Jump to content

User talk:Baa/Archival Quality/May 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of flags from Television Infoboxes

[edit]

Please note the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Television#Consensus. An administrator has warned that flags be neither added nor removed from {{Infobox television}} until the discussion on their role within that infobox has been resolved. Dl2000 (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Edit

[edit]

Hi, this is my first tiime editing. I do not understand how it was not constructive. Especially with the example of the Breed standard and this history of the breed practices. BTCA mentions their breed order change, and BBCI should be listed as well, as it is the historical impetus for the change of breed practices for the BTCA. Is the absence of my putting a summary the reason the edit was reverted? I was unsure of where to put the summary or the reason for the edit. If I do that, will the edit be put back in place? Or is the entire thing whiped out? Just trying to do the right thing.

Treelo, I don't know who you are and why you are able to wipe out my edit. Perhaps you would be so kind to explain fo me so I can learn how to do this right.

thank you DogMommy (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I monitor recent changes and must have hit your edit by accident. Please put your information back in and it shouldn't be deleted by me this time! --treelo talk 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RUMOR by LG (now LG RUMOR)

[edit]

Hello, Treelo.
I just wanted to let you know that I declined your speedy deletion tag on LG RUMOR, although I am not an admin. CSD G1 (patent nonsense) is reserved for "unsalvageably incoherent" pages. You may want to read WP:CSD throughly, I know that when I first started out fighting vandals, I made a lot of mistakes with speedy deletion tags, and I don't want you to do the same. Please do not take this note the wrong way, I just wanted to bring this to your attention. Thanks, J.delanoygabsadds 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't so much the content but the name which sounded a bit suspect so felt G1 would handle it. I'll give WP:CSD another good lookover and be more vigilant next time, thanks for explaining why it was declined though when I saw it was now a redirect I kinda realised that it was a real product. --treelo talk 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHED NO TEARS

[edit]

I'd like to put a temporary block on 86.142.202.168 as he vandalised the page Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Melee
you may check the history of the page to see the vandalism
thanks for your concern —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beedox (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of that vandalism is too old and as nobody actually warned the user I can't take any action. I'm not an admin also so can't do any more than you. If they reappear then remember to warn them! --treelo talk 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

[edit]

Please don't leave drive-by tags on my talk page. The edit you reverted took a very clumsy wording and clarified it. If you have a problem with that, please improve rather than revert. -- Tom Ketchum 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Again? Damn, sorry about that. To explain, I'm using WP:HUGGLE to monitor recent changes and sometimes make false positives as I'm just getting used to it. Apologies again. treelo talk 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to consider limiting your vandal-reversion to anon-editors until you get the kinks worked out. Good job vandal-fighting though -- sorry if I snapped at you. -- Tom Ketchum 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm keeping it to IP based edits so far which are blatant vandals right now. I can understand your outrage at being drive-by tagged, will try and keep my wits about me next time. --treelo talk 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just happened to see this (using huggle myself) and I wanted to say you'll definitely want to take it easy with Huggle until you get used to it. I would recommend not using "q" (revert and warn) unless you are sure the edit is vandalism. Otherwise, just use "r" (revert). Believe me, everyone I have talked to (and myself, but I didn't talk to me... ¬_¬) who uses huggle has said it takes a while to get the hang of it. Once you do though... wow. is it powerful. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I figured VandalProof to be bewildering. After today and the amount of stuff that got thrown my way from all the false positives (and the fact that revert just doesn't have the same edge to it) after less than one hour in all I'm going to try and keep it down to obvious vandalism until I get more decisive or learn when the peak periods are, some of those editors are very quick off the mark. Thanks for the support, will try and get to grips with the power Huggle has, makes you wish for a sandbox almost. --treelo talk 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removing unsourced and repetitive material

[edit]

Treelo, if you check, I simply removed a paragraph that was repetitive of a whole paragraph just a little way up the section, and that had no sources. This article is very long and unwieldy and we are trying to tighten it up while keeping it NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen38 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry but thanks for that info on my edits. Missed that one it seems. --treelo talk 01:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint will be filed!

