Jump to content

User talk:Equazcion/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

quick ?Q?

Since I see you're online and since you know so much... remind me how to get a Table of Contents to be on the right? For the life of me I cannot remember right now!!! (I remember __NOTOC__ but can't remember the others...) TIA. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

{{TOCright}} :) Equazcion •✗/C • 08:00, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
I thought that was it... I was using the underscores instead of the brackety thingies. Duh-me. Thanks!!! "You're the Greatest!" VigilancePrime (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 08:02, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Another Quick Question: can I get the code you use for your signature? I want to incorporate one of the features you are using and I have no idea how to work sigs on Wikipedia. I was lucky to "personalize" it as much as I already have... VigilancePrime (talk) :-) 06:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, it's at User:Equazcion/s Equazcion •✗/C • 06:29, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete notification

A tag has been placed on Template:Recap, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Encourages voting rather than discussion

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Template:Recap|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MBisanz talk 14:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Note I didn't place it, I'm just notifying you. MBisanz talk 14:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:56, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Rouge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of the discussion was everybody shut up right now.--Father Goose (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the ANI thread I just started. Thanks Equazcion •✗/C • 03:00, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I find it interesting that by starting the thread, you actually advertised the action. If you'd like a suggestion, I think at this point you're better off just letting this go and moving on. But (of course) what you choose to do is assuredly up to you. I hope you have a good day : ) - jc37 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
While my advice will probably be meaningless to you, I'll echo Jc37's comments and suggest you move on. Continuing to perpetuate the dispute, and continuing to comment on the closed discussion, does nothing for whatever cause you seem to be fighting for. Let it die. - auburnpilot talk 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The easiest way to get me to continue commenting is by saying the discussion is over. I find that to be the most inappropriate thing someone can possibly say on Wikipedia. Not you guys, since you did it in an opinionated way rather than in a positive declaration -- but Lara's expectation that her statement be an authoritative closing of the discussion is something I won't allow. You might consider this pettiness, but hey, to each his own. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:09, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Even if it is petty, I can't argue with it. I've had people slap those damn archive templates on a conversation I was trying to have, and it pissed me off beyond belief. Regardless, I hope the situation resolves itself one way or the other. - auburnpilot talk 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ha, love it :) Equazcion •✗/C • 21:40, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Post-joke portion

Please respect the fact that this discussion has been archived and is no longer active and that furthur comments [1] are not welcome to this thread. If you feel there is still something to address without beating a dead horse, start a new thread. Regards, — Save_Us † 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no respect for the so-called archival of discussions. Neither admins nor anyone else has the right to end a discussion. Discussions on Wikipedia may go on as long as someone has something to say. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:33, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)
No, it ends when someone outside the conversation determines that the conversation has steered off in the wrong direction, the desired outcome came and conversation continued or when complaints get frivilous. Admins are free to make this assessment and non-admins as well in some situations. I suggest you take a step back and consider being more productive than you have been lately. I'm not going to continue this conversation either, as long as you desist, which is what I suggest you do. Regards, — Save_Us † 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't end as long as someone still has something to say. It doesn't matter if someone "outside" the discussion, admin or otherwise, feels it should end. That's completely irrelevant. Read through the discussion I linked to above for the details of my thoughts on this (and the thoughts of a few others). Equazcion •✗/C • 21:46, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Domo origato.

It's actually Domo arigato. ;) · AndonicO Hail! 14:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance. I'll know for next time. Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 14:07, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun

Eq, I have appreciated you assistance and enthusiasm with the Recap template and in the various discussions. Whil I think you may push a little too hard (think Rouge Admins), I don't disagree with your point in the matter. (As someone erroneously stated, you were blocked for claiming to be an admin? That's simply untrue. Anyway...) To that end, I was hoping to tap into that enthusiasm and energy and creativity to assist in the writing in a few (future?) WikiEssays. It's just for fun, if you have the time and the inkling. The essays are:
Thanks in advance for any help you may provide! • VigilancePrime • • • 20 18:50 Feb '08
I'm not so into the humor essays but perhaps if I'm bored one day :) Btw you may want to see Wikipedia:Editcountitis and Wikipedia:Wikipediholic, as they may fulfill the needs of a couple of those ideas already. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:24, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User drums2

A tag has been placed on Template:User drums2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed that as it isn't orphaned (and the notice also said by reason of no useful purpose). If it is deprecated, then the box needs to be migrated and THEN this template deleted (which would have no visible change on the pages that use the template). • VigilancePrime • • • 20 20:23 Feb '08
Thanks Vig. If I remember correctly this is a highly used template. Honestly I dunno what some people are thinking. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:20, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
My bad, I thought this was referring to the original user drum template, the one I have posted, {{User drums}}. {{User drums2}} is a test template that I created while I was redesigning {{user drums}}, and it is orphaned. It's just a copy of what {{user drums}} looked like before I changed it. It probably should be speedied, on second thought. Sorry for the confusion. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:33, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The what links here only listed your page, so I'm wondering if it was migrated or something and your page hasn't been updated (yet). That's what I'm betting, but I don't know. BTW: Is there a Trumpet userbox? • VigilancePrime • • • 20 22:34 Feb '08
That makes sense... a {{db-userreq}} would work best. • VigilancePrime • • • 20 22:34 Feb '08
The only reason my talk page is listed under "what links here" is because of the link in the speedy delete notification :) I don't know if there's a trumpet template, but the place to look would be under Wikipedia:Userboxes/Music#Instruments. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:37, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Duh-me. If it was being used, now that I think about it, it would have had (transclusion) after the link... Oh well, apologies for the low-level WikiDrama I started. I meant well. • VigilancePrime • • • 20 22:46 Feb '08
I know, and I appreciate the intention :) A little unnecessary drama never hurt anyone. At least, I don't think. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:48, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

Hi Equazcion,

I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your removal of Zenwhat's question on Jimbo's talk page. I disagree that it qualifies as trolling--unlike many of his past comments, this question seems in line with some of the stuff normally asked on that page, and it stood for a couple of hours without being reverted (compared to the six minutes it took WJBscribe to revert the Wikzilla sock and the one minute it took Jj137 to revert the vandalism before that). I have no stake, though, so if you strongly disagree with my opinion, go ahead and change it back. Thanks! --jonny-mt 09:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally say Zenwhat should be keeping away from Jimbo's talk page for a while. While this particular comment is more on-par with other comments found on Jimbo's page, it seems apparent that Zenwhat intends to bother Jimbo with every little thing for no productive reason. But that's just me and I don't feel strongly about it. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:03, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Help with sig code

Please could you help, after I've seen your excellent help with VigilancePrime's sig. What I want to do is what loads of other people do- the first word link to my user page, the second to my talk page. But the first link isn't doing it, and I don't see why. Hope you can help. -Now it seems to work on your talk page but nowhere else?!:) Special Random (Merkinsmum) —Preceding comment was added at 18:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you were only testing it on your own talk page -- the wiki automatically removes links to the current page. So for instance, [[User talk:Equazcion]] produces User talk:Equazcion here (notice no link). Try your sig on other pages, it should work. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:55, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Aaaaaaah, I get it, how strange. Hurrah I did it! Thanks :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 02:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup you did :) No problem. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:23, 22 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Template:Recap

I'll look into it tomorrow. I impose a pretty strict 7:00 UTC bedtime on myself, I'll be back in 10-12 or so hours. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 07:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's no emergency. Thanks again. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:03, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Re:Toolbar

Whoa! Thanks a lot. I tried making a customized one, but it got faulty. This surely helps. Thanks again, Lex T/C Guest Book 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 00:29, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

dxm

Hey, thanks for cleaning up the DXM article that I did a sloppy job adding to. I was gonna come back to it, but you beat me and saved me the work in the process! Thanks again. Flypanam (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 00:29, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Trivia tags

Thanks I am in the middle of taking a look at these tags and seeing if there is some way to fix any problems that may have been caused. Assuming that formatting wasn't adulterated, what would be the problem with adding trivia tags? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fix These can be fixed by inserting a linebreak; you don't have to undo/revert. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, adding trivia tags massively like this has caused problems in the past. I can find the relevant pages of discussion on it if you want. Trivia tags aren't a necessity. It's best to just tag sections when you happen to come across them, than to systematically go on a campaign. We had a bot that used to do this, but it's no longer active for this reason. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:10, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)
And thanks a lot, now I have another hundred articles in my watchlist :) Just kidding :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:14, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Red Barnstar
I like the way you think on that discussion page on the service awards! I like it so much, that I, Nothing444 talk to me will award you a barnstar. :) Happy editing! Nothing444 talk to me 01:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated :) Equazcion •✗/C • 01:43, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

No, Thank You! You showed that is doesn't matter what awards you have as long as you are editing for a good cause! :) --Nothing444 talk to me 20:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Have you ever considered becoming an administrator on Wikipedia? Your work here clearly shows your devotion and access to the tools may help you become even more productive. If you would like to become an administrator, just to let you know I have your full unconditional support. I'll nominate you if I have your consent. y/n ? :) -- penubag  (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that access to the tools would help me and perhaps Wikipedia, but access to the tools isn't all being an admin really entails, is it? :) I appreciate the offer, but for now I think I'll just stay here in the trenches with all you regular folk. See you 'round the third-class cabin :) Equazcion •✗/C • 03:24, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)
It's always the best people who refuse :\ -- penubag  (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't go sacrificing lambs in my name yet. I'm partially refusing because my RfA would be a heated ordeal that will divide the Wikipedia community and be a large headache I won't want to pay any attention to. And, I don't feel like going through the running-for-public-office political campaign that's required for an RfA. And I don't want to answer questions and explain past experiences with the steady stream of politically-correct and family-friendly bullshit meant to lick as many asses as possible. It just ain't me. I've said this before, RfA is a process that I just have no respect for. Also, being that admins are supposed to just be editors with mops, I'd say anyone who actually wants to be an admin probably has the wrong idea, and we should all be wary of them. I mean, who the hell wants a mop?
Yeah that's perhaps a virtuous-sounding motivation for declining, but a lot of it is just plain laziness, too. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:04, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Wherest I understand your position, some admins don't do newbie-helping business at all, they just benefit from the tools. But I also understand that being an admin means you can't break as many rules as if you're just a regular user. However, if you do happen to have a revelation, you can always ask me to nominate you. Cheers -- penubag  (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind newbie-helping; the RfA process is what I'm not looking forward to. But thanks, I'll keep your offer in mind. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:10, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Have a read at my essay WP:SEI

