I follow ANI daily, and Jimbo's views on this. Better to be safe than sorry. If you've done a WHOIS on this IP & it's not a proxy, no harm can come from letting LEA know. That way we cover our backs, because it seems that nobody is taking this seriously yet. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted the authorties in the area. Hopefully I'll get a response from them soon. — Save_Us_229 00:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that if I don't mention the piece "Black Star" in the article on Lustmord or on Dark Ambient, that the sample can't be used, as an example of what that artist or genre sounds like??? I've uploaded 30-second samples for a number of artists and genres and this is the first time I've had another editor come along and pull this kind of malarky. Whatever – I'm going away for several days, but when I'm back, I plan on challenging this, because I don't think useful content should be dumped on a grand scale based on just the opinion of one (likely) overzealous editor. Peter G Werner (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but for articles like Dark Ambient, free alternatives of media can be made and fails WP:NFCC #1 for having it there. It's use there and in the Lustmord article also don't meet NFCC #8 for significance "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" The piece of music used in the audio sample is barely mentioned (no commentary on it) in the article and asserts no significance as to why an audio sample is needed to increase the understanding of the topic. Furthurmore, the audio sample image description page failed NFCC #10 as it didn't contain a seperate rationale for it's use in the article. You have to understand that all of these issues most be fixed to comply with WP:NFCC, or I will re-tag for deletion. If your willing to do the work and reinsert them properly with commentary and rationales, I would be happy to re-review it. Most certainly if you contest it, feel free to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and contest it. — Save_Us_229 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you meant by "non-free images can't be used for decoration"? (Please answer on my talk page) --andreasegde (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion here. There was a few problems with the images of the album cover use there. Problems specifically WP:NFCC #8 and #10. I don't believe there is significant (critical) commentary written on the album to warrent the inclusion of a non-free cover of the parent album. A seperate rationale for it's inclusion is also needed on the image descrpition page for fair use to qualify for that article. — Save_Us_229 18:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on that. Are the free images OK? --andreasegde (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most certianly, those images are fine, feel free to place one of those in the infobox if you like, personally I think they look better the way they are though :) — Save_Us_229 19:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious.. you removed an album cover from the info box at Daniel Amos with the following message - album covers cannot be used to show in the inforboxes of the artist/band; WP:NFCC #1 replaceable free alternatives are possible to make. Does this include every single time this is done on Wikipedia? Articles like.. The_Animals, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc? Or are there exceptions? Audiori (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say yes, refering to WP:NFCC criteria #1: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. For musical artists, free images of them can or probably have been made at sometime, thus an album cover showing them is replaceable per WP:NFCC. I'll look over the articles you mentioned a little later. — Save_Us_229 22:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The convention for wrestler info boxes is to put the flag next to their name. Most similar articles I've seen have it, so it's not something I randomly did. Further, Jericho is both a Canadian and American citizen, so it's appropriate to put both. It's not like he's just lived in one of the countries a long time. -- Kevin Browning 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the convention for wrestling articles doesn't meet WP:FLAG. Please actually read WP:FLAG#Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. Regardless of consensus the pro wrestling wikiproject may think it has, they do not trump guidelines already established. — Save_Us_229 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least you have the courtesy to let the victim of the stalking know, thanks! :P — Save_Us_229 06:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly wasn't stalking you to find this out, though. I swear! I actually noticed you edit Moe Epsilon, who is still on my watchlist. I was about to tell you that you left Wikipedia a while ago... heh. Master of PuppetsCare to share? 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left, when? It all seems like one big day :) I still have my watchlist from Moe Epsilon still full probably, I never cleared it, I wouldn't be surprised if half the links on there are red-linked by now. — Save_Us_229 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Save Us 229 if I caused any difficulties or embarrassment for questioning your franchise; however, I hope you will understand that with all the ramblings lately about sockpuppets and alternate accounts, as well as Giano's(understandably) contentious candidacy, I thought it best to raise the question upfront, and let others review it and come to an appropriate determination. To be honest, I suspected you were a prior contributor, but had no idea of the circumstances under which you were operating under a new account. --Risker 06:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite alright, I'm a hot head, never mind me. :) You were doing the right thing and understand. I just wish I could have holded out a little longer before telling everybody like I planned, but I guess I can't keep a secret long. :P — Save_Us_229 06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but i understand this requires some kind of verification that the identities are the same. I have done merges of articles but not of user accts, and i know neither what the standard and modes of verification are (e.g., it may even take a developer), nor what documentation of verification should be created. So i think you should try an admin with experience more specific to your need. I'm afraid, BTW, that even if you could point me to the policies, getting oriented would push me even further past a reasonable bedtime, in light of my current work-in-progress that i don't want to leave half done overnight. Sorry; i know this must feel like Catch-22! --Jerzy•t 06:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, I'll ask another administrator as you suggested. — Save_Us_229 06:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moe... is that you? TheChronic 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sur...prise? :) — Save_Us_229 11:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...MOE! What's up? I thought you said you were gonna be away for a while! :) TheChronic 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not being active fully for a month or so was long enough :D — Save_Us_229 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was 10 days... but the point is that nobody can resist the pull of the Wiki. :P Master of PuppetsCare to share? 02:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was inactive for most of October too, but I was trying to stick around :P — Save_Us_229 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we missed you during your retirement. TheChronic 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, appriciate that :) — Save_Us_229 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I can acknowledge your existence :). Hi Moe! The HybridT/C 06:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exist, what are you talking about? :P — Save_Us_229 08:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TheChronic 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. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Moe! Seems like you've come to "Save Us"! Davnel03 14:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well lets face it, this encyclopedia needs saving :) — Save_Us_229 14:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Um, I thought something was weird a few weeks ago when I first seen this account. All of a sudden, it went on a editing rampage, and at one point was actually considering reporting the account for sockpuppetry!! It's only now that I know its you! You may want to have a heading or title on your talkpage something like: Save Us 229 a.k.a. Moe Epsilon so that others know. Davnel03 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I'm not a very good sockpuppet :) I'm thinking of redoing my userpage soon, I'm just thinking of a new design since all my old ones were deleted :P — Save_Us_229 15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've improved since the last time you gave me advice to my userpage. I could possibly help you redesign your userpage. (...or... you could copy that one code off of Davnel's userpage, fix it up, and give yourself all the credit for designing it). TheChronic 17:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think of taking someone elses design and not give credit like that, Davnel probably wouldn't appriciate it much either. I already got a design in mind, I don't think I need help, but I'll ask for it if I can't do something, thanks :P — Save_Us_229 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there's two things: first of all - WP:PW now has a weekly newsletter. Could you help proofread it for its release tomorrow (located here)? Second of all - ...