[edit]

Mr. Amok, if you don't restore my additions to the "hungarian language" article, i will make a complaint against you at the wikipedia administration. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here for the complaint. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism by 206.207.248.161

[edit]

Treelo, I'd invite you to review an edit of mine on your talk page which you reverted and warned me for. It was a constructive edit about a user that you have been monitoring and some further minor vandalism conducted by that user. It appears I was a victim of this "huggle" application that you are using, and I was reverted and warned as being "unconstructive".

As you had previously expressed an interest in the user mentioned, and had placed warnings on their page to the effect that further vandalism would result in additional action, I assumed that you would be interested - if I was wrong in that assumption, I apologise. However I would also suggest that you look again at your use of Huggle, as from comments here it is clearly creating an amount of resentment among wikipedians. All the best. ColourSarge (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me when it comes to Huggle and the collateral damage created, I put it down to teething troubles. I have made sure others are aware of the issues me and most likely others might be facing in using it for the first few days or so due to the semi-automated method of revert and warn it uses. If I ended up warning you for it, that's something I'm learning not to do unless it's required and didn't mean to warn you for leaving a honest request here so feel free to dismiss it, it's happened to me before too.
Whilst I actually am interested in this anon vandal I removed your comment as I read it but wasn't actually monitoring the vandal's contribs actively, rather just reacting to the edits they made in pretty quick succession which is fairly normal for that sort of vandal. Just went and checked and doesn't seem they've done much since I gave that odd single warning. I get a lot more resentment from vandals than I do from genuine contributors which is a lot more than the occasional mis-revert and warn I make and I have only been using the program for a short while so the bad reverts I'm currently doing on occasion should drop over time as I learn it. --treelo talk 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I just believe that instead of pressing a button to revert and warn it would have been more neighbourly to simply reply to my message in the way you just have. Have a good evening. ColourSarge (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

generic section title

[edit]
The Surreal Barnstar
Poor Treelo, getting hammered at while learning the ins-and-outs of huggle; maybe this'll cheer you, and keep you at it. Yngvarr (c) 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping Jiminy, a barnstar for failure! Well, I'll keep working at getting Huggle down over time, really is quite a beast of a tool and of course a surreal barnie will help with it. --treelo talk 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May's Random Diatribe

[edit]

Adding watermelon to C++ could be constructive? You people have too much good faith. Anyways, I was about to undo it (well, people rv in seconds so I didn't really have a chance, but still). Someone went off on that "Get from A to B" things, and I wished to display why such activities are fruitless216.99.100.237 (talk) / 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather I warn you to disprove your point? Check up on WP:POINT. --treelo talk 00:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a bot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.5.146 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure revert as fast as one though!;)Prashanthns (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.. right? treelo talk 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This revert of yours on name change might be an error. I advice checking again!Prashanthns (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and reverted, noticed just after it occured. treelo talk 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He he! I was new to Huggle recently, and have gone through this! Keep going, trigger-finger!:)Prashanthns (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?!

[edit]

I'm sorry, I did not mean to vandalize anything. I was just pointing out that some of the facts on that page is outdated, for example, the subject now blogs at evolvedrational.com instead of scientianatura.blogspot.com

Please let me know why this constitutes vandalism. Thanks.

Edit summaries usually help make clear you're not vandalising otherwise I'm left to guess and this is what happens. Sorry about it, where did you make this edit? --treelo talk 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

[edit]

Hey there, thank you for reverting that steady stream of vandalism to my talk page, it is very much appreciated. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, consider it a nice little thank you for the blocks and prots you did for me. --treelo talk 10:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nelsons (Natural Health)

[edit]

Hi Treelo, sorry for commenting here rather than on my talk page, but your comment there was removed pretty much the moment it was posted, so I'm not sure if you are watching it or not?

I'm a bit confused as to what happened on the Nelsons article. Another user deleted a big swathe of copy a few days ago, they had some valid points but I felt the wholesale deletion was an over the top response. Since then I've extensively re-written the article to address the points raised (both by that user and a previous editor), specifically to change copy so its not a direct (i.e copyright infringing) copy of a website and also to add refs to back up the copy. I think the article, while it could clearly do with some more work, is of sufficient quality to warrant being left in.

It looks like you reverted the article to the deleted version, but then reverted your own reversion. I've seen other comments about some issues with your system, is this one of them?