Maybe you will find it useful. Igor Berger (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understand what this is all about. Thank you for your objectivity. I hope an uninvolved admin can comment on the discussion and if posibly close the deletion process. I feel adminUser:VirtualSteve has WP:WEIGHT and is not quite objective in the process. I would like to WP:AGF but it is difuclt to do without a third opinion of an univolved admin being that it looks like VS id presiding over the discussion and it is hard to keep NPOV in that respect. If the essay is deleted, so should it be and there is not much I can do. This is the life of Wikipedia. And that is the whole point of the essa that it it very hard to achive NPOV on Wikipedia because inadvertent or devised social engineering inclanation of POV. Again that you for your objectivity and I am sorry I have bothered you in this matter. Igor Berger (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and Mental Health

I probably shouldn't belabor this, but after thinking about it I find your pattern contributing to this page rather strange. For someone who doesn't really participate in the David Reardon or Abortion and Mental Health discussions much anymore, I'm confused as to why you will occasionally come to the page, call me names, and then threaten to ANI me.[2] Especially when you you used to have such thoughtful participation in the past.[3]

I don't normally pay much attention to name-calling; however, it just strikes me as odd that now your only consistent participation (which, happens only every few months) is to compare me to Strider - not to discuss my edits, not to discuss the merits or demerits of the Abortion and Mental Health page, and not to discuss your vision of what the page should be. My question is, what's going on here?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My participation has not been consistent at all. Most of the time I'm just watching the edit wars from afar. I left once and came back once, aside from intermediate unrelated comments about other sporadic issues (such as anchor linking in the lead section). I tried discussing things but that didn't quite work out, because of what I would classify as disruptiveness mainly caused by you. So now I feel it's best to get outside input from ANI. If you were in a dispute with someone and discussion didn't seem to get anywhere, would you not go the same route? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:58, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
But that's the thing. I don't know what we are disputing exactly. From my point of you, you came to the page, called me prepubescent, compared me to Strider, then threatened to ANI me. I don't know what you are attempting to accomplish.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well you should know as I've already stated it at User talk:Saranghae honey, and you already replied. I'm not going to restate it on every page in which we're exchanging comments. See there for details. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:56, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Now I see... You've accused me on the other pages of POV pushing without providing evidence. You've accused me of not being civil without providing compelling evidence - and yet you call me a "prepubescent" "radical" with impunity.[4] Again, I don't get it.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, again, see User talk:Saranghae honey. There's plenty of specifics and evidence there. Again I'm not going to restate it all here. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:09, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Not really equazcion. You haven't said much in the way of proof. I'm going to bed. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

'Night. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:11, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Equazcion, I think at this point it is simply best if I WP:SHUN. You aren't interested in making the article in question better. You seem interested only in making judgements about me, though you have never engaged my talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not interested in you or anything about you. I'm only interested in improving the article. I tried to do it but you and Strider wouldn't let me. The only reason I've engaged in this argument with you alone is because you inquired as to what my problem was -- on three different talk pages, no less. I didn't do this. You did. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:50, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Talk page removals

Listen Sancho Pancho Do not delete other people's contributions from talk pages. Add to them if you have the cortical ability in between taking up burritos in your hind end. OK?

Added: You just deleted second time (vandalized consistent with your culture) my contribution to the articles talk page as well as yours. Removing talk contributions is a violoation and you are an abuser.!72.74.116.197 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You blanked the talk page (Talk:Cemal Gürsel). That's vandalism. So please stop. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:39, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you've met my little buddy. He's not particularly happy with me but I do have to admit that he is more verbose than the typical vandals we get. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I am sorry, but the damn troll (me) wants to know what you are doing. Are you going to revert every single edit I make? Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not "ever". Perhaps "every". But no, not even that. Only the troll-ish edits -- you know, the kind meant to provoke and disrupt. This would be an example. You seem to want to get something posted to my talk page, no matter what it is. So now I've let you. I hope this makes you happy. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:11, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Do you want me take a WikiBreak? To just leave and re-grow grapes (which I never lost)? And I don't really appreciate being called a troll. Another: I'm not a nasty "almost-vandal" that needs to publish something on a talk page, or else they'll die. Happy editing, Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I have to say you've been a bit trollish yourself:

"that portion of the discssion was irrelevant and should be removed. file a report about this like you said you would. i feel these should stay deleted though, as they're only disruptive, not helpful"

In bold is what I think is a comment "to provoke". Also, I never said I would. Someone else did. Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 19:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ah. Forgive me, I thought there was no point to these comments you've made now on my talk page. If there was a point then I wholeheartedly apologize. I must be blind. I'm sure you don't appreciate being called a troll... no one does. Your taking offense at someone classifying your actions does not remove credence from their claim. As for the provocation, that was an edit summary. I didn't make an edit simply to provoke. And, I really did feel that the editor in question would do well to "file" a report, because those comments really didn't belong in the discussion, and I felt rather strongly about that. And, the bold comment in question was not aimed at you, it was aimed at SqueakBox. Happy editing. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:19, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I did. I was asking if you thought I should take a small WikiBreak. Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with you at all so I'm ill-equipped to answer that question. I do think you made many inappropriate comments at the deletion discussion. If you feel this is a product of fatigue, then yes, you may want to consider a break. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:28, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I will withdrawl my comments from the page except for the original. Happy editing, Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 19:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much appreciated. I've removed my responses to those comments as well. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:43, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I will suggest to Uga Man to delete the comments on his user page. Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 19:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's good, but don't expend too much energy on this. Focus your efforts on the future instead. It's not all that important to remove traces of exchanges you might regret, in my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:58, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm now going to take a short break (an hour or two). Happy editing, and sorry, Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's alright, and no problem. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:05, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)


Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 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.

Image:Israel protected.jpg

Unfortunately, Google Maps screenshots are not free; a free map that you might want to use as a basis for a similar picture is at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/maps/is-map.gif —Random832 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version using that image. Thanks for the heads-up. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:47, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)

For All Your Hard Work, Assistance, and General Awesome-ness

The Special Barnstar
Eq, for all your help with template coding, tolerating my constant bothering while I was working on making a cool signature, and adjusting my talk page to improve it without request... You are AWESOME and should never forget it! Truly a great Wikipedian, willing to help, seeking out ways to assist, and collaborative to a fault.
            Many thanks, now and always! • VigilancePrime • • • 02:00 (UTC) 4 Mar '08
Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 02:40, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)

New messages from Voyagerfan5761

Hello, Equazcion. You have new messages at Voyagerfan5761's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your final warning to User: Victor64

You made a final warning to User: Victor64 earlier today. At the time of your warning, the new user in question had made two constructive edits (fixing vandalism by others), and only one destructive edit. Issuing a final warning under this circumstances is completely outside any of the guidelines for dealing with vandalism. In fact, it fits under the description of What vandalism is not - tests by experimenting users. The guidelines note that "Rather than be warned for vandalism, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the sandbox (e.g., using the test template message) where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive.".

Can you please follow guidelines in the future when dealing with new users, and place an apology to the user on his talk page. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The user was a clear vandal, blanking pages and writing abusive language. The user since been blocked indef. Igor Berger (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The user was clearly not a vandal - as documented above. I've been looking into this further. I'm now realising that you reported on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism that this was a vandalism-only account - despite the evidence suggesting that this was merely a new user experimenting. Why did you misrepresent this? 50% of his edits were constructive. (60% actually, as I note that a fifth edit was made from the IP without being logged in? Nfitz (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The admins who perform blocks don't just take the reporting user's word for it, or shouldn't. The user may have made a couple of good edits but was clearly a vandal. The definition of a vandalism-only account notwithstanding, I thought it was an appropriate way to describe the account to communicate its state. The user clearly intended to continue vandalizing, and an indef block was appropriate. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:28, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how you can conclude from two virtually simultaneous acts of vandalism, that the user clearly intended to continue vandalising. As documented on my talk page, the user stopped vandalizing after receiving the first warning - and then proceeded to make constructive edits. I also don't know how you can make a claim that it is a vandalism-only account, when not all the edits made by the account were vandalism. By definition, it is not a vandalism-only account, and your description as such was misleading. Nfitz (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)-
It appears we are in disagreement. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:04, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
To me, and I think to most people, "vandalism-only account" means an account that does only vandalism edits and no constructive edits. If you want to use this phrase to mean something else, please add words to your sentence to make your meaning clear, in order to avoid misunderstandings that could lead to inappropriate blocks or other problems. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
But the real reason I came here was to let you know that I've posted a message to you at Wikipedia talk:Huggle#Distribution?. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

I assume you got it ;) I am a little concerned however. It would be easy to make Huggle a virus, and now the maker has disappeared. Chances are that he has just had something crop up IRL, but :S Tiddly-Tom 18:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I wanted Huggle, I don't have it. Can you send it over? MBisanz talk 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)`
It would be easy to make it a virus, but but only if one has the course code, I think. So far no one's been able to get their hands on that. MBisanz, sure I'll send it to you. Just send me an email. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:29, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Got it. thanks. MBisanz talk 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Would you happen to know if there's a tool that tallies the number of articles an editor has created? Thanks, Enigma msg! 23:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't know of any tool like that, sorry. I thought the edit count tools might do it but I checked both of them, and user logs, and nothing seems to give that info. Let me know if you find one though. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:08, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I will. I'm going to keep looking. Enigma msg! 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you point me to the edit count tool? I like to know how many edits I have done seen I joined WP. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Igorberger&dbname=enwiki_p Equazcion •✗/C • 23:27, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Thank you great tool. I need to think how I can make some tools for Wikipedia. PHSDL Spam list right now will not be useful because it is mostly Malware domains, but if I can change the honeypot to optout from optin I would catch much more Spamm domains and then I cane share the list with Wikipedia. I use to get 500 Spam domain post a day. Mostly Zlob Trojan Malware, but now get about 20 Spam posts a day. I wrote the whole thing in PHP and MySQL. Can you tell me what happens when we add a domain o Wikipedia Spam project list? Can a user still add that link or the edit will not be allowed once on that list? Because my honeypot forum does not allow a post with a domain once it is on PHSDL Spam list. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't know much about the spam list, sorry. You should post your question at that project, maybe someone there can help you. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:45, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for the suggestion. Igor Berger (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a counter for what I was talking about. Enigma msg! 01:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's interesting. Although from using it on my own name it looks like it doesn't list created subpages, template pages, talk pages, or Wikipedia: pages. It only lists top mainspace pages created. Just FYI. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:45, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I have my own wiki here, and on it you can see how many pages you have created. The new pages page on WP has a usename box, but retunes no results. Maybe becouse so many pages are created each day? Tiddly-Tom 07:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

