User talk:S (usurped also)/Archive Jun 2007

Vandalism?

Hello. I got a messege from you saying that you believed I had vandalized an article regarding Mayfair High School. I'm not particularly offended or anything but I wanted to let you know it wasn't me. Good luck in letting the person know who actually did it, but this is now the third time I've been accused of vandalism on Wikipedia and it's getting kind of old. It's never a good feeling to be wrongly accused of anything , even something as minor as that so when I first got your messege I was pretty angry. But after rereading your messege I want to let you know that I certainly appreciate the respectful manor your messege was written in.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.215.46 (talk • contribs).

It was you...[[1]]Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies...

Hey everybody,

I just wanted to drop my really quick and apologize for the lack of responses lately. I am currently working on a project in real life which requires my undivided attention. Unfortunately, that also means long hours and very little free time.

I promise I'll get back to everybody but, as things are looking now, I expect to be extremely busy for another 10-16 days. During that time, I'll probably not be able to devote any time to Wikipedia. After that, I'd be happy to address any and all questions - heck, I already put 'catch up on Wikipedia' on my to-do list.

Sorry and thanks for understanding. --Seed 2.0 12:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

hey

hey I was wondering if you would check out my article King Armored Car and tell me if you think it's ready to be upgraded to 'Start' class. --MKnight9989 14:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim Deacon

Thanks for closing this. I found that the "article" was primarily a copyvio together with a bit of junk that was somewhere between mere whimsy and potential fodder for a libel case. So I zapped the article. But then, before I could close the AfD or send a stern message to the perp, WP's servers crapped out on me. I spent a frustrating ten minutes trying again and again to do stuff, but then had to meet the demands of the real world and leave my computer. -- Hoary 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all - I'm glad I could help out. I had a dozen tabs or so time out on me again and again myself this morning and I was half-expecting the lights to go out, courtesy of the not always entirely reliable Florida power grid. Oh well, them's the breaks of Wikiholism, I guess.

Cheers -- Seed 2.0 14:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Philadelphia

The list is copied from the one we used for our prvious list. Wealso created a no-invite list. User:Ike9898 who is an admin created the list. If you have concerns, you may want to ask him about its compilation. Thanks! --evrik ^(talk) 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks!--evrik ^(talk) 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD

hey there. Thanks for the heads up. Thankfully, I am familiar with all of those :-). I simply tagged them with CSDs earlier because i felt it was the best way to go. Seeing as those tags were removed, i'm gonna go back to the basics. They do all suffer from the same fundemental flaw. There are a handful of others in the same group that suffer from the same problem, i did not tag them until i saw the results of the CSD. Now that I'm going to go the AFD route, I will include them as well. Be well. //Tecmobowl 11:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fark.com

Thanks. They've got a thread on the spammed site inviting vandalism, so it was only going to get worse!--Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 11:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you add some new tags to your tool?

I was wondering if you could add a few more tags to your tool. Tags including {{POV}}, {{disputed}}, {{TotallyDisputed}}, {{controversial}} and {{Unencyclopedic}} I would add them myself but I'm afraid I don't know quite how to do it correctly. Do you think it's possible? Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out my modification of tags called flexitags, User:LilDice/Flexitags you can customize it however you want on an individual basis that way Seed doesn't have to make modifications to his script. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 11:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried using that but for some reason it didn't work with the specific add-ons I already have. I'll try it again but I don't believe it will work. It might be the position of the tab, other tabs take the position of where it would be. I'll check once more just to make sure.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that's the case. It's simply not working. No new tabs appear and it's not my screen resolution. Apparently some of my other tabs take the place of where your tab would be located and it won't show up. Do you know how to move a tab to the far right? I don't want to mess around with that code because it might disable my ability to edit as it has before.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you see if this works? "Seed2.0"? Adding these new tags to your tool? Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage warnings

Per this, this is not spamming. This doesn't require a level-3 warning, yet a level-1 spam warning. Please try to assume good faith when trying to fight vandalism. Miranda 22:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied at the user's talk page. -- Seed 2.0 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for contacting me.

I can assure you, however, that I'm quite familiar with WP:AGF. AGF does only go so far, though. It is not reasonable to assume good faith when there is evidence to the contrary. I would ask you to please review the article's history. This matter has been discussed in detail on the talk page for an extended period of time and this particular edit war has caused the article to be on full protection for about a month.

After the article was unprotected, I left another note on the talk page, reminding people to talk this over before making edits. This user is a SPA and the spamming is systematic (please see the history). So far, two administrators have been involved in this since the page protection was removed less than 24 hours ago.

IOW, I know what I'm doing and I'm not just going out on a whim here. ;)

This has been going on for a while and it needs to stop. -- Seed 2.0 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First, the user is a new user. Second, the user was trying to add a conflict section to the article, which is in the realms of neutrality regarding an article. Third, the user isn't spamming. This is spamming. Miranda 23:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't delete my warnings without discussing it first or familiarizing yourself with the issue. Just because there isn't wiki markup doesn't change the fact that's spam. It's not external link spam, but it's still spam. You may also want to read this and this, as well as the article's history. Cheers Seed 2.0 22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I have read that, and have seen that the user in question has responded to that. I disagree, you placed a wrong warning on the user's talk page. This is considered biting and can drive off users who want to constructively to the encyclopedia. For proper vandalism warnings, see this. And, your vandalism warning should have been level one, not level three. Miranda 23:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please reread my comments again. It is spamming. It's not external link spamming, you're right about that. But it is spamming. The only point is to get the bannination.com URL into the article, no matter how -- the thread on their website even says so much. Same goes for the Shadowbanning article and related redirects. And, as I have pointed out, it's a SPA. I'm not biting a newcomer. And, again, there's no requirement to give go through the motions: you don't need to start at level one and subsequently escalate if there's an indication of bad faith.