Thanks, --ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this is one. I managed to undo the warning and revert for the error I made this time though. Link did look a bot funny but all should be OK now. Apologies as usual. treelo talk 11:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarrification and Kudos for fighting the Vandals! --ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing edits of Philips page

[edit]

Treelo, I appreciate your trying to help, I am the owner of the Philips sites in UK, Ireland and South Africa and we do get lots of requests for such a UK map which I belive will add value to the wikipedia users who would like to find our company physically!

I appreciate your your personal opinion that it is an unconstructive edit, but unless we are violating a specific policy, I see no point of removing it promptly everytime we try to do some edits to this public page !

Could you please explain your reactions on the Philips page?

I'm doing that as it's a confict of interest to add things such as maps for products you make and/or directly sell. See WP:COI for the policy in question. treelo talk 11:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting ip address and talk page

[edit]

Special:Contributions/85.158.139.99 has requested on WP:ANI that your reverts be discussed. I do not see any reason why they should not, as the edits you have reverted do not reflect vandalism. Can you please explain that, and your reasons for not discussing it with 85.158.139.99? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest visiting Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and or locating an admin to semi-protect your userpage. I see that there are a few ip addys that are vandalizing it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also discuss this edit on SM's talk page? Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Treelo, I see that you've responded to subsequent comments on this page, but you have disregarded this request from 85.158.139.99. If you don't plan to respond, great - but please indicate that you decline to respond and explain why. The concern is that you're reverting (and rollbacking) edits that are not obvious vandalism, which has - in some previous cases - resulted in users having the Rollback tool removed. I want to discuss this issue before it goes further, and would invite you to discuss the matter at WP:ANI. Please respond. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to the concerns at WP:AN/I, will explain further if I need to for any points people need cleared up. treelo talk 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings on User talk:138.38.142.242

[edit]

Can you double check the warning you left on this page regarding edits to 1449AM URB? They don't seem like vandalism to me. I think this editor has gotten at least 3 un-earned warnings today. Toddst1 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed my bundle of warnings and apologised for it, still learning though. --treelo talk 13:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalsim

[edit]

I assume you noticed I wasn't vandalism - I can see why you thought it was, no worries ;) 81.149.250.228 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For the amazing amount of vandalism that you've reverted AND for beating me to MANY reversions, I hereby award you this RickK Vandalism barnstar! Razorflame 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pf, like I deserve it. treelo talk 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you do deserve it, no matter what other people say about it. Cheers, Razorflame 14:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine... reverting did make up for 4000+ edits in a matter of days though so can't be all bad. treelo talk 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here?

[edit]

Why did you revert this seemingly good faith edit? Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be in violation of the 3RR on Phadia. I don't see any vandalism there and I think this is another bad AIV report. I think you need to be much more careful to the point of thinking twice before issuing any further vandalism reports. Frankly this is a problem. Toddst1 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ungg, I figured that to be a spamlink which I why I kept reverting it, just kept popping up and just reverted it each time. Also, an actual vandal was creating issues and simply didn't check who was contributing. More diligence in future, I just have to if I'm not to look like a complete idiot. treelo talk 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Toddst1. I think that Treelo responded with the vandalism slur because I tried to re-instate a graphic when I had not realised that it was being purposely removed by her...several times! (thought it was a software glitch or something). No hard feelings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddben (talk • contribs) 17:06, May 7, 2008

Like I'm not even here... treelo talk 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Treelo & Toddst1 both. What is the outcome of this discussion? - Are you going to revert my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddben (talk • contribs) 06:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm sticking by my judgement on those images. I'm not the only one involved though, go ask CometStyles also about their reverts. Personally, I feel there's a conflict of interest issue here anyway even though you say otherwise. treelo talk 11:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits I Lost in the Revert Fire

[edit]

Please read this CAREFULLY

[edit]

You reverted an edit of mine that was I believe was quite valid. When I requested you to explain, you then reverted my request saying it was vandalism. I don't understand what's going on. Please explain.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked what you added and it was a good piece of information which I shot down. Even though you put it back I still feel I owe you an apology for reverting you twice so I'm sorry about that. A lot of vandalism comes from that IP so put it down as the same person. treelo talk 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Treelo.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological Resilinece?