I removed my request Sorry for the confusion. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was actually in the process of moving it the talk page when you did. That's alright, no harm done. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:52, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)
"Removing right to use Huggle." Maybe that was the wrong way to phrase it, but administrators can disable your Huggle privileges, I believe. There's potential for abuse with such a powerful program, so I think you can be blocked from using it or something. Enigma msg! 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if there were a way, but I don't think it currently exists. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:01, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Here. I don't know what that's referring to specifically, but if there were no other way, an admin could remove it from the css page and then protect the page. That's just an example of a way you could be prevented from using Huggle. Enigma msg! 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think of that at all, good catch :) We'll have to include instructions for blocking in case it becomes necessary at some point. PS a user could just create a new account to get around that... but it's something at least. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:09, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a user could create a new account. The problem is that once you release a program, it's very difficult to control what happens to it. Obviously we don't want people to do this, but anyone who had Huggle sent to them could post the file on a major website and then anyone could get it. I'm hoping there will be a way to prevent usage of Huggle for users with less than a certain amount of mainspace edits (that would preclude just anyone from being able to sign up and start using it). Enigma msg! 07:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
All these things are possible if we had the source code, but as soon as someone gets their hands on that we'd just add a check similar to AWB and VandalProof, where the user needs to be on a list of approved users in order to use the program. Til then, all we have is the CSS method, unfortunately. Hopefully Gurch will start paying attention again soon and hand over development to other users, since he doesn't seem interested in it himself anymore. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:42, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Although, here's a way to at least check who's using it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?ns2=1&search=huggle.css&fulltext=Search We could check periodically for new unapproved users in that search, or something. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:45, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)
When you exit Huggle, it automatically updates the whitelist. I noticed this yesterday and began using that page as a reference. Enigma msg! 08:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but that can be disabled from the config options. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:19, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Just wondering if you ever got my email response for huggle? Both you and TheHelpfulOne asked for responses which I sent. Since you both use gmail, I thought maybe my hotmail might be blocked to you guys. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 18:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. Enigma msg! 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Enigma, I got it. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 18:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I apologize, I received your email but it seems I misunderstood you. You said TheHelpfulOne already sent "you this", and I took that to mean he sent you the program file already. I sent it out to you now. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:30, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I shoulda been clearer. Thanks though. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 18:37, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)

E-mail.

One more filling up your inbox. · AndonicO Hail! 00:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it, see my two replies. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:06, 6 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Replied to both. · AndonicO Hail! 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Replied to your replies :) Equazcion •✗/C • 03:14, 6 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Please respect my edit

Here is the image that was deleted from User:WebHamster user space. It is from commons, here is the link Image:Vulva.jpg The image is of a legal age adult woman as stated by the license, taken by Dutch artist Peter Klashorst This file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 It was not determined by policy to be deleted. I also took out the incoregment to reupload. Igor Berger (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I like to ask you to remove this comment I have said I have left the discussion, and there is no need for "ignore him he will go way" statement. I consider this WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please refrain from making such comments in the future. Igor Berger (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:58, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I reinserted the derogative and baid faith comments you made in ANI here please do not delete them. By you deleting the comments you are refactoring the ANI thread and changing the meaning of your intent. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I only removed them because you complained about them. You can't have it both ways. And besides, anyone is allowed to remove their own comments, so please don't reinsert mine. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:02, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
      • You should strike them out not remove them! Igor Berger (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Different situations call for different remedies. Striking out comments is usually done when a person's opinion changes or they made a factual error. These comments were considered by another editor to be a personal attack, and in those situations, the comments are generally removed. I wasn't all that attached to them anyway, so I didn't mind removing them completely. Anyway it's my decision and I've chosen to remove them. If you want to remind people of what a bad person I am, simply link to the diffs. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:09, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Igor

I have tried to get this ANI back on track also. I understand your frustrations with this editor. Continue with your thread is my advice.--VS talk 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw, and I appreciate it. Don't worry, I haven't given up -- just took a break to play a new game :) This guy is just impossible... it would be so much simpler if he were intentionally malicious. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:41, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Understood - it is hard sometimes but be assured that many editors have a similar opinion about the disruptive behaviour of this editor. I appreciate your bravery in attempting to deal with such a problematic person.--VS talk 11:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It probably would have helped if I read all the sections above before I commented. LOL, thanks for pointing those out, and disregard my stupid comment. Tiptoety talk 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That's alright, I don't blame you for skipping them. If I were just coming in at "break 5" I don't think I would've bothered either. :) Equazcion •✗/C • 00:56, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Well, User:WebHamster just said he is leaving Wikipedia, he had enough. I am not going to watch the article, so good luck! Igor Berger (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -Equazcion •✗/C • 15:42, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)
User:Bsharvy Keeps adding the unencyclopidic tag here Even when all the editors, envolved with the article, do not beleive that it should be added. Many have tried to reson of him, and some have attempted to revert his edit, but he feels like he owns the tag. Please check how many times he has inserted the tag in the article, that is clearly beeing abusive. I am not going to revert him, or even attempt to talk to him. I have tried, and it is unproductive, he just wants to insert his POV. I leave it in your hands to deal with the situation. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
From what I am reading on the article talk page, Bsharvey does raise valid points. We should all get over the tags and discuss the article. I like what you said about leaving the tags alone. I hope other editors do the same and we can start improving the article not warring over a tag! Igor Berger (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh and Bsharvy is a she not a he, I picked that up from the AfD discussion. Igor Berger (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I asked User:El C and he said, if you need me to join in the ANI or SSP discussion that I can join. So please let me know if you need me, if not I will just bring any evidence here, if I think it is relevent to the case. Igor Berger (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said on ElC's talk page, PLEASE COOL IT. No one needs you to go around informing everyone of every little thing that happens. When you have an ORIGINAL thought to convey, feel free to say so. Otherwise, if you're just going to repeat what other people are doing, on multiple pages, you really must stop. This is really out of hand and you're not helping anyone. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:24, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Well I was the one who brought it to your attention, because what was happening on the article, please do as you feel fit with it. No need for all of us to do the same thing. Let's try to work together not marginalize others. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you didn't bring it to my attention. I do have the article in my watchlist, you know. That's how people find out about things. They don't need a messenger running around bringing them news. Don't do this again, Igor, because while I realize you mean well, it is still very disruptive and I will not hesitate to bring this back to ANI just because you're a nice guy. Trust me. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:30, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Well I am trying to learn how to deal with a problem. So please teach me, how to do it the right way. In the future, should I just ask you for help, and bring the evidence just to you? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The right way is to speak up when you think of something no one else seems to have thought of yet. All you seem to do is repeat things other people say, and it is not helpful, even if you do it on different pages -- in fact it's more disruptive that way. My recommendation, as everyone keeps telling you, is that you get started editing actual articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:40, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
You are right! Theo reported it as a possible sock on the article talk page at 8:53 and I reported it to you right here at 8:56. I need to be careful, there is no need for multiple users to do the same thing. In pursuit to deal with Bsharvy reverts, I missed the Theo sock report on the article page. My apology! Will be careful not to waste time! Next time, please let me know sooner if there is no need for me to do something so I do not get in the way. Igor Berger (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You've conveniently avoided the recommendation, Igor, as you keep on doing every single time someone makes it. The problem goes beyond this one little sock warning. You feel the need to repeat things other people say all the time. The recommendation, once again: Stop trying to help in disputes and get on with editing articles. We don't need your help, and when anyone does need a mediator, there are processes for requesting one, so don't worry. They'll be fine without you. Start editing articles. Stop trying to mediate disputes. I don't know how much clearer I can be. This NEEDS to happen, Igor. You need to make a change or else you are only going to succeed in pissing people off. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:57, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
No, I hear what you saying and I am not ignoring your consern. But before I can help edit an article I need to get to know the editors and what is what, not just jump on the article. So I will try my best to stay away from mediation, I rather contribute to the article and leave the policing and mediating to others. Igor Berger (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you don't need to get to know the other editors. This isn't a chat board. There are just two steps involved in editing: Read an article. Make an edit where you see the need. That's it. Talking to others here is secondary. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:06, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I do not mean get to know them by chating with them, but get to know and understand their edit style as not to edit war and revert each other. But, let's drop it for now and go back to editing. Thank for your help with Anti-Americanism Igor Berger (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI discussion concerning you

Hi Equazcion,

I wanted to make you aware that there's an WP:ANI discussion concerning you (and me) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_of_User:Victor64. This is a procedural notification, I'm not sure that any comment by you is required, unless you're just dying to. - Philippe | Talk 17:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:01, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I've left a comment. This situation really befuddles me. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:19, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections/draft2

Hi Equazcion. In WP:WPMOS, we're trying to nail down the list of articles in the "style guideline" cat. Should we be looking at "Trivia sections" or "Trivia sections/draft2"? You're the only editor so far for this page. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you're asking which is the official guideline bearing community consensus, that would be "WP:Trivia sections". The draft subpages are, of course, just drafts of experimental edits. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:01, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but it's in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines, which is where we tell people to look for style guidelines. It's not terribly important, but it would be nice for that category to have only working style guidelines pages, since that's the list we're keeping track of. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about?!?!?!? It's not in that category!!! Just kidding, I just removed it. It was a copy of the guideline page, so the cat got copied too by mistake. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:36, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I saw some of the language at ANI and I got the humor :) Thanks for the fix. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

I left a note to the blocking admin, I am puzzled too, to be honest :). Please bear with us! -- lucasbfr talk 08:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Lucas :) Equazcion •✗/C • 08:55, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Probably a mistake. presumably Special:Contributions/198.188.150.202 should have been blocked instead.

