User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 15th July 2006

AfD
TigerShark, about Criticism of Judaism, I'm seeing almost all deletes. Are you certain it was no consensus? Not that I'm questioning your judgment (I know nothing about AfD), but I'm just curious as to how many are needed. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:202.6.138.34
Thanks very much. &mdash;Xyra e l / 11:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User 86.130.23.220
Please consider a block - he has vandalized further. Check his contribs: all vandalism! All within about 15 min. Thanks -- Chris Lester talk  12:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You missed out his last edit to Tiger Shark (quite appropriately...) See here: . This occured after his contribution to Mark (given name), for which you gave him a final warning. -- Chris Lester talk  12:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My bad -- I saw that you beat me to reverting that edit as well. Sorry for nuisance. :) -- Chris Lester talk  12:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi
I see you've closed this as a "KEEP (no consenus)." I think that I and others made it clear that this is an unverifiable vanity article. Considering that "this is not a vote ... The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion," what quality arguments did you find for keeping this article? Also, as I reminded people on the AfD, "Wikipedia:Verifiability [is] non-negotiable and cannot be superseded ... by editors' consensus. ... Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Did you feel that "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" were addressed during the AfD discussion? If not, then it would seem that verifiability, which cannoot be superseded by a strong consensus to keep, has been allowed to be superseded by an even weaker lack of consensus to delete. Does that make sense? I guess what I'm looking for is more information on your thought process regarding this close as well as any advice you might have for addressing the problem of this unverifiable vanity article. -- Dragonfiend 16:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. You have the AfD marked as "relisted" but removed the AfD tag from the article. Mistake? Ifnord 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, now it appears to be listed as a relist. This is a keep no consensus to my thinking regardless of what Dragonfiend may think. I think a deletion review might be a good approach here if you're not sure which way to go, but there have been plenty of comments, relisting isn't necessarily going to generate a divergence in opinion. You can reply here, I watch.  + +Lar: t/c 17:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed it, following Dragonfiend's request, I felt that a relist may generate further comments on the specific issue of verifiability, which haven't been specifically address by many of the comments so far. Whether a deletion review would have been a better choice, I'm not sure - with a relist, the editors who originally commented will be notified of new comments (assuming they are watching it), although I guess they could have been manually notified of a review. Also, the deletion review is more related to  the process rather than the content (which may result in a relisting anyway). Either way there is no rush, so I'll leave it as a relist for now unless there are any major objections. Cheers TigerShark 17:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for a relist. It seems almost like forum shopping to me, as if she is not happy with a keep no consensus, which this legitimately was, although perhaps there's another explanation. I think I'll take the relist to DRV to see what people think, because I don't see why it was relisted. There was plenty of input already. As I said, you can reply here, I watch.  + +Lar: t/c 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lar: Dragonfiend seems to have insisted on a relist simply from a disagreement with the outcome. This, combined with his/her lack of civility in the discussion (despite having been told via RfA to remain polite), leads me to view this request as having been made in bad faith. Also, none of the new votes seem to be adding anything to the discussion. I request that the AfD be closed with either a Keep or a No Concensus decision, as I think I have satisfactorily answered the objections raised by the minority of editors who have voted "Delete." Thanks! Xuanwu 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I need to point out that Dragonfiend did not insist on a relist. He only asked me why I closed it as "no consensus" and raised the issue of verifiability. I duly reviewed the discussion again, and I felt, in hindsight, that the issue of verifiability had not been discussed fully and that a relist was appropriate. Since the relist there have been five more comments, so I feel that this discussion has further to run and that closing it now would not be the correct course of action. Thanks TigerShark 22:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've listed it here for review: Deletion review/Log/2006 June 24  + +Lar: t/c 22:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I have left a comment. Thanks TigerShark 22:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that "meat puppetry" is now happening on both sides of the discussion, as shown here: 1. The fact the original nominator is now discussing ways to advertise the AfD in an effort to get it deleted through votes is very similar to the advertising done by Xuanwu and arguably just as contrary to Wiki's guidelines. So the new "Delete" votes should definitely be treated with roughly the same skepticism as the "Keep" votes from before, because whether they originate from a genuine opinion or social networking is unclear. I say scrap the whole AfD and do another one, since this one is completely messed up thanks largely now to the original nominator. 67.163.248.171 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfD
Thanks... just a little mistake on my part, my internet has been flakey today so I guess I just forgot I had a window open that I needed to click "save" on, hehe. --W.marsh 22:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Skyfolder
When deleting articles about nonnotable things pleare don't forget to delete all links to the article. `'mikka (t) 23:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Keeping it Civil
You mentioned that some of the oppose voters in getcrunk's RfA weren't being factual or civil. Was I in that group? If so, what did you feel was slanderous or uncivil? joturn e r 14:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Henke article deletion
Hiya,

I see what happened with this article now, though my personal view is that article was valid and should be restored.

