User talk:Winhunter/Archive-06

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

query
What does this edit summary mean? "Protected Mark Foley scandal: link from mainpage [move=sysop]" Is the page protected? There's no tag on it. Derex 08:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your unprotection of Lost (TV series)
I noticed that you unprotected today's feature article, Lost (TV series). This has resulted in a surge of vandalism from anon IPs. I would suggest that it be re-protected, as it was when initially added to the main page. Thanks, -- LeflymanTalk 14:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Tots TV
Just to let you know that, IMHO, the semi-protection of the Tots TV article is a mostly useless action, and is actually a bit of a roadblock to dealing with the vandal that a number of us refer to as the Tots TV vandal. This vandal has been attacking for approaching a year now. He's a subtle misinformation vandal, changing data in untrustable ways. He's also an IP hopper, who's IP changes every few days. The boy/girl edit to the Tots TV page is his signature edit. And as such, it's one of the easiest ways to identify him. The Tots TV page has been semi-protected several times before. This does not prevent the vandal from striking, he just moves on to other pages. It does make it harder to identify him, without his signature edit, meaning he tends to go longer before blocking. As soon as he makes his signature edit, he tends to get blocked on sight, without bothering with warnings. Without it, he'll generally go through a full set of warnings on his current IP before he finally gets blocked, allowing him to do more damage than he would otherwise.

And as for the Tots TV page, unless you are prepared to leave it semi-protected forever, the vandal will just return to it once it is unprotected in a week or so. He's been doing this for almost a year now, and shows no sign of giving up.

So semi-protecting the Tots TV article gives a temporary calm on that one article, but makes him harder to spot on other articles. And the calm is only temporary, as we are not supposed to leave articles semi-protected indefinitely (The GW Bush article, notwithstanding.) - TexasAndroid 16:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Mariano Rivera
You said you agreed to semi-protect the Mariano Rivera page due to heavy vandalism. But it is still possible to edit the page without being logged in and no semi-protection tag is present on the page ! Did you forget to protect the article after you moved Mariano Rivera to the section fulfilled/denied requests? If so, could you go protect it for good this time? If it is another admin who unprotected the article, then could you protect it again? Heavy vandalism and edit warring are occuring on this page and it has to stop. There are also content disputes. Canjth 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Pan Turkism
Dear Winhunter (Ni hao), You protected the article with a disputable position. Here my message to User:Hectorian after they revert more than two times;User_talk:Hectorian

You can see easily that, there is a group of Greek user acting at the same direction, behave like as suck poppets on Turkish/Turkey related articles. Possibly some of them supported financally by some ones/establishments(My oppinions); please look Turkey related articles to see the same group of editors,look talk pages of them to see the partnership. please check on-line times in wikipedia of these users, most of the day/night time they are in wikipedia. How possible, an entelectual person share most of his/her time in wikipedia.