Request handled by: —Dark (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That was my suspicion as well. Thanks DarkFalls. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:02, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Gah, edit conflicted on {{request accepted}}. I guess that's what I get for editing so late. east.718 at 09:06, March 11, 2008
It's the thought that counts. Thanks East :) Equazcion •✗/C • 09:07, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
My Apologies I don't know why I blocked you either... it must have been a mistake because I do remember blocking the above referenced IP... I just must have been on the wrong page when I did so. Sorry.Balloonman (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Mistakes happen, no worries :) I appreciate the apology. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:26, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

AriS

Oh ok...ic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asen y2k (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC) By the way sorry for all this but how do u sign a comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asen y2k (talk • contribs) 12:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's alright :) Sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of the comment. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:15, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

...

Um... can you please stop that? It's kind of annoying. - User:Huggle

Who are you? And why don't you sign your comments? Enigma msg! 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)If you have some reason for making these sweeping changes, please communicate them on the talk page. And kindly sign your comments. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:53, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Well since he is the one that upkeeps huggle and wrote the entire program, I think he should be capable of modifying the documentation without being reverted. Will (aka Wimt) 22:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
He's not the author. User:Gurch is the author. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:56, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
In English, Huggle is Gurch..thanks...--Cometstyles 22:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What does that mean... Sorry I don't follow. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:59, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Gurch is Huggle, he uses the Huggle account only for maintaining the software documentation and modifying it..its his alternate account...--Cometstyles 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I received an email from Huggle saying the same thing. I responded requesting the user to log in from the Gurch account and make a declaration of the alternate account. If we get that confirmation I think we can all rest easy. If not, well, I think this is a questionable scenario. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:08, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Gurch has clearly stated he has no wish to log in with his old account anymore - you will note that his email address that he is sending huggle updates from is still exactly the same as it always has been, and the documentation updates tie in with the new version of the program. Can you please let this drop, rather than pursuing the completely unproductive cynicism. Will (aka Wimt) 23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing about whether Gurch wants to log in or not. I'd simply like to confirm that someone is who he says he is. I'm sorry if you can't appreciate that. If this person is Gurch, logging in momentarily from that account to allay the legitimate concerns of others should not be an unreasonable request. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:14, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Gurch=Huggle. Simple. Not a big deal. No need for proof. Really, what's the chances of someone with the same name editing information about a program that only the developer would know enough about about to explain? This is totally pointless. Equazcion, trust us. If gurch != huggle, I'm George Bush. -- R TalkContribs@ 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If Gurch == Huggle, logging in from Gurch shouldn't be an unreasonable request, once again. I'm not sure why you would be so surprised at skepticism -- if someone shows up making a claim, I ask for proof. There are other reasons he could have that information other than him being the author. Also I made a very kind request via email and thus far I've seen no edits from Gurch. This smells. I'm sorry if you disagree. I'm not even going to dignify Nick's comment with a response. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:22, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It's gurch. Now I'm satisfied. Go about your business. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:25, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Nick, Equazcion is probably taking this a little too far, but calling it trolling is unfair. His initial reaction was perfectly warranted. Now that we know it's Gurch, we can put this to rest. But please don't throw around accusations or names. Enigma msg! 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You were told it was Gurch 30 minutes ago. You chose to completely ignore several respected contributors who know Gurch and who could confirm that it was Gurch. That sort of blatant disregard for Assuming Good Faith and Using Common Sense is unlikely unless it was intentional. That leaves trolling the only option. Nick (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I chose to get actual confirmation. Being told something and knowing it's true are two different things. I don't like taking people's word for it. No one told me they could confirm anything, they just said it was him. Now that I made a deal of it, we have actual confirmation, and everyone is satisfied. I'm not the only one who felt this way, either. And I'm not sorry. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:36, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Rouge NON-admins

Hope this does not come across rude, but I was looking over your contributions/block log ect... and i thought you may be interested in taking a look at Category:Rouge non-admins (it is a red link on purpose) there is still stuff there though. Tiptoety talk 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rouge non-admins was actually created because I tried to put Rouge admins on my userpage... and then Rouge admins got deleted as a result. :) Thanks, I appreciate the suggestion. But if I can't be a rouge admin, it's just not worth being a rouge. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:39, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Lol, yea, I read some of that, but did not know Rouge admins got deleted as a result. That is funny. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

New version of Huggle

Since we sent it to some users via Huggle Apply, those users aren't on Gurch's list. I'm sending the three I e-mailed the newer version. Enigma msg! 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me, but you should check with Gurch. I'm removing myself from the Huggle thing, as I don't want to deal with Gurch. He isn't all I expected him to be, to put it lightly. Good luck though. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:09, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on. That's no reason to quit WP:HUG. It was just a misunderstanding. Sometimes the creators of the best programs aren't the best with interpersonal skills. Gurch is a little curt, apparently. Doesn't change the fact that he made a great program. I appreciate all the work you did, personally. The Huggle Apply thing took a lot of your time, and I would've been upset too to have it removed suddenly. But Gurch does things his way. Enigma msg! 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not upset at having put in the work only to have it removed. I expected it to be temporary. But with the lack of communication, and the arrogant abrasiveness when he did communicate, I consider Gurch to be a sub-par editor. This isn't just based on comments posted publicly but also on some emails we exchanged. I'm not sure what help I could be anyway if he only wishes to distribute through email. I certainly can't help in writing the program, not that he would likely allow anyone else to participate in that anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:22, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
No, but you could still use Huggle and maybe try to help out people having trouble with Huggle. Gurch is not the only programmer/creator to come off as very abrupt. It's a common problem. But you have to understand that's who Gurch is. Some people are very good in one area and not so good in another. Enigma msg! 00:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)The only reason Gurch does things in secrecy or in a a controlled-manner is because he doesn't want people to Abuse his tool, and for that reason, he doesn't give it out to everyone and just so that people don't replicate the tool or create a carbon-coby of it,after-all its Gurch's tool, and he reserves the right to it and thats why he never revealed the source to anyone, Don't take him wrongly, but Gurch is a really friendly person if you get to know him, he is just being cautious because if this tools goes into the wrong hands, all hell will break lose..better to be safe then sorry..--Cometstyles 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Gurch is not just secretive. He's rude and obnoxious. Perhaps he's different to people he knows better -- but that's neither here nor there. I may continue to use my old version of Huggle, but I choose not to involve myself where I'll have to likely deal with him. I choose not to deal with people who don't show common courtesy. Perhaps that's a flaw of mine, but try to understand, "that's who Equazcion is" :) Equazcion •✗/C • 00:40, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know him either. I started using Huggle after Gurch left. But I'm trying to understand where he's coming from. :) Enigma msg! 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I do understand. I understand where lots of mean-spirited people come from. I just choose not to put myself in situations where I have to deal with such people. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:46, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Censorship?

It was never about the naked picture on WebHamster user page It is about User:Prester John running around the whole project wanting to delete all images from user pages that do not support his conservative POV. There is another guy trying to delete fuck page. These guys are ultra conservatists and trying to impose their POV on the Wikipedia project. You can follow the debate here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Christopher_Mann_McKay. Igor Berger (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't help you there; I'm all for the censorship. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:20, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Equazcion, it is not about the censorship, it about the guy disrupting Wikipedia to push his POV. I really do not care who has what image on which user page, but we do not need to turn Wikipedia upside down to delete all these images, which is WP:POINT. Igor Berger (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the proper way is to do an ArbCom and decide by consensus the view of the whole community, and if the community as a whole decides it is objectionable to have these type of images that express controversy then it should be written in a policy. What is objectionable to one person may not be objectionable to another. To one person an American flag maybe objectionable, so that should be removed as well. So pornagraphic, political, religous, etc. images should be removed. Build a policy for this not ad hoc censorship. Igor Berger (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom doesn't decide on policies, and their decisions don't reflect the community's consensus. If this is just a case of one guy going around editing people's user pages, that's not a situation worthy of arbitration. ANI will do just fine. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:34, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I am just conserned with selective censorship and POV pushing. Not the actual images on user pages, those I do not realy care if they are removed or not from the user pages. But targeting them selectively may make good faith editor leave the project and needs to stop. Igor Berger (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Telling me this does nothing. I'm sure it's being taken care of at ANI. If you're just talking for the sake of talking, kindly stop. This is the kind of thing the ANI thread about you was in reference to, Igor, in case you didn't know. You just keep on saying obvious things for no apparent reason. Go edit an article for christs sake. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:45, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

3RR Edit Warring

I made a report on you. I thought it was only polite to tell you. Rachel63 (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I already replied there. I appreciate your politeness while you accuse me of harassment and intimidation. That's always nice :) Equazcion •✗/C • 09:44, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate

This edit is just completely inappropriate. Lawrence § t/e 15:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, why? Equazcion •✗/C • 16:02, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Discussion on ANI, probably easier to centralize it. Lawrence § t/e 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed it. If you don't understand why that was completely and aggregiously inappropriate, perhaps you shouldn't be posting at ANI but instead should be reading the BLP policy and understanding that your comment was beyond obtuse. Not only did it violate BLP, it advocated vandalizing? Seriously, you don't know why that was wrong? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I know all about BLP. It does not violate BLP. If you don't understand that then you disagree with me and we are in disagreement. Nothing more. Don't just remove comments like that. If enough people want it gone I'll remove it myself, rest assured. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:10, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation - second warning

