User talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive 04

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

==Werner Herzog==

I had added that ubermensch to the detail describing Herzog. You had deemed it unhelpful. Those familiar with Herzog's work recognize that through his media image, he fulfills Nietzsche's criteria for the ubermensch. He follows his dreams, no matter what, and he has no fear. As to whether or not this is helpful, I feel that it is inspirational, and if that's not helpful, I don't know what is. User:SatanicYakuza 12:34PM PST, 23 July 2006

Second Reply

I'm just gonna stay away from The Apprentice (US Season 4) from this point on, as I have purposely no use in editing that article anymore. That season has passed, onto the history books, sometimes I watch the page, and then act on instinct and then have a bloody confrontation against another Wikipedian. Television articles tend to be the most problematic to keep neutral about. I'm just gonna focus on newer seasons from this point on and just leave the past behind. I'm just gonna go ahead and let others edit the past and have guys like you moderate to the style that you see fit, as like I said, I really have no use for past seasons of The Apprentice once a season finishes airing. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deoxycytidine Triphosphate Deaminase

The entries you made for deoxycytidine triphosphate and deoxcycytidine triphosphate deaminase are seriously flawed:

  • Wikipedia naming requires lower case letters for all but the first word.
  • A deaminase is an enzyme that makes a chemical modification. In these cases, they are used to break down the nucleotide, so deoxycytidine triphosphate deaminase would be something that breaks down deoxycytidine triphosphate. This is different from the actual molecule. In addition, the doxycytidine triphosphate is irrelevant -- it acts only on the cytidine part.
  • The enzyme that breaks down cytosine is actually called Cytidine deaminase (OMIM 123920). This entry is not in Wikipedia, but Activation-Induced (Cytidine) Deaminase is.
  • The molecule you show is the nucleotide, not the deaminase.

I suggest you request speedy deletion for all of them. The correct new entry would be Cytidine deaminase, if you want to create that as a stub. Welcome to the wonderful world of biochemistry! TedTalk/Contributions 12:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKatt

G'day Crossmr,

I appreciate what you're trying to do, mate, but don't you think it might be a good idea if you — not just you, but since yours is the latest message I've seen — stayed away from CoolKatt's talkpage for a little while? I don't think your messages, well-intentioned as they are, will achieve much, but they might antagonise CoolKatt more than he needs to be antagonised, and nobody wants that, eh? Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I accept that there have been problems with CoolKatt in the past; I also accept that they haven't been noticed. I can only assure you that the problems now have been noticed; ArbCom have noticed, I have noticed, several other admins have noticed. CoolKatt is being watched. However, his behaviour is not the only thing we've noticed here — the thing most relevant to you is that he seems to have received notes on his talkpage that he views (rightly or wrongly) as taunting and which only serve to fire him up. I don't think talkpage messages from his opponents (for want of a better word) will help anything, so as messages show up I'm contacting the authors. Thank you for your fair approach to my suggestion; I will do my best to ensure that, whatever happens, you will not be faced with a situation where you're required to deal with CoolKatt yourself. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for defending me for my edit. I really appreciate it. :)

--72.59.145.88 23:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


CoolKatt arbitration

Thanks for dropping me a note; I would never have noticed otherwise. I added a couple of relatively minor points regarding the post-sockpuppetry discussion on AN, but I think you've covered most of it. Opabinia regalis 01:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LonghornLiving.org

Teamwork? I maintain you were trying to steal my thunder. :) RandyWang (raves/review me!) 01:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses, excuses. But yes, good teamwork on that - that's the first time I've ever been edit conflicted while creating an AfD page. I was impressed. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyWang (talk • contribs)
They don't happen to me often, but I suppose they would if I were more active in NP Patrol. It can be annoying that not all categories of article have a corresponding CSD tag, but I suppose its not unreasonable to put them through the Prod and AfD processes. It's just slightly less convenient. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 02:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Parker T. Williamson

Thought you might like to know that the speedy tag was removed from Parker T. Williamson, and since the original prod tag was removed I've nominated it for regular AfD here. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 03:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info

Hey, thanks for the info. Don't use the passive voice.

