User talk:Winhunter/Archive-Oct06

BLOCKING
I am getting the message below, which I believe not only vexatious but part of a smear campaign against me. Please indicate what vandalism I have caused; I would love to know.

"You were blocked by Winhunter for the following reason (see our blocking policy): repeated vandalism (soft block) Your IP address is 203.213.7.133. " Gtoomey 14:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Username blocks
I am curious as to why you considered the following usernames inappropriate, and saw fit to block them. I intend to unblock all of them unless you can convince me why they violate WP:U. Andrew Levine 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikiikkiikki
 * PhillipHunsucker2010
 * Qwertyuiop!!


 * Who is "Phillip Hun"? Is he a user on Wikipedia? BTW, "Hunsucker" is an uncommon but very real surname in the United States. Andrew Levine 02:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

194.46.231.96
Thanks for finally blocking him. He was starting to get on my nerves. :) --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 02:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reported user
WP:AIV I have recently reported a ip here, thought you'd want to know. Hello32020 14:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Page move
Hi, when moving a page, please delist it from WP:RQM and remove the template from the top of the talk page like this:, ... thanks. --Dijxtra 17:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Travis Birt
I was about to put a hangon notice on Travis Birt when you deleted it. It is about a notable professional cricketer, as a quick Google shows, and did not fit CSD A7 as was originally tagged. Could you recreate it? Oldelpaso 13:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tokamak JET image
I noticed you removed the image from my userpage because it's been removed from wikipedia but I've been unable to find out why it was removed. Can you clarify? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Energman (talk • contribs) 14:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please!
As to the Ustashe.jpg you deleted yesterday -the fair use - without permission is a valid legal practice here and in the full accordance to the US Copyright law TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107. Please, avoid repeating this due to the fact that the legal position, as seen here[] is:

An important exception to this rule exists, recognized in a clause in the copyright act that describes a limited right to use copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder — what is known as fair use (or "fair dealing" in other countries, where standards may differ). This page is meant as a guideline for dealing with fair use materials on the English Wikipedia — it provides general guidance on what is or isn't likely to be fair use and how you can best assist editors when attempting to include material under fair use. However, it is not official policy. You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions are legal.--Mario.radin 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

unblock request
That's okay. It's been taken care of. Thanks though. 66.233.19.91 06:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Block messages
I see you blocked "IWannaCutYourHand" (you just beat me to it). Please don't try witty comments on the block message box. It only encourages further misbehavior. - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I put the usernameblock message on his userpage. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Question
I'm new at this:

Why was this page deleted?
 * 14:38, 13 September 2006 Winhunter (Talk | contribs) deleted "Bowling Green, KY, Daily News" (CSD A8 from http://bgdailynews.com/150_years/)

If permission is needed to use this information, I am authorized to give this permission.

Thank you for your help.

Bgdailynews 13:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Mark Van Patten General Manager Bowling Green Daily News

Signpost updated for September 18th.


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 05:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

AWB applications
Hello :) Sorry to bother but you seemed to review the applications here Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. I'd have some stuff to do with it if I'm accepted, and it's been soon 2 days since I applied. And I'm quite anxious to try it out. If everyone would do this what I'm doing now you'd receive a lot of annoying messages but sorry. --Pudeo (Talk) 11:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Over-sensitive username blocks
Honestly, I fail to see the offensiveness or inappropriateness of these usernames (The second one is still recognisable as a series of common dictionary words joined together.), and given no vandal I know has names similar to these, I think blocking these two were over-sensitive on your part. Regards, Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2006-09-19T22:21:09 Winhunter (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Chrisyy666 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)
 * 2006-09-19T22:20:22 Winhunter (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Sausagebaconpepperonihamoldmoldyshoebox (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)

Thanks
Re: I have cleared the autoblock, you should be able to edit now. --WinHunter 19 September 2006 (UTC)

-- Thanks much. Sca 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection
You have at some point read the wrong version, right? ;-) Dragons flight 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I trust this comment is in relation to the reversion of the edits done by Gwernol to RfA? I'm confused as to why the clearly biased version was restored. Agent 86 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with restoring it to an earlier version per WP:PPol; however, it should indeed go to a version without the editorial (biased?) comments. Agent 86 23:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Gwernol's version was much more neutral, i.e.:
 * "Use this space to express opinions" instead of "Please consider using this space to express opinion - rather then the divisive numbered sections below"


 * "Only registered Wikipedians should edit here. This is not a vote but a discussion." instead of "Only registered Wikipedians may vote. This is not a vote but a discussion." The latter one is contradictory as well.
 * Dragons flight fixed one of the other problems, being reference to a deleted template.Agent 86 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That was a difficult question! May I suggest this one? It predates the skirmish, and doesn't have that deleted template. Agent 86 00:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I should have gone with my first instict. How about this version? Agent 86 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your Unicoding Bot
I don't think your bot should have altered the Christopher Chacon page since I nominated it for deletion. WilliamC24 00:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Palica
I've taken the liberty of unblocking. Rich Farmbrough, 15:38 11 September 2006 (GMT).

