User talk:CanadianCaesar/Archive six

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave a new message
Please sign comments (~~~~)


Can you clarify[edit]

I understand that my page is up for deletion. I am looking to see why. I don't have a month to read thru all of your editorial pages, can you be a doll and tell me what is it that i need to change and I would gladly do so.

Thank you,

Bobbi

User: Sid16higher-resistance[edit]

hey Caesar , my Name is Sid and I am new to Wikipedia. According to me , you did the right thing by deleting my article and I show you my full support. Thank you Sid

User:Fuckmother[edit]

Now that's funny.  :) Thanks. Wikibofh(talk) 21:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dante[edit]

If I linked The Howling twice, it was because the system ignored my edits.Scottandrewhutchins 00:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Scottandrewhutchins[reply]

Imasmartguy[edit]

I was recently blocked by you, I didn't do anything! Unblock me please!

Impersonators[edit]

I apologize. I will say though that I had no idea he was referring to you. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moving[edit]

dude why are you moving the iran pages? and what have you done with sassanid empire page?? --Spahbod 03:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley.[edit]

Excuse me, I have a question about Angela Beesley. Is she also wikipedia Co-founder like Jimbo Wales? In my opinion, She is 2nd cofounder of Wikipedia. Is it right? I'm just curious. Please, reply in my talk-page. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, Jimbo Wales's assistant is Larry Sanger? But her(Angela's) occupation is not Co-founder?*~Daniel~* ☎ 04:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

Thanks so much for the adminship offer CC. I've been around long enough that I'm probably past due for a nom. There's much I like about not being one: more anonymity and, I honestly believe, a better perspective on the actions admins undertake. However, it would be helpful for things like page moves, reverting quickly on my watchlist, and arbitrarily blocking users ;). I've already closed keeps and I could probably help out more.

In any event, I'll be editing intermittently for most of July after the tenth so it would be best to wait. Perhaps in August or at the beginning of September. I'll let you know. Thanks again, Marskell 13:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spahbod[edit]

This user is requesting an unblock, you've blocked as "could be Willy", but I'm not sure why you think that. Can you take a look into this. Thanks --pgk(talk) 09:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Problem with User:Spahbod[edit]

He is messing up the articles Kizilbash and Safavids. Need help! Tājik 12:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, please take a look at user:tajiks talk page, i offered at least 3 times to discuss the matter, he have not responded to me once, instead he reverts my edits, calls them vandalism, sends me warnings and reports me to admins! --Spahbod 12:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal creates sockpuppet[edit]

The user you blocked - User:Teh Bwniater is back as User:Power Bwn, adding that image, Image:Bwnt.jpg. feydey 11:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message[edit]

Yes, it is. Good catch. I blocked. Don't let him get under your skin. Being a Wikipedia volunteer is something we do for pleasure, right?. If you find yourself too putoff by him, take a break from dealing with him. I'm saying this from experience. : - ) Take care, FloNight talk 19:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"AOL, has been blocked for an hour now"[edit]

and still is..

In more ways than one, as the block is also affecting registered users--172.144.86.145 06:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Belgium[edit]

I have added the "written" to the first sentence of the article. I hope it will do as both the Flemish and French versions do not have any special intro. Also, there is now an external link to the text of the constituion. If you have any other idea as to what might still be needed, drop me a line. RedZebra 08:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Thanks for the notice on my talk page. Dure 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks[edit]

Hello CanadianCaesar/Archive six, and thank you for your strong support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. (It's also worth noting that YOUR RfA was the first one I ever commented on!) Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Do[edit]

Never really left, I have alot of work right now and I just moved into a new place (not internet accessed yet). Typing this from a cafe, actually. Thanks for asking though! See you 'round, noble wikipedian! Hamster Sandwich 01:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Advice[edit]

Hail Caesar, Prose in Gremlins isn't bad, but since you asked I played around with the background section. I sort of rearranged the paragraphs and added a reference to the gremlins and WWII info. I'll look at the section in casting if you want. I don't have a lot of time tonight. Someone has a tag on the Gizmo toy image, so it might be a good idea to find a free image (if possible) in case this one is targetted for deletion. Good to hear from you again. Dmoon1 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Dmoon1 04:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL Collateral Damage[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but Hal the Chicken (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) is causing quite a bit of collateral damage, as is Sean the Shark (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), as are virtually all the other "USERNAME the ANIMAL" Vandals--AOL user 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

I know you may not be a fan of the new template, but I hope you can make some suggestions so we can find something we can both find acceptible. It's about time we have a decent uniform template for SCC cases. Anyway, please comment on Template_talk:SCCInfoBox when you have the time. --PullUpYourSocks 12:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...[edit]