Do not readd this again. You could be blocked if you persist. We don't play around with BLP matters; BLP > IAR. Lawrence § t/e 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly telling me this is not constructive. Tell me how it violates BLP, as I asked already, twice. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:15, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Point blank, we don't say anything insulting or implying insult towards BLPs. Ever. At all. Lawrence § t/e 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What insult? I didn't insult the man. How was what I said an insult? Equazcion •✗/C • 16:18, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Given the context of his scandal, you said his page ought to be vandalized for using prostitutes. If you can't see commentary like this is inappropriate, you don't need to be editing. We don't joke about BLPs in this context. Ever. At all. Lawrence § t/e 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Lawrence. Just stop. Nobody is "violating your rights" or "free speech" or any censorship crap that you probably incorrectly are feeling. You're being pointy and you're violating policy. Strong advice: Let it go. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
... in your opinion. Whether I need to be editing is not for you to decide. Ha... I didn't say anyone was violating my rights. I just wanted an explanation, and some common courtesy. If enough people wanted the comment gone I would've removed it myself. But you had to go and do what people often complain about you people doing. That aight. Take care now. I'm done with you. You don't "need to be editing" my talk page anymore. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:24, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Oh and... I didn't violate policy =D Equazcion •✗/C • 16:27, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my user page in my absence when some hapless idiot vandalized it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem Jerry :) Equazcion •✗/C • 23:07, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look

here I left him a message to tone it down a bit, but he is escalating it even more. Maybe you can talk to him before it gets worse. Igor Berger (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Double edits

And there was me thinking it was the Viognier. Cheers *hic*! GBT/C 22:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha -- keep it up, I think ANI might be a more fun place if everyone were drunk :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:41, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Re: post on my talk page

Well, I'm not sure what happened there. The "log" thing in huggle doesn't say why it didn't warn him. His username was reported on UAA in my un-reloaded version of it. I really have no idea what is going on here. I know I reverted him myself at least 3 times. Looking at my contribs, apparently it just reported him rather than warning him. But it warned others before reporting them. Sorry about that. It looks like Huggle may have a bug in it. J.delanoygabsadds 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah some other others were complaining about that too, I think. You may want to let User:Huggle know about it. Thanks for letting me know what happened. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:06, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Talk page clean-up

Thanks for reverting my talk page. I don't know what's with that IP. It traces to Quebec, and despite all of the enemies I have possibly made in life, I've never been to that part of Canada. Weird. Anyway, thanks. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured it was a sock of some former editor you must've pissed off. No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 09:12, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Troll picture

I do not understand, what do you mean common use? Can you please explain. Igor Berger (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay so if you mean with conjunction with the term, "Do not feed the Trolls," I seen it on other Websites that talk about Internet Trolling. So if we get a link to a notable Website, can we use the picture? Igor Berger (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Certainly. In order for an image to be included in an article, it has to be informative somehow. If there is a logo commonly associated with trolling (in other words, if a particular image is usually displayed on internet sites along with the word "troll"), then we could include that image in the article, since it would give people information about use of the word. But if the image is just a logo we use, at Wikipedia in an essay on trolling, there's really no reason to include it in the article, because it doesn't tell anyone anything about the word. It would just be "decoration" for the article, and that's not what images are meant for on Wikipedia.
Post edit-conflict: I don't think so. I think we'd need a source that says the image is used often along with the word. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:43, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I see it used multiple times on forums, and Websites that analyze trolling behavior. When I come accross the sources I will post them here, and you can decide if it is enough. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please submit vandal report Special:Contributions/Joost_Kieviet

Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You can submit vandal reports yourself, I don't need to do them for you. Just go to WP:AIV. And this user doesn't need to be blocked yet. He's got 3 contribs and only one warning. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:21, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Template:Trivia

You wrote: Undid revision 198206700 by The Wild Falcon (talk) we purposely dont use ambox here

Alright, then please make it use the same width as a normal ambox. Right now it looks like crap when you combine it with any other template message. --the Wild Falcon (talk | log) 15:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Use |width=full to match normal ambox width when other templates are stacked together. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:31, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
No. Make it default to that. I don't want to have to learn a different syntax for every template message. I want to be able to type {{trivia|section|{{subst:DATE}}}} and have it work, just like any other cleanup template message. --the Wild Falcon (talk | log) 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No? Oh okay, I'll just follow your command. Um, no, how bout not. I'm sorry if you don't want to learn, but there has already been a lot of discussion about this, and consensus was to leave it this way. See the talk page and its archives. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:40, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Tokyo in World War II

Can you help me with this issue? I wanted to nominate a picture in this article for FP, but I found a problem with the article that I would like your advice on. User_talk:Durova#I_would_like_to_nominate_this_picture_as_WP:FP I think the article is being biased, same as the problem that almost happened on Anti-Americanism. Please read my comments on Durova page and tell me what you think. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Allay and Fears

Eq, I replied on my talk page and the ANI. I have been catching up on so much stuff and editing that I totally missed your original inquiry. Anyway, it looks like it's all taken care of now anyway, and I'm more than happy to see that. Hope it didn't disrupt too much of your night/morning/day to work it. • VigilancePrime • • • 05:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

just so you know

Just so you know, Eq, I have no less faith or admiration of you and your editing because of the ANI thread. Of all the people who have posted there, I feel you are probably one of the best-faithed, rational wikipedians. I'd hate for you to see it any other way. • VigilancePrime • • • 15:41 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

Warning

Hehe - I was just seeing if my JSs would work on Safari ;) Thanks for watching out for my possible stupidity :) Tiddly-Tom 19:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This Safari - not this one, as I linked above ;) Tiddly-Tom 20:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Dammit, that's probably the joke I would've used to answer you. Like, "in between vandal patrols get me a good picture of an elephant". It's ruined now, ruined I say. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:11, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Revenge is a dish best served flat.--Father Goose (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Crushed by elephant.png Igor Berger (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What Is Your Problem

Don't delete my comments from the sockpuppet case. Don't blank my homepage. Squatt (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't sockpuppet. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:14, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

What?

I'm not vandalizing on the Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's. 1.) the sentence was a run-on, incorrect grammar 2.) the sentence about uncut-bilingual is sourceless and false. Also the person that placed that information was a IP user. OK......?!! (Taiketsu (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Thank you. I'm sorry you misunderstood. :) (Taiketsu (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC))
(ec) Responded on your page. Don't come crying to me after you just engaged in blatant vandalism (on Global warming). I don't exactly feel bad for you. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:17, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

This user reverted the article several more times, garnering a 3RR warning from Kingturtle. When a further revert resulted in a second report to WP:AIV, I blocked the user for a week. He now requests unblocking, in which he specifically refers to your interaction with him earlier in the day. I'm leaving you a note as a courtesy, since you are mentioned. FYI, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:16, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Thanks dude...

[5]. Much appreciated. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem - Equazcion •✗/C • 03:04, 21 Mar 2008 (UTC)

User:Equazcion/Just drop it

I moved your essay to your userspace. It has been decided a while back at the village pump[6] that essays written by only or mainly a single user should be in user space and included in Category:User essays rather than Category:Wikipedia essays (the {{essay}} template automatically catsorts the page based on namespace). Dorftrottel (warn) 03:37, March 21, 2008

That "decision" did not include essays that were newly added to the WP namespace, as something that has only been around for a week would not have had enough time to attract additional editors.--Father Goose (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Such as me. Equazcion, you'll have to let me know if the rewrite I did is still on-track.--Father Goose (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason why

That's exactly what we're saying, anonymous caller. If it were up to me I'd laugh and exclaim just how ridiculous it is for this person to expect to ever be able to edit again, but short of that, I've made the above suggestions. Here's hoping. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:58, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia drove away so many people like User:Jmaynard that there aren't many parliamentary procedure experts left to work on WP:WPPP's articles with that same degree of intensity. If you had ten people improving those articles as fervently as I, Wikipedia could probably be more choosy about who it keeps... then again, if you had ten such people, that WikiProject's work would probably be mostly complete by now. In many respects, Wikipedia just never quite got the concept of WP:EM... Sigh. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is ever complete on Wikipedia. I don't deny any and all wrongdoing on the part of administrators, but as much as you think others might "not be getting it", you've got a lot to learn yourself. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:22, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, the Editors Matter essay if fairly new, and not universally accepted. Not nearly. It's just an opinion held by a certain group here. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:49, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Rachel63

While based on their editing history Rachel63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be a sock of Bsharvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this is not confirmed by checkuser, although they do edit from the same country. Squatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on the other hand is the same editor as Bsharvy as confirmed by checkuser. Fred Talk 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Squatt

There maybe a problem with this user shreding articles. Here he deletes a large chunk because of plagiarizem. Well even if it plagerizem he should rewrite it not slash information out. This is User:Bsharvy same style same ammo. Igor Berger (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not read the top message to the end. Sorry! Just block the duck! Igor Berger (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Feeding Larry E. Jordan

The article in question was beyond reproach... It has nothing to do with missing a source; it was rediculous and would have resulted in a block even if he wasn't an OM sock... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that. I'm on your side. I've been advocating a permanent ban of this user at ANI. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:45, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)
And yet, you continue to respond to his bullshit on his talk page. Seriously, let him go... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about me. I don't think further discussion on his talk page will hurt anyone. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I did just call the Easter Bunny. Well, he said he was the Easter Bunny. Take a look at [7] and you will find a graphic with the phone number. That's why it's not googleable, it is not text. But the phone number is real. I haven't seen the article yet, I've asked for it.--Abd (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V

Moved feedback to Peer review please reply there. Buc (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Surprise! or as I like to call it "no shit sherlock".

wow a surprising turn of events! well not really - don't worry some crack wikisocial workers will be rushing to his aid shortly "just once more chance" "good editor really.." etc. regards, Section31. --87.114.141.40 (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Section31, hehe. Like that. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:41, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to see what you like; nice company you keep --Abd (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Like the reference. Never said anything about the person. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:10, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You're so contradictory

You removed my statement without permission twice and called my reasonable warning as vandalism, how so? Do you ever think that your behaviors are perfectly fit to vandalism? --Appletrees (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm allowed to remove your statements without your permission. Sorry but that's how Wikipedia works. Inappropriate comments can be removed by anyone. Your "reasonable warning" accused me a vandalism. Vandalism is intentional disruption. Please look up words if you plan on using them. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:43, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You not only removed ips but also their time stamps which do not include any edit by their logged outs. I don't think the publicly revealed ips are violation on privacy. Besides, the admin threatened to let his coworkers or students know Bsharvy's activities which is more closer to violation on privacy. Don't erase my evidences with your trolling.--Appletrees (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok then feel free to repost the evidence but without the IPs. That's fine and I would have no problem with it. K? Equazcion •✗/C • 23:48, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I did it for you. All the personal info is removed but the timestamps etc are there. I hope that's satisfactory for now. If Slakr wants to repost the IPs, I'll be fine with that too. Thanks for your cooperation and calm demeanor. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:52, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Re: [8]. See

