User talk:Getcrunk/Archive 4

Hips Don't Lie

Do you know the length that the song spent at the top of the Dutch Top 40? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue. Perhaps you should ask User:Luigi-ish? -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 23:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails. Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales. If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate. For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate! ♫Bucketsofg✐♪

Beyonce request

I would like to add Beyonce Video Collection http://beyonceknowlesfan.com/indexvideo.html for Beyonce Knowles External Link. This is a good link as it gives viewer a better insight for Beyonce.Ben Sherman 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[User blocked as spam sock. WikiProject Spam case - (permanent link) Femto 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)]

You should read WP:EL#What_to_link_to. That page you linked to does not give very much information, and the videos on there are most likely COPYVIOs. They are copyrighted by her record company, or whoever took the live video. That site is violating the copyright. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page. It's the first time my user page has been vandalized. I feel kind of special. Sue Anne 20:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help on Mathematics

Posted by Pruneau 21:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

Merci beaucoup!

Thank you, Getcrunk/Archive 4! Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. For that, I would like to thank you and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

about your editing my user page

You included me in the category of liberal wikipedians

I am an economic liberal (libertarian), not a liberal. I corrected the mistake. Regards. User:Vincent shooter 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I added that category after it was removed here as a "non-user category". I added it again, because it was a user category and it was previously on your page, as you can see here. Looks like I made a mistake, my apologies!-- getcrunkjuice^contribs 22:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Being Civil & Kylie Minogue

Hello again, getcrunk. You wrote: "It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation...", etc. I agree, and my head is quite cool. I believe I have not attacked you, as such was never my intention. It's just that I don't understand your motives to make you revert --twice-- such a small, albeit positive contribution on my part, as I see it. You responded by referring me to the NPOV (which I already knew) and Lead Section (which I didn't) official policy pages. Thanks, but that does not answer my questions. As I regard this as a matter of honour, I ask you to please be thorough (if you are willing to answer this) so as to to help me undertand your motives. When I added the TWO words "world-famous" in the (Kylie Minogue article) introduction, what exactly did you not find agreeable? Do you assert that such statement is false? If not, why in your opinion did I divert from a NPOV for stating such a fact?

The reason I ask is because I still cannot grasp the logic behind all those 'edit wars' raging out there in the Wikipedia. For instance, if someone wrote that Adolf Hitler was a madman and a murderous monster, there would be always someone else eager to delete such statement on the grounds of not complying with the NPOV policy, regardless of the absolute, undeniable truth of that statement. Why is that so? Why cannot facts be allowed, no matter how harsh or disgusting (or complimentary, as in the case of K. Minogue) they may be?

Thank you for your trouble, getcrunk. By the way, I'm getting to like your contributions.

P.D. I invite you to review the article on The Carpenters. Surely you'll find the high-praise comments ("the biggest selling artists of the 1970s"", "leading exponents of the soft rock or adult contemporary genre and ranking among the foremost recording artists of the decade") more guilty against NPOV policy than my humble "world-famous" remark about Kylie Minogue. However, seemingly no one has protested until now. AVM 02:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my talk page (When I added the TWO words "world-famous" in the (Kylie Minogue article) introduction, what exactly did you not find agreeable? Do you assert that such statement is false? If not, why in your opinion did I divert from a NPOV for stating such a fact?), I removed "world-famous" from the introduction because it is your point of view. Others may disagree on whether she is actually world-famous or not ("she's not very popular in the United States"). I am a huge fan of hers (happy birthday Kylie!), but it's not WP's place to declare people "world-famous" or not. Secondly, your other addition to the page (began her first steps in the Australian TV at age 12, but first rose to prominence in 1986-1987) is not needed per WP:LEAD, because more details are available in the body of the article. Thirdly, in my opinion, the Carpenters is a very bad article, and I have no clue how someone added the featured article star and got away with it. It really needs cleaning, as you pointed out. I've added a tag to it. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 13:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Are you a now an admin?--LooseTheHotButtonS 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok next time just tell me about ur nomination and I'll support you--LooseTheHotButtonS 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