--Michaelkpabst 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sims 2 Pets

Most of the info came from http://thesims2.ea.com/community/chat_07_27_06.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.82.34 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 August 2006


User:CFIF and User:Splash

User:CFIF and User:Splash seem to be a tag team of abusers. It looks like User:CFIF is the one who decides who is a sockpuppet and User:Splash is the one that takes punitive action against them. It seems wrong and I wonder how many innocent people have gotten caught up in their parinoid witch hunt. This - User talk:Splash#Possible new Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet - is where User:CFIF has accused me on User:Splash's talk page of being a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. These two seem to have a shared paranoia between them. José is Fluid 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User was banned for sockpuppeteering, ignore message. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted detailed diffing for the user of your choice on AN/I. -Splash - tk 00:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly and precisely, do you want? Apart from me to unblock Kramden4700 because you manage to find a grammatical weakeness in a post I made? Do you want all 36 documented? I've made clear I'm not going because that would require me to err in judgement and feed the puppet master all the way. -Splash - tk 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'd like to see the actual connection is all. If you think this user was disruptive, I'd like to see the actual alleged disruption that was so bad it required an indef block. Kramden has always seemed a bit off to me, but nothing to the level that he's been accused of here. None of the diffs you've given me show it, and none of the few times I've interacted with him have shown this supposed behaviour.--Crossmr 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven's above, but you're reading so selectively. Go look at the AfDs in particular more carefully and you will see, as I already said (now for the 3rd time) that, in the case of eg Kramden, he has edited the same AfDs as numerous other of the blocked socks, as have the other blocked socks with socks in their unblocked timescales. If your problem is circumstantiality, then, well, life's tough. You'll have to study the diffs more carefully and go do the searching you want for yourself; this is why They provide contributions lists. If you want them unblocked, you might as well just say so. If you don't, and you don't want them all documented then well, really, that's not something I should need to spend even more time on. I've made my case explicitly clear. -Splash - tk 00:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will have another go through the contribs to make some comparisons and see if I can come up with these connections. I see some suspicious behaviour, I don't think I see this big group though.--Crossmr 01:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Concerning NFOrce.nl

In reply to this I would like to state that the current article is not objective at all, the reasons for existence is one big NFOrce propaganda section with reasons to start using NFOrce. I merely changed some lines that are claimed to be facts but are not. Furthermore the claim I made: "NFOrce.nl is mainly visited by people that are in some way involved in filesharing." is just a fact. If you know NFOrce.nl and watched their forums (which are highly active) you can see that most users admit themselves that they use filesharing programs (p2p) to download pirated software/etc they have found by name on NFOrce and have discussed on NFOrce. The claim that software companies use NFOrce to check if their protection is cracked is based on nothing, there is no company that ever admitted this and still you leave this intact. Furthermore I can give you the link to the .NFO file I quoted from (myth) which is actually on NFOrce.nl itself: http://www.nforce.nl/index.php?switchto=nfos&menu=quicknav&item=viewnfo&id=95909 NFook 01:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback: Taking "In this case the nfo is no different than a blog posting" would mean that almost all warez group/site scene related articles should be removed since almost all the information in there has come from .NFO files. I see no citations in these articles and still they have existed for over a year now. Can you explain this? NFO files on official and serious indexing sites should be taken as serious sources for information concerning these subjects. NFook 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Eurovision entries

You might think otherwise - and if you do, you're entitled to that opinion - but AfD discussions related to Du Bist and Gimme have resulted in the precedent that any song performed at Eurovision is notable as a result of its having won a national contest to get there in the first place. As a result, I've restored one of the Danish ESC entries you prodded recently (For Din Skyld). BigHaz 07:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paypal

Thanks for all the input and help with Paypal. You've kept things on the level. Do you have any ideas for link? I'm thinking, as you said, one for Phishing, which is a big problem Paypal deals with, one for complaints, and one consumer advocacy site (something sterile, lawful, I don't really know exactly what I'm trying to say, but maybe one affiliated with the BBB or the like). And should we push to get it a rating, as it asks on the talk page? As it is, I think it may rate as a B article, maybe a Start. -Bordello 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome message

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Plain jack (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 August 2006

Non-admins removing speedies

Non-admins are encouraged to remove speedy deletion tags from articles if they believe they don't apply. Only the page's authors and people associated with them are supposed to use {{hangon}}. Especially when somebody unrelated to the original author expands or references an article, of course they should remove the speedy tag. When there is doubt, use WP:AFD. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 08:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then that makes them barely anymore useful than prod if anyone can just remove them. I thought part of the point of a speedy is to get an admin to look at the page.--Crossmr 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course they should be removed by any editor in good standing (who is not the author of the page) if they believe the criteria don't apply. If I place a {{db-bio}} tag on Tony Blair I hope that a non-admin reverts me instead of waiting for an admin to notice that page in CAT:CSD. In cases where somebody who isn't an obvious sock or newbie expands or references a speedy candidate of yours and removes the speedy tag, you should assume good faith and check again that the WP:CSD criteria are clearly met (and nominate for WP:AFD if you aren't sure). Deletion is only really urgent in case of WP:CSD#A6 attack pages. Oh, and as more than 100 pages per day get deleted via WP:PROD, I wouldn't call that process useless. If you want to make sure that an admin sees a page, you can always just check Special:Log/delete and ping an active admin on their talk page. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 14:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up, I didn't realize that! Elizabennet 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HipCrime

