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.
Hello, Conrad Devonshire, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Pic of "WiC"
Is it absolutely necissary[sic] to have any image on the template for the Communism vandal? There's been a minor skirmish over it and the best way to keep the peace seems to be to just leave the page imageless. 68.39.174.23806:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Catagory:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of The DNA Vandal
Sorry to have deleted the above page but you may have noticed that you misspelled "Category", and pages cannot be moved to Category locations. -- Francs200002:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well spotted! I've added a comment to your entry, which (assuming my detective work is correct) explains things. I'll see if an admin comes by to add further comment, otherwise I'll try and get the attention of one later to see what action needs to be taken. Petros47110:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
May I ask how exactly you come to that conclusion? I notice that you're not a vandal, and you don't seem to have a vested interest in any particular position, but you're the only person who has made that assertion, and you don't seem to have backed it up with any evidence. I would also point out that Fyodor Dos was indeed blocked as a Lightbringer sock. So unless you have some pretty good proof, I would suggest you remove the sock tag from Blueboar's page and apologize for your actions, as sock accusations are not something to toss around lightly. MSJapan16:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to run a check user on me. I have removed the tag you placed on my user page... if you find any evidence to support your alligation you may return it. Blueboar16:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. It was a misunderstanding. I saw a comment on User:Fyodor Dos's talk page that made me think this was the case, but I hadn't read it carefully, as it was actually just nonsense posted by Fyodor Dos himself. - Conrad Devonshire02:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Conrad. I have reversed your move of Uriah Heep (David Copperfield) to Uriah Heep for two reasons. First, a full disambiguation page is preferred whenever one of the subject's notability does not overwhelm that of the others sharing the same name. It is better to have lazily-undisambiguated links point to a disambiguation page than to the wrong of two comparably notable subjects. In this case, the Google's top ten results consist of seven for the band, one for the character, wikipedia's page for the band, and wikipedia's disambiguation page. If anything, interest in the band overwhelms interest in the original character, but I suggest leaving things as they are now. Second, you performed a cut-and-paste move, which is bad because it did not keep the character's page history with the page, giving the appearance that you wrote the article from scratch. In the future, when moving a page, please follow the directions at Help:Moving a page. Some moves require the assistance of an administrator through Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Let me know if you want to discuss this matter further or if you need any help with anything. ×Meegs16:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You have to be joking? Your claims of Michael Savage having bipolar disorder are ORIGINAL research... and border character assassination. Keep your editing neutral and void of partisanship as ridiculous as this. Unbelievable! People like you give Wikipedia a bad rep! —This unsigned comment was added by 24.79.43.137 (talk • contribs) 22:00, March 30, 2006 (UTC)..
I did not claim for a fact that Michael Savage has bipolar disorder. I stated that his tendency to shift moods and viewpoints frequently and drastically may be a sign that he has this disorder, and I mentioned specific examples of this that I have heard of. If anyone here is partisan, it is you, not me. - Conrad Devonshire04:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
link to porn sites on user page
I removed the link to porn sites that you placed on your user page. Wikipedia may not be censored for the protection of minors, but I do not believe that you are allowed to have porn links on your user page. - Conrad Devonshire06:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont know if I should be annoyed or happy. This means two things:
152.163.100.67 report on WP:RFI/AOL IPs in general
Because of the rather annoying way that AOL assigns IPs, who uses them changes rapidly. Therefore past warnings don't really mean that much. The best way to deal with them is to rapidly warn them (eg with {{bv}} if the vandalism is bad enough, or one of the other test templates, then report them to WP:AIV for a quick block (if they continue). RFI is more for complex vandalism where the time taken to respond isn't so critical. Cheers, Petros47111:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Goatse
I might add that not all of the "links to pornography" you removed herewere links to pornography, eg. Oralse, which I'm pretty sure isn't, unless they've changed. 68.39.174.23802:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Then restore the ones that aren't if you want. I (naturally) didn't care to take the time to view each one to evaluate its content. - Conrad Devonshire03:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I see your struggling how to deal with socks at the AFD nomination of List of shock sites. As a guideline, it is usually best to leave a short comment in italicsbold below the suspected message. This almost always catches the attention of a closing admin, so you dont have to worry about the influence he/they will have on the voting.