And you would you like please to tell me what nonsense I added?
Please, have a closer look or buy some glasses because I don't have time to argue. I'd prefer contribuiting in ro.wiki. So far I know it is aloud to add information on Wikipedia cited by reliable sources. Isn't it? The source is the Latin Union.


 * Or maybe you think you are now a sysop, and you have full rights to do whatever you wont. I myself know the rules. I'm a sysop on the Romanian Wikipedia since 2004. --Danutz

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia (...) Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. You should have noticed that it was an error because I removed much of the text (and the last sentance that remained was not complete) - that is clearly an erorr at the saving of the page (actually of the section, because I edited only that section) and not intentionaly (because Wikimedia servers are slow). All this anyway was caused by a previous revert of user MER-C, who reverted without giving any explanation. Don't be ironic and retoric, because I'm not curious of your personal opinions, we are not buddies, we are just co-editors. --Danutz

Yes, but he could also add the good information I added. So I don't belive it is a revert based on the new information, just a revert because of an error. And I was just editing the article, I would have seen that. --Danutz

Thanks
Problem resolved Daniel

Vandalism to MTR articles
I wonder what's with the sudden rash of vandalism to MTR articles? Did something happen to the company in real life? :)

Secondly, I'm thinking of simply semi-protecting all of them for a few days. What do you think? Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 18:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay!
I can have a rest now! :) - Gl e n 04:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Hey Winhunter. Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Del Thanks
Thanks for deleting my user page due to vandalism (CSD U1)! Gbcue 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV report
My bad! looks like he was reverting Vandalsim to Richard Hammond by 195.195.24.252 at the same time I was and got caught in the cross fire. My mistake and thanks for picking it up. Regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

GM's POV Push
I have made everything clear here:  Now I hope GM's agenda is made clear. Dont let him fool you. Just because he came to you guys initially doesnt mean he's right. Sometimes the people who ask for page locking siting revert waring are the same people who started the revert war in the first place.Khosrow II 14:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser Question
I'm confused. I was just denied because of less than 500 "mainspace" edits. What is considered a "mainspace" edit? Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Halo's RfA


Hey again!
Seems like somebody "vandalized" my Talk page this time, placing a fake BLOCK on me. Could you please take care of him?

Thanks! Gbcue 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sprotect
Thanks for sprotecting Ben Savage. Apparently, whoever he is died (or at least there's a rumor floating around), hence a flood of vandals... sigh. Anyway, thanks for your prompt action, I was getting tired of reverting :-). Storkk 14:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

by which policy did you not aprove user tobias conradi
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage&diff=next&oldid=76030239
 * can you
 * specify the concerns / your concerns
 * point me to the relevant policy

Winbot auto changes
Your bot account seems to be unicodifying every page nominated for deletion, because of the attached AfD template. Would it not be better to just change the template itself? Cheers, --DeLarge 10:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pontian Greek Genocide
Thanks for protecting the page—can you please add pov-title and totallydisputed to the page? It appears they've been removed. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to second this request. Clearly, since there is an edit war, the dispute is not resolved, and the article must be tagged accordingly. I believe admins are empowered to edit protected pages for technical reasons that do not involve changing actual content. Thank you. Mukadderat 03:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I will third it.. There are many people there that pretend that there is no dispute.. The talk page had to be archived twice in ten days.. :)) Baristarim 07:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please add interwiki de:Völkermord an den Pontosgriechen to Pontian Greek Genocide. It seems was lost during revert wars. Thank you for your assistance, Mukadderat 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

by which policy etc
I am still looking for answers to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWinhunter&diff=77642761&oldid=77361968 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.


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 08:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page edits w/POV
Isn't POV allowed on talk pages? The three I posted to are topical, and on two of them others have already responded.

