User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 4

New COTW
Hello again from WikiProject Oregon. A round of applause for the project in October when we added three GAs, one FA, plus 10 DYKs! Next, thanks to all those who participated in last week’s Collaboration of the Week, John Wesley Davis & Johnny Kitzmiller. This week we have the Cayuse War, and in honor of the home opener, the Portland Trail Blazers. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies 18:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Rfa Question
I have asked you a question on your Rfa. Take your time in answering it. Have a nice day:)--SJP 03:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, i have answered your question! Tiptoety 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin
Tiptoety, first off I want you to know that if all the issues brought up by everyone in your RFA are addressed I'll have no problem supporting you in the future (say in three months) for Admin. As I'm sure your recently added info to your user page was directed at me, here is what my concern was then: Do you still think that cadets are just cops without guns? There are many, many things that certified law enforcment officers can do that cadets cannot do. And though I'm sure you'll get there one day to being a police officer, there is no shame in being a cadet. I'm sure you won't misrepresent yourself again, but it needs to be perfectly clear that the past misrepresentation on the admin noticboard is a very serious problem, and trying to limit the damage by saying that a cadet is a cop minus a gun tends to show a lack of ownership to the issue. We all make mistakes whether it is on Wikipedia or in life, true character shows when we own up to the mistakes and take all the blame. I'll liken the RFA process to passing the bar (the background/ethical portion not the compenetcy test) in order to practice law, from what I'm told the board of bar examiners care far more about the applicant being honest, remorseful, and taking full responsibility for their actions than they do about some transgression that occured 10 years prior. Its like when President Clinton confessed to the relationship with Monica, he lost a lot of points by lieing about it and then trying to redefine what a sexual relationship (and the word it) meant.