[edit]

Why did you revert my edits (Persons, who have been called resilient)? Those person have been called resilient. here is about Frank McCourt, here is about Dave Pelzer, here is about Mario Capecchi--77.10.108.22 (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I only got your edit which said "and many more" which is why I took it out as you get short things like that getting put in by genuine vandals all the time on other articles. I've undone my edit but took out the unencyclopedic "and many more" and I'm sorry about taking out the rest, just how rollback works. treelo talk 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for undoing your revert. You were right to take out my "and many more". I thought about it again and it really is unencylopedic. Thanks again.--77.10.108.22 (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism patrol, just some encouragement

[edit]

Depending on the job, I'm actually not a big fan of using automated tools. I have huggle (and VP, and others), but usually fall back to the old-skool way of doing it. It's harder, and a lot slower, but it also keeps me from getting that frazzled feeling. I know that feeling very well. One of the reasons I don't do recent changes patrol very often.

AWB has a tool called IRCMonitor, which allows you to view the RC changes, and it lets you review things a little differently than huggle. Another nice script is at User:TheJosh/Scripts. He has both RC and NP patrol scripts. Those are real hard-core old-skoll; you have to wait for the RC to update, then click the diff, then decide. In the meantime, someone else might have beaten you to it.

Anyways, the reasons I like to doing things the hard way is that I find myself learning more than I anticipated. Memorizing the UW warning templates, the CSD categories, etc. Yngvarr (c) 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the only tool I feel any bit safe using is AWB and that still confuses me in it's odd methodology sometimes. I do like the old ways which'd be Twinkle for me, never handcoded warning templates or even a AIV report which is making me feel weird about the "lost art" of the hand-typed {{uw-vandal2}}. Know where you're coming from and actually sometimes just take ganders at IRCMon and see how things go but I love the script (or old school typed out) way as it still retains some of the charm of actually doing something and knowing that's you who's wanted it done. The learning is good, also means you don't get your talkpage swamped too! treelo talk 16:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congradulations

[edit]
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Great job whacking those vandals TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, 'congradulations'. Almost beats out 'generic section header' for oddest section header. --treelo talk 02:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information

[edit]

Dear sir, I don't understand why you deleted my entry. I personally knew Charles I interviewed him when he arrived in Iloilo in the Philippines back in November of 2006 I have 5 interviews up on youtube that I did with him. Here is the link to one of those interviews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGaZRgpeuVc He was a friend and a dear loss to me and my family. We were at his side when he died and accompanied his son to Bocholad for the cremation. His son then flew him back to the US where he is to be buried at Arlington Cemetery. Why I wasn't allowed to put his death notice up on Wikipedia I don't understand. Please advise Sincerely Jerry Lames —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandjerry (talk • contribs) 00:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, generally raw links to YouTube clips like the ones you added are removed on sight as there's no way of telling what's there and if it has any relevance and the 2kano.org website links? Very dubious if you ask me so I got rid of them, just need to gen up on Wikipedia policies and guides when it comes to linking. treelo talk 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]
The Roman aquadux in china.

O...K, context anyone? Please? Context. How about you Budda24, context? --treelo talk 11:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is about two roman soldiers that are gay, They had a secret love affair in the army. During the wars of the late 16th century they fell passionately in love, and guarded each other backs, however this didn't last for long when they were both struck by double blow cannons in the fields of Norway. The statute is a symbol for their heroic behavior, and known throughout the bulkins as well as parts of Asia. "I hope this explains why I put the picture there". thanks Buddha24 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, since I have treelo's talk on my watchlist, I have to pipe in here with a wha...? Being this is a very famous statue, apparently currently at the Louvre [1], and the fr.wikipedia has quite a different story [2], translated here on en.wiki [3] Yngvarr (c) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting but still, holiday? I'm enjoying this little slice of kooky though and it may earn you a barnstar (Budda24, not you Yng. You have enough) as we do need people like you around, helps lighten the mood. treelo talk 14:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He also apparently thinks Kobe Bryant was charged with murder. ;) Reminds me a little of this user. Enigma message 05:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah? Well, I do like a little vandal hunting, keep me informed if you find anything. treelo talk 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Gym Partner's a Monkey

