User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 3rd February 2007

Thanks
A quick thank you for blocking User:David_(the_keyboard_coward)_Ruben. I had the misfortune to come under User:General Tojo's attention with a spat of sockpuppet attacks. David Ruben Talk 18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Francesca Ortolani
Hi, you have recently deleted all the articles about Francesca Ortolani aka Viking, as you considered her as something she is not. I write for the press room of Viking's records label and I'm going to restore the article (or a better one) since many people are interested in Viking's current music and campaigns, though her past "fascist" experiences. She has never sung violence, nothing, nothing of that. She's a common popular songwriter in Italy and growing worldwide. She was never involved in politics, never been member of any political party, never been advancer of episodes of violence.

One of her albums is in an english museum in London, she's fighting to save Battersea Power Station, I really don't understand why you decided to cancel the article. /JD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnnydrunkie (talk • contribs).

Lebanon Pagelease do not use the Wiki for your own political or Jewish interests
Dear Tiger shark Your vandal edits on the lebanon page seem that you are a supporter of Israel. You do not wish any information of the bombing of our country be placed on the Lebanon page even if it is factual and one of the most significant events in the hishory of Lebanon

I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Lebanon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.0.101 (talk • contribs).

unhappy
you're getting lots of complaints as an administrator. A lot of the people you've blocked are irritated with you and I am helping by sending letters against you

Moe
I'm not kidding, he's returning in August, I am serious, stop reverting, I'm not doing anything wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.75.56 (talk • contribs).


 * This edit makes be think that you are not being completely truthful. Please stop or you will be blocked. TigerShark 15:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a joke edit, this is a serious edit. Though, I will thank you for replying to this rather than ignoring it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.75.56 (talk • contribs).


 * Either way, please do not edit the user's page. Continuing to do so will be considered vandalism. Thanks TigerShark 15:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if I'm telling the truth? Also, you edited his page too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.75.56 (talk • contribs).

"Hello!" WTF?
What the hell man! If you told me in my discussion, you shouldn't have said it like I was an idiot. I just started! You shouldn't just act like I'm stupid! You are so fucking annoying! You bastard!!! Emile 15 August 2006 (UTC)

CSD Criteria
You've removed several speedy tags lately that I added (eg. Bryan Thompson); so what am I missing? CSD A7 says:

"Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject."

How exactly do these articles not meet this criteria? Inquiring minds, and all that. thanks! Valrith 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested to know as well, as you removed a speedy from Heslington group, which to quote the article is a -informal drinking group- Nuttah68 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA
Thanks for your opinions in my RfA. Ultimately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your honest opinion was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here! Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:RfA
Thank you, it's fine. I felt really bad about it, I can just very mad. One of the reasons I come to wikipedia is becasue I ahve almost, friends, and when things go bad I can turn to them. So when my real friends, and my online friends are acting up, I come here, and then someone starts shouting at me. And I get a bit mad. Thank you anyways, H ig hway Return to Oz... 11:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I re WP:GUS
I've replied to your posting at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. — xaosflux  Talk  14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

STOP
Hello, please stop trying to revert the sock puppet tags. This user went on a rampage, and accused everyone of being my sockpuppet. Please, let me get rid of them so that I can protect my namesake. I do not understand your defyance in protecting my name, for these allegations are false. I know you would be reverting like crazy if you had sock puppet tags all over other pages, yet you were innocent. That is how I feel. PLEASE keep them there, or revert them back to blank pages for they were a case of an angry editor who went on a venting rampage about two weeks ago. Thanks, and I appreciate you reverting them back to not include the tags. --69.236.26.14 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WT:RFA comments

 * In my opinion, and this probably won't be popular, is that it should be a vote - with the only discretion being to discount votes (and even that should have clear criteria). If we need to give further discretion, the question should be "why do we need that discretion?" The "consensus" and "discretion" concepts basically provide an excuse for a bureaucrat to promote those that they think should be admins. Other discussion, such as AfD, need to be discussions rather than votes because they are debating objective critera that have been pre-defined (e.g. notability), but RfA is down to whether individuals believe that an candidate is right for the role. We should bring in binding objective criteria that can be debated, or this should be a vote. Cheers TigerShark 19:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that this makes perfect sense, and it kind of irks me when people pretend like RfA isn't or shouldn't be a vote. A simple hunch is a valid reason to support or reject someone as an admin, whereas with AfD your personal opinions are next to worthless. The "problem" of illegitimate votes (i.e. "oppose only 98% edit summaries") is negated by the fact that nobody else's vote will be swayed by such flimsy reasoning, whereas somebody who steps forward with good evidence will cause a number of other voters to vote their way. Anyway, thanks for stating it as clearly as you did and I just wanted you to know that, in my opinion, you are completely correct. — GT 05:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

