User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 4th May 2008

User:Cornholio the Woooo
Would you mind if I gave a username hardblock to User:Cornholio the Woooo? The name is too far over the line, IMO. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good old Beavis and Butthead! Thank you, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: AIV
There seems to be a bug in Huggle. (It's reporting them) Twice at least. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start reverting each time it reports any user. Sorry for any confusion, frustration, ___________ (place your verb there) -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Actually you mean noun) 68.101.160.213 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about User Milk's Favorite Cookie
Posted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Milk's_Favorite_Cookie#Editors_gone_wild

Hey - how about not reverting every change? Just a thought... I was going to edit the Conjugate Gradient article but every little thing got reverted right as I was doing it. This is very counter productive. Unless your 13 year editors can fill out articles like this then please let users work on it. You can check in the next day and see if you want to revert the article then. This has been a very sour experience and I doubt I'll contribute monetarily or scientifically again. I heard google actually _wants_ experts on their Knol site.

Hollis01
I notice that "Hollis01" has created a Soiloc-PAM page, advertising his product, and the revision history shows attempts to plant comments about dust control in ways designed to attract traffic to his pages. See Dust, Soiloc-PAM, Polyacrylamide, Erosion control, and Erosion control blanket. I'm not enough of an expert in deletion procedures to know the right approach, but it seems like you've dealt with this annoyance before. Can you give a look, and maybe also let me know the proper procedures and steps so that I can deal myself next time? Tb (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; I've figured it out myself. Thanks! Tb (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Buy.com
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Buy.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Superm401 - Talk 10:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. I'm not the one that undeleted this.  I obviously did contact you, right after starting the deletion review. Superm401 - Talk 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the future, I'll try to address these kinds of issues on on one. Superm401 - Talk 10:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Can you please restore this statement: This neutral sourced statement is clearly not "Greek POV" as Rockybiggs unreasonably asserts. --81.79.239.155 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see this comment on the 3RR noticeboard. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rockybiggs is being totally unreasonable. He is trying to own the article and describes any reference to the Cypriot government position as "Greek POV". --81.79.239.155 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As i have insisted on from the start there was a discussion on this matter on the talk page, and the General Concensus was not to have these comments mentioned. Any further agruements should be addressed on the talk page. Rockybiggs (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:70.171.198.102
That was due to an extremely weird bug in Huggle. Apparently as I've been running it a while vandalism that it found three hours ago finally popped up and then after reverting it reported the vandal as he had received a final warning, ignoring the fact that the reverted edit took place long before the final warning. In any case, please see WP:DTR. I've made over seventy edits to AIV with little to no error, and made significant contributions to Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism early in its existence. I do not appreciate getting a condescending template message because my software acted up. I don't particularly blame you, as I'm not exactly well known and the situation sure looked like a newbie making a stupid mistake, but please try to pay at least some attention to the experience level of the people you template.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you took offence, and hope it is clear than none was intended. I do not remember encountering you before and so I had no idea if you were a new user or not. To be honest, I do not think that it is reasonable for you to expect me to determine how experienced you are before leaving you a message, in this situation. I also feel that you should not take offence simply because somebody left you a message with a template, regardless of whether I know your level of experience. You had already taken up my time, and probably that of others, by leaving at least one incorrect report - so expecting me to take more time to write you a note that pays due respect to your experience seems a bit much to ask. In other words, you choose to save time by using a tool that causes others more work, so don't be surprised if people save time notifying you of the fact by using templates. TigerShark (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Green Bay Harvest
I notice that you've speedily deleted the Green Bay Harvest article and I understand the reasons for the deletion (or at least I think I do). Was there something this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twisted_juice - did that so that it avoided the same fate.

74.248.0.160
No problem! To be honest, i thought he'd vandalised more than that. Its been a busy night! Have a nice day. Thanks TheProf | 2007 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

PeeWee
Any word from our favorite vandal lately? I admit, I was almost looking forward to combatting the waves of sockpuppets that he claimed he would unleash. Too bad his bark was worse than his bite. GlassCobra 11:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:203.97.42.132
I am ok with your better researched decision. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Change in policies?
With all due respect, did you not just authorise deleting content from pages just because users don't like it? A user has repeatedly deleted a well-sourced fact from the article Chile and has freely admitted that the only reason he deletes it is because he is Chilean and he doesn't want anything negative about Chile in the article. Consequently, could any user now delete anything he wants, even whole sections, no matter how well-sourced the facts may be? All that is needed is to say he doesn't like the fact or that he thinks it gives a negative impression of his country/party/city/religion/culture/school? This would have rather profound effects on many Wikipedia articles, and not necessarily to the better. My apologies if this sounds a tad bitter, but I honestly believe you made the most erroneous call I've seen an administrator make during my two years here. Having said that, I'm of course open for the possibility that there really is something I've missed in all this, and that's why I'm genuinely interested in hearing your opinion. Cheers! JdeJ (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for yet another quick answer! I disagree with you about the nature of the user's edits, but what would life be without some disagreement from time to time ;) I am, after all, one of "those stupid people" "without a life" "making things difficult" So yes, my question is answered. JdeJ (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What should I do with editor Asdfg12345's edit war/DE/blanking/moving
I understand the reason for AGF, but AGF also said good faith no longer apply if there are evidence otherwise.

