User talk:Tide rolls/Archive 34

Bias
The notion that some words are biased is in itself a biased notion, that attempts to regulate language like a science. Since this is impossible, in the interest of clarity, the whitewashing of human speech for wikipedia is actually counter-productive. It is impossible to remove bias from speech, to attempt to is to condone social conditioning, since language is how we transmit ideas. The words on that page were invented to help with idealogical transmission, they are not 'biased' they are just words.Byron670 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Words that were discussed and debated.  Like you should do instead of blank pages.  Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's Five Pillars before attempting further "editing".   Tide  rolls  01:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Angel Porrino
If you're not too busy, 24.136.12.62 is making inappropriate edits to Angel Porrino again. I've already made three reversions today so I can't revert any more and I'm not sure whether I can justify claiming an exception based on vandalism, although I think it has gotten to that point. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP is verging on disruption so I have left another message on their talk. I think it is a misunderstanding of how things are done here; however, if they continue without discussion the source of the disruption becomes irrelevant.  See ya 'round   Tide  rolls  16:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

First Flight High School
Why in the world would you do that?--71.80.52.242 (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess you were rigtht.--71.80.52.242 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It was not vandalism
It wasn't vandalism, I read on fox news that it was well over 9000 deaths in Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.129.76 (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow seriously? My first account was dantherocker1, and it got banned. I've used 26 accounts since then, and they've all been banned. I think it's stupid how mad people on this site get when someone makes an edit. Especially Favonian. Seriously, don't these people have anything better to do with their lives?

Emokid178 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

BEKippe
You have blocked this user for vandalism, in that he has repeatedly reverted edits made by IPs from "no game" to "new generation" on the Sony game page. The thing is, he is right, and was reverting vandalism. Could you please review this block urgently. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. My first bad block...yay.  Anyway, as you may have seen I've unblocked the user and tried to explain my actions.  If there's more that's needed please let me know.  See ya 'round   Tide  rolls  22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We all mistakes - I have made a few classic ones over the last four years or so - and I was in no sense criticising. I see no reason for any further action. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
Whoops! Sorry i didn't mean to blank that page my computer spazzed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.21.154 (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to have a civil discussion with you, let me pour my human, error making affections into tour soul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.1.96.66 (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not blocking User:Performancepc
The username is a blatant violation of the username policy. I've seen other administrators block such users. Why didn't you?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda busy with some other stuff at the moment. I'll approach them about their user name if another admin doesn't take action.  As long as they're not disrupting the project I see no reason to rush.  OTH, if they begin disruptive editing then they'll end block anyway.  It'll all work out in the end.  See ya 'round   Tide  rolls  01:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother
Hi Tide rolls, not that I wish to be a bother but could you look at the requests on WP:PERM? I got Gfoley4 earlier, but he's logged off now as it appears. Cheers, —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 12:53pm • 01:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies, AA...I got sidetracked. I'm not a regular watcher of the permissions page, but I'll take a look.   Tide  rolls  02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Following up. I trust you, AA.  However, I have not spent enough time at the permissions page to feel comfortable making decisions for the community.   Tide  rolls  03:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok that's alright. Thanks anyway :) —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 6:46pm • 07:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Special+Utilizator+$
I've had some conversations with this guy, and my impression has been of an editor struggling with some ESL issues. What convinced you that an indefinite block for vandalism was the way to go?&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The mangling of of the math cat was what prompted my block. If you are working with this user then I would understand if you want to unblock.  If you would prefer that I do it, let me know.   Tide  rolls  02:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe this may be SpecialUtilizator making a complaint...if so, I'm properly chastised:

you owe me 6hours of Pepsi drink]]s because next: -i have modified only once a page and give me a first-in-place decision, and not a warning -I have not modified more than three times ]-page -| have not used bad words -the message is a decision made on one assumption -&

