User talk:WarthogDemon/Archive/Archive 7

From Patelco
 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Surprised I forgot to put a thank you here. Thankies. :) -WarthogDemon 05:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

 * My pleasure. :) -WarthogDemon 08:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You're being talked about
You should see this. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Replied on your talk page. -WarthogDemon 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I did to deserve an ally like you, but it must have been damned good. God bless you and a merry Christmas.  What a load of nonsense we're all going through, eh? - Lucky 6.9 03:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I'm not someone who's caused even more trouble. I'm scratching my head over this whole thing.  I can't figure out whether if I'm been doing something against policy, or if someone has decided to use me against you.  (Or even a half-cocked tinfoil hat theory that I'm thinking about, but don't dare bring up in case THAT becomes an issue as well...)  I just hope I don't cause the downfall of any good editors on here... -WarthogDemon 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no hair left after scratching my head. I now look as if I have a case of mange.  If JossBuckleSwami is right about one thing, it's that I need a break, so I'm taking one.  This troll is probably the same one who tried to impersonate me at the World of Warcraft wiki, a subject that I know precisely zilch about.  Feel free to drop me an e-mail. - Lucky 6.9 03:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Crazy time of year... o.o -WarthogDemon 04:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I got the impression that you were bascially being called a sockpuppet of Lucky's. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. There are far too many people out to cause trouble by making trouble for admins who actually do the scut work around here.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Zoe was right: For a moment, I considered the possibility that you were a sockpuppet. But I'm now convinced that you're a real human being. I realize that you were just trying to be helpful. I'm certainly not holding this against you. In the unlikely event that my impression should ever change you'll be the first I'll tell. &mdash; Sebastian 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 06:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question
Thank you for your polite question on my talk page. I replied there. &mdash; Sebastian 19:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 19:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 talkpage vandal
Undoubtedly a vandal crying out for a block, but I must admit is the first time I've ever heard any guy actually admit to being bald :-)  Tonywalton  | Talk 22:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Such interesting vandals as of late. ^_^ -WarthogDemon 23:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...
Am I on your watchlist? =) -- Gogo Dodo 07:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied here: (Oh dears, I'm copying you now too. Oo -WarthogDemon 07:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re your message: Busted! =D I had my suspicions since you tend to revert vandalism on my user page so quickly.  Thanks for looking out for me. =) -- Gogo Dodo 08:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting the latest copycat vandal. I left him a note about copying my user page (like mine is really worth copying).  Looks like I have a fan. =\  Could be worse, I suppose. =) -- Gogo Dodo 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 07:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly keeps things interesting around here. =) -- Gogo Dodo 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete RFD Nominations
You have tagged two redirects (User:Bob Fink & The Wreckers(disambiguation)) with rfd, but you have not listed them at WP:RFD. In order for the nominations to be complete, you must follow both steps listed at the page. Could you please complete step 2 & list them? Thanks. -- JLaTondre 16:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't even aware of that step. Odd. Oo Thanks again for letting me know. -WarthogDemon 03:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- JLaTondre 15:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cars
Re your message: I don't think you cut down too much. More like not enough. The whole "Box office performance" could probably be removed or at least seriously shortened, but I would discuss that first. None of the other Pixar movies have such a section. You might consider merging List of Cars characters (which itself needs cleanup help) with the "Vehicles and voice cast" section since it's pretty redundant. That should be discussed, too. -- Gogo Dodo 21:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied here > []. -WarthogDemon 01:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re your message: I don't have a problem with removing gender if the gender can not be determined. -- Gogo Dodo 01:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Still more thanks
I can't stay away long, can I...? :)) Just swung by for a moment and I was just signing off. Talk to you soon; don't hesitate to drop me an e-mail. - Lucky 6.9 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 Talk Page
Excuse me, I was trying to start a dialogue with Lucky 6.9 about his practice of deleting new pages, and you took it upon yourself to delete my discussion thread. Why, may I ask did you do that? It says on the history that you did it because it "seems to be a personal attack." The first thing I said in the post was "Ok, let me start off by apologizing if any of this sounds hostile...it's not meant to be..." Hardly a personal attack if the first thing I do is APOLOGIZE to make sure Lucky knows I'm not being hostile, or attacking him. In my third paragraph, I apologize, again, and ask him to direct me to an appropriate area where I can raise my concerns about the practice of deleting works in progress. So, even if that discussion thread was inappropriate, who are you to delete someone else's discussion page? Doesn't Lucky have the right to read messages from users addressed to him without you interfering? And, before you dismiss this post as a "personal attack" on you, please don't. Again, I am trying to start a dialogue. Not attack people. If I come across as angry, the reason is, I am. How would you feel if I took it upon myself to edit YOUR discussion posts on other user’s discussion pages? If you left a message for another user and I came along and deleted it. Well, that would be downright rude of me, wouldn't it? I am also a bit angry about the irony involved. Here I am raising a valid argument on page deletion, and you deleting my message. One last thought, PLEASE, PLEASE do not just delete this message and dismiss my valid concerns for the way Wikipedia is run. If this is not an appropriate place to discuss that, I ask you to please e-mail me at darrin.e.davis@gmail.com so we can continue this dialogue (not attack) away from the talk pages. Thank You -ZooCrewMan 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . I feel better using the talk pages rather than email, if that is okay. -WarthogDemon 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"I am not taking any sides here, but just follwing Lucky's request for his talk page concerning abusive comments. Your post was removed the first time, due to the personal attacks.  (Your concerns could have been easily stated without telling Lucky how you feel he should do his job.)  However, with regards to respecting your concerns and WP:3RR I've struck out the needlessly harsh statements, but have otherwise left your comment untouched.  Peace. -WarthogDemon 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)"