Please stop censoring the graffiti from the HipCrime page. Wiki's NPOV implies that your opinion of graffiti images should not be forced on others (who enjoy tagger motifs).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimehip (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 August 2006


Node.london

Just to let you know, I've nominated Node.london for deletion on AfD. User:Artlondon keeps restoring the copyright violation text and has removed the prod placed on it, so I've sent it to AfD to get this finally settled. Metros232 13:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unhelpful

So you think my contribution "was determined to be unhelpful"????.... What kind of "helpful" do you think it is to insinuate that Rolls Royce doesn't use high temperature steels and exotic alloys like every other jet engine manufacturer? When you allow such bologna to persist in the article because a couple of young kids didn't know the difference between a B-52 and a B-25... P+W vs. RR. 757 vs. 767.... (or was it some other variant of a fuel carrying air-machine propelled by dense metal engines?....) you actually show yourself as the unhelpful (or ignorant) one. Jackass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.126.10 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 11 August 2006

Odiambo Siangla

Hi. You may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odhiambo Siangla. Nesbit 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAIN

Next time report personal attacks on this page. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I reported a personal attack there, it sat there for 3 days until someone said "They haven't made any recently" and removed it.--Crossmr 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like its becoming a WP:PAIN in the ass. LOL! (reply here, if you want; I am watching this page) --Nearly Headless Nick 16:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I'm sure it may have worked at some point for someone, but my limited experience has shown it not to be terribly useful. 95% of the time any personal attacks against me are accompanied by vandalism as well, so it usually gets lumped into a package deal at the vandalism page.--Crossmr 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but we have to keep faith in the system. Though, I wouldn't support if my block was challenged by someone else. I am a new admin, and I think I was a bit harsh on the IP. --Nearly Headless Nick 16:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see it being challenged. He has a long history of edit warring, personal attacks and incivility as you can see from the talkpage. Its obviously a static IP as the same person has been using it for a long time to behave like that on the same articles and attacking the same people.--Crossmr 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PayPal

The real site is http://www.paypal.com/. https://www.paypal.com/ is the secure one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.33.18 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 August 2006

Cyllum

What kind of loser are you to ironically make fun of people who use wikipedia for the purpose it was created? You censored my contribution just cause you didn't like it?! Who promotes these kind of people for patroller?!

"Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Cyllum. Your test worked, and has been or will soon be removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do."

Is this supposed to be fun? Cause it didnt, and it only shows the respect you have for people who lose their time adding things to the wikipedia. Grow up and try learn something, like good manners and respect.

As for whoever manages wikipedia: Please stop making kids become patrollers cause they think they own something.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyllum (talk • contribs) 20:47, 14 August 2006

Right..

What article do you refer to that was deleted? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to backup this claim of hostility? :\ MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good. But i dont remember alking on the talk page, hmm. :\ MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the note I just posted on Matthew's talk page:

re: Blanking of PayPal

I imagine I got bit by the firefox bug, and neglected to look at the result of my edit. Thanks for catching it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Apology

I apologize for my edit summary on Layla El. I was just feeling angry at how people kept messing with the change, and I shouldn't have bursted out that way. I truly am a good-natured user, but this incident really blew my top off. I sincerely apologize and it shall not occur again. — Chad "1m" Mosher Email Talk Cont. 03:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (Posted on my talk page as well)[reply]

Fork on cultural references

Thank you for forking the Sims 2 Cultural references. It was getting absurd. Some of the references weren't even "cultural" - they were just references to things in The Sims.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindrain0000 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 August 2006

WikiDiscussion Manager

Hi - the feature you requested is already in WDM - see User:Eagle_101/WikiDiscussion_Manager/Features for details (in my reply to your request there). Thanks -- Martinp23 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jile Holmberg

This was not a 'Test page' but it is a page for the LEader of the global Organization, VIXEN.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrokenRomeo (talk • contribs) 19:34, 22 August 2006.