TheChronic has passed you the WikiJoint! WikiJoints promote... uh... promote... help with... do... wiki... something... yeah... uh, what was I saying? WikiJoints help promote, uh, wiki stuff... and help with... {{subst:User:Krimpet/WikiJoint}}... huh?
~ 17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oooooh a joint, thanks :) Oh, I proofread your newsletter before taking the joint :P — Save_Us_229 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, what? ...uh... 17:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC) TheChronic
*eyes glazes over* — Save_Us_229 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC) — Save_Us_229 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC) — Save_Us_229 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I am really glad to see you back! I am on a wikibreak myself right now. Originally I expected to be back during the middle of December but currently its looking like beginning of January. Busy busy ..arrgh! :P Welcome back :) --Naha|(talk) 15:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Naha :) — Save_Us_229 16:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy hell, I didn't realize this was you, Moe. Welcome back. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) — Save_Us_229 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I was just curious about this edit; is AndhraNews really going to be placed on the spam blacklist? May I ask why? Thanks, Ekantiktalk 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this link Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community ban of spammer. This site appears to have been a part of a spam campaign by someone closly related to the site. The site is being globally removed from all Wikis and then being placed on the spam blacklist. — Save_Us_229 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Oh well. I can see how this may present a problem with regards to news references having to be replaced. But thankfully it seems that only one page on my watchlist had an andhranews reference (actual news) and I've already replaced it. I guess regular editors on other affected articles will have to do the same thing. Thanks for the quick response anyhow, Ekantiktalk 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the news piece was as notable the first time it was added, it shouldn't be a problem to find a replacement reference, no? When it comes down to it, they have to be removed now rather than later. I'm willing to help start adding refs once this is removed, though. — Save_Us_229 17:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with all the andhranews.net spam! You are definitely improving encyclopedia getting rid of them. --A. B.(talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, I'm always glad to do the tedious tasks :P — Save_Us_229 19:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to swing by here and let you know that I do appreciate all the hard work you are doing. I mean that sincerely. Removing spam is very often a thankless and tiresome job. I do not want to fight... it leads nowhere (and really, we're on the same "side"). I just thought I'd let you know. Mahalo, Save Us. --Ali'i 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, I guess I'm just tired cause I haven't slept in a day or so and I guess I lost my cool somewhere around trying to defend myself, remove spam links, start a RFCU, monitering AN and AN/I and finding new conversation on Wikipedia pop-up about my edits. No hard feelings. — Save_Us_229 18:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ʻAʻole pilikia! Keep up the good work, but get some rest. ;-) --Ali'i 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do :P — Save_Us_229 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our little deletion spree embodied the very essence of Wikipedia. Thanks for the company on a dreary task (and we didn't have too many edit conflicts, did we?). Jeffpw (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, tedious tasks are my niche :) Actually throughout the entire removal process I didn't have one edit conflict, it surprised me a little. — Save_Us_229 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you know I wasn’t trying to revert any of your edits. The edit I was referring to was on an article I was trying to edit. I already posted a comment at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and know after reading the above comments about the URL, I have a clearer picture regarding what’s going on. – Zntrip 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed to contradict itself as the edit you mentioned on the talk page was on Portal:Current events/2007 December 3 and you said you wanted to 'undo it' and that is the page that I edited if you check the history of the article. I was just saying, if you see my name in the history of the article and you disagree with it, feel free to ask me about why or what the edit was for. — Save_Us_229 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you see, I was trying to undo the edit by 204.60.103.130 who kept changing “BBC News” to simply “BBC”, go figure, but couldn’t because the blacklisted URL was already there. I got confused because I thought the site was a legitimate news source and I made the comment on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. If you check my contributions you will see that I posed my first comment on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist at 03:05, 6 December 2007 and you made your first edit on Portal:Current events/2007 December 3 at 09:24, 6 December 2007, over six hours later. That’s why you’re comment on my talk page confused the hell out of me. I didn’t even realize you edited Portal:Current events/2007 December 3. – Zntrip 04:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, my apologies. I followed the link to your comment after I was provided with it at AN/I and thought it was more recent than my removal of the link from that particular edit, apparently I was about 6 hours off. Sorry for the confusion. — Save_Us_229 06:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Wikipedia can be a hectic place sometimes. – Zntrip 06:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it :) — Save_Us_229 10:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a quick note to let you know that Avruch has 116 edits upto 1st November 2007, and sadly doesn't have suffrage for these elections. He would have had enough edits had the cut off date been the 1st December, however, which is especially annoying. Nick (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I thought it was 150 total edits, not mainspace edits. I guess he doesn't. — Save_Us_229 11:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was the rule last year, it was changed this year and it's catching a few people out, including people who were eligible to vote last year but not this year. Nick (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a legitimate change, guess I should read the rules next year too. ;) — Save_Us_229 13:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay, I was off cashing my WMF paycheck :) (he was blocked, 1 week 72 hours, vandal / sock / disrupt, ACB -AO) SQLQuery me! 