 Tide  rolls  02:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 188.25.52.128....please read my message at User talk:Special+Utilizator+$. Thanks   Tide  rolls  02:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops
Oops, sorry, that one looked like an incoming to me. My apologies, and glad you restored. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry too much about it. I think I did the same thing.  See ya 'round   Tide  rolls  02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi!
I just wanted to let you know that I made an edit a few minutes ago to your user page. Before I could revert myself, another editor undid the edit and asked, in their edit summary, "Uh, did you mean to do that?" I have since replied on their talk page. No harm intended, by any means. I did want to make you aware of it, however. War Damn Eagle! (Sorry, couldn't resist it) Strikerforce (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh. No worries. I have no problems with folks kidding around as long as it doesn't go too far. As you see, there are always watchers about and even jokes can go awry.  There are those, though, that do take a dim view of talk page hijinx. I don't include Bsadowski in that group, they are capable of offering an opinion if need be.  I say that just so you know it's best to be careful about what you post so that you don't get into hot water over something that wasn't meant seriously. Roll Tide...see ya in November   Tide  rolls  10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll be a different game without Cam, won't it? Sigh... we got one good season in, anyways. LOL Strikerforce (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Every dog has its day...omg, did I just post dog? God forgive me..   Tide  rolls  10:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for letting me know RE: Ling.Nut and Ling.Nut2. I erred on the side of caution with this one, and I'm glad to see I was wrong :) Happy editing! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User Talk:Arl4545
Thank you.Naraht (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping they're new and not familiar with our guidelines and policies. Time will tell.   Tide  rolls  01:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll see. The bizarre thing is that I've been a volunteer staffer for 20 years for my National Fraternity. But since it isn't IFC/NPC, he probably thinks it is just as fake as Beta Upsilon Chi. Also on a technical note. I'm using Wikied and it seems to have an issue with the last half of your signature. I *think* the issue is that it wants the three quotes and the backslash span at the end of the signature switched from  to  just like the first half of your sig.Naraht (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, damn...no one has brought up a problem before. I'll do some experimenting, I suppose.  I'd hate to lose my crimson and white.  I know that's not very encyclopedic but it's best to be honest.   Tide  rolls  02:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't a problem with display, just Wiki-ed tends to try to help by showing what it doesn't think has a match. I flipped the and the ''' in the version of the signature just above this and wikied is happy now and there isn't a change in display. I just think if you make the two halves consistent then it should be happy. I think your crimson and white looks great! It is more like the situation where you do  AAA , html still knows what to do, but it make complain anyway since the closings are in the wrong order...Naraht (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A general question that you may be able to address
You recently reverted vandalism to my user page; thanks. This has happened a few times over the years, all from different ISPs (although I think it's the same culprit). My question is this: Since it means extra work for people such as yourself, and it's never constructive, can I ask why anyone except its owner is EVER allowed to edit a user page? The talk side, I get: that's where discussion takes place. But can you give me an example of a positive reason for someone to ever edit someone else's user page? Pac if ic Bo y  22:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have had folks edit my user page for formatting reasons. However, I have a very relaxed attitude towards my user page.  Partly because it is not truly my page and partly because I try to maintain a tolerant attitude when on Wikipedia.  Note, I said try.  I have blanked and/or deleted user pages that were blatant promotion/spam.  If you read WP:User pages you will see a very narrow set of circumstances where user pages are not protected from the convention that their owner be left in total charge of a page's maintenance.  Every page is open to editing by any editor; it is only accepted convention and common courtesy that leaves the bulk of the user page maintenance to the user.  If this answer strikes you as more gray than black and white, I understand.  This project is much too dynamic to approach in a regimented manner.  See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  00:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverting Multiple Edits With Huggle
Tide, forgive me if I asked this of you previously, but I can't seem to get reverting multiple edits back to the last, best original using Huggle. I've taken to going out to the page at issue and looking manually at the article history to suss out multiple bad edits by (often) many users until I can revert to the last best. There must be a way to do that in Huggle, but try as I might, I can't get it. When you have a moment, would you mind "straightening me" (as the late, great Lord Buckley would put it)? Many thanks in advance for whatever assistance you have time to offer. Cheers, mate! Geoff Who, me?  01:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Geoff (I didn't recognize the sig at first..lol). If HG is co-operative, I use the left Blue button until I find the last good version.  Sometimes, due to a variety of factors, I have to open the page in another tab (the blue-bordered, white square two buttons left of the left blue button), find the correct version and edit the page manually.  It all depends on the size of the article, size of the edit history, one's connection speed, sunspots etc.  See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  01:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks most kindly. I'll try it! Geoff  Who, me?  02:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection request
Could you please unprotect this article. It was protected by Gfoley4 because of an edit war and a content dispute. I don't think that good faith editors should be barred from editing the article but the user engaged in the edit war should be blocked. Could you please resolve this matter. Cheers. Jessy  T/C 01:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jessy. You should approach Gfoley4 with your concern. Gfoley4 is knowledgeable and fair. I have no doubt that they will listen to whatever rationale you present.   Tide  rolls  02:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jessy   T/C 02:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ian Gallagher