[edit]

Just FYI, I saw this [4], but it's not salted. It's created at List of Minor characters in My Gym PArtner's a Monkey, so I submitted to to CSD under G4, re-creation of previously deleted material. The only AFD I could find was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in My Gym Partner's A Monkley, but that's a little on the oldish side, I could have thought there was more... Yngvarr (c) 23:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getcha, missed the second capital A in Partner hence why I reckoned on it being the salted article and it was redlinked at the time I undid the edit. That AfD is interesting, never figured animated shows were held in such contempt by other editors unless they were pre-50's. --treelo talk 23:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the redlink was added at 18:50 by Special:Contributions/66.11.249.213. Then they registered as User:ChillingPenguin at 18:52, and created the target at 19:19. Time is all EDT.
I don't know why, but something about this has piqued my curiousity... It's probably nothing. Yngvarr (c) 00:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's something as it's a returner, remember back to June last year where the list kept having vandalism ([5] [6])from a bunch of anons? Well, they've returned and seem to be doing the exact same crap as before, be on the lookout. Having a little looking about from the anon's WHOIS report it seems they both use the same ISP and that they most likely have an account this time around due to the semi-prot on the char list. treelo talk 00:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Make Your Day Better

[edit]

Gregory E. Miller (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thought you could use it. :) Gregory E. Miller (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review/Treelo

[edit]

I reviewed you. Sorry for the delay. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down

[edit]

You are editing so fast you are reverting edits that aren't vandalism.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sorry, saw "lulz" and clicked. You get blind sometimes. treelo talk 11:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Alice Cooper article

[edit]

Hi Treelo,

I spent a lot of time and thought on making some changes to the Alice Cooper article this morning. I am convinced that these changes represent a major improvement to the article. I note, however, that you have reversed them, and I was wondering what your justification for this was. I'm quite happy to discuss any points you might have in detail.

Best Wishes Jprw (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it a bad click, I didn't warn you did I? If so you can remove it or leave it and I'll do it for you treelo talk 11:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victor I. Petrik

[edit]

Hi. I can't find any sign that this creator requested deletion of this page, as you tagged it here. He did remove his misplaced hangon content from the article, but placed a more expansive rationale on the talk page. Looking through his contribution history, I don't see anything else that I might interpret as a deletion request. I'm removing the tag for now on the presumption that its placement was an accident. If I'm missing an author request, please feel free to let me know. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G7 tags

[edit]

Per the mention above and again on The joy formidable. Can't find anything verifying this. Are you perhaps using a tool for this that is malfunctioning? Are we in someway missing the requests? Perhaps they were done by email or something? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've been editing and haven't responded, I presume that this tag was placed in error. I've declined it accordingly. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss either of these tags further. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

huggle and warnings

[edit]

Hi. You have a box saying that you might accidentally delete good faith contributions and warn users for them, because you're using huggle. This is not acceptable. You must take responsibility for your edits. This means that you should apologise when you make mistakes (so well done there) but you should try to avoid amking those mistakes first. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the edits I make, I make a substantial amount more beneficial edits than I do faulty ones and usually revert and apologise for those which are wrong and I can route back. I am not shirking responsibility and trying to avoid them but I am human and you guys (mainly admins for whatever reason) must allow for the occasional edit error especially when there's a lot going on. I'm warning people as to why some things happen as a courtesy to people like yourself who might and have been concerned when some edits fall through the cracks and those who might fall foul, not to shift responsibility to the tool though admittedly you can as it isn't perfect anymore than I am. treelo talk 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

usernames for admin attention

[edit]