Regards Mustafa Akalp 18:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tunbs Islands
Hello Winhunter, you said you were "protecting" the article on Greater and Lesser Tunbs. I'm not quite sure how that works, does it mean it remains frozen until we stop quarreling? LOL, twelve hours ago I'd have loved you to do that. It was pretty bad, everybody kept making blind reverts. But now, I think it's actually much better, one editor made a pretty good compromise version, and I think everybody was prepared to accept that. I, for one, certainly have no intentions of making more controversial changes to the article, as long as they don't go back to blanket reverting everything I wrote and returning to the unsourced one-sided version from before, as they did earlier. But I'll thank you for keeping a bit of an eye on it. Hm, I think I did my share of "reverts" too, but I was enervated because a group of people seemed so intent on simply erasing everything I did. FellFairy 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship judge & Citizenship Judge
The former was redirected to the latter because of three articles linked to it (they no longer are) namely Lise Bacon, Suzanne Pinel and Lou Sekora. There was "method in my madness". See Talk:Citizenship judge. Peter Horn 02:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Peter Horn 02:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for unblocking me. JheremEBoodle 03:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon Article
i made the other guy a perfectly reasonable offer, which he promptly ignored, and proceeded to revert. as far as i can see, that's an admission of guilt...for starting this. it started when he changed some of my original contributions. i then exercised my right (as i understand it), to re-edit them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.197.232.239 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Rendered code that make the page appear in CSD
Thanks for the heads up&mdash;now I'll have to crawl through the code line by line&mdash;can't even trust fellow Wikipedians code when you copy it, as I suppose it is open to virtually continual hacking. Ah well, I did like what it did... Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 14:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're too modest. Excellent diagnosis on the code problem. Not vandalism but a simple bug (perfect example of why I should never attribute to malice what can be simply explained by human frailties). Got it working again. Thanks! Williamborg (Bill) 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Austin logo club again
Please will you protect Tanner the Lion as the user is now using IP addresses to revert. --Dweller 17:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the block
You blocked my recently created account (User:白色翼龍) and cited "non-latin username" as the reason. I couldn't find anything in Blocking policy regarding required character sets for usernames. It is possible I missed something, but MediWiki software should be configured not to allow the creation of such accounts if they are deemed inappropriate. It would have been nice if you had issued a warning first now I can't even make anonymous edits without using a proxy. This is the only edit I’m making for now; I assume the block on my IP will expire eventually. I think what you did was a bit rude. I’ve made lots of (constructive) anonymous edits over the years, and I have never vandalized wikipedia and I have never used a sock puppet.--64.38.18.2 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Username --WinHunter (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Assume good faith. Please see Please do not bite the newcomers.  Um.  Okay.  You expect new users to wade through all that to find out that they aren't allowed to user non-latin characters?  Your block assumes bad faith, where there is none, and while you may be strictly operating under the rules of wikipedia you are violating the principals of good etiquette.  There is no offensive material in the username that I selected, it was not involved in any vandalization, or used as a sock puppet.  The very LEAST you could to is remove the block on my IP address, which still seems to be in effect.  A more appropriate action would have been to request on my talk page that I request a username change before you unilaterally blocked my account (Notice that the page you pointed me to says "Co-operative contributors should normally just be made aware of our policy via a post on their talk page.  ... immediate blocking or listing on RfC could scare off new users acting in good faith").--64.38.18.2 12:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed your autoblock. Btw, it is a general practice of blocking new and unused usernames which are inappropriate, you are more than welcomed to create a new account with a latin username. --WinHunter (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's bad policy. As a software engineer and web designer I can tell you that it would be better for MediaWiki software to be configured to not allow such accounts to be created in the first place (This reduces your workload and prevents frustration on the part of well meaning users such as myself).  Requiring new users to jump through the hoops that I did, just because they didn't read the fine print, is going to put them off Wikipedia.  Anyway, thank you for unblocking my IP.  --144.131.67.249 13:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that too, though since mediawiki is a pretty universal software that is used in many languages, it is by design that it is not restricted. Though the English wikipedia have such policy and therefore it has to be implemtned manually. --WinHunter (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't seem to understand. The Chinese language Wikipedia (for example) runs on a separate install of MediaWiki, so it should be easy to modify the English website, without effecting the Chinese language site, to disallow certain username patterns using a few regular expressions.  It could be made a configuration item.  I was looking at your block record, and although an automated procedure wouldn't catch all of the accounts that you block it would catch a lot of them.  You are creating a lot of work for yourself and antagonizing users (and just to belabour the point, assuming bad faith).  Wouldn't you rather spend your time doing something more constructive?  Editing actual content, for example?  Also: I sort of understand blocking the username (although I do not agree with it since I had not done anything malicious), but why block the IP associated with it? --144.131.67.249 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I know they are a seperate installation but the Mediawiki software are developed by the same group of developers and I think that no one here have the technical knowledge to customize it for the English wikipedia. As for the blocking of IP, it is the autoblock feature of the Mediawiki, which is unintended in username block but however cannot be disabled. --WinHunter (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You imply there is no way to make a feature request. I wish my users were so pliant.--124.189.122.153 22:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Glen Heggstad
Hey, a new user has requested this prodded deletion to be reverted. Best, trialsanderrors 05:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Friday the 13th
Friday the 13th has been getting a ton of annon vandalism... I put in a request at RPP but it needs to be taken care of quickly. ---J.S (t|c) 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

NVM, looks like it was taken care of.. *phew* ---J.S (t|c) 22:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the semi-protect
You are so fast! The vandalism and anon edits ignoring talk page discussions at the Israel page from both sides were getting out of control. Much appreciated. Tiamut 17:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)