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, thank you for finally coming to the rescue, I was getting tired of reverting the bugger. :P — Save_Us_229 12:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Looks like I blocked him for 72h, not a week. SQLQuery me! 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, that's ok, hopefully he just doesn't go to his claimed 'internet cafe' a whole lot. — Save_Us_229 12:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not revert changes to this talk page, by adding the indefinite tag. I don't believe that it is finished. Regards, Mercury 13:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. I'm not actively reverting. — Save_Us_229 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was distracted by the Mikado game. Well then, it seems your already aware. Lets not make it a wasted visit, so have some tea on me. Your doing a great job. Wanted to let you know. Regards, Mercury 14:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Save Us, I have apologized to EL_C and struck my comment. My poor attempt at humor blew up in my face. Go figure. --Tom 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that seems like the most appropriate thing to do. — Save_Us_229 02:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the account was created today, and the deletion tag you graciously removed was placed minutes after gilabrand got snotty-after weeks of nothing happening on this article-nothing is coincidence. Chris (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm going to change the tag to that you suspect it is him because without definitive proof it's going to get removed entirely. If you seriously think that Gilabrand is behind the account I would suggest you file a WP:RFCU for clarity. — Save_Us_229 10:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it says suspected, so I'm not going to change the tag. I will however remove it completely if I don't see you getting hard proof in the near future. Editors have been known to quit after false accusations, I really don't want a potential productive editor to be scared away. — Save_Us_229 10:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. The vandalism spree preceded the edit by gilabrand referenced above. You are right though in suggesting an RFCU if further doubts remain. Agathoclea (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently you were involved with adding a sock puppet tag to the user Lindi James
I understand that this person shares the same IP address as a vandal. This person has been blocked and is trying to work it out. I believe that this person is not the vandal and was trying to stay away by creating an account.
Did you have any other evidence that this account was infact a sockpupper
As this person is blocked he/she canot contact you to work things out so i would appreciate if you could please discuss this with the user on his/her talk page it would be appreciated.
Hello. I would like to point you to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ECW500. Whether or not this editor is User:ECW500 is uncertain as the request on ECW500 was stale. But according to checkuser, it was confirmed that Lindi James was using the same accounts as User:Pebblesmaster whose timestamps are within minutes of each other. It is almost 100% certain that this editor was in violation of WP:SOCK. — Save_Us_229 15:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for any hassle i have caused you, I was just trying to make sure that the user in question was heard as it is difficult if you are a legitimt user and cant represent yourself as you are blocked. If checkuser can confidently confirm that these accounts are the same person and not just because they use the same ip address im happy.
Thank youPrinter222 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, there's no hassle. :) I would also like to point you out to this fellow yesterday [1] He claimed he was "Pebblesmaster" and "Lindi James" was not him at all. And then today "Lindi James" comes on and revert wars where "Pebblesmaster" left off? I'm sorry, but it looks fairly obvious just by the revert warring User:41.245.138.132 pulled off today. If these people really didn't know eachother and were new to the site they wouldn't know what another person and I edited yesterday. User:Alison ran a second checkuser after the IP editor on my talk yesterday and if timestamps were within minutes of eachother, it's either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet saying that "this ain't me". — Save_Us_229 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I re-ran the CU (third time!) just to be certain, and the recent edits from User:Lindi James and their identical use of multiple IP addresses has only confirmed the matter. Same with a certain IP address involved in this matter. Consider it very Confirmed - Alison❤ 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I certainly can smell a pig from a mile away. Thanks for the re-re-confirmation Alison :) — Save_Us_229 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how "Fuck Yourself and Die" is not a personal attack. If I started going and plastering all over other editors' talk pages, I'd probably get blocked pretty quickly. Best, sh¤y 18:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Did he post it all over other editors talk pages? If he did, I didn't see it. FYAD was an acrynom posted on his userpage which no one was clear about [2] and that phrase is a common abbreviation which I suggested it might mean. He clarified it and apprently FYAD is a offline forum not related to the phrase "Fuck Yourself and Die". Is there something I missed? — Save_Us_229 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was a hypothetical situation. sh¤y 18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, oh, well in some context that could be a personal attack, but not in his mannerism :P — Save_Us_229 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You recently removed a hyperlink to a You Tube clip featuring Tiny Tim's song "Santa Claus Has Got The AIDS This Year." "Santa Claus Has Got The AIDS This Year" was never uploaded to Wikipedia. Are you of the mistaken opinion that wikipedia must police other sites for copyright violations such as You Tube? I don't see any support for that in WP:NFCC.--MiamiManny (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights.
