User talk:Wronkiew/Archives/2008/October

NSSDC
Hey, saw your change on Infobox Space station...good thing. However, I'm going to move it to just above Callsign, since the NSSDC is the primary universal identifier for orbital objects. Seems like such an important bit shouldn't be sitting at the bottom of the box. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ACC admin protest
I protest the granting of account creator privileges to Techman224. A quick look at his contributions to WP:Usernames for administrator attention reveals a very poor understanding of username policy. My concern is that legitimate account requests will be denied because he does not like the username chosen. Wronkiew (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll watch his actions on the account creation tool and I will deal with any problems if they arise. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake!
My mistake! I am sorry! I was musguided :) Everthying is fixed now :) -- crea ɯ y! Talk 15:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

block evasion
Yes, it does look like they are the same person. But they have stopped editing and not edited since they were warned, and they can switch to another IP anyway, so it's better not to block them right now and to carefully watch the Enjoy Yourself Tonight article for more activity from this person. Academic Challenger (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[Message from 67.206.218.111]
```` not the user just read it and found it very offense and NOT true.... I know who he is and admire his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.218.111 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thank you
No prob. Glad I could help out. I can semi-protect it for you if you don't feel like having spray paint indiscriminately spread over your personal stomping ground. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Me get tired of reverting??! How dare you insinuate such a thing!!! No, I never get tired of it, so if it doesn't bother you, it's no big deal. Have a good evening! J.delanoy gabs adds  01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Xinyu
Hello. I have nothing against the user personally, I was just making an effort to expose a little hyppocracy on his part. Is it really that big a deal? By the way, are you Xinyu, or are you his keeper? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "The only way to improve this encyclopedia is to work within the rules. Otherwise nobody can tell a good edit from vandalism. What specifically is your complaint?" I don't have a complaint, perse.  Did you actually look at the page itself before you undid the revision??  Xinyu had written on his page the he believed 'rules were meant to be broken,' and he used this tactic to abuse Wikipedia's policies, trying to act like a (corrupted) administrator.  I was attempting to parody this by quoting that section and commenting on why I was violating the rule of vandalizing the page.


 * Now, this is very, very important. I think it is imperative that before anyone edits a page, they view the page first.  Did you actually view my edits, or did you simply revert them?? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was trying to show him his own hyppocracy.  Thank you for hearing my case. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternate
Why did you remove the statement about my alternate account? Special K (KoЯn flakes) 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry about reverting your edits. I was trying to protect your account from what I suspected might be an impersonator. I'll revert the message I posted at the alternate account, if you haven't already. Wronkiew (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I can see your reasoning behind that, given that the name is perilously close to my actual name. But in your edit summary, I think you should put your reasoning. Thanks anyway, Special  K (KoЯn flakes) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my edits were a little confusing. My edit summary was limited by the maximum length of the field. I should have posted a note on both talk pages explaining what I was doing, instead of just posting one to the alternate. Wronkiew (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Never thought to check there. Special  K (KoЯn flakes) 18:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Re deletion of "Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1"
Please see my thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Apovolot (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

History of AI
We've finally reached my personal October 15 deadline at WT:1C for copyediting chores, and I'm all caught up, so I can take on new projects. I just offered my help to Charles on History of AI; I see we're getting near the end of your window for pass/fail. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[Message from 86.160.221.54]
PLEASE stay OUT of private business between me and FridgeMagnet.

Thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.221.54 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Gerard K. O'Neill
Hi Wronkiew, I've decided to take over the GA review for this article. Regards, Reyk  YO!  07:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, I passed the article as a GA. It really is a terrific bit of work. Reyk  YO!  01:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but...