Re: Blanking

I was reverting a change by Zoe (disagreeing on something being spam). Re-insert the comment, it's removal was an un-intended side-effect. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 02:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Userpage Vandalism

Thanks for alerting me to the vandals main account. I don't want to say anything to the user right away just incase it's a freak coincidence that the IP edited the main account's page(I know it sounds impossible, but I'm trying to Assume Good Faith). I will however keep a close eye on both the IP and the main account, and if they do anything else I'll make sure to notify someone about it. Cheers Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 04:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB Summary

Yep, I noticed it was doing that and changed it to a more generic message. Thanks for letting me know, sorry for the inaccuracies. —Chowbok 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah

Ok, i realize now that he cant have the page, so i just made the samething on the user page, but still check the discussion on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KTM Jared 683 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 August 2006.

db-repost

See Speedy deletion criterion G4: It applies in the case of articles deleted per the AFD process. The criterion specifically states: "this clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions. It goes on to note that "although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply; when no criterion applies, the recreated page may not be speedied, but may be submitted to Articles for deletion or the appropriate XfD process."

In the case of the article you refer to (Jared Bolton), the previous deletion had been a speedy, not an AFD. It can be retagged as speedy, or sent to AFD.

— ERcheck (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the speedy criterion that might apply is A7 and there was discussion on the talk page, I would first read the talk page and also assure myself that the subject was clearly non-notable. In the case of assertion of notability (e.g. NCHSA champion), since I am not immediately familiar with the sport, I would have to check to see if this was a pro level, etc. before deleting. — ERcheck (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
db-repost is an incorrect criterion in this case. An admin can see if it was previously deleted. — ERcheck (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User06201 (talk · contribs) and friends

I've blocked the User06201 account for a short period of time. If your fairly certain that he's the same IP vandal and the other accounts are his, you might want to file a request for checkuser so he can be dealt with in a more permanent fashion. Shell babelfish 18:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did see the evidence page and it does appear to be the same person or his twin brother ;) If you get the checkuser (I'm assuming the IP had a long vandalism history but haven't checked myself) it should be enough to indef block his accounts on site, which would considerably lessen the harassment you're getting. If he starts up again, just put another note on WP:PAIN and he'll quickly be subject to much longer blocks. Shell babelfish 18:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Centrx caught something I didn't -- he used the accounts and the IP to move around warnings and archive them. He's indef blocked two of the accounts and blocked the IP from editing anonymously for 2 months. At least now, he's stuck to one account which should be easier to manage. Shell babelfish 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Continuity

Well, Ritchy has put up a continuity error page back into the Enterprise main article, but as you suggested it is now a Trek - wide continutiy page. Please take a look and advise him on original research so we can prevent another AFD after a lot of hard work. Thank you. It is here: Inconsistencies in the Star Trek canon. Magic Pickle 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism warnings

This isn't a complaint, but I just wanted to let you know I prefer posting my own vandalism warnings when I make a revert. While I understand your enthusiasm for warning users of vandalism and reporting them to the admins, and I understand that not everyone who reverts vandalism puts the appropriate notices in the talk pages, I think it's generally proper to allow the reverting editor a chance to post the warning, especially if you have already posted one for the user, as in the case of Arndutcas today. By allowing other editors to post warnings, it helps show consensus and makes one particular editor less of a target because multiple editors are involved. Thanks. --Carl (talk|contribs) 00:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been a timing thing, but when I went to the talk page to add the next warning, there was only one warning on the page. When I submitted my edit, my warning had been dumped in favor of your warning. When I went back to my watchlist, I didn't see any extra reverts by you to account for it. (edit) So I made the assumption you had posted the warning "for me." --Carl (talk|contribs) 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just get a bit irritated (not necessarily at the person, but in general) when I go to the trouble of doing a rv or posting a warning and it gets dumped because someone else beat me to it. Oh, well. No hard feelings. --Carl (talk|contribs) 00:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost makes you want to semi-protect The Sims 2 and The Sims, doesn't it? I figure about 95% of the edits made by IPs are vandalism and about 95% of the vandalism is produced by IPs. Eventually, Arndutcas got a user name, but that would have at least slowed him down. --Carl (talk|contribs) 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? I din't know what I was doing was considered "vandalism". Sorry about that? And what slowed me down? Well, thanks! And again; sorry?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arndutcas (talk • contribs) 22:55, August 31, 2006.