So with some work, you'll get where you want to be. Aboutmovies 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for discussing this with me, I would first like to inform you that this comment was not specifically directed at you but the many editors who feel the same way as you. Second, my poor use of words has led you astray, I do not think cadets are just police officers minus the gun, and I will admit it was a poor use of words. A Police cadet is a sworn member of the Law Enforcement Community, thought limited to what they can and can not do. My view of what a police Cadet is has not changed sense this RfA, and will never change as it is my career and i know what i can and can not do, I understand the great ethical and honesty requirements of working as a police officer and a cadet, so to answer your question, no i do not still think cadets are cops without guns, cause that is not what i thought to begin with, i know what i am. I beleive i have also owned up to many mistakes here on wikipedia and in real life, and have done so multiple times through out my RfA. Though we may differ on our views, i still thank you for your comment, Cheers! Tiptoety 01:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oy vey! This does not look good. Sorry.  I'll nominate you in 3 months. Bearian 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Tiptoety, thanks both for your candor in my RfA and your advice for my applying again. Michaelbusch 18:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for answering my question:) Cheers!--SJP 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA has been closed
Hello, I took the liberty to close your request for adminship here because there was no chance it could have succeeded. I want to encourage you to attempt to become an administrator again soon and take into consideration any advice that you have received during the nomination. Thanks for your contributions and don't let this stop you from contributing more, Sometimes unsuccessful RFA's can be difficult to deal with however it is my hope that you can try again in a few months and succeed.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aw, too bad. Sorry, better luck next time.  I know you would make a great admin! - Rjd0060 00:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck next time! I'll be happy to nominate you:)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 00:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice try! Good luck next time.   jj137  ( Talk ) 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course! I was neutral this time but I'll definitely support you when you run again.   jj137  ( Talk ) 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, don't be discouraged - I'm sure you'll get there. You were rather hit by the Curse of Asharid-apal-Ekur! Johnbod 00:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jon Muncaster
I agree with you, probably is a hoax. However, the criteria for speedy deletion specifically mentions that hoaxes, no matter how blatant they are, are not suitable for speedy deletion. After a second look, it might be able to go via CSD A1, so I tagged for that. If not, AfD or PROD. Make sense? - Rjd0060 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't tag something for SD A7 unless the subject doesn't assert notability. Just because you and I think something is speedy-able, doesn't give permission to add any speedy deletion tag to it.  Those specific criteria are there for a reason. - Rjd0060 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Sorry.  I got a little defensive.  I was going to send you a message about that right when I removed the A7 tag in case you are like me, and follow up on your tags and warnings, which I now see that you are. - Rjd0060 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article. I agree with Rjd0060 that there is too much of an assertionof notability for A7 to apply. I also understood what the article was asserting about this person, even though I am not a computer person. Therefore I removed the A1 tag. If you think this is a hoax, the proper course of action is Proposed deletion. Dsmdgold 00:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! Tiptoety 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Get ready to AfD it when that user removes the PROD. I don't think the A1 should have been removed, as that has nothing to do with the possible hoax, but it is a short article, providing little context.  Everybody has their different ways. - Rjd0060 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably is. Not much we can do though. - Rjd0060 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:EC
Yeah, that happens sometimes with Twinkle. Usually does stop but sometimes, when the timing is just right, it thinks it tagged when somebody else does. - Rjd0060 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Little thankyou spam
Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jadeed
Thanks for the note about Jadeed. I remembered the criteria wrongly, and I'm a very new administrator, having been made one just two days ago :-) I've restored the article for someone else to deal with, since I'm not sure what to do.  Nyttend 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Ioeth
There's no particular need for us to strike the inappropriate comment, because it's so obviously made in bad faith. Sometimes you can learn a lot of good things about a candidate by learning what kinds of editors dislike him... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapel of the Good Shepherd (Chautauqua, New York)
No problem. I never seem to know where the stubs go. I guess they go at the bottom. Thanks for correcting it.clariosophic 02:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow...
Not only did you beat me to AIV there, you had exactly the same wording as I had ready :O) FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 05:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: User talk:75.55.14.162
Yup, I got it. :) GlassCobra 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK
Yes, if you look at the context of my comments, without looking straight down the line, they were probably in order. But i will take your advice regarding it, repeating their comments is probably not the best idea. Point taken. Keep up your good work. Twenty Years 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Gil Montilla
I wish I could take credit for that one! Basically I'm a super AfD stickler, so I figured I'd AGF and google the guy just in case... and lo and behold, prominent politician man! Of course, it said nothing about him going into outerspace ;) ~ Eliz 81 (C)  08:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WPOR's newest COTW
Thank you to all those editors who helped improve Cayuse War and Portland Trail Blazers last week as part of the Collaboration of the Week. They are looking much better. This week, with the election season over, we’ll tackle a request for Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), which should have plenty of WP:RS available to work with on improvement. Our other article is another Stub in the High category, our only Miss America, Katie Harman. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Legal disclaimer: WikiProject Oregon and its affiliates are not liable for any personal injuries acquired while editing on the COTW including but not limited to carpel tunnel syndrome, Wikistress, alcoholism, anxiety attacks, or extreme emotional distress. Aboutmovies 20:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ep1002oregonstatepolice.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ep1002oregonstatepolice.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ (I have requested deletion, there is a better image to take its place.) Tiptoety 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity
Hi,

I've been a watcher of the Criticism of Christianity page and was wondering if you could help moderate some of the alterations. Two the people have been debating back in forth. I believe one is against some of the additions (C logan) and he is erasing it because he doesnt like it. I'm not sure if his reasons are valid. In all fairness, I think it should be left but I'm not sure. C Logan and another guy (I think they're friends because they alter similiar articles) are known throughout wikipedia for deleting comments that they dont like. Thanks for being a mod, we need them.

68.58.71.152 02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already explained the problems with these additions. The addition of "Bible contradictions" which use the Bible itself as the sole source is indefensible, as it is in violation with WP:OR, as primary sources are unsuitable for the formation of personal interpretations (i.e. original research). The existence of the entire section is dependent on the editor's own opinion on what constitutes a "contradiction"- many people disagree with those conclusions, and I believe it is fair to note that there is little support for the inclusion of such quotes save for Alastair's opinion, in which he lays down the requirement for secondary sources- the same thing which I have explained to you.