.
Please be specific on where I attacked someone. Otherwise your comment is only indication that you are bored and feel like discriminating. --Scotteh 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up
You've nominated an AfD which links to PageName, rather than whatever's non-notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kitrina podilata
Could you please expand on your reasoning for this AFD? The links to essays by for example Uncle G, that I put onUser:MacGyverMagic/Views gives some excellent reasons on why nominations shouldn't be done with a single-word reason. - Mgm|(talk) 10:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Rosie
I'm a little bit confused about your decision on Marcus Rosie to deny A7 speedy deletion. I am not challenging your authority to make that call and respect your decision. I just don't understand it. It's my goal to master the speedy deletion method, so if you have anything else you could tell me about your decision that might help, please do so. Erechtheus 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:User:216.237.58.170
This is not a content dispute, he's posting a "conspiracy theory" that says Pat Robertson intends to destroy the earth. example Even if it were a content dispute, he's broken 3RR and qualifies for block regardless. --tjstrf 00:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. Though the RfA was unsuccessful, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 09:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tigershark

Actually I thought that my comments were perfectly valid and not vandalism at all. I do not appreciate your high-handed attitude.

btw how do you do this comment thing properly - I can't see anything I have written on here. I have clicked on the plus button and it brings up a blank screen that I am typing in now but it doesn't appear anywhere when I send it. I am the user that edited the Grimsby page btw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cockpit (talk • contribs).

Biased AfD Result
Hello. I noticed that you extended the Bryan Brandenburg AfD for more discussion sometime last week. This discussion is now closed, but there was some questionable activity involved with it. Essentially, after your repost the majority of the discussion was disrupted by up to four single purpose user accounts:, , and  (in descending order of disruption). I feel their contributions heavily influenced the result of the AfD. At this point, I don't know if anything more should be done, but I thought I would ask for your thoughts. I don't really know any admins and am pretty new. So, please, if you think I'm being an idiot, tell me and I'll let the matter be. But, if you think more should be done, I'm happy to follow your suggestions. Thanks Dall  ben  17:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Grimsbycoat.jpg, was tagged with the coatofarms copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as seal. If you have any questions, ask them at Media copyright questions. -- 01:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're here...
Please take a look at User_talk:68.216.187.39. This person needs a temporary block at least. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 00:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Hey there. I was wondering if you could take a look at User talk:Moeron, since you were the blocking admin. Cheers! -- moe.RON   Let's talk  01:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even after a warning, the user is back with vandalism and linkspam. Nposs 15:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

G.D.E vandalism page moves
He moved Calton's pages eventually to User talk:Calton 224 and User:Calton 224, all the others are redirects or edited-out vandalism redirects. Flyingtoaster1337 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Cowman109's already fixed both. Flyingtoaster1337 19:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Cowman fixed the talk page, and I did the user page. Cheers TigerShark 19:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

66.162.176.102
I looked through this IP's edits, and didn't find a single positive contribution to the wikipedia, they were all vandalisations, and a lot of them were deliberately obscure edits that people wouldn't immediately pick up on. I think at minimum you should do an anon block on this IP.

They were final warned on the 4th and vandalised again on the 10th and 16th. This isn't somebody that has never been warned.WolfKeeper 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kuru RFA
Ok, I realize (ah, realise) that you're sound asleep, but I just wanted to drop you a sincere note of thanks for the well-crafted and flattering nomination. The RFA just closed at 79-1-0, which was significantly better than I expected. There's also a great deal of feedback peppered in there as well, which I'll need to digest and act upon. I have many thank-you notes to dash off over the next few days, but I wanted you to know that I truly appreciate the "shove onto the stage" as it were! Kuru talk  04:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)