Please remove the Fair use images from your userpage. Thanks in advance! -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are the fair use images? Tcatron565

the fair use images that need to go are Aly & AJ, Rihanna, JoJo, PCD, the Disney Channel box images and the radio disney logo. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

But those are user templates!!!!!!!! Their supposed to be used. How can you use a template like that without using un-fair use images?!!! Tcatron565 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

oh, I see, you need to remove the images from the templates themselves. Fair use images aren't allowed in user space. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 01:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You still need to remove the images from {{LifewithDerek}} {{LizzieMcGuire}} {{Phil of the Future}} {{SisterSister}} {{LiloStitch:The Series}} {{BuzzMaggie}} {{Kim Possible}} {{User WITCH}}, I have remvoed them from the other ones. You also have to move those templates to have "User" before them, because they are user templates. I have also moved the others, but I no longer want to clean up after you. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Then don't! Just tell me what to do. Just delete them. I didn't know what I was doing anyway. Tcatron565

Guadalajara key attractions

Good catch adding the {{copyvio}} tag to Guadalajara key attractions. However, you left the copyvio material there! I removed it for you, just letting you know. Mangojuice^talk 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

prod-ding kitten cannon

On May 27 you {{prod}}ded the article kitten cannon. An IP only user removed the tag a short time later. I am replacing the tag because I think it is a non-notable game, and wanted to inform you about it so you could watch for the vote. In the case that the tag is removed again, I will seek admin help. PrometheusX303 15:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

The user in question is a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte that has been banned. Please stop him. He wants to remove a one-day old discussion from the notice board because he's ashamed of the gays of Bucharest. --Candide, or Optimism 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:GDP reported by User:Getcrunk. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 16:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Start a RfC. Please do it! I've always wanted three kids...err...RfCs. You don't archive a one-day old discussion. Period. I created that notice board and I have no intentions to ruin it - or let others ruin it. --Candide, or Optimism 16:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You deserved that Anittas. I will not start an RfC against you if you calm down and restore my archives now! Peace. GDP 16:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you Getcrunk erase that post on the 3RR if we can solve it mutually? --GDP 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Once something has been posted there, I believe an admin has to deal with it before it can be removed. Anittas has accused you of being a sockpuppet of a banned user, that's serious. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

He's bad mouth. That's all. You can imagine how serious he is since he doesn't let one to make an archive...You know now very well.--GDP 16:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No need. I knew it was him when I saw the picture on his userpage of GDP for every country. He has a fixation on the amount of money Romanians make and he brags that they make more than Bulgarians. He was also online on Illyria forum. --Candide, or Optimism 17:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Anittas to drop it with this kind of insults. It won't bring you credibility. GDP 17:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer on my talk page. --GDP 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

False accusations won't bring you credibility. You reverted my work, as if I'm not allowed to make an archive. Why? I will start an RfC against you if you continue like that. --GDP 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have the right to make an archive when the page is becoming too long. Period. Don't push it. --GDP 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not the father of it ok? That is not your baby. Everyone has the right to modify it, and especially in this case to archive it. All clear now? :)--GDP 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You will not archive a discussion that is a current event. Others may still want to add a word to it. --Candide, or Optimism 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You should have said like that, instead you started to curse like the last man on earth. You should not argument that you created and it's yours, as you did. --GDP 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Query

I belive you left a message in my talk box. I'm trying to imrpove the Serie A section of wikipeida. I'm currently adding each of the tables for Serie A going back for years. Adding into this, I've added links to an unrelated website which gives squads for Serie A for each individual year. I felt I was adding vital information. Could you please highlight exactly what I did that was wrong ? Niall123 19:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I tagged your new pages for speedy deletion because they only had links. Per Wikipedia:External links, you are encouraged to add content instead of links. You should not create pages with very little content (such as a link) if you plan to add to them later. Instead, you should create a user sub-page (such as User:Niall123/Sandbox) to work in until the full product is ready to put in an article. Otherwise, someone could mistake you for a spammer and delete the pages. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 19:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine. Sorry about the mix up and all. Will only add that link to squads as I create pages for each of those seasons. Niall123 19:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

More unofficial charts?