 * Additionally, I'm confused that there are two anonymous users that misunderstand the concept that "removing all the arguments of a particular side" for no apparent reason other than "bias" is actually a violation of WP:NPOV, not an adherence to it. The fact of the matter is that there are multiple views on the relationship between science and Christianity. Whether you or whoever else disagrees with the conclusions of a particular side is irrelevant; in the interest of NPOV, we must present the topic with neutrality (i.e. representation from both sides of the discussion). As it is, I think it is clear that removing all information of a particular viewpoint while simultaneously adding to the information of the opposing viewpoint is a violation of WP:NPOV, and a rather clear one at that.


 * I'm very surprised to read your impression of me, because I've already explained all of this to you on my talk page and your own talk page as well. Again, before accusing my reasons of being "invalid", please look at the policies which I'm presenting for your reading pleasure. I'm also very surprised for being "known throughout wikipedia for deleting comments that they dont like". If there is some sort of newsletter or mailing list that you receive which tells you this, I'd be eager to read it, because I'm fairly certain that I'm not "known" for that, and when I do delete information, it is for a reason related to policy. Apparently you have again ignored my referral to WP:AGF.


 * Additionally, the user who added the information is of very unusual persuasion. If you'd check the edit summary, it would seem rather clear that the editing habits are similar to that of this anon; for this reason I'd assumed that they were the same (and perhaps I still assume this to be the case, because of this rather off-the-wall comment above). In any case, the original editor who had inserted this material had the same problem understanding policy, and continued to argue that I was promoting "propaganda". Ironically, he made it rather clear that he simply didn't like the theories on the Criticism of Christianity page, as he personally finds them to be invalid- again, editing to suit one's own taste, which is a possible example of one attempting to "own" an article and also avoiding WP:NPOV (while ironically making edits by its name).


 * As far as I'm concerned, that user had stepped over the line and was essentially pushing his own beliefs in the matter, both on the article page and my own talk page, where he addressed me in a rather condescending manner as if I had no clue concerning the subject (on the contrary, I do, but this is again largely irrelevant to the reasons behind the removal of his text). This user continued to endorse his own viewpoint to me, and I had to ask him to stop doing so. I don't mind all that, although I was rather insulted by the notion of my edits catering to bias, and I was doubly insulted for the accusation of being "misinformed" on the subject.


 * In summary, the information is an unquestionable violation of WP:OR, and a rather clear violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, the editor himself (Biblical1) had refused from the get-go to assume good faith concerning my involvement in the article. Somehow, I don't think that the anon's presentation of facts above is very accurate. Feel free to take a look.--C.Logan 03:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On a side note, this individual does not appear to be an administrator.--C.Logan 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Copernicia et co.
It's all right. Those were a rash of unnecessary redirects mostly from List of palms of the Caribbean. Circeus 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Negative Liberty
I made clearly referenced additions to this page, including an Overview & Criticism section which was not present before. These sections should be present on all pages, so please don't delete them again. Every topic has an overview and every topic has a critic. -- Jamesia 05:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for my inexperience on wikipedia! Thanks for the help. --Jamesia 06:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Free image
You tagged my free image with a fair use tag. It is a 1905 image. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! Good night, dude!  -- Ssilvers 06:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rodge D. Compose
Deleted and salted. Kwsn  (Ni!)  23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Legend of Condor Heroes
Please check my edits in person to determine to deem if they are appropriate. I prefer to edit with a private IP address, thank you. :) 116.14.46.83 02:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response on users talk page. Tiptoety 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

May-December... this headline means nothing - it's just a name of a song I'm listening to while awarding this to you!!!