Please let me know how you draw the line between discussion of current events on multiple locations and "spamming." It seems to me that WP:SPAM suggests quite a but more than what I have done. Thank you. JVPike 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

AIV
Hey, I'm a new admin and one thing I haven't previously dealt with is autoblocks. I was watching AIV and I saw the request regarding the Js2Jo autoblocks, and I saw the blocks with the tool, but I wasn't sure what to do about it. How did you know it was OK to unblock them all? Is it just because of the way AOL works that none of them would be Js2Jo trying to edit? Thanks for any advice. Thatcher131 02:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Thatcher131 02:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What Happened?
I noticed you deleted my entry to the Articles for deletion/Manheim Township Performing Arts, but yet the tag is still on the page? Can this tag now be removed? I looked in the policy for AFD and couldn't find the answer to this question. i'm sure it was nominated by the same user who has vandalized the page in the past. So can the tag be removed? if not, why did you remove the only discussion on the AFD page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ganfon (talk • contribs) 02:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you, I have been trying very hard to get the vandalism on the page stopped and you've been a big help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ganfon (talk • contribs) 02:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Winbot and &amp;#596;
When Winbot converts entities to characters, why does it skip over &amp;#596; and not convert it to ? Angr 12:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon block
I checked the contribs of the anon in 203. that you recently blocked, and he claimed that he would have a new IP tomorrow. A cursory whois brings up this range: 203.84.160.0 - 203.84.191.255. I'm not exactly sure what range it is, but perhaps the user will be dealt with if the range is blocked (even if it is a large range in the Philippines). Ryūlóng 06:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User talk:203.84.187.138 may need to be protected, given the recent edits to it. --Core des at talk! 07:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fighting off those vandals on my user page, much apreshiated--Fabio 10:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Pontian Greek Genocide
I noticed that you added the 'dispute tags' after you protected the article, based on several complaints by Turkish-pov users. Since you have not taken part in that debate, I though I should bring to your attention the following:


 * 1) The 'article title' and the 'article npov-ness' have been disputed by Turkish-pov users since the article was created. fact tags were also dropped to every single sentence.
 * 2) These citations were provided: scholars, international organizations, subnational entities (6 US states), plus Greece.
 * 3) The Turkish-pov side maintained its position by re-inserting the tags
 * 4) Admin User:El C intervened and conducted an dispute resolution, the result of which was to remove the tags and if there are more complaints from the Turkish-pov side, they should follow the dipute resolution procedure (WP:RM etc.)
 * 5) Turkish-pov users kept inserting the templates.
 * 6) You protected the article because of edit war. You were asked to re-insert the tags, and you did.
 * 7) I have been constantly requesting the Turkish-pov users to follow the dispute resolution process. Until now, they have not.
 * 8) The article is being held hostage with these tags and no supporting user can rationally choose to move for rename.

Kindly confirm the above by reading the article talk. In view of all this, I think the templates should be removed and the article to stay protected as a means of pushing the Turkish side to go through the proper dispute resolution process, and not just rest having the article exactly as they aimed in the first place, as was originally decided by admin User:El C. •N i k o S il v e r• 12:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I found El C's links, and here is his messange in talk. Regards and hope i helped. Hectorian 12:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Duh, just logged in and was searching history without noticing Hector found it first. Yep, it is those two links. In the first, El C, removes the tags himslef; and in the second, he explains why they were removed in talk (to make them cite their position). Please remove the tags and leave the article protected, as apparently there is no other way they can be convinced to provide sources, or dispute the article with the appropriate procedure. •N i k o S il v e r• 14:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The dispute over the articles title as well its factual accuracy are still ongoing. El_C made clear the dispute was not over, and since then i have raised serious issues with the factual accuracy of the article. The sources used to describe the actual event are either from a different location, involve different people or are outside of the timeframe of the allegations in the article, therefore the factual accuracy of the article remains in serious question.


 * As for the pov-title tag, you will see that i have asked the Greek editors there provide one non-affiliated text dedicated to this event under the current title, so far none have been provided. I cannot see what purpose removing the tags would serve other than mislead readers to the credibility of the article. --A.Garnet 19:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The lack of third party sources is simply an obvious lie. It is also irrelevant, according to WP:NAME policy (self-identification and most common name). Please remove the tags. •N i k o S il v e r•  11:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! Thanks and sorry. I hadn't noticed till you substituted, but it was the right thing to do. I shouldn't suppose that by closing this option you express the opinion that this whole poll is WP:POINTy, should I? That's what I was trying to illustrate, though, technically, I would have commited WP:POINT if I had materialised my threat about renaming those other articles! Hope they got the point without having to WP:POINT. Btw the poll seems to be going well...:-) •N i k o S il v e r•  14:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)