Why do you repeatedly add songs' chart positions on personal charts to Wikipedia? Unless these charts claim notablity, I don't understand why they should be here. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they have a page on wikiepdia. Tcatron565 21:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason there is a page is because you created it. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm only 11!!!! Tcatron565 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the chart and tagged it for deletion. By the way, since you are only eleven, you should be careful about giving out personal information on the internet. (link removed) -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey Getcrunk! I have recieved a nomination for adminship which can be seen here. Please feel free to add to it. Thanks so much. -- Underneath-it-All 21:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Getcrunk, thanks for supporting my request for adminship! Unfortunately, it ended with a final tally of 5/17/3. Thanks again! Underneath-it-All 17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

You removed a link on the social networking link saying 'rv spam'. I do not understand your reasoning. The section refers to many social networks by name 'Blended networking is an approach to social networking that combines both offline elements (face-to-face events) and online elements. MySpace, for example, builds on independent music and party scenes, and Facebook mirrors a college community. The newest social networks on the Internet are becoming more focused on niches such as art, tennis, football (soccer), golf, cars, dog owners, and even cosmetic surgery. ' I was providing a link to illustrate the point of the 'newest' social networks. GolfBuzz is a legitimate player in the niche social netowrk space and was trying to illustrate the point. Please respond so I can modify. I am still learning what is acceptable and want to conribute positively Prcoulson 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I reverted your addition to social network (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_network&diff=next&oldid=57572350) because it is not necessary to have an external link in the body of an article (unless it's a reference). I suppose a piped link (such as [[GolfBuzz|golf]]) would be okay, but an external link to the website is needless, it seems like spam. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 23:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Question #2

Crunk, you were very helpful before and was hoping you could help me get a listing back. I added GolfBuzz to the 'List_of_social_networking_websites' and it was removed for the reason 'non-notable and not social networking'. The site has over 16,000 members and it is one of the few professional 'niche' social networking sites. It is defintely a social network. It allows its members to create profiles and connect with one another. In addition to allowing individuals to create neighborhoods it also allows courses to create profiles and companies to create "Neighborhoods". Golfers can also connect and join these course communities and neighborhoods. GolfBuzz is one of the few professionally built 'niche' social networking sites. It is truly an open social network which allows more than just individuals to create profiles. In addition GolfBuzz has been in the press considerably in the past few months. Placements include Information week The Business Chronicle (Atlanta Edition), Information Week [1], PR Week, etc. I am new to contributing and would love improve my posts. Prcoulson 13:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that IP user did not read through the GolfBuzz article. Of course at least one part of it is definitely social networking. I have re-added the article to the list. By the way, you should wikify the GolfBuzz article, to make it conform to the Wikipedia manual of style. You should also find some press mentions of the website and mention them in the article. (Don't forget to reference them!) Thanks! -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 23:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradicting Messages

Crunk, you just removed a link (rm spam) although not even two comments above you told me to add it (See Question). In addition you added GolfBuzz to the list of social networking sites but it has been removed by an IP user, again. I do not understand. I follow the recommendations from the editors and the editors themselves seem to be canceling each other out. GolfBuzz is a social network. It has over 16,000 members it is truly and ‘open’ community. It even contributes its golf content to wikipedia. Users can invite people into their networks, plan rounds, review courses, etc. I do not mind being edited but I definitely do mind wasting my time, being told to do one thing and then have it changed on me. Can you please help me out here. I am having fun contributing to the success of the site but I am getting frustrated on all the removals. Especially when it seems the management is not agreeing. Can you add the link back to the niche site it is good to have examples and can you also add it back to the list of social networking sites. Prcoulson 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

??