Also, you posted rather a long story at the top, discrediting other peoples votes. Personally, I consider this somewhat bad form. Although I agree with you largely, you should really let people make up their own mind. If you think the article is delete-worthy, simply state the reasons you have for this. If you feel other peoples reasons are stupid or disruptive, chances are the closing admin will feel the same.
I think you'd do yourself, and the deletion process a great favour if you would rephrase the introduction. The reactions of the other users speak for themselves.
Good. On a positive note, I've helped a bit with tagging the socks. In bold by the way :-) Maybe you should reformat your own comments on socks to mirror mine. This is easier on the closing admin and should suffice keeping them excluded. Now if you could rewrite your intro it would help legitimate users get included as well. Be sure to mention the argument that a Category:Shock sites already exists! Cheers, The Minister of War(Peace)16:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for butting in. If he's trying to vote now as an IP, there's really no need to be alarmed -- most administrators do not count very new users or IP voters in the vote tallies, to avoid just such a scenario because the potential for meat/sockpuppetry is so high. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll15:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I'll second that. Shouldn't be a problem. I'm glad that someone blocked Skinmeister. That was one of the more obvious socks I've run into. And even if it wasn't a sock, the abusive language in the edit summaries would've earned an indefinite block. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)16:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
About his edits, he isn't registering any new votes under the IP. He is viewing the history section and copying, cutting, and pasting the votes submitted by his two accounts into the article. - Conrad Devonshire18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I just looked through the IP's contrib history. No need to allow that sort of disruption; I blocked the IP for a week, through the close of the AFD. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll18:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Skinmeister
Hi Conrad, I noticed from the talk pages that you seem to be having a personal feud with Skinmeister. Also there seems to be revert war going on right now on the Shock Sites article.
I am sure that an admin will get involved in this somewhere along the way... but perhaps you care to comment on the talk page of the article why you think the article is advertising something? Because currently I don't see how the tag belongs there; it's rediculous.
It appears you have strong opinions about the list of shock sites. I am not sure that nominating it as AFD was the best thing to do a week after it survived with a speedy keep. As a practicing Jew/Zen buddhist, I am not personally offended by this list and because of its relevance to internet trolling phenomena I believe it does have a place within the encycolpaedia. - Abscissa02:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley11:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sir, I was only reverting Skinmeister(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)'s repetative removal of the advert tag from the page. That user has a habit of reverting changes and labeling them as vandalism without discussion simply because he disagrees with them. Currently, whether or not that article conforms to Wikipedia's policy of no advertisement/promotion is currently disputed, and the tag should remain for the time being. As he was repetatively removing it even after being warned not to, I felt that I was simply reverting vandalism, and did not think that I was violating the three-revert rule, as it does not apply to the reversion of edits that are clearly inappropriate, correct? I apologise if I have violated the rule. - Conrad Devonshire23:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite the fact that Skinmeister's repeated removal was inappropriate, it wasn't actually vandalism, just highly contested editing. The 3RR applies to all reverts, except for simple and obvious vandalism. Mangojuice16:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not know that there was a rule against informing other users on their talk pages of a deletion nomination. I viewed it as basically the same as when a politician airs commercials on TV about an upcoming election and asks viewers to vote for him. If there is a rule against this, I apologise for breaking it and will avoid doing so in the future. Please also note, however, that I was not the only one to do so. - Conrad Devonshire01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
was totally inappropriate and really not appreciated. We are working on improving this article, and Aaron Brenneman expressly requested that people not make large changes unilaterally as a condition on his unprotecting it. Your failure to discuss this edit first is a major part of this problem. There has been edit warring going on there, because some of the editors who believe in the article have gotten very touchy thanks to this page being nominated for deletion twice in as many weeks. I've been trying to engage people in conversation, and it's been starting to work, and then you step in and make a dramatic change like that, ignoring everyone else's opinions, and ruining the truce I've been working on. I'm not reverting you, because I've promised not to do that, but I'd like to see what Aaron thinks of your action here. Mangojuice02:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I would be suprised if you didn't get blocked for this blatant disregard for the last AfD and the people trying to coordinate efforts on the talk page. VegaDark02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is a disregard for the AfD, as I have not removed any content from the article and do not intend to any time soon. I do not understand is why the article was reverted to its uncited version after it was split into two articles. I did mention on the article's talk page that as the article "List of shock sites/Uncited" was now redundant due to this needless and undiscussed revert, I would redirect it to this article. If the fact that I inserted Brenneman's tag from the previous article into this one (which mentioned something about deletion) is what has made you angry, you should be happy to know that I altered it so that it read that the article may be deleted after sources have been cited and content imported to the cited list of shock sites, now found on the Shock site page (and even if that occured, the content would remain intact, so it would not make a difference; it would just be transferring content from one area to another, not a true deletion). - Conrad Devonshire02:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Consider yourself spanked