Please stop taking away sourced information about a notable character. There are three independent sources in the article, if you bothered to read it before changing it back and accusing me of being a vandal. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not mangle the dab page again. If you want to write an article, ask questions, read guidelines.  Do not mar the work of other editors.   Tide  rolls  01:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "mangle the dab page" means. There is a character page at Ian Gallagher and there is also a page at Ian Gallagher (disambiguation). You have not given me any good reason why the article I wrote shouldn't exist and you have called me names and threatened me. I don't know why you're such an angry person but you shouldn't expect your anger to mean that other people should stop trying to add articles. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not you called you names. Calm down and listen.  If you want to write an article, then learn how to do it.  The fact that you don't know what a dab page is and how it can be mangled should clue you that you that there are steps that you are missing.  If you want to learn then I will help you.  If you want to disrupt this project then I will stop you.  Your choice.   Tide  rolls  01:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly calm, despite your calling me a vandal and saying that I "mar" and "disrupt" things. I wrote a perfectly good article with citations to three perfectly good sources and within hours I have three people ganging up on me and taking it out. If you can explain why an article with three good sources shouldn't be on Wikipedia then go ahead. I have one person saying that the character isn't notable despite having sources, another saying that it has sources but not enough and they're done wrong and then you being condescending. Can you maybe understand why that might not be the best way to treat a person? Harley Hudson (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How is my offering to help condescending?  Tide  rolls  01:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's your overall presentation that's condescending. Regardless, do you agree that with three sources the character is notable? If so then the article qualifies for a place on Wikipedia. There is no other article about anyone known as "Ian Gallagher" so I see no reason why it can't go there since Ian Gallagher (disambiguation) already exists despite there being no other Ian Gallagher articles. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If there were no other Ian Gallaghers there would be no need for a disambiguation page. I suggest you take Raintheone's advice and join the discussion on the talk page.  If you want me to join the discussion I will accommodate you.  Tide  rolls  02:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What other articles on people named Ian Gallagher are there? There is no article for the British character and the footballer is named Stuart Gallacher. The first name is completely different and the last name is spelled differently. There is also Ian Gallagher (disambiguation). Why do there need to be two pages? Harley Hudson (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirects are used for list entries also, so it is easier to navigate. The footballer's first name is Ian. Rain the 1  BAM 02:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * His last name is "Gallacher" with a C, not Gallagher with a G. And I don't see what redirects have to do with anything. Harley Hudson (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Then learn about their use on Wikipedia. I'm sure someone can direct you to something helpful. You changed the DAb pages further since you were asked not to, that is where "disruptive" came from. I've offered help, just as Tiderolls has.. Rain the 1  BAM 02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand how redirects are used on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell we aren't talking about redirects. We're talking about whether there need to be two disambiguation pages to navigate between what should be one article on the American character, one list of retired British characters and one footballer whose article is under a name that's nothing like the name of this page. I guess I don't understand why Ian Gallagher (disambiguation) can't be the disambiguating page for Ian Gallagher (American character), List of past Shameless characters (the British character's current entry) and Stuart Gallacher. Harley Hudson (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is ganging up on you here. We are trying to keep everything in order. Discussion is also being held here At this talk.. I tried to give you more insight there. We also do not attempt to edit war, we discuss and aim for improvement, it is a collaboration. Rain the 1  BAM 01:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting
Still waiting to hear why Ian Gallagher (disambiguation) isn't good enough to disambiguate. Still waiting to hear why an article with three solid sources is unacceptable for Wikipedia. How about someone try to answer those questions instead of blindly undoing someone's work and lyingly calling him a vandal? Harley Hudson (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have explained that I have not called you a vandal and I've offered my help. If you wish me to help, that offer still stands.  Otherwise, I see no reason to continue this unproductive back and forth and you are free to move to bigger and better things.   Tide  rolls  16:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can help by explaining why Ian Gallagher (disambiguation) is not good enough to use as a disambiguation page so that a sourced article about a notable subject can't exist at Ian Gallagher. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not see how you have come to the conclusion that is the foundation for your inquiry. I see nowhere that you've been told that Ian Gallagher (disambiguation) "is not good enough to use as a dab page".  And, of course, a sourced article about any notable subject can exist.   Tide  rolls  16:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. So since the existing disambiguation page is fine and since I have provided sources for an article on the American character, you have no objection to changing Ian Gallagher (disambiguation) into an actual disambiguation page rather than a redirect and having an article on the American character at Ian Gallagher. So let's do what needs to be done to make that happen. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So you weren't interested in my help so much as conducting a cross-examination. Let me make this as clear as possible; you can edit within the guidelines and policies of this project and enjoy a productive experience here or not.  You're gonna have to make that choice.   Tide  rolls  17:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've said what help I'm interested in. Help me get the existing Ian Gallagher (disambiguation) used as a disambiguation page and help me get the article about the American character listed under Ian Gallagher where it belongs. If you're interested in helping me do that, then please help. If you're only interested in "helping" by lecturing and appealing to authority then I've had all of that sort of "help" that I need. Please explain in clear and concise terms why Ian Gallagher (disambiguation) should not serve to differentiate between American character Ian Gallagher, the list of British characters that includes the first Ian and the footballer who goes by an entirely different name. Explain to me in clear and concise terms why there need to be two separate pages to serve that function. Explain why a character whose name is "Ian Gallagher" should not have his article located at Ian Gallagher in the absence of any other article for anyone or anything of the same name. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment, sir, you appear to be engaged in an edit war, with three reverts in less than twelve hours, and have been warned as such. I would suggest making a better effort toward working with other editors toward a consensus, otherwise you may be blocked from editing for a bit.--Strikerforce (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A repeat vandal
Could you deal with this repeat vandal? User:78.109.182.8 Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Softlavender. It appears there's very little to do but watch and revert those edits that are problematical.  There are helpful edits scattered amongst the chaff and the IP only contributes a handful of edits a month, sometimes less.  There may be more gained by ignoring the useless edits and hoping boredom will set in and the static will cease.  I will watch the situation and step in if the IP disrupts to point of causing more work than help.  See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  01:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for 'vandalising' some wikipedia pages. I just thought that wikipedia was humorless, and was just trying to lighten the mood. As compensation, check the motto in this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Ninian%27s_High_School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasty Gerkin (talk • contribs) 04:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up.  Tide  rolls  04:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