He's definitely an abusive sockpuppeteer. (Or, really, an abusive logged-out editor). While Abd certainly has an...idiosyncratic...approach to Wikipedia at times, he was on the money with his revert. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in removing that particular comment. I think Abd just didn't want him to have the last word in that discussion. There are many other existing comments by Fredrick's IPs. I don't particularly care though, so whatever. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:29, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Template:Talkheader

Done, here's the diff. Please let me know if I did it wrong (such as the spacing of the noinclude tag after the revised text and the like) and if there are any tweaks needed now that it's posted. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me -- here's my draft version and the actual talkheader template below it: User:Equazcion/sandbox3. Thanks for making the edit :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:28, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)

OM and socks

I've got the talk pages of the ones that I blocked watchlisted, but that doesn't include Abuv and a few others. No harm in notifying me, anyway. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:10, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I've been in communication with him off-wiki. I've explained to him how to appeal to Arb Comm by e-mail if he wants to. That being accomplished, there is no reason at all for him to be editing on-Wiki, especially given
  • when I offered (on wiki) to unblock one of his accounts to appeal to Arb Comm, provided that he promised not to edit anywhere but Arb Comm, he told me that he's rather keep sockpuppeting, and
  • he changed the talk pages of a couple of socks to say "This user has been unblocked by community consensus; any admin may unblock him," which is clearly a lie.
I think I gave OM as many chances as he could reasonably ask for (in fact, I think I gave him more chances than anybody but Kurt and Abd, who are both pretty radical). He's exhausted my patience. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand. As long as he has the ability to appeal to ArbCom that's really all he needs as far as I'm concerned. But I guess it's moot since he isn't interested in getting himself unbanned. On another note, per his comments at MfD, I think notifying the meta administration about him would be prudent. I don't know how bans are supposed to affect participation at other projects, but it seems they should at least be made aware of the situation. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:34, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I drop User:Lar a note. He's a Steward, so he obviously knows his way around Meta (might even be a crat there, don't remember), so he'll know how to handle it. MBisanz talk 04:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Great idea. I'm sure he will.--Abd (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks MBisanz. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:26, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to talk page template

I reverted your edit to this as it changed the timestamps of other people's posts. Did you intend to do that? [9] SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, your revert really had me confused for a while. I think I found the culprit: User:Where/commentLocalize.js, which I was including in my monobook.js. It was supposed to localize the times in my live view of pages, not the edit box, at least as far as I know, but I could never get it to work. Or so I thought. I wonder how long it's been doing this for! I just removed it though. Perhaps some further investigation into this script is in order. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:28, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thanks for the explanation. SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V

Peer review please add your feedback from the FAC on there. You're welcome to keep copyediting. Just don't delete info for no reason. Buc (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted info for a very good reason: it wasn't informative. If you want the article to reach FA, you're going to have to come to the realization that things will need to be cut out. A large part of improving articles is cutting away that which is not needed. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:09, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, you never said that. You need to justify removing info. If you can give good reason, I'll let it silde. But really I just need some feedback in the PR. I've alerted everyone from the the FAC and no one has replied. Buc (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"Let it slide"? Maybe you need to have a look at WP:OWN. The final decision is not yours to make. I do own my talk page though and will let this comment slide. For now. Tread lightly. And have a look at the article's talk page -- I most certainly did provide my reasons at the time. You never responded and continued reverting me anyway. We call that "the wrong way" on Wikipedia. Try to discuss things in the future. I'll let that slide as well, for the time being. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:49, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Fine just go ahead and a doing whatever it is you wanted to, but this time give a reason. And give feedback at the PR too if you can. Understand though that I may not agree with you and we may have to come to a compromise. Buc (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminadship

Hello ive nominated you for administrator. [[10]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwilleditu (talk • contribs) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:05, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Damn, I wanted to see what his nomination looked like.--Father Goose (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Forget adminship, just nominate for a king or a knight..:) Igor Berger (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It looked like a nom by someone who didn't know me at all, had no good reason for making it, and could barely speak English. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:34, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is Bsharvy. Saber got a nomination as well, but by a different user. Both users are new accounts. How they even know what admin nomination is? This guy even nominated himself for an admin, just after creating his account Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Iwilleditu. Igor Berger (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is the guy who wants to nominate Saber. User:KnightInShinyArmor Igor Berger (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Archives

I've just had my Wikiproject proposal (sub-roman britain) archived, but it had been edited within the last few days and I was just about to shift it over to a task force. Why has it been archived so quickly? I would like to be able to change it. ---G.T.N. (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too My project propsal wasnt a day old but it was archived wich wikiproject should be archive after 2 months of age. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 16:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe everything's been restored by John. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:34, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Yes but now that i see it i support the archiving "talk about flipfloping" IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Not everything's been restored. Mine still hasn't. If it won't cause any trouble (or break any rules?) I'll just undo its archiving. ---G.T.N. (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Sub-Roman_Britain Equazcion •✗/C • 18:53, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! ---G.T.N. (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't restore it, I was just pointing you to it. It was already there, restored by John along with everything else. But in any event, no problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 04:13, 30 Mar 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFT image

Does this help as reference for the image on WP:DNFT http://www.guineafowl.com/board/troll.html Go to the buttom of the page. Igor Berger (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a Wikipedia mirror, so no. And the article that needs a ref for that image is Troll (Internet), not WP:DNFT. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:30, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I forgot. And it is a mirror, I did not realize it. I guess we are most notable for Trolls..:) Igor Berger (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
We need to amend WP:CIVIL to exclude fuck nice video..:) WP:FUCK Igor Berger (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Opera Project Talk header

Hello. How are you? This is to explain that I've had to remove your talk header as it isn't working properly. Perhaps we can see how it can be used with the existing archiving/indexing so there is no duplication and then if it's working restore it? Is that OK? In any case we normally discuss changes first on the Talk page anyway. Best regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

How are things going? Basketball110 04:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine thanks. Er... do I know you from somewhere? Equazcion •✗/C • 04:12, 30 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you do... I'm the "troll", remember? Basketball110  Talk  21:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't exactly narrow it down. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:14, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
The Uga Man troll... Basketball110  Talk  00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, still not ringing any bells. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:39, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)
A Troll? That's a new one..:) Wikipedia is Trolls haven! Igor Berger (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean, Igor. Here is the MfD page, for Equazcion. I removed most of my comments, and so did you (look at the history). Basketball110  Talk  02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes now I remember. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:19, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Not that you're thrilled, I'm sure, but I just wanted to check (how you were doing, as so says my first comment in this section). Basketball110  Talk  02:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

← I'm doing fine, as it says in my first comment in this section. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:29, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as so I noticed. Basketball110  Talk  02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The interlacing of signatures in this section is very pretty.--Father Goose (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Must be The Da Vinci Code..:) Can you read the tea leafs? Igor Berger (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think that's because my signature is so good-looking. FG, you should hop on the bandwagon, jig up your signature. Devote some time to a senseless diversion, for who knows how long it'll be before even custom signatures are banned on Wikipedia? Equazcion •✗/C • 06:42, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Ha, ha! I thought you going to say that You are Good Looking! Igor Berger (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Check this out really funny Igor Berger (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
All right. Father Goose (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that's more like it. Nice and annoying, just like everyone else's. Good job. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:47, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Recent MfD post

Hello. I've reverted your recent MfD post. Riana is free to bring things up for MfD. You're free to do so as well. However, bringing up something for MfD on behalf of another editor without their permission is not allowed. Had Riana wanted to post there, she would have; she knows her way around the site. ; - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

K, thanks. I've now made my own nomination. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:08, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
"but the list is so large that I'm not sure how that would be possible.", AWB maybe? MBisanz talk 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no clue how to use AWB, and it doesn't work all that well on my machine. I ended up doing it manually, its all done now. Thanks for the suggestion though. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:37, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
AWB's only useful for mass-deleting spoiler tags.--Father Goose (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Secrets

Could you see my comment at the bottom of the MfD (at the time of this message)? Simply south (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:26, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Thats not quite what i meant. I was just meaning (although i missed that it had been mentioned before) that not all secret pages were secret pages. Simply south (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that. Don't worry, non-"secret" pages won't be deleted just because I placed an MfD notice on them. I was working off an auto-generated list that wasn't too accurate. The actual deletions, if they happen, will be carried out by a human being who will read the pages and determine which are "actual" secret pages. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:16, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for the interesting discussion. It'll be interesting to see what the ultimate outcome of the MfD is. Cheers, --- Taroaldo (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I can tell you right now though, it'll probably end up being a no-consensus. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:08, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