why did you report user "workinginpartnershipsprogram"? Please can you tell me which SPECIFIC part of policy they're violating? Did you notice that several editors were already talking to this editor? Did you consider asking this editor to change their name before you reported them? Dan Beale-Cocks 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not reading the username? It's clear they've got something to do with an organisation and that's against policy (not going to cite it, you can find it on your own). Yeah, the user was responsive to others and it's questionable that there was a COI issue involving them but really, the name wasn't right and I'm sure they knew it anyway. A warning as to their name being wrong would have been good but another admin didn't have an issue blocking them on that basis and I'd rather if admins were more unilateral in what goes on. treelo talk 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your inability to answer the question about policy has been noted. I am reading the username. WiPP is NOT an organisation - it's a UK Government policy. It doesn't have members, you can't join, it doesn't have an office, there isn't a newsletter. the name wasn't right and I'm sure they knew it anyway Please ASSUME GOOD FAITH. This was a new editor making good faith contributions to the encyclopedia. You say that the user was responsive to others - this just makes your actions worse. I ask again, in bold this time: Why didn't you ask the user to change their name? Please, read the freaking huge red box at UAA before you report people there again. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I made an error, problems can be fixed and the user in question is still editing so please can you cut the bureaucratic nonsense and drop it next time I make a report at UAA you dislike? You're not even an admin, what do you care? treelo talk 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Treelo, sorry it is not good enough to say "problems can be fixed" when it is solely the fact that you are editing so fast that causes the problems to occur in the first place. I'm not quite sure why you are editing so fast - chasing after a particular edit count perhaps - but as anyone can see by simply reviewing this page your hasty actions are continuing to cause other editors inconvenience. Specifically in the case of new editors (particularly registered ones), this is exactly the kind of thing that can cause people to leave the wikipedia community - and every time a genuine editor does leave we are all worse off. So may I offer some friendly advice, in the best spirit of Wikipedia....please slow down and consider your actions before you take them. ColourSarge (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issues of Huggle misfires and bad UAA reports are separate. The former is is an issue that exists but you or anyone else cannot tell me that it's never happened to anyone else ever, it's just not that likely. The latter occurred because I didn't follow the rules and not something I did whilst in the midst of revert-drunk nuttiness, I'm not even concerned about it because someone else agreed with my sentiment also. Doesn't exactly make it any more right but it wasn't an issue until Dan made it one.
This is the very first time I've ever reported a username and look, it turns out I didn't "play the game" right. It's things like that which make editors like me who have sent several reports to AIV and reverted plenty of vandalism give up the vandal reverting game, always somehow getting it wrong even when trying to do the right thing. Heck, I even reigned in what I pay real attention to, only hitting that which is blatant such as pageblanks and I pay due consideration to all my reverts but if you or anyone else want to tell me to give in the vandalism reverting game and get back to doing whatever it is I did before I used Huggle because a handful of problems popped up then I will, just give me the word. treelo talk 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Treelo, I apologise my lack of civility. Please, let me try again. Some usernames - "FUCK JESUS" - "BEN IS GAY" - "ARSE BUM FUCK FLAPS" are so bad that they need to go to UAA and be blocked immediately. Others need to be blocked at some point, but trying to talk to the editor is good; it shows you communicate and it lets them know the project isnt run by bots. There's RFCN to dscuss problem usernames. Again: I'm sorry for my aggressive, impolite posts. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, alright, apology accepted then. I know now I did wrong by not communicating with the person and trying to get them to change it themselves by making sure they knew what was wrong and how to change it so might just not notify UAA as the bot does a decent job of it. I've been under not exactly lots of wikistress but enough to put me off talking to anyone as nobody has a good word to say to me it seems so I might have given you a bit too curt of a reply also. Apologies from me I guess because I just cannot be sorry enough when it comes to the wider Wiki editing world. Might be a bit self-pitying but at this point in time I doubt I care all that much. treelo talk 00:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh my memory

[edit]