Everything2

Okay fair enough I see your point. A lot of the stuff these days on E2 is referenced, but clearly the article I found does not stand up by itself. Catchpole 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do us a favor

we put something up under "Violet D. Bobcat". Please note the capitalizations which has become a problem. The article was used with permission but instead was rewritten (to make future edits by the NYU student club which I'm involved in easier). It seems you flagged the thing but a bit belatedly. As you know, there are quite a number of articles on particular mascots associated with colleges so I am sure there is no reason this one is being singled out. Thanks. Keep up yhour great work!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsanstella (talk • contribs) 23:39, August 25, 2006.

sorry

I apologize for my brother giving you a hard time about the article about me, i was not in the room when he was using this UNDER MY NAME. As far as the sport goes if you are just curious and have any questions just let me know and i will be glad to answer them.
Thanks, Jared Bolton #683—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.11.40.47 (talk • contribs) 17:24, August 24, 2006.

ARV

I already have it. I just forget it's there. Just like I forget I can use popups for quick reversion. --Carl (talk|contribs)

Re: Dipslime sock

Thanks for the heads-up. I've blocked the account indefinitely, but I'm sure we haven't seen the last of him... (ESkog)(Talk) 04:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mistaken Identities

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Crossmr 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've never EVER added any commercial links to Wikipedia. Oh, and by the way, my real Wikipedia username is Shenshuai. if you have any comments please send them there. but like i said, i've never put any commercial links on Wikipedia. I'm sorry but I believe you got the wrong person, or else I'll have to sue Comcast for illegal shuffling of Internet Protocol addresses. --Shenshuai (offline.)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 17:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Content dispute

My read of this suggests sock/meatpuppetry is likely, and both sides of this issue seem to be acting toward what they think is the betterment of the page (accurate or otherwise) which, by definition, precludes simple vandalism. If my read is correct, this must be dealt with through dispute resolution including, but not limited to, WP:RFC, WP:3O, WP:3RR and WP:RFM. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This hardly qualifies as vandalism; meantime, what qualifies as "improper" is nowhere near cut-and-dried within my read. Perhaps another administrator will see differently, but I see no actual vandalism in what you've presented to me thus far. Please understand, no offense is intended; I call them as I see them, even when I'm wrong. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'sokay, I don't blame you for pressing, but it reinforces my point that this is far more complex than simple "vandalism". I wish you the best in finding a solution, but IP blocks will not be it at this moment. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loose change

You've deleted some discussion of mine for reasons I find appropriate, for the same reasons, since they were personal attacks AND unrelated to the discussion (by consensus). Would you please delete my comments in the archived version?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.195.124.111 (talk • contribs) 08:22, September 8, 2006.

This user has been a bit of a problem, Crossmr. We've had discussions with him, and he's been approached by admins. He doesn't understand that some comments will be removed for being personal-attacks, but he can't remove all his comments from the Loose Change talkpage because they're part of an ongoing discussion. Check his talkpage and contributions if you want examples, but at this point he just can't resist sniping at RoyBoy and myself out of frustration apparently.--Rosicrucian 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Superusers

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Crossmr 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I've never EVER added any commercial links to Wikipedia. Oh, and by the way, my real Wikipedia username is Shenshuai. if you have any comments please send them there. but like i said, i've never put any commercial links on Wikipedia. I'm sorry but I believe you got the wrong person, or else I'll have to sue Comcast for illegal shuffling of Internet Protocol addresses. --Shenshuai (offline.)

All the links that you applied to classical elements appear commericial (those that still work) and do not directly support the information you were using to reference them.--Crossmr 16:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's because you have not taken the time to visit the ENTIRE site and judge for yourself, using Bayes' Theorem, what the probabilities are for the site to be non-commercial in certain sections. For example, Xingyiquan (a martial art section) is for my eyes non-commercial. It's an informational section. And if you think just because it looks flashy, then it must be a advert, then I think you should leave the internet for a few days, reconsider your options, then sign on again after a few weeks of intense reconsideration of your actions and thoughtforms that you subscribe to. I was and still am and possibly still will be deeply offended at your inability to judge a good site by its content and rather not by its looks, what it sells, or its number of ads. For example, LongWang News Service is a good example of a flashy, ad-ridden site that is non-commercial. It is a news site, and anyone who sincerely believes a news site is commercial just because it is flashy and ad-ridden should leave the internet and reconsider his beliefs for a few good weeks. I'm sorry, but I'm just sick and tired of the number of unskilled users who obviously would have better luck off the internet than on it. Maybe I'm being a little too harsh, but that's the truth.
Oh, and by the way, User Talk: 68.84.190.3 is being whitewashed in a week. Do your best to show everyone the way you've treated me, and how I've been compassionate to not seriously harm the users of this good site, before the page is clearscreened.
So long now, Shenshuai signs off (Shenshuai-offline).