Emphasis mine. You do not own the intellectual property rights of that video, thus it is prohibited to link to them under Wikipedia:Copyrights. — Save_Us_229 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I was talking about WP:NFCC, I was refering to the audio sample in the article that was uploaded to Wikipedia. — Save_Us_229 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what You Tube's arrangement is with those holding copyrights and frankly we shouldn't care. It's You Tube's issue, and it should not be Wikipedia's responsibility to investigate it. There is certainly no case law that suggests Wikipedia has that responsibility. If Wikipedia's policy is interpreted as only permitting links that we can be absolutely sure are not violating copyright law, then our policy is off-base, out-of-control, and needs to be changed. --MiamiManny (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's pretty simple. YouTube, Google Video, etc. doesn't own the copyrights to the music videos and the like. If the link is introduced onto Wikipedia is does become Wikipedia's problem. We don't link to videos that violate intellectual property rights. — Save_Us_229 08:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is ever totally simple. We shouldn't link to known copyvios, but the real world is full of grey areas and ambiguous situations. Video sites like YouTube sometimes do have permission or special deals that make particular video content legitimate, and some other copyrighted content is being used for commentary in a manner that might qualify as fair use. Other content there is indeed a violation (and YouTube is being sued right now for it). To what extent are we supposed to play the role of "copyright police" for stuff that isn't even on our server? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that there is no legitimate content that we can link from YouTube. As for to what extent are we to play the "copyright police" is written in Wikipedia:Copyrights. If we don't know the status of copyright for a video (in this case), it should be removed and/or questioned on the talk page to see if the person who placed the video on Wikipedia owns the content. — Save_Us_229 18:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits... Just kidding! Wow. I see you've redone your userpage like you said. Looks very nice (though mine is much better)! :) TheChronic 04:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was about >this< close the reverting upon seeing the Welcome to Wikipedia! but realized it was from you. :P Yeh, my design isn't the best, but it fits me, no? *grumbles* yeh, yours is better. :) — Save_Us_229 05:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well... you did help with it's evolution into a totally awesome page (at least the status indicator thing that I don't use anymore). :) TheChronic 05:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol, you may not use it, but at least it looks nice :) — Save_Us_229 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have my new big clocks to make up for the status indicator. And no, you may not use them. :D TheChronic 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't like template messages on your talk page, so I wasn't sure if that includes thank you spam. So you'll just have to go read your thank you haikus at User:A. B./RfA thanks.
Can you add my contribs to the pages you watch? That would be great. I'll give you my cell if necessary as we had quite some interaction last night. By the way, userpages, just like article pages can be edited by anyone. Removing my information from another user's page is within my right, especially when the user refers to me by name. You're reversion reeks of lunacy. I take my username off another's page, and you are telling me that I need to leave it? Unreal dood. Laters. the_undertowtalk 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few things. First, I'm not really watching your contributions at all, I just happened to see that edit when I browsed through your contributions this morning. You are perfectly within your privileges to edit another users space, but your edit summary cited among other things right to privacy and BLP. I reviewed the content and saw no BLP violation nor anything that would make your privacy feel violated. Based on your contributions though giving out your full name, SSN(?), and saying your willing to give me your cell-number, I would say that you are not worried about your privacy at all. If you wanted something that has your screen name on it removed from another userspace besides your own, talking to the editor to get them remove it may be better. — Save_Us_229 05:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm within my right, as long as intent can be discerned by you? I find that fascinating. But you are correct, privacy is not a concern of mine, just as removing my username from userspace should not have been an issue, regardless of my reasoning. I was being POINTy by removing the content, and it wasn't just re-inserted by you, but by Lara, too. Mine was a bad decision. the_undertowtalk 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wouldn't say discerned by me, but you stated something in the edit summary which caught my attention and I didn't believe it to be true. It's quite alright, just my view this morning is just asking Lara to remove it, instead of going in guns-a-blazing and removing it, would have been better ;) Peace, — Save_Us_229 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree, it was guerrilla and that's generally not my style. the_undertowtalk 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. :) Lets try to forget all about this, have a cookie :P — Save_Us_229 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You created this page to redirect to a non related page. I do not see what I have done wrong. Also another page created by you "Rebecca wood is the coolio-est" redirected to "Rebecca Wood LOVES A WOMAN".
I do not see why you created these pages and thought I was only doing my job to notify you that you page was to be speedy deleted.
Please tell me if I have made a mistake.