 * P.S. sorry for the overly long headline above, you can trim it if you want. I was just bored. :) Knowledge Of Self  |  talk  02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tiptoety

Oregon COTW version 11.20
Welcome to the jungle folks. Thanks to those who helped out with Katie Harman and Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004) last week. This week, we have two high priority stubs, one of the two major hospitals in Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, and Oregon Department of Education. Enjoy your turkeys, or for some enjoy your tofurkeys. As always, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

sivangai seemai
it doesn't violate any copyrights.well i shall edit the whole info within minutes.sorry 4 the inconvience —Preceding unsigned comment added by SNVURDAK SERVAI (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It does violate copyright, as you have cut and pasted the whole article from another page, the page is now deleted, please be more careful in the future. Tiptoety (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And you
Belated happy Turkey day to you too Tip. Knowledge Of Self |  talk  11:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That Foot Fetsih Afd
I see you got a little bitten on the admin incident discussion. This policy may help you to be bold: Deletion process. As you can see, if consensus is clear to keep or merge, you may as non-admin follow through. It's only the delete you may not do. Hope this was useful. Jeffpw (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes i am aware of that policy, and i guess that is what i should have done, thanks for the heads up! replied also on users talk page Tiptoety (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Abutilon

 * SSSLLLooooowww dooowwwn, tiger. I'm working on the article.  It took you less than one second to tag it.--Markisgreen (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * please remove your tag at your earliest convenience. Thanks. --Markisgreen (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, but please next time when you create an article please make sure that it meets requirements for a stub, because when users are working new page patrol and see an article with 7 words they tag it for speedy deletion. It may help to create a user subpage/sandbox so that you can experiment and create articles there, then transfer them to an article. Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * RE: your comment ("(article now meets policy (next time please use a sandbox before creating content that can be speedied, thanks)"): I understand you're in the law enforcement business and all but sometimes, some people in some places believe in community-based law enforcement as the best way to keep society civil.  When people are part of policing their community, they don't get mad at the cops and the cops aren't jerks to the participating members of their community.  To respond to your comment - NEXT TIME either wait 15 seconds before asking for speedy delete OR open up the contributors User Page to see if they are frivolously creating empty or un-notable pages or are a participating member of the community.  I'm glad that you are participating in reverting vandalism (that is good, thanks for that), but pissing off new editors and old editors by putting speedy delete tags on articles everytime someone saves it early on accident is not so good, its very annoying, it makes the article even harder and more time consuming to create (adds steps to the process) and makes the article look like crap until someone decides to remove the frivolous tag.  Please STOP doing that.  Ok I'm done venting.  Thanks for your good intentions, thanks for being a peace officer and sorry I freaked out on you.  Please try to be more patient. (by the way, there is no need to respond on my talk page, I'll see any comment you make here or on the talk page for the article under discussion)--Markisgreen (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * by the way, thanks for the suggestions, I'll try that.--Markisgreen (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, i will not respond to your comment regarding law enforcement as you have no idea what type of police cadet i am, or what approach i take towards law enforcement. As you said above you saved the article "early on accident", and we all make mistakes, but if you are aware it was a mistake to create such a short article i would hope you would also see my point of view in tanging it for deletion. I apologize if i caused you any grief as that was not my intention, but instead i was trying to rid wikipedia of short and unhelpful articles. In the future i would appreciate if you would not comment on the type of person i am, but what and why you disagreed with what i did on wikipedia. I will always be happy to share my views with you, and who knows i may learn something new! Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Chronic presents...

 * Thank You! Tiptoety (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. T he   C hronic  19:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalize
Also, if you're going to "patrol" wikipedia, please be aware of what a vandal is. I read the entire entry of vandalizing and don't see where my edit fits the criteria. All I did was add devil to the name that previously existed. You can't rewrite history. I think I made my point in my last comment to you as well. I don't edit things of which I have no knowledge. Thank you very much.