Curious...how do we know they were created by that user? --HappyCamper 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AN. Note also the overlapping interests (Wikimedia, Wikipedians with articles), as well as the fact that the articles have been edited by typically Amorrowish IPs and have been referenced in Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles by Amorrowish IPs. Plus I'm feeling rouge today. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King's College DNA controversy[edit]

I was just leaving a message on the talk page of this article (King's College DNA controversy and when I submitted my post I got a message to say that you had deleted the talk page as an orphan talk page. This must mean that the article was deleted just after an edit I made to it. Can you find out what happened, as far as I know the article wasn't VfD. Thanks for any help. Alun 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I was myself having problems with someone who was working on this article as they kept removing whole swathes of the Rosalind Franklin article and putting them into this article, without any discussion on the talk page at all. Thanks again. Alun 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I deleted both the article and the talk page. There was no AfD. It was deleted per WP:CSD- created by an extremely dangerous banned user. If you wish to recreate the article (using your words, not his), you are certainly welcome." (source)

I think it would be useful to have the article King's College DNA controversy since it is about what is one of the most well known scientific controversies in biology. Please direct me to the evidence showing that the article was created by a banned user. I am puzzled by the idea of "using your words, not his". The material used to create the King's College DNA controversy was cut from existing Wikipedia articles about the people who were at the center of the controversy. I see no reason why I should not undelete the article. Can you explain? --JWSchmidt 20:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of having to justify myself about fighting this user. Ask Jimbo Wales who he is and see how he feels about him. Ask SlimVirgin. Ask FloNight or Nunh-huh. See above for evidence. Don't harrass me. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is asking for information harassment? --JWSchmidt 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JWSchmidt, I understand that you mean no harm by your questions. From your point of view it seems perfectly reasonable to ask questions. Please look at it from CanadianCaesar's perspective. When an editor is trying to quicky revert these edits and must repeatedly stop and answer the same question over and over again, it gets frustrating. The volume of Amorrow's edits make it impossible for us to debate the value of them individually. That is the reason that Jimbo made his statement. All his edits should be reverted and all articles should be deleted. I hope this clarifies the situation a bit more. Take care, FloNight talk 12:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to be supportive of any Wikipedian who is devoting time to trying to control vandals and disruptive users. CanadianCaesar, thanks for your efforts in dealing with this banned user. I now understand that this problem has existed for a long time while I was totally clueless. --JWSchmidt 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy[edit]

I see you speedied Andrew Sylvia. The notability may be an issue, but the page wasn't started by amorrow. In looking over a few of the links, the person seems of minor notability and there are several references that may establish that. [1], [2] and here DFNH profile. It's up to you as I won't override your deletion, but it seems of minor importance and was brought to my attention. Thanks.--MONGO 04:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me some credit. The identity of the creator requires a bit more research than simply looking at the username. Based on reasons I've outlined on this page, under "Hmmm", I'm convinced it is an Amorrow sockpuppet. The subject's notability wasn't even remotely connected to reasons for deletion, nor was "cabalism" as the subject claims. I didn't know it was Karmafist when I first deleted it, and in fact I supported his last RfA. I wouldn't care if someone restarted it from scratch. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. When I saw that it was deleted, I thought it was because of my past(still fairly bitter), not anything to do with Amorrow. I'll change my user page now. Thanks for the explanation. Karmafist 21:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

two things[edit]

one how do you make a bot on a wiki two how do you auto revert Djf2014 15:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block log[edit]

Heh, I think you accidently forgot to un-check "block anonymous users only" becuase you have autoblocked an IP address [3]. Oh dear. I will fix the autoblock, don't worry! :P Iolakana|T 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth do you mean? "Block anonymous users only" can be checked, but it isn't the default. When you block any account the IP is always autoblocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, forgot to mention that it was an email username that you blocked, normally you should encourage them to create another account. Iolakana|T 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I don't usually block them from creating new accounts. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"son of a bitch" block summary[edit]

May I ask why you blocked User:75.25.182.156 with such an inflammatory block summary? The edit that the IP made upon a cursory glance does not appear to be anything bad, but if you could fill me in on why you did that I'd much appreciate it. Thanks, Mo0[talk] 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It fits the pattern of the banned user Amorrow. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I was filled in by some IRC guys in the meantime about the situation. Forgive me, I'm having trouble getting back up to speed. :) Mo0[talk] 05:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello : - ) FYI, Amorrow has his own IP address template it. See [4]. It is named pinktulip after one of his socks. FloNight talk 05:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCRF[edit]

That's great news. Unfortunately, I'm going to be away for a few days, so you'll probably be on your own for the featured article day. As for my summer, it's been great. I forgot how nice it can be to have free time again. I'm probably a bit nuts to spend my free time away from law by writing about law, but I enjoy it. Hope your summer is going equally well. --PullUpYourSocks 15:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GangstaEB's RFA[edit]