Thanks
-- Blake01 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF are you talking about. I suggest you learn how to read logs better [3]. I was reverting it. — Save_Us_229 17:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry about that - I'm sort of new to this. -- Blake01 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite alright, I see red when I see a template message like that when it was supposed to be directed at the obvious vandal. — Save_Us_229 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's how it reads to me, too... Took me a second to figure out tho... The way our logs are laid out, leaves something to be desired sometimes... SQLQuery me! 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I moved it twice was because the vandal moved it twice to the names and it was impossible to move it from point C to point A without an administrator. I instead took the alternate way around that and reverted his edits going from Point C reverting to Point B and revert Point B back to Point A. — Save_Us_229 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
w00T, thanks for the holiday wishes Jeffpw! Hope your holidays are cheerful as well. Warm regards, — Save_Us_229 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I am trying to fix the spelling of Debra LaFave. It should be Debra LaFave. I tried using the "move" feature to rename, but it said I couldn't do that. Can you assist? Thanks!--MiamiManny (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MiamiManny. The reason you can't move it is because there has been more than 1 edit to the redirect where your trying to move the article and in this case you need an administrator to move it. But I'm not sure whether or not this particular move would be uncontroversial. The best thing to do is to add {{move|Debra LaFave}} to the top of the talk page on Talk:Debra Lafave and start a discussion in a new thread of what the name should be. Once a discussion has concluded, feel free to contact me again and I'll see about the page moving to the preferred title. — Save_Us_229 11:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will do that. I cant see where it would be controversial in that her name has never been "Lafave." But I will create a discussion heading.--MiamiManny (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I now believe the correct spelling is Lafave. It is spelled both ways in the media. The police documents are in all caps so they cant be used as an authoritative source. But her ex-husband wrote a book and uses "Lafave" which is definitive for me. It's his name afterall. Case closed. Again, thanks for your help. --MiamiManny (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. — Save_Us_229 12:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Davnel03 15:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Thanks for the Christmas wishes Davel03, hope your holidays are good too :) — Save_Us_229 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confronting the "non-notable" taggers[edit]
I am attempting to reach 1,000 new articles started by me. I appreciate your help in removing the "non-notable" tag from Joseph Eldridge Hamblin, American army general. I saw his red link on the List of American Civil War generals, ergo, I was surprised to notice a "non-notable" tag on the article. His article was the 823rd new article that I have started. Thanks, again. Superslum (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. :) — Save_Us_229 05:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice O. A. Cargill which you have previously edited has since developed a number of problems warranting the addition of several maintenance tags. Any thoughts on how to fix these problems and improve the article would be appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Save Us, about this edit, there's probably no need to put "Fair use rationale for One Fierce Beer Coaster" as a heading because the heading is already part of the template. Thanks! Spellcast (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost likely that I need to add the heading as part of the rationale. User:BetacommandBot doesn't read the template headings (BetacommandBot is a bot to help with fair use rationales). Without the heading, BetacommandBot tags the image as a nonvalid rationale per WP:NFCC criterion #10. This heading help BetacommandBot understand that a rationale has been written. — Save_Us_229 16:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I would really appriciate it if you didn't revert my edits as unnessecary before I get a chance to explain to you that there is a valid reason for doing so. — Save_Us_229 16:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there are about 4 or 5 AN or AN/I threads about Betacommand and his bot about the valid rationales being tagged as invalid, I suggest you go through the archives and read about it. I don't know if Betacommand uses that category specifically to know what marks a valid rationale. All I know is that there have been cases where BetacommandBot didn't respond to the valid rationale because of the header. Most likely the header has to be done when a written rationale has been done and not a boilerplate. Regardless, the header does not hurt anything by being there. — Save_Us_229 16:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm aware of the complains about that bot, but it probably didn't relate to the header. I'm pretty sure you don't need to add ==Fair use rationale for [album]== if it uses a template. It's only needed for hand-written rationales. I'll bring it up at Template talk:Album cover fur. Spellcast (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happened across nine images you tagged for deletion and posted notices to an uploader here. There has been some discussion about image deletion notification on the non-free content page and while Betacommandbot does notify the talk page of the article where an image is currently being used, you don't appear to do this. The advantage being that editors who have such a page on their watchlist may be able to fix the fair-use rationale and so avoid deletion, especially in cases where the original uploading editor is no longer active. This seems to be the case with Jtdirl and for many older uploaded images where the fair-use rationale is an issue. I have often noticed that an image was no longer available on an article page only AFTER it was already gone and only when someone marked the image on the article page as now deleted either by commenting it out or deleting the reference to it. Perhaps you would consider leaving an article talk page notification in future as this might facilitate the rescuing of many images that may otherwise go unnoticed. Obviously not knowing what an image was makes it difficult for any interested editor to decide if it might have been worth while saving by writing or fixing the fair-use rationale or been better to attempt to find a suitable replacement. I reply where I first post). Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I add {{no rationale}} to an image, the template makes no mention of me having to tag the talk page of the article. Up until this point, I didn't know the existence of a image-related template that goes on the article talk page. Going thru BetaCommands last 5,000 contributions back to his image work, I was able to see him add {{Missing rationale2}} to a talk page, so I'm guessing this is the template you are refering to. No problem, when I tag a no rationale image I'll add this. — Save_Us_229 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not actually know what template Betacommandbot used but it was confirmed that he does use one per the "non-free content" discussion mentioned above. If it is not too much trouble to do that it seems like a good idea especially where the original uploader is no longer an active editor. Cheers and thanks for your interest in trying to keep the images legal. ww2censor (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the section on your page, but still feel the need to comment: it is Wikipedia's loss that you are not an admin here. You do so much to improve this project, and I am sure if you ever ran you would win hands down. That said, I completely understand why you wouldn't want to be one, and share those sentiments. Jeffpw (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I thought when I saw the header was "I didn't think I had a fanbase, I thought I had more of a cult following." Yes, it is Wikipedia's loss, but then again I still manage to get tasks and cause 'teh drama' even without the adminiship ;) I'm sure I would win someday if I tried, but it wouldn't be with hands down, I'm sure there would be some hands up, full of trout and ready for unnessecary whacking. Thanks for your message. — Save_Us_229 21:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for your many messages. I was quite surprised to read at the top of your talk page that if a message to you is "rude, templated, and/or begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia!", it will be reverted upon me seeing it". Well, as you have constantly ignored my own plea not to send me any templated messages (only yesterday I archived a whole lot of them) and as User:Save Us 229/Opt-Out is no real option as I do want to be informed about planned image deletions, I'll try to explain to you what makes those canned messages so terribly annoying.
Firstly, I don't need to read the same text, or similar texts, every time another editor believes a particular image should be deleted. ("If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified ..." etc. etc.)