Remind me who Colective is/was? I don't think it was KL lover. Yngvarr (c) 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good ol' Greg Jungwirth, better known as Rhode Island Hero, Claymort and Crips r us amongst others. Much worse than Komodo lover and twice as loopy, I know that him and Gregory E. Miller are the same person, the evidence is there. If you want, I can give you fairly detailed reasoning for my suspicions as I'm prepping a sockpuppetry case and possible RFCU also. treelo talk 18:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, those names are old friends, now I remember. I'll just look at your SSP when you're done with that. Funny how these things go in cycles, it seems. See, one of the things that sorta caught my eye was [7]. GEM had posted to your page, so I checked him out, and he seemed innocent enough (you can see my posting on GEM's talk), but when I saw Colective post this particular diff, I began to wonder how on earth Colective targetted GEM. GEM didn't really have many contribs, and didn't stumble into what seemed to be Colective's usual domain. And it can't really be an association thing, because there are messages between us (you and I) on both our talk pages, and he's never really bothered me personally. Yngvarr (c) 19:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See you're coming to the same conclusions as I have, I'm ignoring GEM's little wikilove message as it means I'm onto him and he's trying to soften me up. If I remove it, I'll end up with a pageblank so it stays for now. I figured User:The Legend of G to be innocent too until he went apeshit one time, can't be too careful it seems. It's not association until such time you get involved and take action against him, just how I got caught in this crap. Before this, it was merely a concern for Elaich but then GJ strayed into my territory so you know what happened next... treelo talk 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks for your other sockpuppetry case you added, that was pretty quick though. I'm nearly ready to submit what evidence I have but if you feel like getting a little more dirt on him then go ahead and see what you can get, I'll be submitting around 10PM UTC today so get it added before that. treelo talk 16:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that's it for now, as far as my poor old memory can recall. I can always add stuff when you submit it. Yngvarr (c) 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, you'll know where to find it. treelo talk 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From me... to me

[edit]
The Nothin' Barnstar
For the countless undos done against the edit testers for seemingly minor reasons and continually shooting yourself and several others in the feet along with other limbs and body parts using the veritable scattergun we call Huggle I give to you the Nothin' barnstar for a job not really being done. treelo talk 20:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May, 2008

[edit]

Who got all huffy? It just didn't make sense to me why you did that. But it wasn't like i was downing you because at least you reverted it. And i'll have to go back and check, but i'm not sure you're allowed to edit another user's talk page. Thanks, Terminator14 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You came to me ten days after a minor incident to give me a hard time for doing something that didn't even affect you for a minute, that's a touch huffy to me. It's an article talkpage on which I reverted you on, not a user talkpage and generally editing other user's talkpages is bad form unless reverting vandalism or adding something. Be cool, learn how to be more civil when it comes to issues with other editors and just keep editing. treelo talk 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't discover it until ten days later. And i wasn't giving you a hard time, i was just questioning why you did it. And did you not edit my talk page to take away the message you sent me? Maybe that's why i didn't address this until ten days later. And please don't advise me on how to be more civil, there's really no need in that since i haven't disrespected you. Terminator14 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something but I really cannot see your issue. Telling me that "Obviously you were in the wrong for trying to reverting my question about Mr. T. Maybe you are the one who needs to experiment with the sandbox" was no question but an outright statement against my abilities which is incivil. Don't make an issue where none exists, especially when your problems comes down to reverts and warnings which were undone changing absolutely nothing. treelo talk 21:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna step in here. If Treelo reverted a self-posted message placed on your talk page, wouldn't you think that perhaps the original message was a mistake? Look at the timestamps: a message was posted at 7:08 (local time) and reverted at 7:08 (local time). And the revert of the Mr. T talk page was also reverted back. A self-revert of a revert at those close time periods usually indicates the original revert was considered in error. Yngvarr (c) 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point made there, Terminator14, don't drag this on. treelo talk 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, i won't drag this out simply because it's kind of boring, and i'm not getting much entertainment from you. You're the one who advised me to use the sandbox, so in turn i advised you. But oh well, i suggest next time you want to revert something just think it through. And once again, i wasn't meaning any disrespect, maybe Europeans just phrase things different that Americans, hard to tell. Terminator14 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Particleman24

[edit]

Once again created a page for Ed, Edd n Eddy season 6, and moved the 2 disputed episodes there. I reverted and redirected, but he isn't going to let this alone. Fact is, though he doesn't really have any proof that they are season 6, we don't really have any that they aren't. This is touchy, which is why I have been handling it with kid gloves. I wish we had some way of finding out one way or the other. Suggestions are welcome, and I am going to email Animation By Mistake, and see if I can get an answer. -- Elaich talk 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to request for full protection until the issue is sorted, don't need it to go down as another pointless revert war. treelo talk 09:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note my message left under yours on his talk page. We've been holding his hand long enough: from now on, issue the vandalism warnings, and if he persists, he will be banned. I don't see any good faith: just a dogged determination to have his way no matter what. Agreed? -- Elaich talk 13:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but I'm already at that point anyway, the warning shot I issued today was just notifying him of what's going to happen so it's not some sneak attack when warnings do occur. Just don't be slapping any 4im level warnings his way, procedure might as well be taken. treelo talk 13:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

[edit]

Ah, recent activity has pushed me to the point where I just can't resist trolling your talkpage.