 * Lucky is blatantly violating Wikipedia policy - specifically WP:DP and WP:CSD. The "harsh" statements where I tell him "how I feel he should do his job" are no different than any warning anyone ever leaves anyone who "feels" people should follow other rules.  Unless his name is Jimbo, he may not disregard policy just because he feels like it.  Nor should warnings be deleted from talk pages.  Reswobslc 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Chick Hicks
Unfortunately, counting the number of decals yourself would be considered OR, unless there is a reliable source that specifically states the number outright. Granted, given how dense the decals are, it might not be possible to get an exact count anyway, so this might end up saving you some trouble. :) --Core desat  21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied with a second question here: . -WarthogDemon 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea to remove it, then, unless there's a source for that (as with Chick Hicks). I think I see more than eight anyway (which further highlights the problem). --Core desat  23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9
Hello, WarthogDemon! How is your day going? Excited for New Year's Eve? I noticed you reverted this as an attack against Lucky, although it is merely critical of an unfortunately not properly explained deletion. This user seems to be new, so the best course of action would have been to explain how certain articles can get immediately deleted because, for example, it does not assert notability. Indeed the writing was a bit critical, but I do not see any personal attacks in the text. Mind to do a little explaining? ★ MESSED ROCKER ★  21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very noble that you would like to help Lucky, and great to see that you're concerned. No need for the mediation case against yourself; since you said you're going to be more careful, as long as you stick to your word! Do not worry, for you are not in trouble. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