user warned
I warned this anon IP (he has now left you several messsages, I see) about civility and tinkering with your talk page. Jeffpw (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Tiptoety (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WPORE Civil War COTW
Hello again to WikiProject Oregon members, time for this week’s Collaboration of the Week. Thank you to those who helped out improving Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center and Oregon Department of Education last week. This week, in honor of the annual Civil War, we have the University of Oregon Ducks and the Oregon State University Beavers. Or if you attended some other school, feel free to improve your alma mater’s article. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9
Why did you do this this? The edit you reverted was an edit reverting vandalism. And you left a note on Sirafi's page about defamation? I'm confused. Eatcacti (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response below. Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning my addition of defamatory content
You said I added defamatory content to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9 and I'm confused. I don't think I added any content that was considered defamatory. Wngssptr has vandalized the article so I was reverting it to the last edition, which was mine. And by chance he/she added detailed information to the episode summaries. Well I didn't see a problem with that but then I saw that he vandalized the article. Thus, I reverted it back to my edit. So I'm really confused, what did I do wrong? Sireafi (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It just happened by chance that Eatcacti talked about the same thing two minutes before I posted this. Whoops. Sireafi (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats fine, and thank you for asking, the reason i said it was defamatory is because in your revert it said NAME:"produces many bad takes". Which is defamatory unless you have a reference to back it up, so i reverted the edit and left you a message. Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're really stretching here. Reverting vandalism to a previous version which happens to add something slightly defamatory (and I don't think it is, but that's beside the point) should not result in a warning, particularly not a level 2 warning against someone who has never been warned for anything before. The vandalism Sireafi reverted was much worse than what (s)he reverted to. Eatcacti (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, i beleive my actions were justified. Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So do you think I should warn you for vandalism? After all, your revision resulted in not only the addition of unsourced information but also calling a contestant "Tootie Mushroomheadd". Eatcacti (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do as you wish, though do not violate policy. I will admit that i was not aware i was reverting to an edit of vandalism, mostly because the edit that was made by Sireafi did not have an edit summary stating he was reverting vandalism, after reading the change it appeared to be defamatory. I think you are making a bigger deal out of this than it needs to be, no one was blocked, i admit that i was an accident to revert to a prior edit of vandalism, but sometimes a vandal has more than one account and vandalizes multiple times and it can take multiple reverts to clean it up. I belive this has been talked to the ground and will now be archived. Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Take a look at this...
Somebody vandalized deletiontools, I've taken care of it. Cheers, east. 718 at 06:11, November 27, 2007
 * Thanks! Tiptoety (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Userpages
Hi there - I've no problem with deleting userpage spam under G11, or userpage attack pages under G10, but if someone wants to have a bluelink for their username and is happy with just having "la" on it to prevent it being a redlink or as a test edit, I don't see the problem personally. If there's a real problem, why not ask the user to add something in line with WP:USER rather than go for the speedy button? Technically, you may well be right, but frankly WP:BITE applies too. This editor got whipped with a speedy delete warning the very same minute that the account was created! On that point, I'd point out that the creator of Les_Munro (an article you and I met on before) still hasn't returned to the project (Special:Contributions/Horton5). Regards, BencherliteTalk 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, and no offence taken. Always good to get a wider input (especially as I've not had the mop long and am still learning), and if leads to clarification on the CSD criteria, well that's a bonus!  Regards, BencherliteTalk 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Etheltrust
Why are you so adamant that this needs to be deleted? What's the harm? I'm not saying it can't be deleted according to the speedy criteria, I'm just saying it shouldn't. The editor, who hasn't really edited anything yet, now has three deletion warnings on his talk page and is probably feeling slightly bitten. Please reconsider. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a little curious here too. I've seen plenty of blank user pages, and user pages that just redirect to talk pages, which are allowed to be empty. I don't see why there's a problem. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded on WP:AN/I. Thanks for everyones constructive comments. Tiptoety (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've commented, perhaps belatedly, on the ANI thread. I'd welcome your response there to my thoughts. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on WP:AN/I. Thanks! Tiptoety (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Empezardesdecero123 no more
Hey Tiptoety! I just wanted to say, I forgot my password and I have to make a new account! Oh well. I used to be Empezardesdecero123, now im Empezardesdecero1718! Empezardesdecero1718 (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, i've been on Wikipedia a while. I forgot my password and got a new account. That's it. I used to be Empezardesdecero123.Empezardesdecero1718 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good. I thought you didn't know. Empezardesdecero1718 (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I never put an email. I did now!!!Empezardesdecero1718 (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea. I made an article "Suite Life On Deck" because I saw the show on the WGA writers Strike page. I thought it was the spin-off of Zack and Cody. (It is) I created an article and it got deleted! Why?Empezardesdecero1718 (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Puzzled
Hi, I have received the following warning:
 * «Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Tiptoety (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)»

I believed that I was entitled, as a registered user, to block an IP address with all of its 34 contributions devoted to vandalism and vulgar language. What is the proper procedure and in what conditions are those measures applied?