Thanks for your oppose on my RFA. The final vote count was (0/10/0), so I am now an normal user. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. I can't give it though. Once again, thank you. GangstaEB help me improve! 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I did steal this off Wickethewok's RFA thank-you too.[reply]

Just so you know, that hurt calling my Willy on Wheels. But I don't care, since I might leave. And how do you know that Sabertiger wasn't an impersonator of Willy? GangstaEB help me improve! 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Bill of Rights[edit]

Thanks for your edits of this article :-) --Lholden 21:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm currently working on a Wikiformat of the actual text of the NZ Bill of Rights for Wikisource. --Lholden 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Amorrow[edit]

The article is not amorrows work...and I am well aware of how dangerous the user is...the article is about someone else...was there an edit in the article history that is amorrow? I can delete that edit if needed.--MONGO 06:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifing this once again...I found your last commentary on the matter to be unhelpful since you didn't explain it as you have now. I am fully aware of what a sock account is so chill out.--MONGO 07:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord High Parliamentian, &c.,[edit]

In reply to your question on my talk page[5], technically, it should be Your Holiness, since the office of Archpope of the Church of the Foursquare Trinity, which I also hold, outranks the Lord High Parliamentian. Smerdis of Tlön 20:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

extra space[edit]

Oops, just an edit conflict. --PullUpYourSocks 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD/Spiderman: Origins[edit]

"The result was super radioactive spider speedy delete as a short article with no context..."

Heh! Zetawoof(ζ) 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cyber Lopes[edit]

Thanks for blocking him. I just wanted to let you know that I deleted all the redirects created by the page move vandalism. Thanks for helping with that. For a while noone else besides me seems to have noticed it, but this is the first time I have come across page move vandalism, despite being an administrator for nearly two years, so I was rather slow. Academic Challenger 07:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, that definitely must have been weird to see. But with the amount of vandalism here, it will probably happen to all active administrators eventually. Academic Challenger 07:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 3[edit]

I was just wondering about your decision that the movie stays given that it has no factual information to back it up whatsoever and the removal of the prod was not done by a wiki editor, so that should be seen as vandalism instead. User:Lord Hawk 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with these movies is that they are sequels that some wiki ediotrs made up based on how well they though the movie did at the time. High School Musical 3 and Cadet Kelly are the worst offenders given that High School Musical 2 has yet to be completed, let alone aired, and Hillary Duff no longer has a contract with Disney Channel. I really don't know where they come up with this stuff, but for a film to be listed on wiki isn't it supposed to be listed as finished with production? User:Lord Hawk 22:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA page[edit]

Thanks for setting that up. My time has been rather limited lately. I anticipate in maybe a month I'll run. I'll let you know. Marskell 13:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

Apologies about that, I wasn't familiar with the subject matter. --TheM62Manchester 21:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi CanadianCaesar. Thanks for the nice welcome! ...and for the info, I'll be looking into that. --Darielab 23:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable SCC[edit]

I can't point you to the exact conversation, but I do recall the topic coming up at least once at WP:Law or WP:US Supreme Court cases. The consensus seems to be that they are just about all notable. It's unlikely that the minor cases warrant their own article, but a list of short summaries such as the per curiam case list would likely hold up. SCC cases are by their nature of national importance so I would believe they should assumed to be notable unless shown otherwise. --PullUpYourSocks 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Riley Mason[edit]

I was wondering about the deletion of Riley Mason article. Why was it deleted? I just want to know because I was thinking about re-creating it. Thanks in advance for your response.--Dx316dd 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[edit]

I realize that you devote a lot of time and effort to Wikipedia, but you sometimes take it too personally when your work gets edited. The tone of your messages on my talk page is a case in point. Your edit summaries can be markedly uncivil, such as here ("trying to shut idiots up").

In an article on the Charter, it makes sense to set out what parts of the Charter Quebec objected to: namely, mobility rights and minority-language education rights. That is what I did today in this edit, which you immediately reverted. The People's History of Canada link, which you are using as a source, is accurate as far as it goes but just does not get into detail about the specific objections Quebec had to the Charter. For that reason, the source I inserted in the article (a video clip of René Lévesque's press conference) was better and should not have been removed.