No idea what your talking about when it comes to putting in vandalism. I've been updating that article for over 5 months. Please just leave me be you seem to be the only one who has ever had a problem with me. AcePuppy 00:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Help for Janet Jackson Page

Getcrunk, do you have any idea about how to make a navigational toolbar at the bottom of Janet's page to link directly to her albums and singles. You can look at the bottom of Christina Aguilera's page to see what I mean. Janet has one presently for her siblings. Maddyfan 07:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah: all you have to do is create a template and then include it on related pages. Template:Christina Aguilera, Template:Madonna, Template:The Pussycat Dolls and Template:Kylie are good examples. if you need more help, contact me! -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 22:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:(

thanks for not getting my joke :( I wanted someone to add "the previous unsigned comment, blah blah" cause that was all the rage on that thread. --kizzle 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of fair use image

Hi - you removed a fair use image from the Arctic Monkeys article, specifically the band's logo. We have discussed this elsewhere - mainly on WikiProject Albums and the like - and it is accepted that band's logos form an integral part of the branding of the band. Logos such as those of Oasis, Foo Fighters or Nirvana become representative of the band, and therefore need to be included in an article about the band. Given that an infobox provides the opportunity to use it, it seems senseless to have to use it elsewhere on the page. Accordingly, I have re-instated the logo. Obviously if you disagree, feel free to bring it up at Talk:Arctic Monkeys or my talk page. Cheers, DJR (Talk) 22:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. While I strongly disagree with the usage of that fair-use image — because there are no particularly stylistic designs (AC/DC/ABBA sort of thing) and because the logo appears on their debut album cover which is included twice in the article — I will not pursue this issue because I have no interest in that band nor their article. I should be studying too! Happy editing! -- getcrunkjuice 02:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dear Getcrunk/Archive 4, thanks so much for your support during my recent successful request for adminship. I really appreciate it. Let me know if you need any administrative support; just leave me a message on my talk page or send me an e-mail if it's urgent. Take care man, hope studying is well, and hope the exams will be done soon! -- Samir धर्म 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal assist

Thanks for helping revert 65.138.68.52 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)'s vandalism. :-) Netscott 22:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

I found this information, and I'm not sure what to do with it. It's for Janet's new single, "Call On Me".

JanetJackson.cn:

Janet's latest single, "Call On Me", featuring Nelly has already proven popular with 184 spins in just one day, according to Media Base. Spins are as follows:

Pop radio: 44 spins Urban radio: 54 spins Urban Adult Contemporary: 5 spins R'n'b radio: 81 spins

Collectively, the 184 spins generated audience impressions to make a total of 4.358 million audience impressions. Make sure you request Janet on your local radio station!

http://www.mmr247.com/ (MediaBase) Buzzed1 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding the whole thing might be too much. I think that "In the United States, the song was played 184 times in its first day, on four different formats of radio, generating an audience impression of 4.358 million." is an accurate and trimmed-down description. -- getcrunkjuice 21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Saryn Hooks

You participated in the Finola Hackett AfD. Please also join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saryn Hooks (second nomination). Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: No way!

Yes, I'm not an administrator, but thanks for the compliment! I've returned for now, but I'm not sure if I'm ready to become an admin. However, if somebody were to nominate me, I wouldn't decline. Extraordinary Machine 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting! Hello Getcrunk/Archive 4, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Help!!!!!!!!!!