MFD of secret pages

I think you are quite brave nominating over 100 'secret' user pages for deletion. Putting secret in the title of a supposedly 'secret' or 'hidden' page is stupid, it's like putting a big X where your hidden treasure lies. If they aren't deleted I'm going to sign every single one and get over a 100 barnstars! then create my own. Those kind of barnstars are much easier to get than say editing articles to featured status. :) --Otterathome (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't exactly nominate them. A discussion broke out at WP:ANI, courtesy of User:Riana, in which she announced her intention to delete all secret pages she could find beginning in 24 hours, unless there was an objection. I found it pretty ridiculous to basically start a mass-delete discussion at ANI rather than MfD, to not inform any of the users whose pages were being considered for deletion, to give the discussion only 24 hours instead of the usual 5 days, and for the nominator to also act as the closer of that discussion -- so I tagged the pages and started the discussion at MfD. If you look at my comments at that discussion, aside from my nominatory comments, I'm actually against this deletion. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)
All the more galling considering she's a member of the Bathrobe Cabal.--Father Goose (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Mmm... that does seem rather contradictory doesn't it. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:24, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the objections raised about "cabals" apply to the bathrobe cabal as well. It's also an exclusive group. Yet somehow, only for certain "groups" or "cabals" is being exclusionist a problem. The whole thing is a very silly discussion, but admins should at least be consistent. Enigma message 06:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Admins are people too. Stupid people, in some cases. Not that I'm naming anyone in particular. But for all the "fun" things Riana participates in, she's the last person to dictate what fun things others are allowed to partake in here. The deleters admit to doing fun things on Wikipedia, but somehow this has got to go. Most of the deleters' rationale boils down to "the fun things I like are okay, but your fun things are stupid so they should go." It's sheer nonsense. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:46, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. I simply find some of the arguments made here and other places to be wrongheaded and hypocritical. We'll make criteria for whether a cabal is useful or not, and then we'll decide when to apply said criteria. Or maybe we'll say you can only be part of a cabal if you're an admin, or if you have a certain amount of mainspace edits, or if your user/user talk edits comprise less than 40% of your overall edits. Whether the cabals stay or go doesn't really affect me, but some of the opinions being espoused disgust me. Oh, and citing Ignore All Rules to do directly the opposite of a just-closed MfD is laughable. Somehow, I don't think WP:IAR would say to simply ignore everyone else and do what you think is right (especially when it involves unilaterally deleting scores of pages without discussion). Enigma message 06:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Off topic, but I like that protection on Israel. Nice. Enigma msg Review 05:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:31, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit my Talk contributions

I've reverted your insertion of a new section header,[11], your section "This is the end" covered it. Please do not edit my Talk contributions, it is rude.--Abd (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't seem to be responding to anyone in that section. I thought you'd appreciate the sentiment. I was wrong and I hope you can forgive me. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:19, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
No harm, then. The "the sky is falling" comment was a direct reference to your section heading "this is the end." Good night....--Abd (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I may use your help with User:Life.temp and anti-Americanism

New user editing Anti-Americanism and Abortion.

Sort of deja vu, maybe? Anyway, he/she is intent on triming the article. I am AGF, just keep an eye on it. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I need your help with this. The user is bent on removing the external links. When I prevented him/her from doing that, he/she removed the peer-reviewed subheading in the external link section. The user keeps saying that the articles are not peer-reviewed, eventhough they are from NYU, Princeton and the Pew Research Center, besides others. I brought the discussion on the article's talke page and tried to discuss it with the new editor, but he'she is intent to have it his/her way. I wanted other editors to participate with the decission and have a consensus develop, but before others could join in he/she reverted my edit back to their stance. I do not want to have slow edit warring with this new editor. If you think the editor is right by all means we will leave it as it is now, with no peer-review subheading. I sort of get the feeling the editor is a bit fixated with this article. Just starting out a little bit ago, he/she has been sitting on this article, with most of his/her edits to the article. Am I being overly conserned? Could be, after what went through on the article recently. Please take a look and advise. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This is getting to be a waste of time. It is WP:TE bordering WP:DE. Can we try some other form of WP:DR, being the editor clearly is here to WP:POINT. Wikipedia has many other articles besides this and abortion. I think we assumed abundant good faith and to entertain discussion just for the sake of discussion is totally unproductive. If the editor tries to reinsert their POV just revert the edit. I will try to do the same and avoid polemic argument. If the editor has a problem with our reverts he/she can follow WP:DR Igor Berger (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This is getting to be redicilous. He/she is edit warring and removing things from the article without getting a consesus. Check this please. I feel the SPA is bent on deleting the whole article piece by piece. We have showed a lot of good faith to the editor and compromissed with many of his/her edits, even after it was told to them not to reinsert the information. But the editor is not interested in working towards consensus, but just intent on their POV. I have tried to reason with the editor here But the editor is not interested in discussion but just their way. Please help, Igor Berger (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I suspect the user to be a sockpuppet of User:Bsharvy This is Bsharvy website I got the url from his first edit here. He tried to insert it in an abortion article, it is an anti-abortion activism esay that he wrote. Both users edit abortion articles and are pro life. Both users edit anti-Americanism. If you check the time of the edits on both accounts, they are being done around the same time. Finishes editing about 24:00 every day like a clock. Starts editing about from 6:00 and finishes around 10:00. Please look at the edit summaries, very neat and concise on both accounts. If User:Life.temp were a new user to Wikipedia how would he know wikitalk for the edit summaries? In conclusion User:Life.temp and User:Bsharvy is the same user. I have placed a consern suspected sockpuppet template on his page. I am going to file an WP:SSP. Igor Berger (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You really need to read his anti-abortion essay. It is not just that he is anti-abortion. I am conserned about this editor COI with abortion articles. Anti-Americanism is just one article, which I do not really wory about, it is just an ideology. I felt the editor was a sockpuppet from day one as you see I asked you for help. But I just found the link to his website today, and after reading the essay decided to file the report. It is not about anti-Americanism! Igor Berger (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If we can work out some sort of probahtion for the editor, that will eliviate my conserns. Igor Berger (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring template

I would like your opinion on this before I bring it to 3RR talk page, as admin User:A. B. has recommended that I do.

I do not want to repost the whole thing here, so just read from the original post please. Also this is not about any specific issue at hand - case but in general.

Edit warring template discussion

Your input and your opinion are highly appreciated. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD, PROD, AFD

Mixed up case! I thought I was dealing with CSD but it was a PROD. I recommnded that the "CSD - PROD" be changed to AFD, which was done, but I did not realize it at first. There where too many reverts back to "CSD - PROD" before the user regesterd as an editor and AFD it. It was a bit of a drama and a headech with all the reverts. Anyway to AGF I have apologized to the editor for some mistakes done on my part. Thanks for coming over. Igor Berger (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I argumented out of debate

I made some comments on Ned Scott's talk page that I should have done on the nomination debate, and they could have been interpreted as trying to influence the closing admin out of the deletion process. I stroke those comments and I left only my justifications for invoking IAR. I'll try to keep more to the debate itself next time. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's nothing personal against you or your ideas. I'm just being anal about policy interpretation, as I usually am --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't be anal about policy interpretation, as we call that lawyering. Policies are secondary to their underlying spirit. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:28, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Must resist.... temptation.... to argue about policy.... :D Nah, I always try not to wikilawyer. When I need to defend the underlying spirit in front of some rule, I can always just invoke IAR, which has the nice virtue of being a policy too, and one of the 5 pillars. Very useful as a blunt instrument on debates that are stuck on debating subtle interpretations of policies, like I think that was happening at that debate.
Again, sorry for going to the throath of your arguments, but the debate was stuck and the page was worth saving, hence using IRA as blunt instrument. I'd say we are both interesed on defending the spirit of policies and not the letter, just using different tools, so let's not get bitter over this. There are plenty of pages to get saved or stamped upon. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
K. On another note, I hate to burst your bubble but you didn't close the debate. Declaring a discussion closed using bold lettering and referring to IAR does nothing. Just letting you know. And also, if this turned bitter it's due to your insistence that I drop the issue. I don't take kindly to that. If you want an issue to drop, then you drop it. You don't demand others do. It's as simple as that. Verbally declaring your insistence that an issue be dropped is the best way to keep it going. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:22, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Lies! :D Using IAR on bold can make wonders for stuck debates as soon as the argument behind it is a sound application of IAR as it was intended to be used, see how the debate closed a few hours after my "final final comment" after the poor thing dragging for days as a wounded animal. You are right, thought, that I shouldn't have asked you to "drop it". Arguing why I thought that your argument was wrong should have been enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Role account

"Role account" means an account operated by multiple people for a single task - that there is a single identified person behind this account precludes it being a role account regardless of anything else. You are embarassing yourself by repeating this over and over. This isn't "User:GroupLensStudy", it's a specific account belonging to a single PhD student. --Random832 (contribs) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Single-purpose account, then. And I appreciate your concern but I'll worry about whether or not I'm embarrassing myself, thanks much. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:18, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

DumziBot change

(following on from WP:VPPR)

Please keep in mind that no one here is getting paid for editing. Saying (as you did on the user talk page) The most important thing about references isn't really the title of the page, but the root site they're located on can be seen as questioning the entire usefulness of the bot. I know that wasn't your intention (and I think you're wrong, since most URLs that the bot is fixing are in fact from reliable sources). It's much better to suggest that something can be even better without getting into the relative merits of the current system versus the improved system. Talking about "improving" something that is good at least puts the other editor in a better mood to think about your suggestion

And personally, if I were you, I'd give strong consideration to apologizing for this posting "How 'bout answering the polite and accurate ones then?". The editor had all of six hours to respond; you have absolutely no reason to demand a quick answer, even if you felt that the editor was responding to others before he got to you. The editor doesn't work for you or anyone else; he's not a government employee paid by tax funds; he's someone who has done something good for Wikipedia, using his own time. And what he gets back is mostly complaints from people because his bot isn't 100% perfect. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the way I made the suggestion; I could've worded it better. As for "How bout responding", that wasn't just based on the lack of response to my suggestion, but others as well. The author seemed to only respond to the rude or easy comments on his talk page, but not to any serious/polite suggestions. "The most important thing about references isn't really the title of the page, but the root site they're located on" -- I stand by that. Your reason for disagreeing is that most of the URLs the bot is fixing are from reliable sources, but after they're "fixed", there's no way to tell what the source is without rolling over the link. The fact that the bot fixed them is not apparent except when editing the article, and how is anyone supposed to know which particular sources the bot has set out to fix, or that it's only fixing certain sources altogether? The most important thing about sources isn't their title, it's their domain name, and replacing naked URLs with titles isn't all that helpful in a practical sense, even though it might make the reflist look prettier. We can agree to disagree there if you like. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:50, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Topfreedom images

Due to your edit summary here, I reverted my own edit and took the discussion to the talk page. If you would like to weigh in, please do so, otherwise I will reinstate my edits depending on whatever consensus is reached there. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is my fake page up for deletion?