Secondly, in many cases the text just does not apply. For example, I have not provided a rationale for the image in question here. All I did, back in June 2003, was to upload a low-resolution image of an old Austrian banknote which even then was no longer legal tender. There were no fair use rationales in Wikipedia four and a half years ago, and I certainly did not keep track of every single image I had ever uploaded.
Thirdly, someone has made an interesting suggestion above that notifying the original uploader may not be efficient because they may no longer be editing Wikipedia, and that it might be wiser to also alert those who currently work on the article(s) in which a particular image is used.
Fourthly, IANAL. I do believe that those who work with fair use rationales on a more or less daily basis will figure out much more quickly what can be done to save an image from deletion (or, alternatively, decide that it is not worth keeping). If/as you are not a bot, wouldn't it be possible for you to fix a rationale yourself in about the same time it takes you to inform the original uploader?
In short, I'm rather at a loss as to what to do now and how to complete that rationale.
Looking forward to hearing from you, preferably not by automated means. Best wishes, <KF> 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and Welcome to My Talk Page!
First, I would like for you to point out where your "many pleas" to me have been to not send you template messages. I just checked through your talk page and saw nothing of that sort (unless I missed it). Your many pleas for me to stop seems to contradict your point about you wanting to be notified about the images. If you do, don't message me about them being annoying, if you don't want them, add your sig to User:Save Us 229/Opt-Out.
Second, in your specific example, Image:Carl Ritter von Ghega money.jpg, to meet with WP:NFCC, a article name needs to be specified in the rationale that was written and a source of where the image was taken from needs to be specified, no more, no less. Once a rationale for each page of where the image is wanting to be used, then everything will be fine with that particular image.
Third, about the interesting suggestion to inform those who edit Wikipedia still, I currently took his suggested and put templates on the talk page of the articles in which a image with no rationale is being used on. In fact, the point you made is moot since you in fact still edit Wikipedia.
Fourth, IANAL either. Is it possible for me to correct fair use rationales myself? Yes, very plausible. However, there are currently 298,526 links that are currently linking back as non-free media. I simply don't have time to sit and check and/or write that many rationales. And no, it would take a bit longer to sit and write a rationale than it would to inform the uploader. One image could link to six pages, that means six rationales would have to be written. There are other editors who page through the image deletion categories and will write rationales if you don't, or they be deleted.
Feel free to reply here. — Save_Us_229 21:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I may be mistaken, but do I detect a certain impatient or almost angry tone in your answer? The {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template you added to Image:Carl Ritter von Ghega money.jpg today says that "if you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image," and that's what I'm doing.
My talk page actually opens with my wish that no canned messages be added to it; it's hard to see how one could miss it. It's true that I prefer being notified about impending deletions to being left in the dark about them, but dropping me a line (one line, literally) would do the trick just as well (something like "Check Image:Carl Ritter von Ghega money.jpg, please!").
Whether I can then actually do something to improve the matter is a different question altogether. Before writing my first message to you, I randomly looked up several images of banknotes (Austrian, European, and others) to see what kind of fair use rationale would be required. Surprisingly, none of the pages I clicked on had any rationale, but they had not been tagged either (probably the backlog you're talking about). So, as I said, I really don't know what to do now although I have received your notification. (I don't know where I got that image from, but there used to be millions of that particular banknote, so what am I supposed to cite as source??)
What this boils down to, and what I have been trying to get at, is that co-operation among Wikipedians should be maximised and inefficiency should be minimised. As I see it, fixing five fair use rationales oneself is more efficient than tagging fifty and waiting for someone else to do the job (which, for various reasons, may never be done so that in the end—and that would mean only a few days later—a good image is erroneously deleted and may have to be uploaded again, etc.).
Finally, I may be slow on the uptake, but what does Hello, and Welcome to My Talk Page! mean?
Best wishes, and keep up the good work, <KF> 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and Welcome to My Talk Page! was a play on a templated message, a little humor is all :)
I'm not angry at all, it is a common misconception about when I reply to someone. Almost certianly if I use sarcasm or am telling someone something the don't like, they confuse it for anger. I enjoy replying to messages, don't feel intimidated by the reply :)
If you wish for an alternated message to be sent to you, why didn't you tell me in the first message? I'll add your name to opt-out of the template and send you an alterated message instead. I'm sorry, but the message on the top of your talk page went completly blind to me in the middle of tagging. I just now got what a "canned text" means, so maybe changing your message and making it more noticeable might help.
Yes, looking up rationales is difficult and you can probably see why it is difficult to sit down and write that many rationales now. What you can cite as a source is where you got the image from. If you got it from a website, post a link to it. If you made the copy yourself, write: Derived from a digital scan of the banknote (or something similar to that).
What sometimes happens when "good" images (albiet having no rationale and that makes it qualify for deletion) are deleted is administrators can restore the images and add a rationale and revert me to add it back to the article. There are at least 20 cases I could probably cite where that has happened. While efficiency is something that should be aimed at, Jimbo Wales and the WikiMedia Foundation have stated (long time ago now) that on April 1, 2008 that is the date fair use violations should be brought into line (what actually happens if it's not, I'm not sure of). That is essentially three months away. Pace sort of has to be quickened in these times to make sure that things are brought into acceptable terms. Sorry if efficiency is sort of unbalanced right now, but if fair use exists past April 1, 2008 (I honestly don't know if it will), then I will make sure my paced is slowed and rationales are actually written instead. For now though, there are 298,500+ images are out there and as you said it was hard to find a rationale for that one image, imagine just how many more are left undone.