100px

Yngvarr (c) 20:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harumph, one more outburst like that and it's your butt at AIV! treelo talk 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GJ

[edit]

See the RFCU. You were right. I was always suspicious of him too. That's why I didn't go out of my way to help him. I've made sure all are blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, been watching this since earlier today. Figured I was right, far too many coincidences for it not to be, be sure to check and close up shop on the SSP case as it's pretty much finished now. Also, keep an eye on those blocked users talkpages, GJ doesn't seem done and is keeping up the nice front he had going with GEM which is strange as for an apparently innocent user he seems to be a bit too calm about it. Not saying he should be a raving idiot but he wouldn't be taking it on the nose and leaving gracefully as if of his own will if he was innocent as he says. treelo talk 21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Faulty G7 requests for articles

[edit]

The G7 tag for Victor I. Petrik was placed by Huggle in what I figure was supposed to be a simple revert due to the removal of the hangon tag so two for two there. Next up, The joy formidable. This was an issue to me and still is as it's just a bunch of links and again was a result of the tool.

I'm saying it's the tool because I'm not that unaware or working too fast to notice when someone didn't blank the article as a request for deletion but marks it as such anyway. Feh, I'm sticking to more manual means of CSD in the future. treelo talk 14:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to revert the creator of a page, Huggle asks you if you want to tag it for speedy deletion instead. I'm assuming you answered "Yes" when you intended to answer "No"; I'm not sure that's a problem with Huggle. If you weren't asked first, that is a problem and I'd like to know about it. Thanks -- Gurchzilla (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asked about it that time from recollection, just slapped a CSD tag on and off it went. It was slightly strange to me as I haven't been able to recreate it since but know for certain no dialog asked me if I wanted to tag for speedy deletion, can't say much more than that. treelo talk 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks -- Gurchzilla (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye!

[edit]

Wow, this place has gotten so bad that I'm leaving for a long time. Goodbye! --Particleman24 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw no, why? What did we do? I mean obviously it's better to leave by your own pace than get thrown out on your ass and all but really, what tipped the scale? We're not bad people! Hm, a real shame being "chased out" as it were for not noticing the inherent greatness of YouTube Poop which, when you bother to watch the visual-visual version of "Will It Blend?", you really get an idea of just why it's called poop as it is truly the product of a kid with shit for brains. treelo talk 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your RfA

[edit]

Hi there Treelo, I went ahead and closed your RfA per WP:SNOW do to the fact that at this time it was clear that the community did not see it fit to place you in a administrative role. I recommend you do some of the fallowing things to improve your chances next time around:

Let me know you have any questions, or can be of any further help. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your recent unsuccessful RFA doesnt let you down... Keep up the good work in Wikipedia. .Your overusage of automated tools and lack of other experience were the few reasons of not making it. Please also understand that Adminship is no big deal. Follow the suggestions by Tiptoety.Take a break and do come back after sufficient experience. Best Wishes

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


The Wolf Hunter

[edit]

I don't see how any one has a right to delete some ones work from here. Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia for people to gain knowledge about things in life, pop culture and things from around the world. The Wolf Hunter film it's self is a film that has lots of fans and supporters as does the character. I think just because its not as well known as Freddy or Jason does not mean it should not be on here. I have already seen that some one else has edited the article as well. I think that if this does go off its a shame and what kind of Encyclopedia for the people rob people from learning about films and characters from a independent film.

--bloodline video 06:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That might be but notability means a lot for just what goes in which yours just isn't/wasn't. It's not an issue of server space or one of dismissing independent film but one of it simply not being that well enough outside of that circle to be of actual benefit to readers. I'm sorry that your article might be deleted but don't misconstrue what Wikipedia is and what it does when it comes to what content is within it. treelo talk 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baa/Archival_Quality/May_2008&oldid=1140175981"