he's a blocked user whose been using anon IPs to evade his block for months now. I don't think a warning will do much good. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for the recognition
I just wanted to thank you for your compliment and kind words on my talk page. Although reverting vandalism is a thankless job, it is nice to know that other editors notice one another and take time to add some words of thanks to someones day. Again Thank you and Happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Orange & Bronze
I would suggest to please quickly look up the official site and/or google and yahoo for the company profiles. Your are quick in tagging a deletion, i hope that you are also quick on checking the validity of the article's contents..Hope to settle this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supremo106 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on search engines
I rephrased my comment and I think it was misunderstood (my error). What I was trying to say was that the said company might go after me because of these discussions that's why I want it deleted and have a clean slate..and the article deleted if you do not intend to keep it. I am talking about my personal concern on how the said company might be affected because of this and that they go after me legally.Supremo106 (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

DustyBot
Hi, I really like WP:DUSTY and I see that it hasn't been updated in a couple of days. Please keep up to good work, this is a great way to find articles that need to be brought up to current standards! --Zvika (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. I was waiting on approval for DustyBot, but since you posted this I realized that there is a step in the approval process that I forgot to do. I will update WP:DUSTY manually in the meantime. Wronkiew (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! --Zvika (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

see history
lol dude i'm no vandal. i restored the tab. see>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alex_Makedon&action=history he had a sockpuppet and was blocked and then unblocked...150.140.229.106 (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not consider you a userpage vandal and I did not mean to suggest that in my message. Even so, please don't edit other people's userpages without their permission. Any concerns you may have about abusive accounts should be brought up on the user talk page or at WP:SSP. Wronkiew (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oracle userbox
The exception for my Oracle userbox is on the userbox talk page. Archer1742 (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The userbox talk page has a fair use rationale but not an exemption. Please see Non-free content criteria exemptions for more information about exemptions from the non-free criteria. Also, you can request an exemption on the associated talk page. Generally, these are only given for maintenance pages. If your userbox is given an exemption, it will be listed in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions, which might make the bots stop bothering you about it. Wronkiew (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUSTY
I see you've already updated the page. I think your bot is a great idea for keeping the page updated. I was going to suggest that generating the initial list should still be done based on the full database dumpfile, but then I realized that your bot can keep the page updated from now on. There dumpfile only needs to be reexamined after enough time has passed that an article created after your initial run could possibly qualify as "dusty" and not every time a new dumpfile is produced. Anyway, let me know if there's anything I can do to help. I have ample storage and servers to do whatever off-line processing is required to crunch some data without having to make thousands of requests to the wikipedia servers. --Sapphic (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I settled on a two stage process, explained at Bots/Requests for approval/DustyBot, to update the page automatically. The initial database processing does take a few days. If you have some spare cycles and the ability to run PHP scripts, it might be helpful if you could regenerate the initial list for me. The second stage runs nightly, and only takes a few minutes and a few MediaWiki API calls. Hope you don't mind my rewiring of your page. Wronkiew (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind at all; in fact, I greatly appreciate it. I'll reprocess the latest dumpfile this weekend, if I get a chance, and will try to incorporate some of the suggestions you've elicited on the dusty articles talk page.  --Sapphic (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Mingushead000/Error
To answer your question - no, I'm not sure I want to decline. There's some strange stuff there. However, I'm not certain whether it's vandalism or just fooling around, and I tend to err on the side of non-deletion. That being said, I will keep an eye on this user/these users.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure what to do with them myself. Your plan sounds good. Wronkiew (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikipedeya
sorry, I think I reverted you on this page. I'm confused about what the page should look like, though... -- Ludwigs 2 05:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the page is a mess. I figured I'd take out the edits by Sky whale, since it seems he only created the account to mess with other editors' userpages. I'm fine with letting the rest slide. Wronkiew (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ok; I'll revert myself, then, and leave the page the way you had it. again, apologies for the mistake.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Supremo106
I'd like you to reconsider your revert of at Articles for deletion/Orange & Bronze Software Labs and your final warning. Supremo106 has been difficult to work with, but his exasperated comment was certainly not vandalism. Wronkiew (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize you were having so much trouble with Huggle and rollback. Please slow down, read the changes more carefully, and disable Huggle if you can't control it. I'll go ahead and clean up the mess at AfD/Orange and Bronze. Wronkiew (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue was with enabling the option to automatically go to the next edit after a revert. When I would revert multiple changes by a vandal on a page Huggle would make the change then happily continue to revert on the next page after switching.  I have disabled this feature and have not seen the issue arise since.  As so many editors have had success with this software I wanted to take the time to determine what was causing the problem before giving up on the software.  Please note that after talking to other editors I have been told that collision will still happen occasionally on simultaneous edits, no matter how carefully or slowly you work through the changes. I am still weighing the cost of occasionally having to undo a revert versus the benefit of increased effectiveness of diminishing the flood of vandalized pages.  I do however apologize for any inconvenience this revert may have caused you. LeilaniLad (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it's really best to be careful. By the way, the first edit by this user that you reverted was a page blank. The blank was legitimate because he was the creator and primary editor of Orange & Bronze Software Labs. WP:CSD says that this can be interpreted as a deletion request, so the appropriate thing to do is to add a tag. In this case, Supremo106 no longer wants the page deleted. There are other legitimate page blanks, even by anonymous users. One example is the removal of copyrighted material. Wronkiew (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
Hah, good call. -- p b r ok s 1 3 talk? 06:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hi Wronkiew! Thank you very much for your support and comments in the RfA. It passed today, and your comments were much appreciated :) Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)