Blast, I been templated! >< — Save_Us_229 05:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mah-HA! {{do not remove}}; can you believe that actually exists!?! Peace, SexySeaBass 07:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe it exists either, actually I'm going to see that it is deleted. I didn't realize that was a real template. What good does it actually do? Oh the nonsense. :) — Save_Us_229 07:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have it deleted! That fact that it's real is half the fun, and it is probably used on talk pages and such, to protect WikiProject notices and the like. Cheers, SexySeaBass 07:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the history, it was created just today! :) It is only used on this page and on the creators talk page. — Save_Us_229 07:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear lord... I'm keeping it, just like /Finger and /Blank. Cheers, SexySeaBass 07:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth keeping as humor, just not in the template namespace, I would copy the code onto something like User:The Hybrid/Do not delete. :) — Save_Us_229 07:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you used the author requests deletion CSD template on Gurch's "do not remove" template. It doesn't appear that this is the case (correct me please if I am wrong) so perhaps a different CSD criteria or a trip to TfD is in order? Avruchtalk 07:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the only person remaining in the history of the template, and thus it qualifies under CSD G7. The history was moved. There is absolutely no reason that you can cite for keeping it other than the sake of process for keeping it. — Save_Us_229 07:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no need to get upset. I wasn't suggesting it should be kept, just that the correct CSD category should be used (so it doesn't get turned down, although with you as the only contributor in history that may not be likely). Still, it could've looked fishy that it was a move/redirect to Gurch but G7 by someone else. Avruchtalk 08:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again with that anger thing. *sighs* Please read above paragragh from two days ago:
I'm not angry at all, it is a common misconception about when I reply to someone. Almost certianly if I use sarcasm or am telling someone something the don't like, they confuse it for anger.
That is all. :) While it looks fishy it couldn't have been seen as much of anything, it literally could met 2 (2 more if I didn't move it) criterias for deletion which I think should have said enough. — Save_Us_229 08:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, G6 applies too. SexySeaBass 08:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#G6 - non controversial housekeeping task. Eh, eh (raises eyebrows with each eh) SexySeaBass 08:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without moving it I could have tagged it as G1 and I could probably tag it as T3 anyways, there are so many things wrong with that template. — Save_Us_229 08:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't on anymore, is he? I'll pop on over to CHQ, or Nikki and see if one of them will do it. Peace, SexySeaBass 08:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TheChronic has given you a bottle of Cristal! Cristal costs $350, and hopefully this bottle has made your New Year's Day better. Spread the spirit of the New Year by giving a bottle of Cristal to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Give a bottle of Cristal to someone else by adding {{subst:User:The Hybrid/Finger}} to their talk page with a friendly... wait...
lol, a 13 year old giving me a bottle of alcohol. I think we are going to be great friends. I glady accept this bottle for celebrating! :) — Save_Us_229 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just alcohol. It's Cristal! It costs $350 a bottle! Do you know how much money I spent to buy everyone I know a bottle of Cristal? Here's an example of it (starting around 1:23. Do watch the whole video though; it's funny). :) TheChronic 16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if she wants a reply Image:Zoso.svg is located on the Wikipedia Commons, so how is it restricted to fair use. If it is copyrighted, then it needs to be removed from Commons. And looking at the file links on Image:Zoso.svg, that wasn't the only place that the image was placed on. — Save_Us_229 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to let her know. There has been one reply (see here). Other than that, if you don't want to subscribe, you can see the messages here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I don't feel like subscribing just to reply to one post. If she actually thought this was not a copyright violation or thinks that Image:Zoso.svg is a copyright violation, I have nothing to say to her because she probably already got a more knowledgeable person to reply to her. — Save_Us_229 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can send an email to the list, if you aren't subscribed. You can just send it to WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org . Or you can just not do anything...I don't expect much more talk on this thread. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks, if she actually has a problem and wants to speak to me, she knows how to visit my talk page. — Save_Us_229 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you get a moment, could you have a look at this image? You tagged it as missing a valid fair use rationale, and I added what appears to be a compliant data and rationale template, including a rationale for each of the three articles that uses the graphic. Could you double check me and ensure that I correctly fixed the problem? I want to make sure that I did it the right way, as there are plenty of these images in need of work. Thanks in advance! UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most excellant, thank you for taking the time to add rationales for all three of the images uses. I made a slight backlink edit to the licensing template that had to be done, but you did a fine job otherwise. Thanks again for the work and for letting me know. — Save_Us_229 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure - Now, I can just match this template where possible, and I should be good. Thanks again! UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 03:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you really are not involved in sockpuppetry, which I have no reason to believe you are, please try to remain calm. I know how frustrating being accused of socking is, I've been there. Please try to remain cool. The Checkuser will set you free. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a checkuser bold enough to make that silly request. — Save_Us_229 02:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, so what've you got to worry about? - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People serial stalking me again, apparently MegX had nothing better to do that stalk me and this other innocent user for a week. — Save_Us_229 02:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of what's going on. Just try to wait it out....If the user wants to harass people, there could be a block for disruption. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I mean, WTF?? indopug (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way. >.> — Save_Us_229 05:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think MegX has a problem with me because I don't agree with the way she organised stuff at the led zep wikiproject. indopug (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think she just found a scapegoat because she was bad mouthing me on the en-wikipedia mailing list about Image:Zoso.svg. — Save_Us_229 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, can I ask you what country your editing from? — Save_Us_229 05:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