Thank you,--Jazzeur (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. If you look closely at the targeted IP address (216.11.82.217) Talk Page and its entire set of contributions you will notice that it has been warned several times and that all of its contributions vandalized various articles and used abusive as well as vulgar language. My final question: «Under what conditions would apply blocks on such behavior?»

Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzeur (talk • contribs) 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe my last question was not clear. Do you believe that 34 vandal contributions in a row and numerous warnings justify blocking? If not, what does? --Jazzeur (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Userpages
Hmm, interesting: looking at the deleted edits, though, the page was initially created by someone other than that user as an attack page and it was repeatedly tagged as such (vandals removing the tag in the interim). The speedy delete reason is, in fact, wrong: it was an attack page when deleted rather than an A7 page (which couldn't apply to a userpage anyway!) Regards, BencherliteTalk 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Milosevic edit war
Hi, I'm involved in a dispute with a couple of anons and one single-purpose account in Slobodan Milošević. It's about the paragraph stating that his corpse was staked by vampire hunters. The other editors believe that the material violates NPOV. I say since it's well-documented and newsworthy, it belongs in the article. I could really use some help so I don't violate 3RR. Thanks! Dchall1 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Dchall1's talk page. Tiptoety 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

FA for WPORE COTW
Greetings boys and girls from the fine folks at The Wettest Place on Earth! A thank you to those who helped last week make some good improvements on the U of O and OSU OS articles. For this week, the next stub on the list is Fortune 1000 company Lithia Motors, Inc. way down south in Dixie, which only needs a little added to make it to Start. The other is a bit more of a challenge, but Linus Pauling I believe is our only Nobel Prize winning Oregonian, and a former FA. So hopefully we can get it back to FA, check the talk page’s article history template for comments. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question for you
Hello!

I notice you're a recent changes patroller and although I'm used to the quick "undo" and revert options, I'm not sure how to proceed with the following article Golimar the 'Indian Thriller' .. Would it be best to suggest a merge with the Chiranjeevi article? or go to AfD? I'm just looking for a friendly second opinion as I'm not sure how to proceed. ponyo (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Ponyo's talk page. Tiptoety 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Tiptoety! I've added the merge tag and started a discussion on the article's talk page per your suggestion. Cheers! ponyo (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Ponyo's talk page. Tiptoety 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application
Dear Tiptoety,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher!

Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

the ultimate badass.
Erm, sorry, I didn't know. Zazaban (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Zazaban's talk page Tiptoety (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Watch your bot
Your bot seems to have gotten out of control on a page I just created at Yves Boulanger. I hope that you will resolve this issue so that the page is not mistakenly deleted. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, the program i was using seemed to get out of control. Thanks for the notification. I have removed them. Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oregon COTW #25 (or so)
Hello again from the COTW of WikiProject Oregon. We thank ye who went forth through the rain and mud and helped out with last week’s articles Lithia Motors and Linus Pauling. Hopefully Linus can return to FA status early next year. This week we have the request of Oregon Ballot Measure 5 (1990) and High importance article Portland Rose Festival. Whatever work you can contribute would be greatly appreciated by our master. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Harry Reid
You are too quick to sanction. I have not deleted anything on the Harry Ried page. I simply moved things around to include new information. Please stop spamming my talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on IronAngelAlice's talk page Tiptoety (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The section you made a link to on my talk page was added back to a different part of the article. Look at the history and the talk page before making accusations. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then please state that in your edit summary, otherwise it appears to constitue vandalism. Tiptoety (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I will be sure to do that in the future. Thank you for your concern and vigilance.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)