Hipcrime (Usenet)

It is el-protecto. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 05:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we all have our standards. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 05:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not view it as vandalism per se, but this is still a banned user evading his/her block, and thus a case which (as you correctly note) will be read differently by different administrators. It would probably be best if none of us hit the wrong side of 3RR, just to be safe. Thanks for keeping me updated with the new socks. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are SO many different ISPs and things involved that I'm not sure we can do anything as far as reporting network abuse. You're welcome to try, but I don't have the Checkuser access to make confirmation of anything like that... (ESkog)(Talk) 01:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


AN/I

Just wanted to apologize, I did not mean to come off as railing against you or anything, I made a complete post on AN/I but felt I should write the basic apology here just in case you didnt head back over there. --User:Zer0faults 00:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Edit summaries

It is, unfortunately, fairly common for users to misuse or not use edit summaries. What is less acceptable in both of these cases you have brought to my attention is the ignoring (in the first case) and removing (in the second case) polite requests to use them properly to help out their other editors. I think it's less of a big deal in the second case you brought me; most of his/her edits seem normal. It's a much bigger problem, in my eyes at least, when a user is performing technical changes such as recategorizations without explaining what they are doing.

The best thing we can do is watch and continue to attempt communication; at the end of the day, I don't really think either user is really doing anything blockable. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.

For flaming on the Enterprise Continuity Problems VFD page, moving my arguments for keeping the page from that VFD, following me to another page, baiting by disregarding canon information in favour of his personal theories, and posting a warning on my talk page without justification and which falsely accused me of engaging in an edit war. -- Ritchy 23:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Interestingly, said invitation mentions me by name.
  2. As I recall, you told me the same thing on the AfD, and in fact just today you told me to "take a wikibreak". But you are at least right on one point, I should have raised my concerns back then, too. Unfortunately, I figured my wikipedia time would be better spent rebuilding the inconsistency article and working on other pages, rather than pursuing this pointless rivalry. It's a shame you do not share that feeling.
  3. I have copied the dialogue in the article talk page, and linked to the transcript. The only way I could provide more canon information is to rip the episode and post it too. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing but your unsourced personal theories, like "perhaps Kirk slept through his class".
  4. You chose that template and posted it my talk page, didn't you? Surely, if the action it is warning against isn't what you are accusing me of doing, then another template might have been more appropriate? -- Ritchy 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

  1. MagickPickle is a good Wikipedian. Unlike what you seem to be implying, I have no problem with them. In fact, I have never had any problem with anyone on Wikipedia, aside from you, interestingly enough.
  2. My "incivility" is not the problem, in my view. I am quite capable of having nice and productive conversations, and one such conversation is posted on the very talk page where we are arguing. Interestingly, it's a conversation in which you are not involved. In fact, thinking back, I cannot remember having an incivil conversation with anyone but you, and I do not believe I ever had a civil conversation with you. Hum... perhaps it's not me who should be going on a wikibreak after all...
  3. I am not theorizing anything. I am quoting the episode as is. You are the one theorizing that Kirk slept through his class at the academy. -- Ritchy 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MTS2

You recently edited ModTheSims2. Please help wikipedia come to a concencus as to weather or not this article merits inclusion in wikipedia at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ModTheSims2_(2nd_nomination) Thanks. --Kunzite 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack alert!

Here's a reversion that Centrx had to do on my talk page, as apparently User06201 is up to his attacking patterns once again. He comes back as IP Address 81.168.130.17, and here's the evidence to back things up. Just want to bring this to your attention, and to also make you aware that User06201 is back to attack even more. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 00:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. 81.168.130.17 should be watched carefully, as it may be possible that User06201 might be evading revocation just to attack me, you, and others.

bye bye, lol

came back from a nice long break. was a little surprised but not bothered at all at the indef. for anyone who knows, these blocks are meaningless and can be undone as required. i could register and start editing WP in no time, thats totally up to me as and when i feel like. but, i am glad. i am moving on. i got other and better things to do. just wanted to set the record straight with my side so to speak. Use that message as evidence of your behaviour which can be used against you, lol, alongside the other stuff you have made up. lol.

dont worry, I was just purging old stuff and wanted to clear things up. just wanted to set the record straight. that means saying the truth. lol.

bye.

lol.

-user06201 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.168.130.17 (talk • contribs) 21:05, October 1, 2006.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive_04&oldid=1138939111"