terms.
A burk is a slang term for a Poyner. (creature)

I firstly edited the statement to ego friends name which i kyle poyner. to which i recieved a warning. but, the more recent edit i did was clearly stating that a poyner was a creature. poyner is a slang term for a creature in South Yorkshire, England.

Many Thanks. Dayley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.31.50 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming here to explain your edit. Now, if you can supply a source (see WP:Reliable sources) that demonstrates the notability (see WP:Notability) of the content you wish to add, I will show you how to cite the source so the content may stay.   Tide  rolls  01:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Antonio Banderas Vandalism
Sorry about that, it was my friend across the hall of my dorm using my router. If he does it again I'll change the password. 159.91.123.209 (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, the "it was my friend across the hall" explanation doesn't fly very well around these parts. Might I suggest going ahead and taking that step proactively to protect your editing privileges in the future? ;) Strikerforce (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Adminship
Not to burst your bubble but you are aware that vote that have no comment are not counted as votes at all. This is demonstrated in your vote here. I do encourage you to add a comment. Says to himself "RfA is such a broken process. At least there is some reform".  maucho  eagle   02:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not true. Striker force Talk  Review me! 02:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well this may not be true (I thought it was) but it does help the closing bureaucrat in his decision.  maucho  eagle   02:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, MauchoEagle...thanks for dropping by. No worries, there's no bubble verging on bursting.  It's been my understanding that voicing "Support" at RfA indicates that the nominee meets one's standard for trust, integrity, dedication, cluefulness, policy knowledge and temprement.  If the nominee meets my standards, then it follows that they need no improvement; hence no need to elaborate.  If I've missed your point or you would like further clarification, please let me know.  See ya 'round   Tide  rolls  02:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Several crats have said at various times that "Support" with no other comment means to them "Support per the nomination statement". They may or may not count "Oppose" votes with no rationale. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO RfAs should be a discussion, not a "see how much we like you" straight vote (which is essentially what it currently is). I really wish that people would move on from their pretending that adminship is a big awesome thing, and come to realize that it is just a box of tools, which should be given to every and any user who has demonstrated that they won't use the hammer to kill people. Oh well... btw, hey Tide rolls! Haven't stalked your talk page in a while. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hiya, Aj..always good to see ya. I think adminship is generally headed in the direction you outline. I'm thinking it will be a slow, and for some, disappointing process.  Tide  rolls  10:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)