User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 11th June 2006

User:65.184.17.216
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page and blocking the user. I very much appreciate it. Gw e rnol 00:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I was "blocked" by you after a sock puppet person using 3 accounts kept making obvious vandilism changes to an article. They called it blanking a page after I edited out all the crap they had put onto the page.

For some reason, none you never even looked at anything on the affected page or talked to anyone about the problem, nor did you ever even try to talk to me, you just ban away. It has been KNOWN for a very LONG time that the user Gwernol is a sock puppet.

Jimbo himself edited the article and told people to only populate the article with FACTUAL items.

The article had been being picked on by several editors (sockpuppets) all matching Gwernol's ip address.

I removed everything Gwernol had written and he comes to you to attempt to block me, and without even TALKING to me you blocked me.

Congradulations on failing the Wikipedia Administration test, I believe you will be removed within the next few days as a Wikipedia Administrator by Jimbo himself, we have been discussing your actions over the last 24 hours.

BTW, I'd like you to know, your block had no effect on me whatsoever. We have a long and true way to deal with rogue Admins and Moderators.

You are about to see that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs).


 * Oh no, looks like my days of abusing the admin tools are finally over. Damn you Jimbo, and your undercover sting operations!!


 * Seriously though, as you well know, you were blocked for this personal attack after having received a final warning here. Please refrain from making such attacks. TigerShark 20:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting permaban on User:65.184.17.216
After being banned has returned and is back to harrassing other users and making idle threats. Also says I was banned and am a sockpuppet for Gwernol.

Please check the history of this users IP on Wikipedia and then issue a permaban. User has already claimed to have countless IPs, so apparently is ready for it anyway. Cumberbund

Thanks
Many thanks for the vandalism revert on my userpage! -- Scot t  21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much TigerShark for reverting vandalism on my page, and taking care of the vandal :) It's very much appreciated :D --mimithebrain 21:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
for reverting that person's edit on my talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HighInBC (talk • contribs).

RelentlessRouge's Request for Administratorship
Dear TigerShark, thank you for your comments on my request for administratorship. I have found you comments constructive, and will consider running again after I have made more contributions to Wikipedia and have more thoroughly understood the rolesof an administrator.

And on the side note, yes, I intended to be RelentlessRogue, but by the time I noticed it, I'd written about 3 articles and edited a couple, so I didn't feel like changing it. Lolz.

Sincerely,

RelentlessRouge 11:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

db-repost of The School
Thanks for removing the repost tag. I can't see deleted versions, so I've to make guesses based on which links in the deletion log turned blue. :)

P.S. You may want to take a look at Macbeth- The Director's Cut which MONGO deleted twice as copyvio. Just 3 hours ago. Kimchi.sg 14:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Caesars Atlantic City
Why doesn't this article meet A3? It consists of nothing but templates. --Rory096 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblock fixed
Hi... Just to let you know I sent you an unblock email earlier today but it has been fixed by Blnguyen :) -- P a g e  a  n t U  p  d  a t e  r 05:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. -- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:ButtonMoon.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ButtonMoon.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Thryduulf 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fodder Scam
I will not remove the template myself but if you remove it I don't think any body will vote for its delition.Because people who know indian politics are aware of its importance.For 10 Yrs it has dominated coverage in any media uninterrupted.Holywarrior 13:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...
Here you left a notice meant for the user's talk page on his user page instead. I transferred it to his user talk, and you'll know what to do with a user page that contains only a misplaced message. :o) Kimchi.sg 14:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Cusack
I've closed the AfD as you already deleted the article. Beat me to it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox move
Thank you, TigerShark, for moving my sandbox (never had one before) to the right place - I was playing around with Userboxes and began to wonder what I had done wrong when categories to which I had inadvertently temporarily assigned myself showed the user as Agendum's sandbox, which wasn't what I had intended....

So much to learn about Wikipedia - only been here two and a half years! – Agendum 16:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thankyou
Just wanted to add another thanks for keeping wikipedia clean and correct. i appreciate the work Wikipedia admins put in, keep it up mate! :) Mazzone 16:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

re:Thanks
No problem. :) -- from The King of Kings  23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

dirty river dancing
im sorry but i was in dirty river dancing and the information i enterd was true when i was in the movie, i was never in an animated film unless pat rodeo sold the audio from the dirty river dancing i was in if you have seen this movie please telll me where i can find it... i am adam montgomery--Actingadam 23:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism in progress
Have a look at User:Lindsay658's contributions. They are all vandalism, in the last section of articles, each exactly one minute apart: placebo, nocebo... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.255.225 (talk • contribs).