I checked the entry and I cannot see any concensus. Please explain why. I thought userpages were for the user to do what they would to, how they expressed themselves.--Smashbrosboy 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the MfD notice from your page, since the deletion discussion closed with no consensus. Fake pages may still be deleted at some point, as the closing admin made a comment that consensus had been shown for those. I don't personally agree with that notion. If I were you, I would wait and see if the page does indeed get deleted, and if it does, contact the closing admin at User talk:Secret with your objection. Or possibly begin a discussion at WP:DRV. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:26, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

MfD premature closure

Apologies for my premature closure of the User:Diligent Terrier/Adoption Program Mfd. I did not notice your point that had been raised. My reasoning for the closure was per WP:SNOW but i see i was incorrect here. Seddon69 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. However, if you'd like to get your feet wet in admin-type dealings, you might want to participate in discussions at WP:ANI instead, as one possibility. I understand you're hoping to become an admin, but deletion closings and maintaining the MfD page is generally left to current admins, with rare exception. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:19, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Yer, perhaps i was being a little too bold :) Well, ill learn, though i believe i did close the discussion from the 29th correctly. So i think i wasn't too over my head in that case. Ill concentrate more in ANI and AfD before coming back here. :) Thanks Seddon69 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that was a special situation. But do note that closed discussions are generally left for a while, then converted to links and moved under "Old business", where they then stay for a while again, and only then are they removed entirely. Good luck with the admining :)Equazcion •✗/C • 22:35, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Kk cool, ill make a note of that for future reference and learn from it :) Seddon69 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have overwritten an old MfD

I don't imagine you did it purposefully, and I reverted you. You might want to start a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits, Part Deux instead.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for reverting it, I didn't notice the previous nom. Since it seems to have been kept rather recently I won't re-nominate it. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:31, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Aikido

Why did you delete the archive box on Talk:Aikido? --Yooden ☮

The talkheader box was recently changed so that it includes an automatic listing of archives, so the separate archive box is unnecessary. Notice the list of archives at the top of the page. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:31, 12 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I haven't noticed that! Which means that either I'm unperceptive or the archive box is not quite as useless as it seems. --Yooden ☮

Thanks

Thank You for fixing my userboxes it really helped (Now I see you used the syntax (|45px) Thank you again, --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 01:58, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I didn't get to give you this barnstar earlier but here it is. Thanks for the above. Enjoy! --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User Velebit

In the end if I am wrong I will be blocked (so I will continue to delete his comments) If right nothing will happen.--Rjecina (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a suspicion that he's a banned user, bring it to WP:Suspected sockpuppets. Don't continue deleting his comments just because you have a suspicion. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:05, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
To tell truth I am not having suspicion because I know that he is user:Velebit but it is hard job to explain administrators which do not know case Velebit/Stagalj/Standshown that this is new puppet of banned user. In the end I have been deleting/reverting IP address not this user. To make everybody happy I will wait deletings until he is blocked.--Rjecina (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that's probably the best way to go. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:11, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
This fellow "Rjecina" is a complete looney. Pardon my vocabulary, but I haven't been active in Wikipedia project for months, and have absolutely no idea who neither "Rjecina" nor "Velebit" are. I only know that this guy has been bullying me and deleting my comments for past two days, explaining that he finds my IP suspicious. My IP address is obtained dynamically from the IP pool of my provider, and dozens thousands users from Serbia obtain it the same way. I think it was obvious from the content of my input and arguments I presented that I am neither a "vandal" nor a "troll", and considering "POV" Rjecina mentiones, his actions speak for himself. I made some minor edits considering some disputes, and presented my reasons and explanation in the Talk Page, and as a result I get this pest deleting everything I write, and using his acquaintances here to persuade other members that I should be banned. If this is something he repetitively does, I suggest checking if he really is after this "friend" of his, or is just using that as a cover to mess with other people's contributions. Not many people have time to mess with this, or knowledge to restore their posts without retyping them, and I absolutely see no logical or moral explanation for this. I don't know if that is part of common courtesy here, but I do expect a formal apology from this man for deleting my contributions, insulting me and spreading lies about me to other members. Marechiel (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't possibly back up your complaint of being wrongfully called a troll when you make edits like this, accusing other people of making edits on articles because they're "jealous". I really don't care whether or not you're a banned user who returned. Your comments were uncalled for. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:12, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
And here is the explanation: you will notice one pattern in disputing or relativizing Tesla's Serbian origin - the nation they come from. Hence my remark. I don't know if you remember last year's edit war about Tesla's article. Pardon me for reacting emotionally, but keep in mind that Serbian American prefix had been deleted without any explanation, while I placed it explaining why I was doing so. And the reason is simple - the existence of both Serbian American and Croatian American community, and Tesla was part of the former. Marechiel (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not aware of any edit war a year ago, and I don't know or care about Tesla's roots. Keep it civil and don't accuse others of making edits out of jealousy. If people are reverting you, talk it out on the talk page rather than reverting them back. We have rules here; see WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:52, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you don't care and don't want to care, then why do you interfere? Have I not explained (or at least tried so) the reason of my actions? Well, here's the thing: I edit the text putting a brief explanation, a Croatian user with confirmed specific interest in Serbian distinguished persons reverts it with arrogant dismissal that "I am a banned user". I repeat the edit, again giving a brief explanation in the revert summary, again the same person reverts it, disregarding presented facts. Then I open a new section in the Talk Page, and the same person deletes my input. I bring back what I have written, then you delete it. I follow the traces of "Rjecina's" bashing my account around, lying about IP's and Velebits, and now you bash me of being provocative, and not following rules. If you want to interfere, then listen out all parties, and if you don't, then stay neutral. The Tesla thing happened twice or thrice in Josif Pančić page, and I see now that Rjecina has deleted my reply in his Talk Page, when I gave him an answer considering his stupid theory of that Velebit-guy changing IP's. If I may remind you, Rjecina kept deleting all input coming from greatest national Serbian Internet provider, explaining to others that all people coming from Serbian Telekom IP-pool are "sockpuppets". And so far, I haven't yet seen anyone to stand up in my defense. I may be not very active member of the community, but I am a constructive one, and I think I don't deserve such abusing and disrespectful treatment, solely on the bases of Rjecina's "I recognize his IP, let's get him". Marechiel (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to get involved in this larger debate in order to remove a personal attack. Your opponent could be completely wrong about the article, about you being a sockpuppet of a banned user, and about the meaning of life. That's not my concern. You still can't post personal attacks. Capish? Equazcion •✗/C • 23:58, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding Category:Islam

Not necessary Adding Qur'an or Muhammad to Category:Islam is redundant, as they are in Category:Qur'an and Category:Muhammad, which are subcategories of Category:Islam. There is no need to populate the main category with the articles that are already in its subcategories. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that's why you removed it. You may want to include your reasoning in edit summaries in the future. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:10, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor's Hit List

You're on it: http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/User:Igorberger#BuzzKill

I really wonder what the admins are doing. Life.temp (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

The page is large, a bit large. A subpage is useful here. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many discussions that are many times as large as this, and they all stay on the main ANI page along with everything else. This isn't so large that it must be moved. ANI discussions get long, much longer than this one, and none get moved to subpages. Please stop doing that. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:24, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Please, don't blank the page. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't address my concern above. Actual discussion would be nice, in place of commands. But if we're doing thatL Please don't blank the discussion on the ANI page. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:37, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Watch 3RR

Just a (probably unnecessary) heads up that you've reached 3RR at WP:ANI. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR is for articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:30, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I believe you're mistaken in that (unless you can point me to some text that I'm missing in WP:3RR). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no text to point you to, ie. I can't lawyer my way out of that one, but it's true nonetheless. 3RR is to prevent warring over article content and encourage consensus-building. It was never meant to apply to discussion pages. If you disagree then we are in disagreement. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:35, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Then we are in disagreement. This is just notice that, unless I see a consensus that your understanding is correct, I will enforce 3RR based on my understanding of it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah thanks for the notice. That's very helpful. Your previous comments hadn't already conveyed that, so this is much appreciated. You are quite the enforcer. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:39, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, 3RR is absolutely not only confined to article space. People are routinely blocked for edit warring (including 3RR violations) within Wikipedia space and others; think of repeatedly removing license information or fair-use noncompliance tags from image pages. It applies to pages, not articles. - auburnpilot talk 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I know it's not, in practice. I've been blocked for warring on discussion pages. But I've also been unblocked for it afterwards, and not because I apologized and promised not to do it again, but because I pointed out the spirit of the rule. It's not meant for discussion pages. Again though, you're allowed to disagree. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:49, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)
It's not really about disagreement, but an incorrect understanding of policy. That said, I really have no dog in this fight. I just happen to see this discussion on my watchlist (can't remember why this page is on my watchlist, anyway). If you can find me an admin who believes 3RR only applies to articles, I'd love to speak with him/her. - auburnpilot talk 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"It's not really about disagreement, but an incorrect understanding of policy." -- so basically, you're right, and that's all there is to it. No, this is called a disagreement. You're not equipped to unequivocally determine what policies mean. No one is. You have your interpretation and I have mine, and we are in disagreement. And I didn't say it only applies to articles, but it certainly shouldn't apply to discussions, and yes I can point you to more than one admin who agrees there. You can probably find them just by looking through my talk archives, around the times I was blocked/unblocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:02, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Consensus-building is no less important on discussion pages, and it's hard to justify revert wars as conducive to producing consensus. Tread carefully.--Father Goose (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't attempt to justify warring on discussion pages as a general practice. The specific context is important. But even if we are to say that edit warring on discussion pages is wrong, 3RR was still never meant to apply in those cases. I shall continue to tread in the same manner I always have, FG. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:43, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Controversy articles

Thank you. That's exactly the reason half of them are up: NPOV violations. I'm not really sure the US-China controversy should be featured, either; it's way not neutral. Sceptre (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There may even be grounds to say that controversy articles are inherently problematic, and may require a centralized discussion. I renew my assessment that synthesis is the main problem with most such articles. Criticism of a subject should be based on critical sources, not on news reports of incidents, as critical statements based on those are by definition POV and OR. A guideline stating how to handle those articles might be warranted. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:57, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Well, I tried fixing it, and you saw how that happened. Sceptre (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean by nominating them for deletion? Well, in all honesty, you can't realistically expect that an article on Scientology controversies would get deleted. It's just too notable. Like I said though, I think you're concerned about a more general issue, one which I think many people would agree exists, so a centralized discussion might be the way to go instead, perhaps at village pump policy. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:08, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Equazcion/Archive_3&oldid=1147985548"