I take a little wiki-holiday, and what's waiting for me when I get back: Wild accusations and recriminations because I haven't blocked you. Which I would have done had I been around. I haven't (and didn't) because blocking is preventative, not punative, and we don't block days after the fact too often. I think the theory is that it's like toilet training a puppy or something, and that we editors collectively have goldfish memories. Anyway, you've got to learn to work with other editors a little bit more. I know that's ironic coming from me, but I've staked out the boundry of what's acceptable (with occasional drifts into "way too much" land) and these edits went past it. Sometimes it takes time for an article to be "healed" and sometimes patience is hard to come by. The selective application of the kick (like my page move) sometimes works, but sometimes doesn't, and it shouldn't be used after someone has screamed. Although I must admit I sometimes do. So, colour me hypocrit perhaps, but still: That was too much. Be good. brenneman{L}08:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I personally think that those users who complained against me were a little too touchy, but still you wouln't have to worry about me causing any more argument. I'm currently fed up with the whole "list of shock sites" issue, and have decided to devote my time and energy elsewere. - Conrad Devonshire00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I just I'd tell you that I reverted this page myself due to further vandalism and claimed that your previous revert didn't include all the votes prior to past vandalism in the edit summary. I was incorrect, as it was exactly the same as the one I reverted back to. I thought I'd just apologise for the mix up in case you edit the page again. Regards, --Cini02:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure why you reverted my contribution, but as you are very young, I will attribute it to youthful exuberance. Good luck in the future, I am sure you will have many valuable contributions when you have become more knowledgeable. Stay in school!
I thought that the edit may have been vandalism, as I did not see anything in the article mentioning that the person was a "gay icon". If I was mistaken, then I apologise for reverting you edit. Thank you for your understanding. --Conrad Devonshire04:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
RCHS Page
Hey, thanks for catching that vandalism on the page for Roman Catholic. I've been cleaning it up and things, and as you would it expect, it gets a few visits from kids in the school who try to be funny. Thanks again!
--MagicMan2223:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you ever consider the fact that you are the only one who cares? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.251.5.7 (talk • contribs) .
Not quite sure what this is supposed to mean, as usually more than one person cares about pretty well everything ;) Petros47123:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Newsletter
Hello, I noticed from above that you have a newsletter. I am interested in subscribing but I could not find any details. Could you please provide more information about how to subscribe to your newsletter? I don't want to post my e-mail here because of spam, so please let me know what is the proper way to subscribe. Thank you!!! -- 72.137.137.2004:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You really are a very dangerous person. Your sort are the very types I was referring to. I note that you also have called me a vandal. So that makes 4 of you. I'm glad you don't live anywhere near me. Wallie17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, I did not call you a vandal. I said that some of your edits were careless and could have been misinterpreted as vandalism, and that rather than attack those who have misinterpreted your edits, you should try to learn from your mistakes and be more careful in the future. Apparently you have not heeded my advice, but oh well, that's not my problem.--Conrad Devonshire22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. As mentioned in the VDU article, I wasn't picking on you personally, just citing your work as an example. My main point is that there is far to much personal criticism within Wikipedia. But that is probably partly my political opinion. Others may think it is OK to criticise others direcly, and I guess they have rights too. However, I take back what I said about your being dangerous. I have come across some that are, and wrongly accused you of being like them. By the way all of us make statements which can appear/are careless, including me. Wallie20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I thank you for your apologies and am glad that you seem to be trying to be less at odds with others. I may have been a little too hasty with you, and if so, I apologise also. I think that you are capable of making valuable contributions if you try to cooperate with others more, and I hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia.--Conrad Devonshire20:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for vandalizing the French page; someone hacked me and now is trying to frame me...
Plz dont block me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.102.96 (talk • contribs)
Your recent edit to Bret Hart was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot205:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
02:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
02:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