/me runs for the hills. Bishonen | talk 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Don't touch my page

Even though you were reverting vandalism, I don't want anyone dumb enough to support Quebec sovereignty to touch my user page in any way. Biff Loman 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Getcrunk, I've warned User:Biff loman9 concerning the above personal attack. If Biff loman9 removes this warning rather than archives it, I invite you to revert the warning notice back onto his talk page. If Biff loman9 repeatedly removes the above notice then I invite you to post a notice to WP:ANI regarding it so that he might be blocked. Thanks. Netscott 01:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to forget that I did not ask anyone to do that. I would have done it the next time I checked in. Getcrunk is proof that userboxes should be done away with. As for you, get a job. Block me if you've got nothing better to do (you don't), but we both know that won't stop me from editing if I want to keep editing. As for Getcrunk, I just don't have a very high opinion of anyone who supports Quebec sovereignty. Think of that what you will (your opinions means absolutely nothing to me). Biff Loman 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about changing the __TOC__. You should be aware of this WP:ANI report concerning User:Biff loman9. See ya. Netscott 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If anything, you'll get blocked for needlessly harrassing me on my own talk page. Biff Loman 02:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The irony! -- getcrunk ? 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out for trolls on my talk page. No harm done with the TOC thing. I was even in the process of making a report when you left the message! I'll keep an eye on that page. That user seems to have problem with being civil towards editors, as I discovered by looking through his contributions. -- getcrunk ? 02:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome Getcrunk. Relative to your comments I suspect User:Biff loman9 will soon be permanently blocked. Keep up your great vandal-fighting! :-) Netscott 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the report to WP:PAIN, I advise you to add commentary regarding other personal attacks committed by User:Biff loman9 there. Netscott 02:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Good morning!

Wow, thanks! This was a little unexpected. Well, I've accepted, though I'm a little unsure about this...:) Thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 22:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Help With Userboxes

You replied to my question about images in the Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes page. I was wondering if you could help me figure out how I'm going wrong with this code. I used the template and then entered the image using the correct syntax. Here's my code with nowiki and pre tags.

<pre> {{subst:Bol |border-c = #00ff00 |border-s = 5 |id-c = #ffffff |id-s = 12 |id-fc = #ffffff |info-c = #ffff00 |info-s = 8 |info-fc = #008000 |id = [[Image:Boltshirtcloseup.JPG|thumb|45px]] |info = This user is an avid listener of the Buzz Out Loud Podcast. He or she is very greatful for the work that [[Tom|Tom Merritt]], [[Molly|Molly Wood]], and [[Veronica|Veronica Belmont]] do to enrich his or her life. }} </pre>

Thanks! Alexbrewer 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem was the "{{subst:Bol" at the beginning. It turns out that there is no template with that name. See Wikipedia:Template namespace for info about creating templates. Here's the correct syntax:

{{subst:userbox |border-c = #00ff00 |border-s = 5 |id-c = #ffffff |id-s = 12 |id-fc = #ffffff |info-c = #ffff00 |info-s = 8 |info-fc = #008000 |id = [[Image:Boltshirtcloseup.JPG|45px]] |info = This user is an avid listener of the Buzz Out Loud Podcast. He or she is very greatful for the work that [[Tom|Tom Merritt]], [[Molly|Molly Wood]], and [[Veronica|Veronica Belmont]] do to enrich his or her life.}}

You're welcome! -- getcrunk ? 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to say goodbye

My final edits will be made on Wikipedia on June 26. After this date, the only edits I will make will be occasional pop-culture updates. Thanks for your kindness and your time. Take care! —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Getcrunk! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyrael _{/ 07:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)} 07:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RFA questions

I left questions at your RFA. I was blocked from editing the page because I use AOL, so they are on the talk page, please move them. Hort Graz 21:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your answer to my question 1 concerns me. One block can hit dozens of IP addresses and there is no way for the AOL user to know which of thousands of IP addresses owned by AOL will be assigned to them. You say you will block AOL for hours, when policy recommends 15 minutes. Would you elaborate? Hort Graz 21:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In question one, you said "What length block would you use against a persistent vandal who uses AOL" and as I read the blocking policy, it says "Vandalism — For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last up to 24 hours. Normally, AOL IPs should be blocked for about 15 minutes, then 1-3 hours, and typically topping out at 24 hours". I took your "persistent vandal" remark to mean that the person had been blocked previously, thus I would increase the length of following blocks. — getcrunk what?! 21:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Im looking for thinking admins you do not slavishly follow these rules without thinking about the impact on innocent users. A long block can affect hundreds on innocent users. There should be many short blocks before it is time for a one hour block. I should have defined what a persistent vandal is, that was my fault. Old admins get it, new admins like to block too long too quickly, I want to get you to think first. Hort Graz 21:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