You asked me to stop editing the article. I will stay away from it for a day to give you time to think and maybe get some distance, but ultimately if you remain attached to the present version then it should go to some form of dispute resolution. Aside from the question of its accuracy, the paragraph in question is now convoluted and awkward. --Mathew5000 21:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am always willing to compromise if the compromise improves the article (as opposed to placating editors). The Charter article as a whole is of excellent quality, but that one paragraph in the History section is still awkwardly worded. For example, I know what you mean by the phrase "because it was then led by the allegedly uncooperative Parti Québécois", but only because I have read the Talk page. I doubt that someone coming across that paragraph for the first time would understand the points it is trying to get across. We could expand the sentiment, but then that section of the article would lose its focus on the Charter. Also I think the People's History of Canada does not clearly state the proposition it is being cited for. Is that the POV you accused me of "pushing"? You seem extremely angry at me (unjustifiably in my opinion) but keep these points in mind and maybe if somebody else takes a crack at improving that paragraph you will have some consideration rather than instantly reverting. --Mathew5000 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not really necessary; don’t worry about it. --Mathew5000 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can work together. I don't intend to bear a grudge against you if that's what you mean. But I also don't intend to cease explaining my edits on Talk pages. --Mathew5000 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architect of the Universe[edit]

Hiya! Just wondering what's going on with Great Architect of the Universe/Grand Architect of the Universe.. you were doing some sort of history merge, but now everything seems to be a redirect, there are a bunch of double and triple redirects, and I can't see where the actual article (I assume there was one?) has gone!? --Stormie 06:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the article title you want it to eventually end up at? I'll fix some double and triple redirects if you like. --Stormie 06:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now, I think much of what I was seeing was the "What links here" page being confused by a self-redirect. Good on you! --Stormie 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kempling[edit]

Do you think either of these would work:

1. Put the category back in using the following format [[:Category:Canadian freedom of religion case law|Kempling v. British Columbia College of Teachers]]

or

2. Make an article named Kempling v. British Columbia College of Teachers (with the category) and initially make it a REDIRECT to Chris Kempling.

The Kempling article is more about the case than the person. Otherwise I think the fact surrounding his alleged religious freedom court battles will be hard to find from someone actively looking in that category for this type of info. Deet 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my userpage[edit]

How can it be vandalism for me to (inline with policy) ask to have my userpage deleted, it is perfectly inline for me to have my userpage deleted at my request. Jtkiefer 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the tricky issue that the user didn't tag the userpage for deletion, but rather another user operated by the same person, I think this would qualify as a situation in which there is an administrative need to keep the userpage. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sine I agree that this could be a tricky issue, I have put a thread (subthread actually) up on AN/I about it, please comment there if you are so inclined. Jtkiefer 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Periodicity[edit]

When hasn't this place been a madhouse? :) My own semi-serious thought is that a major scandal tends to erupt every six months or so, but I guess there's a shocker somewhere everyday, if you know where, and care, to look. On the other hand, IMO, since GUS settled the userbox-wars, factionalism has been less pronounced; I think the relative efficiency of the first admin recall helps that also. I can only hope that every future turmoil is just a case "one user goes nuts" -- I'll call that great luck if it happens! Best wishes, Xoloz 05:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney[edit]

A portal created recently by Mallimak (talk · contribs) - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

Thanks. --Mais oui! 09:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My account[edit]

I had been editing under another account name (since late '04), and as such was pretty familiar with the way things work here. The old account wasn't blocked or anything like that; I killed it off because its name included personal information about me, and I had also made a few edits talking about myself that might narrow it down even further if someone came digging. I realized that might not be such a hot idea in terms of attracting attention from crazy people (as with Gator and such). Thus, I wrote a GoodBye! about something unrelated that was upsetting me anyway as camouflage, and started again with a new (anonymous) name.

I'm not some sleeper sock, if that's what you're worried about, and if necessary I'd be willing to tell the name of my old account to a 'Crat to verify this, as long as they agree to keep it in confidence. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial Judges Reference[edit]

I haven't thought about the case for a while. Give me a few days to get caught back up. On initial view it's looking like it may be a strong article. --PullUpYourSocks 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BareNakedChicken Industries[edit]

Hi -- I was getting ready to speedy BareNakedChicken Industries as a vanity/non-notable when I saw that you recently removed a vanity/non-notable speedy tag someone placed on it as being an "invalid speedy reason." Just wondered if you noticed that it looks like Aaron Burgess, the guy who created BareNakedChicken, is the one who created the article, which I think means it actually does qualify on both counts. Might you consider reverting your change and putting the speedy back on? Seems like it qualifies... --Bookgrrl 03:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. OK, I see your point. On the other hand, creating a web page about one's own (non-notable) web comic strip seems to fit the spirit of csd7 in terms of vanity, even if it doesn't fit the letter of it. Ah well, we'll leave it and see what it evolves into :) --Bookgrrl 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, BareNakedChicken Industries was not a success, considering the bad comics that I created. BareNakedChicken Industries MIGHT become something else later, but during schooling my website is just designs I have made and that's it. But it is under Google when one types in "Barenakedchicken," Thanks anywho! --Barenakedchicken 19 December 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CanadianCaesar/Archive_six&oldid=1144699917"