User 2206
User 2206's username is actually User 2206 per the history of his page. As such, I have reverted your page move. Let me know if this or my closure note on your associated RFD nomination does not make sense. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page . . . at the same time as you replied here, I believe. oO -WarthogDemon 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I just got an edit conflict replying to you so I think we're too fast for each other... :-) -- JLaTondre 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you might be right that usernames cannot start with "User:User", but his username starts with only "User ". His user page starts with "User:User ". A username that starts with "User:User" would have a user page that starts with "User:User:User". Does that make sense? I had to read that twice myself. -- JLaTondre 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you misread what I said (or maybe I misread what you said? Or both?  Aiee...), but if all is in order I suppose it's no worries; considering the user in question seems to definitely be an honest contributor. :) -WarthogDemon 00:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year
And a happy new year to you, too. =) -- Gogo Dodo 09:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wondering About An External Link
I am probably not a good person to ask about this. I would leave it but I suggest you ask some other folks for an opinion if you have not already. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will do so. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Re your message: I guess I was one of the "others." =) As for the link... hazy gray.  On one hand, it's a link to a commercial website that doesn't really provide any real information beyond the article.  On the other hand, one could say it is her "official" website.  You could bring it up on the Talk page like Naconkantari suggested.  Though getting other feedback might be difficult since I suspect it's a low traffic article. -- Gogo Dodo 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 07:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I heard something about some break-up, but I admittedly tuned it out. Lack of interest, but it did register in my head. =) -- Gogo Dodo 07:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.76.172.222
BTW, you don't have to wait for WP:3RR with that sort of vandalism. Adding potentially libelous information to an article about a living person violates WP:BLP, and is a quick way to earn a block. In this particular case, the edit was clearly untrue and libelous. For this sort of edit, you can use -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  06:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I wasn't positive if it was true or not so I decided to go with 3RR just to be safe. (I'm still a bit too nice with these vandals...)  Thanks for the tip! :) -WarthogDemon 06:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't positive either, but it was pretty clearly intended as a libelous statement, and a quick google search confirmed it. We have a zero-tolerance policy for libel, particularly since John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll refer to Google from now on as well. Thank you again. -WarthogDemon 06:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hiya.. with regards to the blanking of this user talk page, I'm not personally inclined to allow anon users to blank out a talk page full of warnings, since many admins, upon reverting vandalism, look to the user's talk page to see if they've been previously warned about it, before deciding what action to take. And I don't yet see any evidence of this user's willingness to put past actions behind him and become a constructive contributor. Cheers! --Stormie 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many K's got konfused...
Re your messages: Sorry, took me awhile to figure out what you were trying to say and what is going on. Since Kayla (whale) (along with a whole pod of others) is being proposed for merger to Orcas at SeaWorld, I suggest not moving it and leaving the redirect in place until the merger decision is complete. That way everything can be moved at once with hopefully less confusion when chasing all the links and redirects. -- Gogo Dodo 07:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 08:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Double Redirect
A double redirect is basically a redirect to a redirect. For example, if pie redirected to cake, and cake redirected to chocolate, then pie would be a double redirect, which we try to avoid by either redirecting pie to chocolate or removing it completely. I figured an analogy would be best to explain it, hope that helped. -- Wizardman 03:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It does indeed. Thanks! -WarthogDemon 04:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem is that they don't work--Double redirects--if encountered, it will stop on the second redirect, instead of forwarding on to yet another page. Seattlenow 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page blanking
People are allowed to blank their talk pages if they want. There's no policy or guideline about it, so please don't revert them. And them telling you to leave their pages alone isn't harassment. Sarah 04:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They are doing it based on the false belief that blanking messages is against some policy or guideline. It is allowed and there's no policy/guideline that forbids it. This has been discussed many times on the noticeboads, you can check the archives if you want or ask there yourself. The only time it might be approrpriate to revert talk page blanking is when someone is blanking current vandal warnings.
 * I'm somewhat concerned by the amount of reverting you are generally doing on other people's talk pages. You really shouldn't revert other people's pages unless it is very clearly vandalism. Sarah 04:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're being disruptive. I just noticed you revert Merranvo blanking that message of their page and I thought I should tell you that what he/she did is okay. I also noticed you reverting a complaint off an admin's talk page which is a really bad idea. People need to be able to complain to admins and admins can decide for themselves if the complain is valid or not. Sarah 05:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 07:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology, I was going to bring an admin in, but I noticed that Sarah did come in, and had addressed several of the issues I wished to address to you, so I put that aside. I don't mean this as a "I was right" prodding, but rather as a more polite explanation of my actions. Lets just say that there are a large amount of wikipedians who might intend good, but make poor choices, in particular, mass reverts. *


 * I do admit, the IP originated messages I wrote were antagonistic and out of line, and it was completely unacceptable. (If I miss interpreted your response, and you did not realize that my postings were a more polite continuation of the argument I previously had, I apologize for the deception. I truly feel that the direct reeducation of wikipedians is something that needs to be done.)