Multiple warnings were given on the talk page and in the edit summaries. And, as you can clearly see, this exact same edit warring has been going on for a while. Just because somebody registers a new SPA, there's no requirement to give a fresh set of warnings. They were clearly visible on the talk page and in the history and I still feel that a level three warning was appropriate. -- Seed 2.0 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't spam, by definition, something that's unrelated? Atario 01:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) First, Seed, Banninate.com doesn't exist. Second, read the Spam policy, and read the note on your page that I responded to which clearly defines what is and is not spam. Third, quit biting this user, and go on with your normal editing...and let this discussion be done. Miranda 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Sigh, well, you know what I meant. It was clear from the context and the pointers I gave you.
2. Since we're being super technical: WP:SPAM isn't policy. It's a guideline and I'm very much aware of what it says, thank you very much. Your argument is basically that it's not external link spam and I think we can all agree on that point. My point is that it's spam. If you look at the article's history, it's clear that this is one of many attempts to get the domain name into the article through different means. Same goes for the Shadowbanning article. Again, it's all very clear from the discussion on the talk page and from the article's history.
3. Again, I'm not biting. You chose to interject yourself into a discussion you haven't been following and without bothering to check the history. You would have clearly seen both the consensus that a) the link isn't appropriate at this time, b) the clear pattern and c) the multiple warnings and explanations given on the talkpage. Your argument is that I am biting a newcomer because I followed up on those multiple warnings by multiple users with a level three template on the user's talkpage and that I failed to WP:AGF after a newly registered SPA made the exact same reverts that got the article fully protected a month ago, semi-protected less than 24 hours after it got unprotected (that was yesterday, by the way) and that started an extensive edit war? In that case, I do believe indeed that it's not reasonable to assume good faith when there's evidence to the contrary and I'm not willing to make a mockery out of the process. If you think that being a process wonk when it comes to WP:UTM (and, again - since we're throwing guidelines around for fun and profit here - WP:AGF explicitly states "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.") is a good thing, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
   I've been an editor for a while, I have been following the discussion and edit war for the past four week or so and I do know what sparked this. You can safely assume that when I do something in regard to this issue, I'm not just doing it for kicks (which, apparently, you are assuming). But you're right, it really doesn't matter and we're running around in circles. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Feel free to believe what you want. -- Seed 2.0 06:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reposted

I'm going to re-post this encase you might have missed it due to the amount of messages you seem to be getting. I was wondering if you could add a few more tags to your tool. Tags including {{POV}}, {{disputed}}, {{TotallyDisputed}}, {{controversial}} and {{Unencyclopedic}} I would add them myself but I'm afraid I don't know quite how to do it correctly. Do you think it's possible? Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page & added to todo list. --Seed 2.0 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. --ST47Talk 11:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: your message (redirects)

Thanks. You too :) --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 10:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Humanists and Renaissance Humanists CfDs

I'm afraid you have got these two wrong. The decision was to KEEP cat humanistys by nationality (1st nom), and rename the 4 specified ones to Cat Foo Renaissance humanists (2nd nom). You have deleted the nationality category and moved all 9 cats to Renaissance humanists. Please revist & let me know if you have any queries. Thanks , Johnbod 20:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - the 2nd nom seems ok; but the first has been treated as though it was the 2nd, if you see what I mean. Johnbod 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for prompt reply - i see what you mean, & have asked kbdank71, copying all this. Johnbod 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks - looks good now. Johnbod 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tags feature request

Hiya Seed 2.0. I was wondering if you could add support for the {{Make table}} tag to your Tags script. Thanks, - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 00:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied there per request. -- Seed 2.0 10:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, when you get back, I'll look forward to it. Don't worry about MyBanners, I db-selfed it.... - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems you're back, which is good news =D Any news on tags? - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm back now (just got back a few hours ago ;). Tags is pretty near the top of my to do list right now and I should get be able to add those templates this weekend. I'll let you know when I'm done. :) Cheers --S ^up? 16:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, will look forward to it. And nice new name :D - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 06:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Single Letter Username

You have now entered the single letter usurped username group along with me, H, E, Y, and N! Good luck with your new name. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see here for a group just for 26 of us. :) --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Very catchy sig :) --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember a discussion we had of banning the usage of single letter (strictly it was about both signle and double letter, thus usernames less than three letters) usernames, as they are only meant for two things, one, to confuse, and two, to hide from search engines. _→AzaToth 03:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my case, it's the first thing I could come up with (aside from Seed, which I knew was taken after I tried that and a few dozen other IDs when I originally registered an account) after someone expressed concern about my old nickname on IRC. I don't really see how it could confuse anyone (Can't sleep, clown will eat me, on the other hand, ... ) though and since my sig is pretty distinctive, it should be easy to find using any search engine. --S ^up? 09:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application

Dear S,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Rettetast 18:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, S! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: I removed Seed 2.0 from the list, as a cautionary measure, given it will presumably be inactive now.

Including Can-We-Link-It in Tags

Re: Your quick question: No objections at all - please feel free to include it or link to it in any tools you wish. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 09:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am capsium on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/S. Thanks. --S ^up? 14:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Houses cats

Hi, I notice Seedbot is busy recategorizing all the Historic Houses articles to the new Houses cats, but that the new cats haven't been created yet. Will it create the new cats, or do they have to be done manually? DuncanHill 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. --S ^up? 15:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! DuncanHill 15:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)