Spartan 00:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tell me which pages you're talking about, because I have not copied any writing. Some pages such as Daytime Emmys, Part 1, I just formalised (etc. Television template), and the writing was already there. This goes for most of them. I'll investigate myself into the articles and will promise to re-do them, if I find I'm mistaken but otherwise you're wrong. Fact. Pafcool2 17:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the pages I changed, I put the copyright URL right in the edit summary. For example, the text I removed from here says right in the edit summary what the URL was. However, it looks like I, together with the bot, made an error at WP:SCV - it wasn't a new page at all that you created (the bot normally lists only new pages). It only showed up because you moved the page - as such, someone else added the copyright violation: it appears to be User:2me2me. My apologies for the misunderstanding. The Evil Spartan 16:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keffiyeh Image CV
I recently listed as a copyright violation, but you changed this to Possibly Unfree Image and put "no copyvio evident". I know it is a copyright violation because it comes from the website militarymorons.com and was used without permission of the site's owner, who I contacted via e-mail to confirm the violation. I have reverted the image's state to copyright violation. -CumbiaDude 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. The problem was that you didn't include that URL, and I couldn't find it via google. If I remember correctly, it just said, and that's it. The Evil Spartan 15:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it was right under the violation notice, but everything's all straightened out now. :) -CumbiaDude 20:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case for SevenOfDiamonds
As a checkuser requestor on this, I'm letting you know that I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here Theresa Knott | The otter sank Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The Evil Spartan 17:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Hungrywolf
Thanks for endorsing my RFC. Blackbeard2k7 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Defeated yet again in the War on Terror
You tried to get me banned because of my "politically incorrect" edits, but you failed. As I explain on the 3RR page, it was wrong to narrowly interpret my edits as a "revert war". But, I guess that the Neo-Cons see everything as a war. And that's why they get beaten, like in Iraq. Note that in Iraq things are going better in Al Anbar only because the US reversed their policy of regarding the insurgents as terrorists. They are now cooporating with them.

Similarly, you could have discussed the edits on the talk page of Hezbollah or edit the page yourself. Instead you found it necessary to fire a tactical 3RR missile at me. Why not just consider the fact that editing the Hezbollah page is not part of the war on terror? Count Iblis 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it rather amusing that you have assumed that I am a neo-con because I reported you for 3RR; additionally, it was a revert war: bad enough that the page is now protected until September. The only reason I didn't report the other users was that I am using a public computer, and my time ran out. There was nothing politically incorrect about your edits, and I would find it deeply unfair to only block you and not the others who revert warred. The reason I tried to get you temporarily blocked is for 3RR violation alone. I might like you to know that I have seen dozens of revert wars on Wikipedia, and everyone always thinks that their version is the correct one, and that they are exempt from 3RR. I have seen people banned for this position. But 3RR exists as a steadfast rule for a reason - to avoid edit wars, exactly of this type. I'm sorry if you assumed I have it out for you - I don't. In fact, the revert war seemed inconsequential enough that I'm not sure it matters. The Evil Spartan 00:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was wrong to characterize you in the way I did above. I explained on the 3RR page why it wasn't a simple revert war. If you look at how the section evolved from the moment it was put in: see here, and click on "newer version" till you reach the last version (that's a lot of intermediary versions), then you see that despite a few reversions now and then, there is still constructive editing going on. Sure there is a dispute abpout the content, but the editors are giving detailed arguments why they make changes. So, we do end up with a final version of that section which is a resonable (but not perfect) compromise.


 * Realistically, given the nature of this topic, this section would always have evolved in a similar way. If I and other editors had stuck to that very strict intepretation of 3RR, then either it would have taken much longer to get to the last version, or everyone would just have reverted 3 times back to an older version without editing to try to find a better solution. So, then you would still have had a revert war, but within the limits of any interpretation of 3RR. But the article would not have improved (either the section wouldn't be there, or it would have a POV tag on it).


 * So, I would say that a very strict appication of 3RR is not a good thing. That is also the conclusion of this essay. Yesterday I wrote my comment here, in which I used the 3RR report of yesterday as an example. Count Iblis 00:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Field Commander Page
Dear ES,

This individual who is accusing us of putting wrong content on the FC page has been a perpetual trouble-maker on the Field Commander forum and has been banned repeatedly there.

We who run the League of Field Commander are from every continent.

(1) The argument of not having the Field Commander League on the Field Commander page will also hold good for not having the list of World Champions on the Marathon page, Champions names on the Tennis page or any other game or sport page. This is one individual who is harnessing us repeatedly since the past 3 months. He has now found the Wiki site to vandalize.

(2) The League is an Open Championship and any Field Commander player is welcome to join.

(3) It is the only Tournament held for Field Commander players and there is no other such tournament anywhere in the world.

(4) This individual here BlackBeard2k7 is only here to vandalise this page. If you check his history on Wikipedia, he has just done that and nothing else.

(5) He has made personal attacks and libeous statements against me on the FC discussion page.