 * It is unfortunate that wikipedians tend to resort to reverting articles to remove changes, rather than attempting to properly incorporate them into the article. If a person were to change several parts of an article, but leave behind a derogatory or fallacious statement, there is a greater chance that the article will be reverted, instead of simply removing the disparity. (Based on a personal study).


 * Once again, sorry for the disruption.

Merranvo 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

MedCab Case: WarthogDemon's Help With Tidying Lucky 6.9's Talk Page From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have closed the case WarthogDemon's Help With Tidying Lucky 6.9's Talk Page From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia submitted by you. The Mediation Cabal does not address user discipline issues. If you feel that you need representation you may wish to contact WP:AMA. Alan.ca 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

re Veronica Finn
Oh, OK, sure I've restored it and will send to AfD. Herostratus 03:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope it's okay that I voted.  I really wanted to just give it a chance and refrain from voting (out of courtesy as I was the one that started the article).  Just voted to negate an apparent sockpuppet. -WarthogDemon 02:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Re the real estate link, I replied on the discussion page of Veronica Finn. Herostratus 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
Hey WarthogDemon, I just saw your question on Zoe's page and thought I'd go ahead and answer it for you because Zoe is having a break. There was further conflict between Reswobslc and Lucky, leading to Lucky quiting again. The arbitration request has nothing to do with you and you do not need to participate in it unless you wish to add an outside comment or such. Hope that helps clarify things, if not, feel free to let me know and I'll try to help. Cheers, Sarah 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. -WarthogDemon 03:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I Need Help...
Every page I make gets deleted, any advice on how to make a good page that doesn't get a "Reasons for DEletion" tage 5 seconds after it's made? Murkrow 12:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Say No More (single)
Re your message: Never minding. =) You just ran into the Wikipedia slow server sync syndrome: You know you did the edit, sometimes it's in the article history, sometimes it's in contributions, but you can't see the change in the article.  By the time you think you've gone insane, things sync back up and the change is there. =) -- Gogo Dodo 01:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Typing Something Here Because I Hate To See My Talk Space Empty
. . . that's not a problem is it? >_> -WarthogDemon 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Character Notability Issue
Re your message: I think you handled it fine. =) -- Gogo Dodo 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cars characters
The list isn't going to get cleaned up, if things just get reverted. As you can see: the list page is a mess and not getting any better. Unsourced tag since July, and cleanup tag since November. The talk page isn't that active, so I doubt people will come along there and determine it's unencyclopedic. Alot of the list is a mess, and I certainly don't have the time to go through the whole list. However: video game characters for movie games aren't that notable. A one time game, that didn't even do well. I created a discussion at the film project tag about the list page as well: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, which has gotten little response as of yet. RobJ1981 09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:I Am Quite Confused
Uh, a mistake? I don't even remember doing it. Sorry about that! ... disco spinster   talk  23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

When exactly did I break the 3RR?
When exactly did I break the 3RR? The only time I've gotten close is with an anon (though it that should count as reverting vandalism), and it's obvious by my summary that I wasn't planning on breaking it. So far, my editing has only been "disruptive" to fans of the articles I'm merging. They don't want to see their precious information removed or their characters merged even though it goes against policy and guidelines. No users unrelated have decided that it's annoying. Nemu 10:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 04:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, the rule for deleting large blocks of information is mostly there for sensitive subjects. Here, Nemu deemed it as insignificant, and didn't think discussion was needed. By saying this however, I am not agreeing that the revert war was justified. - Zero1328 Talk? 05:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see any violation of 3RR by Nemu. Would you care to show me where this is taking place? - Zero1328 Talk? 05:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Re your message: I'm sorry, I don't see the 3RR either. If you're referring to the reverts to edits by, I actually think these are valid as they wiped out merge notices, etc. without discussion.  As for the rest of your message, it looks like the topic has been discussed extensively on the Talk page, though there is an impasse on certain things.  I suggest you restart the discussion on the exact points that are in contention and if necessary, bring it up in an RfC for further input. -- Gogo Dodo 06:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)