The event/process of your deleting that article raises some interesting questions - you deleted it under Article 7, is that it was either a vanity page, or an article about an unimportant person. Yet this means that admins are essentially deemed to be omniscient about what is important and what not. Please dont take this the wrong way - im not being hostile, just curious about this process - but what are your credentials in the fields of Music, Electronic Music, Musical Intruments, and Music Software? Taking this case as exemplary - Robert Henke is also Monolake, and there is a quite extensive page on Monolake already in existance - so there is precedent that he is a significant person in the fields i listed above. He does other work under his own name, both musical and significant software/hardware development within the electonic music context - certainly enough to require a separate page.

So given this, im curious about specifically why you chose to delete the page. I would like to attempt to get it reinstated, but im really not that familiar with wikipedia and how it works - i went to the page you suggested, but have no idea how to add an entry to it. it seems like the whole process is strangely difficult for new users, and certainly not encouraging of participation.

to be honest, it doesnt bother me whether the article makes it back in or not - it was a toe in the water for me, to see what the process of adding an article was like, and whether or not it was something i'd consider doing again. the answer to that, given what has happened is a resounding 'no'. But it has aroused an interest in the process of admin/moderation, its nature, and the effect on this nature on the larger picture that is wikipedia. it seems like wikipedia must essentially reflect the views of its admins, perhaps with the hope that its admins represent a large enough cross-section of the population to ensure impartiality. perhaps so, but i'd love to see a demographic study of wikipedia admins and their backgrounds.

What do you think? if you dont mind me asking, how did you become a wiki admin, and how long have you been doing it? in your experience, do situations like this arise very often?

thanks for an interesting chat,

ben —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyorei (talk • contribs).

Thanks
Thanks for removing the vandalism that was added to my user page.

*Mystic* 06:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?
You sent me this message:

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Elvis Presley. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TigerShark 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never touched an article about elvis, nor have i ever maliciously, accidently or drunkenly removed content or vandalized content on wikipedia. I don't know why you thought i had but I beg you to take more care in future before throwing wild accusations. Maybe you got the wrong IP adress, I don't know, but I am very tempted to use a lot of nasty words.

Help Wanted!
Hi there TigerShark, I need someone neutral to help me on Rick Ross (consultant)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29, as the links I try to put up are continually deleted. Also a portion I put up in the 'critics' section was deleted.

Nick.

www.forumsau.com

Beware of Bio Doc
He's a known sockpuppet of General Tojo. The general is becoming quite notorious in harassing editors and so far has at least 72 suspected sock puppets. Read his file at WP:ANI#General_Tojo so you can learn his M.O. and be on the look out for his gaming in future.

Cheers,  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Northenglish!


Hi there! Thank you for voting on my recent request for adminship, which did not succeed by a vote of 3/14/3. Not to worry, though; I am far from disappointed. The vast majority of the votes, even those in opposition, were quite positive. To be honest, I was not expecting it to succeed, and nominated myself on a bold spur-of-the-moment decision. Apparently, I'm not quite as experienced as I thought I was--I was sure I registered in February rather than April--but never fear! Emc² said it best: "Besides, you don't need to be a sysop to write good articles." I'll just continue doing what I'm doing, and perhaps I'll see you again in three months' time. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

password requests
You too, eh? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC
You have fallen victim to the Wikiculture assumption that RfCs are necessarily hostile. They aren't. As per their pages they are merely requests for comments. In the future, might I suggest you assume good faith? --ScienceApologist 21:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page and for blocking that vandal. I greatly appreciate it. :) G .H  e  22:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism to my userpage and indefinitely blocking a vandal who's been targetting me lately. Fabricationary 22:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL range blocks
Greetings! They're 100% successful while they run, but they stop innocent users from editing. We seem to have a denial-of-service vandal on our hands. His bot runs constantly and immediately notices when the blocks are lifted. Antandrus (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't had any complaints, but I've only been shutting him down for :15 at a time (I just did again, I have to go make dinner). He'll be back at 23:30.  We might have to use longer blocks.  :-(  Antandrus  (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good observation. About 95% of my rollbacks have been to the 207.200.116.x range; indeed blocking just that one, and maybe the .112., might be better.  Thanks for keeping an eye on this; I don't know if anyone else has noticed my post on AN/I.  Cheers!  Antandrus  (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page while I was gone(I just got back). Cheers! --Porqin 00:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Links.
Hi TigerShark. Name is also interesting. Called Tiger and Shark. They are both scary animal. Anyways, I have a question. I Organized the links in Each day, and year. For example, 1953 and 1953. I'm just curious about the year that is not linked. Could you explain to me why some of them is not linked? Cheers. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert
Ta for the two reverts of vandalism on my user page! ➨  ЯEDVERS  12:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove my changes?
Stop messing with my posts. They are not vandalism and I insist that you leave me and my posts alone.