Well, I'm asking what I should do about Asdfg12345. The past 2 month have given me ample evidence to not AGF.

All I'm doing is trying to add notable facts to the "Falun Gong and Organ Harvesing" article that is so blatantly POV'd that they may as well be FLG promotional material. And I'm not the only one if you take a look what's happening in the "Falun Gong" page with other editors. His MO is pretty clear - anything he doesn't like he blank/move down the article(and hope people don't read it), dream up sucky reason to drag it out in Talk, hide for a week and comeback and DE all over again.

What should I do? Bobby fletcher (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:RFA
Thanks for catching that! I didn't realize it. iMat thew   20  08  20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN
The block and unblock of User:Piotrus has been raised at Administrators%27_noticeboard by User:Irpen. Thought I should inform you. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look at the Lithuania matter that has recently been discussed, since some users have expressed concern over what went on. link. Thanks, and let me know if anything's in need of correction! FT2 (Talk 09:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip.
But please, I didn't stick that yellow floaty bar in my talk page for no reason, you know. Use User:21655/Mistakes.  21 6 55  τalk/ʃign 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, chastise?
 * Anyway, I have a script in my monobook that alerts me of new entries in my watchlist, so it's a bit like an orange bar. And yes, the mistakes page is watched.
 * I created that subpage because, let's face it, there's a better place for WP:TROUT slaps than my talk page.
 * PS: That link redirects to User talk:21655/Mistakes, actually. I was too lazy to change it on YOUR page...  21 6 55  τalk/ʃign 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Spiked.
Content moved, more details added & only content edited was defamatory comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Train2046 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: block on Libsey (156.34X)
After discussing the block with Libsey himself, User:142.166.250.98 is a residential IP address. Libsey doesn't edit through a residential connection. Libs has told me that that isn't him. Has he still edit warred if that IP is now struck from the record of the incident? Scarian Call me Pat 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Alright, I will continue to monitor those two account's contributions for vandalism. Gary King (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded back at Requests_for_adminship/Gary_King; also, a similar conversation is being made at User_talk:Wisdom89. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence §  t / e  18:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Recommended administrators
Hello, i have created a section on my userpage for other users to find administrators recommended by me. I would like you to add yourself to the list so it can have your unique signature! Please use to add yourself, as this will omit the date. If you do not wish to be on the list, thats okay! I respect the choice of every administrator/user on wikipedia. Have a nice day :-) TheProf - T / C 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Block
Hi, I've moved this here from Tiptoetys talk page as its unfair on him to continue this discussion there.

Although I see what you're saying, to just simply unblock gives the impression that its okay to vandalise Wikipedia and its admins are actually quite soft. If I were a vandal, I know thats how i'd see it. Maybe the better thing to do would be to keep the block, but make it a timed block as opposed to an indef block? Thats my thought on the matter anyway, but i suppose the admins know best :-) TheProf - T / C 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Surinder Singh Bajwa
I have nominated Surrinder Singh Bajwa, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Surinder Singh Bajwa. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:BillyWells.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BillyWells.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

question about blocking 216.49.77.67
Help me understand the user blocking policy. I've reported 216.49.77.67 twice for blatant vandalism and personal attacks on editors and each time it's been turned down because the vandalism did not occur in the last 24 hours.

Is the only purpose of the ARV process to catch rampant vandalism occurring at that moment. Why the 24 hour rule?

What other recourse is available to deal with anon-ip accounts used only to interrupt Wiki process and defame other editors?--Rtphokie (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your query at my talkpage
Hi. Yes, I did, but I also noticed that every edit was vandalism. I blocked "only" for 31 hours and commented that further vandalism would attract an indef rather than wait for the warnings to be disregarded and apply an indef first off. AGF only applies in the absence of obvious vandalism. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy is not written in stone, and its edicts are not so restrictive to not permit 'interpretation'. I saw the breadth of articles, and the type of vandalism, and considered that warnings were not going to stop the vandalism of themselves, and moved to stop further disruption. The negatives of the "chilling effect" of blocking pertains to where there appears the potential of useful contributions only. I saw none and, ultimately, it was a judgement call. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your query at my talkpage too. Same subject as above, it seems.
I see what you mean. Is there a WP page with clear rules about warnings and when to issue them? There seems to be quite a bit of personal interpretation around. (Personally I think the block was totally justified.) By the way, it wasn't 2 of the 3 warnings, it was 1 of the 3. Channel &reg;  23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Craig Moore (Broadcaster)
This article has been deleted in the past on the A7 grounds Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Bidgee (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagdish Shukla
I see that you declined my speedy nomination of the above. This is clearly a promotional, vanity piece the only purpose of which is to advertise the subject's achievements, and written by the subject himself. – ukexpat (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Horror Metal
Well, after looking at the deleted text, I really should have used category g11, blatant advertising (look at the last couple of paragraphs). The article was part of User:Wisterlane's single-purpose editing campaign to add articles about the nonnotable band "Ripper". But I poked around some and decided the best solution was a redirect to Horror punk. Hope that works for you. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)