 * Thanks. Can you please point me to the exact edits that you feel are vandalism? Thanks TigerShark 00:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All of them. "Placebo" and "Nocebo" are randomly inserted all over Wikipedia.  Check the user's Talk.  4.152.255.225 00:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see there is a discussion about inserting links to the Nocebo article put there is no mention of this being definite vandalism. We need to be careful of accusing others of vandalism, if it is really just a debate about content. Thanks TigerShark 00:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert
Sorry to be late thanking you for reverting my talk and the block of that user.-- Dakota ~ 05:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection of a vandal's usepage
Hi there, you recently blocked 217.42.122.239 for vandalism. After being blocked, however, the user has persisted in removing and changing warning messages on his userpage. A temporary semi-protection of the userpage may be in order to prevent him from doing so. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 17:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, nevermind. It appears they got tired and stopped. Thanks anyway. Cowman109Talk 18:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why delete pages?
Right first why delete a page that is under discusion!!!???

I have read the delation policy and totla disagree with why your deleteing it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djing1985 (talk • contribs).

Why delete my page it is no offensive and in no way is wrong if you dont understand it, i suggest you go pick up the refrences and read them! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djing1985 (talk • contribs).

Get the facts before you act!
The page you delted has been edited several times after each time it was deleted, did you even read the discusion?

give me a good reason why it was delted and i will see if i can change it but for now i will continue to repost it as i see fit because i consider it to be correct, if you have a problem with it change it!! dont just delete it!

Jack! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djing1985 (talk • contribs).


 * If you keep recreating it without following the correct process, you will be blocked. Thanks TigerShark 18:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Starting to get on my nerves
Why is it deleted just answer me that?! Have you read those books and discredited me? Or even looked on google?

Secondly dont just threaten user with being blocked its pathetic (appart from teh fact that in order to block me you would have to block a 1000+ computer as i am sitting right next to a university library....and that would mean you would block a considerable amount of uni posters), this is my first day here and i have done everything to this article to make it suiatble it has gone trhough considerable change since its first release, and yet people come along disagree and just delete it!

In my personal opinion admins have far too much power you just delete it and then expect me not to complain, its pathetic....now answer me this why do you not like it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djing1985 (talk • contribs).


 * You will have ample opportunity to argue your case for this article if you follow the deletion review process. Thanks TigerShark 18:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Esplanade Mall
I have listed this for undeletion, as it was a completely different article when you deleted it. Please be more careful when deleting articles as re-creations of deleted content. --SPUI (T - C) 18:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I have commented on the listing here. TigerShark 19:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

R.L. Stine
You removed my speedy delete tags from numerous articles posted by User:Sir Robert Castellano. These articles contain little to no content and the user has created dozens of them in addition to numerous non-RL Stine articles which have already been deleted by other admins for reasons of vanity. These articles at best deserve to be merged into the Goosebumps article.

What was the reason for removing these tags and not deleting the articles given that they clearly satisfy both:
 * 'No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title'
 * 'Very short articles providing little or no context'

As you are removing these tags, it should be noted that several others of these have already been deleted by User:Master Jay including but not limited to:
 * Live Bait (short story) (to prevent re-creation (has been deleted 4 times)14:43
 * Click (short story) (to prevent re-creation (has been deleted 6 times)
 * Stuck in 1957 (to prevent re-creation (has been deleted 5 times)
 * My Best Friend Is Invisible (to prevent re-creation (has been deleted 2 times)
 * You Got to Believe Me! (to prevent re-creation (has been deleted 4 times)

I ask not to criticise, but because my unfamiliarity with this aspect of Wikipedia policy left me with questions. Could you elaborate on your decision making process so that I can better understand how these policies are to be enforced in the future? Respectfully, Kershner 19:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. As far as I could see the articles didn't meet either the "no content" or "no context" criteria for speedy deletion. They did contain some content (albeit not very much) and there was enough context to enable further expansion. As for the fact that similar articles were deleted by another admin, I can only say that it comes down to a admin's individual interpretaion of the criteria and the specific article. My interpretation was that the articles I untagged didn't clearly match the criteria (if there is doubt in the mind of the reviewing admin, they must err on the side of not deleting). Cheers TigerShark 19:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fake barnstar
If I recall correctly, I awarded that one to Fuddlemark... Tito xd (?!?) 21:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Syria Almighty
What they're saying is basically true, but there's a topic (on the GameFAQs board) where they're discussing the matter now, so expect vandalism to continue for a bit. Just a heads up. --TJive 22:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Posting notices on Talk Pages
Having started up a new WikiProject, I thought I was supposed to advertise it, per the advice given on the "starting a new WikiProject" article. Is it wrong to do this on contributor's talk pages? Fishhead64 23:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)