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.133.207.244 (talk • contribs).


 * These are not good faith edits they are blatant attempts at vandalisng and/or trolling by inserting racist nonsense. Assuming good faith has its limits and you are clearly exceeding them. TigerShark 12:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you would like to contribute by providing sourced fact or cited research, then please feel free to do so. But your personal views have no place in articles. TigerShark 12:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

foolish child
"vandalizing and/or trolling by inserting racist nonsense"

Obviously you don't know Wikipedia guidelines at all.. it's not vandalism. You are vandalizing my comments, repeatedly and need to be stopped. Just because you are ignorant of genetics does not give you the right to vandalize that which you don't understand.

You want me to prove that a mixed race individual does not posses an optimal proportion of dominant evolutionary adaptations? that's silly. please consult someone with knowledge of genetics before you make any changes to my posts, then cite who disagrees, what they disagree with and their qualifications otherwise YOU are the vandal.

I suspect that someone with the name TigerShark, is a 14yr old white kid who does not have a high school education but has managed to get admin rights on a website because he does not have real people skills.

Further, racism is ok. It's ok for black people to support each other. It's ok for Jews to support each other, it's ok for women to support each other AND it'd ok for WHITE MEN to support ourown kind. Racism, is historiclly part of humanity. If you think you are not racist, you simply don't know yourself. Ask an adult. You are full of prejudice, just as my comment about your name and who I think you are from your name.

What I am saying in my posts, is factually valid, is intended to help people understand the need to preserve our naturally selected heritage. YOU are trying to destroy what nature has created by endorsing a racist agenda of self hate and self destruction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.133.207.244 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The precise definition of race is under dispute
I wrote this to help spread understanding, please make sure to read the definitions of outcrossing on the link.

-

There is a lot of misunderstanding of genetics and further there is a lot of misinformation that people spread because they WANT you to think that there is no difference between peoples for a political or social agenda, that does not make it so. Humans share 98% of our genetic code with Chimpanzees, yet that 2% defines our differences and is important as is the difference in the human population, no matter how small the difference.

There are obviously differences in the expressed traits between Asian, African and Caucasian. These are different types of humans, if you choose to call the a race/breed or type it's up to you and it's immaterial. My argument has always been that racial diversity should be preserved which is a more neutral position rather than promoting that race mixing and interbreeding is somehow positive.

You and many people that listen to pop culture may think that by interbreeding you are helping humanity and there are lots of myths about how you will create better offspring; offspring that have the best of both parents. This is just a myth told by people who, are trying to say that people are equal, if different. Yes, people are people as Americans we believe that all people have certain inalienable rights but the best position for humanity is for each of the races to exist, separately to be the best we can. If you truly understand the advantages that diversity offers you will agree too.

I personally breed horses. And this is where I'll start telling you a story: the Thoroughbred horse started out as a mixed race horse. It was based on Arab stock and was bred only for speed for many generations, regardless of breed, the horse that ran the race the fastest was bred to other fast horses. The Thoroughbred breeding book is now closed, which means you cannot breed a Thoroughbred to any other breed, because, ANY cross you make outside of the gene pool will reduce the speed of the horse. This is called line breeding, please read this article as a basic "learn to breed" guideline: http://www.learntobreed.com/linebreeding.html. Line breeding(inbreeding) is a useful technique as is outcrossing when advantagous to produce quality results, random mixing is like a child finger-painting and does nothing positive.

What Wikipedia has been proposing is that random interbreeding is potentially a good idea and should be treated as potentially positive. Any person who knows about breeding animals will disagree, it's very unlikely that race mixing will result in a positive result unless it was planned for by a geneticist. When you cited the plant hybridization, that's what you were doing citing a hybrid that was designed in a laboratory and there were not human beings or living animals as a result of a genetic mistake. You can't through bad human crosses in the trash like you can with corn.


 * No original research. Q.E.D. Daniel.Bryant (aka Killfest2) 11:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me. PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bios
It happens when you haven't had any caffeine... ;)--digital_m e (TalkˑContribs) 23:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblock user
Unblock that user. My vandal clinc was real until I had it deleted. So please unblock them so that they can be cured here. Gang sta  EB  (sliding logs~dive logs) 23:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)