India. Although nothing from my edits would suggest so... Anyway, I think I've figured out the reason so many experienced and respected leave Wikipedia; baseless accusations like these. indopug (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and I understand where your coming from and I've been there before and I hope you don't leave because of this. I am from the United States, but I could tell you weren't from somewhere here because most of your edits were accumulated during the time I was asleep at night (which is your day) :) — Save_Us_229 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) What's checkuser? A simple way of clearing matters would be to go anon, and the IPs would reveal that we're from opposite sides of the globe. indopug (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser is essentialy an IP check to see if accounts been using the same IP, but I like your idea much better. :) — Save_Us_229 06:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. :) How is it that you leave a message on both yours and mine talkpage? indopug (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I like the full conversation on my talk page so it isn't segmented. Some people don't like it segmented. I also added it to your page to notify you I have replied and it saves your time. Some people think it's a waste of time, but I don't mind. :) — Save_Us_229 06:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, you do manually, I thought you had some cool software/script thingy :D indopug (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't, but thats a good idea for a script, I'll have to toss the idea around ;) — Save_Us_229 06:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm tired, it's 2 a.m. here, so good night, and good luck :) — Save_Us_229 06:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you two got this all taken care of! - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, me too! His idea to log out and post under our IP's was a rather brilliant idea, something I actually wouldn't have thought of. ;) — Save_Us_229 19:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure was a great idea! Maybe deserving of the "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar {{subst:What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar|message ~~~~}} . - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded. Thanks :) — Save_Us_229 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the Moe account was briefly used to edit. Though obviously nothing wrong, I'm just wondering it's use now (I thought you said you changed the password and logged out). TheChronic 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the password and logged out, yes, but Ned Scott told me I could get it back since I still had e-mail enabled, so I did. I needed to look under my preferences for something and I forgot to log out and continued editing under it. Silly me ;) I'm not really sure what I want to do with it now, for right now it is a sitting duck. I guess I could use it for something else down the line.. — Save_Us_229 00:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want it, I'll take it :P. SexySeaBass 02:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd be more suitable for the account. I wouldn't use the account for vandalism or anything like that. I really wouldn't. :) TheChronic 04:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I'll put it on eBay, how about that :P — Save_Us_229 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This account made its first edit 15 October 2004. At that time there was no mention of "bot" at WP:Username policy; that wasn't added until 17 months later.[4]Gimmetrow 09:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I must have figured something like that once I found out his earliest edit was back in 2004. I guess it's not a violation. Although his image uploading is still troubling. I have commented on his talk page. — Save_Us_229 09:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you may wish to take a break from this project. Please be assured that no editor or admin wishes you to leave however. You would not have been granted rollback if you were not in good standing within the community. Daniel's removal of the tool was a good faith measure to prevent possible harm. I'd urge you to re-join the discussion regarding it, hopefully to a satisfactory outcome for all. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 11:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see your rollback privileges were restored; they shouldn't have been removed in the first place. I completely understand your upset, and hope you return from your break soon. Best, Jeffpw (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have an opportunity to help make rollback not a big deal. If we establish a good precedent, we will save a lot of drama in a lot of future incidents. I know, we all know your heart is in this project, don't let a minor incident like this get you upset. I'm glad the world doesn't see all the little mistakes I make all the time ;-). Besides, this gave me the opportunity to restore your rights, score one for NoSeptember. Cheers, NoSeptember 12:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
ps: The answer is 87. What is the question? NoSeptember 12:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How many more days do I have less to Serve Wikipedia Diligently like before in 2005? — Save_Us_229 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I'm going to have to come up with harder answers. NoSeptember 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
lol, good luck NoSeptember ;-) — Save_Us† 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't but feel what something you said was wrong Pedro. What you said, "..Please be assured that no editor or admin wishes you to leave..", I can't disagree anymore strongly with a statement. There are a lot of users and admins who wouldn't shed a tear if I left, I could probably tell you who they are, but I could care less if they did or not anyways. In the past six days I've been bashed on the mailing list, had someone stalk my contributions for a week prior without knowledge and be suspected of being a sockpuppet master despite no evidence whatsoever. And after I was finally starting to feel good about Wikipedia and forget all about that, I was removed of the one position of trust I've ever had on Wikipedia despite me having it only 10 hours. To say there is no one out there trying to 'get me' would be completly without understanding anything I've ever been through. Want to know what I've really been doing the past six days? I moved a couple of articles for naming conventions, tagged a few images and worked on merging content from List of J-pop artists and organized it. The only other thing I've been doing is defending myself from editors here and elsewhere from nonsense accusations. I have no problem with the tool being temporarily being removed or even being asked why I made the revert. The tool is no big deal to me, all it does is help me where my browser can't when reverting vandalism. Furthurmore, I accept I made a mistake with the revert and would have reverted myself if I caught it or someone pointed it out to me. What I do have a problem with was Daniel suggesting that I blatantly misused the rollback tool and was trying to be harmful and saying my judgement was impaired. All I can say is preventive measures, without questioning the subject and being accusational to the point of it looking like someone is watching my every contribution carefully, hoping I mess up, aren't taken against editors in good standing. With that, I'm starting to question my status as "in good standing" if accusations of sockpuppetry and abuse of tools to blantantly damage the project, is how I'm treated. I've done neither, nor do I plan to. — Save_Us_229 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen this, so apologies for a very late reply. IMHO you are an editor in good standing. You continue to be, and by not losing faith in the project through one incident I respect you even more. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for completing this move. That was quick work I had just deleted the redirect and the page moved before I could get to it. Keith D (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. — Save_Us_229 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