For example, if an AOL user was blocked for 5 minutes on May 11 2006 and then 15 minutes on June 1 2006, I would not up the block to one hour. I'd only do that if the user was vandalising 4 p/m (pages per minute), etc. and has been blocked very recently. — getcrunk what?! 21:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RFAR

I have filed an RFAR against User:Eternal_Equinox listing you as an involved party at [[2]]. -- HeyNow10029 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know how you're an involved party. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete

You deleted a site I added to Social Networking at the same time you deleted another. I would like it to be added back. As far as I can tell, there is no mention of the sites having to have a certain number of members. I would like clarification on how and why you feel justified in doing so. I don't mean to be rude, but, its a list of Social Networking sites. Maybe a new category should be made for the largest sites, huh? A list is a list and I think all Social Networking sites should be able to be listed as long as they are a social networking site. nilly1a 01:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Nilly1Anilly1a 01:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. As you can see on the talk page of that article, the editors of that page have established consensus that only websites with articles should be placed on that page. The websites which I removed didn't have articles. Please see the guidelines for website articles, as I doubt that "myScrap-n-Craft" is currently sufficiently notable to be places in the list of social networking sites, much less have an article (27 members?). Please discuss on Talk:List of social networking websites is you wish to propose changes to the criteria of the list. — getcrunk what?! 12:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

suggestion for speedying vandalism fighting

I noticed the comments about ten minute vandalism reports at your RfA (which I may yet vote in). I'd suggest adding User:Voice of All/RC/monobook.js. It gives you some handy javascript tools, including a one-click report button (all you have to do is type your reason). I've been using it for a few weeks and find it great. I thought it might be worth a whirl for you. Cheers and happy vandal-fighting!--Kchase02 T 08:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is great!! Thanks for pointing it out! — getcrunk what?! 12:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message

Thanks for your welcome message. Wow, that was a very polite wayof saying that I did something stupid. I really didn't mean to. In your message you said "your changes were deleted/removed". But actually all changes I made are still online, as far as I can see. Could you please be more specific on what I did wrong. It would also help to me to improve my skills. Wisser 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. I didn't actually remove your edits. You see, I used {{nn-test}}, a generic template message. However, you still need to establish the notability of Miaplaza (please see WP:WEB). Also, it would be appreciated in you "wikified" the text of that article to conform to Wikipedia's manual of style. Thanks, and if you have more questions please contact me! — getcrunk what?! 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Boy meets barber.JPG

Is there a tag for "already been moved to commons?" The IfD tag was probably the wrong one to use for this case (at least, if it works like AfD does). Rklawton 01:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag to use is {{NowCommons}}. The commons file name needs to go in there too. — getcrunk what?! 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your username

Screw them don't change your username just because they want you to. ILovePlankton 04:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't plan on it. :) — getcrunk what?! 12:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

Having supported you last time, I am supporting you this time as well (although your tastes in music are rather disquieting; I'll let that slide for the moment). I was going to ask a follow-up question to that posed by User:BigDT apropos of your username, but I'm certain it would have done more harm than good. In any case, I'll leave it here in order that you might answer it if you like, although, as you will see, it's rather a rhetorical (or at best leading) question.