The owner of the site has been known in the past for making hacking attempts on computers of users he does not like by using the IP address they used to register on his forums with. In addition, he has publicly harrassed other users on the official Sony forum for Field Commander, frequently accusing other players of cheating, threatening their family, using extreme vulgarity toward them and posting personal information about them in public.

(6) You can yourself check the Field Commander Championship site and see for yourself : Field Commander Site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hungrywolf (talk • contribs).

His first argument of removing the League from the Wiki site was that users would get hacked. (Check the history of his edits). When that didn't work with the editors then he has come up with some new warped explaination.

If you have objections after this please be free to ask me on my Talk page before deleting the entries.

Thank you.

Hungrywolf 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already responded to his long list of complaints on his own talk page, though he continues to copy/paste it into every talk page of anyone involved in the discussion, making it difficult to keep the dispute in one place. It should be held in the discussion page of the field commander article itself. Blackbeard2k7 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I might say that I don't have any idea why Blackbeard has done this, or if he has a vendetta against this site. However, I can say without a doubt that this forum is not notable for inclusion in the article. The article is about the game, not about the forum. At very best, it deserves an external link; at worst, it does not - see WP:EL. I care nothing about "personal attacks" or complaints from either side; my goal is to uphold the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. The Evil Spartan 00:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

World Rune Clock
Hello again Evil Spartan, and thanks for updating the Gorsleben image and getting it on to Commons.

I also notice that you've tagged Image:WernervonBülowsWorldRuneClock.JPG for deletion. I'm pretty certain I know Robert Prenic's source for this one. The identical image of Bülow's 'world-rune-clock' is reproduced in the same book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (again: The Occult Roots of Nazism, 1985, ISBN 0-85030-402-4), and the single reference to it in the text is sourced to Gorsleben's book Hoch-Zeit der Menschheit (Leipzig, 1930), p.328f., which therefore seems to be where the clock design was published.

Bülow died in 1947 so if copyright applies, it should expire in 2017, but it isn't clear from the text whether he published the clock earlier some place else, in which case it might qualify as public domain on other grounds. Or fair use perhaps? Bülow designed the 'clock' (actually, a diagram of correspondences) to be used, which means widely distributed, among Germanic mystics so there's a doubt in my mind whether copyright status would be appropriate.

I'm not sure if any of that helps, but I'd hate to lose the image, as I would have liked to use it to illustrate Germanic mysticism and I think there may be genuine grounds for a benefit-of-the-doubt reprieve until somebody more expert than myself has checked into its earliest publication date and copyright status more thoroughly.

I do wish that Robert Prenic would defend his images, but then, I'm not very sure myself about how to enter the source information on to the image's page or whether I'm entitled to do so on somebody else's behalf.

I'm going to post this on both your own talk page and the image talk page, so feel free to reply in whichever place you think best. Gnostrat 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Gnostrat, and thanks for the response. I'm looking into it, and it looks like the author needs to have been dead for 70 years, in Germany, in order for it to qualify as public domain. He would have had to have published the work before 1923 for it to apply, which seems unlikely. However, there may be some compelling reasons to mark it fair use - mainly, if there is no free alternative (i.e., you couldn't find a free one elsewhere). You might try Restricted use - but you will need to provide a clear explanation of why there is no free alternative. Hope this helps. The Evil Spartan 23:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice and for checking. I've re-read Goodrick-Clarke and it looks like the illustrations in Gorsleben's book were taken from previously-published work (but when?), so there's a good chance Bülow could have published his design before 1923, though 1925-30 is maybe likeliest. Goodrick-Clarke says nothing about permission, which maybe means he didn't need any. As I see it, the most appropriate template at the moment would be Non-free unsure, but that is deprecated like Restricted use. The other options are Non-free 2D art and, neither of which quite fits the case. I've taken a chance on Non-free unsure and hope it doesn't blow up in my face. Gnostrat 15:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Indeed I did. :)  Singu larity  00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Toy museum AFD and "recreation"
It's not a recreation. Neil  ム  08:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you're right. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 22:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sultana Nasreen Sarwar
Of course, but the information I got for the bio was qualifications. I changed the wording a bit but I cannot change her qualifications (which are needed for a biography) so how is that copy violoation? Robert C Prenic 07:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a search on the terms of the article, and it was not just the qualifications you copied from the website. Most of the prose was copied and loosely edited as well. The Evil Spartan 17:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pristine
I didn't understand what you meant, can you explain what was wrong with the article and how I can improve it please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faction120 (talk • contribs).
 * What I meant is that the article was about a non-notable software product. For something to have an article on Wikipedia, it has to meet certain criteria - in this case, the criteria would be WP:WEB. Otherwise, the page is deleted as non-notable. I'm afraid you must wait for your product to be notable before it can have a page on Wikipedia. The Evil Spartan 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ANI case
can you show where White Cat was told not to move said pages? Respond on ANI pls.Rlevse 13:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ramdrake
Remember when you said Ramdrake may be a puppet of Muntuwandi? . I agree with you. However I dont know where to start for evidence. Ramdrake already has a suspected sockpuppet case. See: Suspected sock puppets/Ramdrake. Your help would be great if your interested and have time... KarenAER 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)