Prior to your having been a candidate for adminship and excluding queries from other editors who were simply interested in the provenance of your username, have you had any problems collaborating with others users in view of their distaste (expressed or implied) for your username (that is, has your username, to your knowledge, been disruptive to the editing of the encyclopedia or the fostering of the underlying sense of community requisite for collaborative success)? In view of WP:U and of the meta-concern that usernames that are divisive, inflammatory, or otherwise provocative should be avoided, does WP:IAR in such a case as this lead you to conclude that the proper analysis with respect to a username is not whether it conforms to the letter of WP:U but whether it is likely to be misleading or disruptive, especially in view of the fact that many new users in good faith and without disruptive intent create usernames that are unlikely to inflame but are nevertheless contrary to the letter of WP:U and consequently are told (sometimes rather tersely) that they'll need to change their names, such that their first Wikipedia encounters (contra WP:BITE) are less-than-positive? More to the point (please, Joe, get to the point), has your username been disruptive? Many who oppose at least in part in view of your username aren't disturbed by the name (such that they'd have difficulty working with you) but think others will be and thus that your username will prove disruptive, especially act as an admin. Have your experiences borne out such disruption or would your where you past interactions here serve properly to allay the fears of some opposers?'' Joe 04:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My answer to your question in a nutshell: No, to my knowledge my name hasn't been disruptive; I've never had a problem regarding it. To be extremely honest, I don't care at all for about the objections concerning my username. I think there's no problem with it, even after reading WP:U. — getcrunk what?! 23:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Call on Me chart trajectories

Can we start marking the charts for the song? From Billboard:

Just when you thought the smoke cleared from Beyonce's chart-burning debut at No. 20 on last week's Billboard Radio Monitor R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart, "Call One Me" by Janet Jackson with Nelly shines one spot higher to become the best debut on the list in seven years ... The No. 19 entry is the highest at the format since TLC's "No Scrubs" landed at No. 13 in February 1999. Meanwhile, "Call's" No. 28 debut on the Rhythmic Top 40 chart gives Jackson her first appearance as a lead artist at the format since "Son Of A Gun" entered the chart in November 2001. (Why such a long time? None of the singles from Jackson's last album, 2004's "Damita Jo," charted on the Rhythmic Top 40 list.) ... "Call" also opens at No. 36 at Adult R&B and No. 38 at Mainstream Top 40 ... "Call On Me" is the first single from Jackson's ninth studio album, "20 Years Old," due out later this year.

Thank you for the help! Buzzed1 11:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing references

Hello, I would be interested in finding out how I cite references from other websites onto an article on WP. I am new to this resource and would appreciate information on this issue. Thanks for your welcome. Starsweep 14:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! There is some great information on how to cite your sources at Wikipedia:Citing sources. There are quite a few ways of citing sources; Wikipedia:Footnotes is my favourite. You should also check out Wikipedia:Introduction. Hope this helped! If you have more questions, please ask! — getcrunk what?! 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter Cleanup

I like what you did in rearranging Notes, Filmography, etc. Good work.

There's a "Quotations" section that seems out of place in the middle of all those fine-print-like references. I'm thinking that it belongs right above the Bibliography. Since you're the Master of Rearrangement in this area, I'll leave it to you to decide and act. Lou Sander 15:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Notes 1-8 are badly in need of cleanup. (Too much http://, NYT link requires membership, etc.) I'd fix it myself, but I don't know how. Lou Sander 15:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not sure about the quotations thing. I think I've fixed the notes, see Talk:Ann Coulter. — getcrunk what?! 16:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for the reversion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) — getcrunk what?! 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My request for comment...

Hi. I saw your post there, and it seems like you haven't received a reply. It sounds like you are looking for Wikipedia:Editor review. — getcrunk what?! 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I think that situation resolved itself nicely, and it's also a bit old now. However, I will bookmark that link and use it next time I'm not sure of how I handled myself. I really appreciate the reply. -- Steven Fisher 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congrats!!!!

Thanks :). Like I said in other places, I just hope I don't break something... Extraordinary Machine 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

EE Evidence

Ah, good, someone else putting in some evidence. I noticed your two May 28, 2006 RfA diffs are the same diff. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me! Hopefully others will add further evidence; I can see this RfAr resulting in a community ban. — getcrunk what?! 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux 19:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)