Misplaced Pages

User talk:East718: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:28, 13 January 2008 editEast718 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users26,172 editsm Reverted to revision 183747227 by Chomsky1← Previous edit Revision as of 18:29, 13 January 2008 edit undoEast718 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users26,172 editsm Reverted to revision 184054097 by East718; note to self: don't play with archivesNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/New comments go at the bottom; please do not edit this line}} {{/New comments go at the bottom; please do not edit this line}}
==Courtesy notification of incident report==
This is a courtesy notification that I have submitted an incident at ] in which you have been listed as being involved. Please review
], and comment there as you deem appropriate. Thank-you, <i>]</i> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::I have no problem with that, but as you will see, my complaint about this situation was more of a systemic one. Your involvement was small and understandable. <i>]</i> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


==Truncated==
== Image deletion question ==
Did this run ] truncate early? or did we actually solve all Logo issues beyond "M" :)!. Its probably a lost cause at this point, of the 11,000 images tagged on Jan 2, only 5,000 have been screened and fixed/deleted, and with all the drama around here, I think the focus on image work has been lost. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


==Lists of disputed images==
Thanks for deleting ] whic I added the {{tl|db}} tag to. I am a new admin and I was wondering - is it OK if I delete such blatant copyvio images directly on finding them, or is it better to speedy them and let someone else decide? Thanks, ] ''']''' 15:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
] That would have been the obvious thing for me to do in the first place. I know nothing about bots, so I don't know what they are capable of doing, or if it takes the bot operator a long time to get the bot to make such a list. I will let you know in the future, thank you. <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">]</font> 14:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
*Thanks for the answer and the vote of confidence - I wasn't sure if it was a checks and balances kind of thing (the same person should not both nominate as a speedy and do the delete) or not. ] ''']''' 16:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


== Blocked for 15 minutes == == Indef blocking of IPs ==


Hey, sorry about and . I guess I should know better, but as they say experience is worth it's weight in gold. ]] 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I know this is a stupid question but is it possible to block me for like 15-10 mintues just to see how it is like?If not, that's fine.Just wondering.
] (]) 15:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


== Request to unblock former TOR exit nodes ==
Thanks,(I know that's really stupid, I just wanted to see what it was like.);)--] (]) 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


East718, I checked the last 5000 blocks via ] (mostly out of curiosity), and found that
== Lists of disputed images ==
*{{Anonlinks|89.185.245.137}}
Hi, thank you for offering to make lists of disputed images. ] and ] have lists of some categories of disputed images in their userspace, which might save you some work:
*{{Anonlinks|24.126.65.248}}
*]
which you blocked as ] exit nodes, are no longer exit nodes. Barring circumstances unbeknownst to me, would you please consider unblocking these IP address? Thanks, ] 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
All the best, <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">]</font> 15:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


== I award thee... ==
:Great, we will have oodles of lists now! And your bot gets some exercise, which it probably needs after the Christmas holidays :-) <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">]</font> 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
== ] again... ==
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Good Humour'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For ]! :) ] ] 12:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
|}


== Request for arbitration involving you. ==
hey, the number is Ticket#2007121610008338. thank u, ] (]) 18:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


A request for arbitration involving you has been proposed. See ] ] (]) 15:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] and ] ==

Thanks for your Dec. 31 reply on my talk page. The user suspected of using the IP address as a sockpuppet to edit-war on the article, ], just left . The gist of it is that I'm "not very bright" and he intends to continue editing the article to include ethnicity in the subject's lead. ] (]) 04:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== Havelock the Dane's block ==

Are you sure about this? Altough I don't know him personlly, I am familiar with his work here. This guy has written excelent articles that have been promoted to GA status and could easily become featured in the future. See ]. His edits have not been controversial and in fact much appreciated by the people involved in those articles. I checked the ], his name is mentioned only once in a list and no specific information regarding him is provided. I took the trouble of checking the edit history of the other names on the list and found that they have made only a few edits each if any, while havelock has been editing quite heavily since he made his account, significantly improving quite a few articles. I don't know if you have any evidence other than his name being on that page but in light of his great edit history can you at least double check? I believe a great editor deserves at least that much. Thx in advance ] (]) 13:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

: No problem, thx for looking into it. ] (]) 13:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== IMAGE DELETION... ==

Hey..i noticed that u had deleted an judy greer image that i had uploaded...i am sure i must hv been doing something wrong...

can u tell me what wrong did i do??? ] (]) 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:and please tell me what needs to be done to upload a picture and make it stay there.... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== ] ==

I noticed that you deleted this image under CSD I6 recently. However, even if the image was tagged, none of the articles it appeared in were notified (] and ], both of which are on my watchlist). I would like to kindly request that you restore the image so I can provide a proper fair use rationale. Thanks, ] (]) 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks again. ] (]) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks ==
Since it affected lots of pages admins use regularly (and I'm not one) and the last time I proposed a visual change at a project a user complained I hadn't gone through the whole rigamorole (although he's now at Arbcom on an unrelated matter), I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask for opinions. But its been six hours since you changed it and no one's come out of the woodwork complaining, so it was a good call. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== Redirects ==

Thanks for deleting all the redirects. Bot was malfunctioning - fixed this! Sorry! <font color="3CBAEF" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>(])</small>'' 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
==List of things that come on sticks==
You apparently speedied this with a deletion rationale of "] an indiscriminate collection of information". Where in WP:CSD or elsewhere did you find that this was a speedy deletion rationale? Please restore and send to AfD, where it will probably be deleted in the proper manner, since it does look like an indiscriminate collection of information. ''']''' (]) 23:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:IAR ., which you quoted to me, is not a license to speedy delete everything you think would be deleted, even when you are right about the conclusion. speedy is not a place to use that provision. I think you are using a principle which cannot possibly be supported. ''']''' (]) 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Grr ==

. ] (]) 19:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:Thanx; I'll hold off on more major edits (I hope) untill this gets fixed. ] (]) 11:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== Reversion War ==

] (Tuckdogg's new account) keeps removing parts from the ] wiki page which have been well documented prior to the event, especially about Joachim Hansen's original involvement. He keeps reverting things back to his liking which fails to allow the most information to be revealed for the event. Please help out.

] (]) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Could you please undo your deletion of ]? I just merged it (and properly tagged it with {{tl|R from merge}}, but accidently had a typo in the merge target. It should have been ], not ], but you were quicker than I could fix my mistake. :-) &ndash; ] <sup>]•c</sup> 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:Because it may not be clear what I was refering to: A merge needs to leave the merge origin intact per ]. And the deletion now broke that and should be undone (which only an admin can). &ndash; ] <sup>]•c</sup> 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks. Have a nice day too. &ndash; ] <sup>]•c</sup> 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== Sorenson companies ==

Hi, it will be possible to undelete article ]? I link it today from ], other three wikilinks are linked to that article (]), so i think that subject may be notable (altough i have no idea content of deleted article). --] (]) 01:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

==]==

Just so you know, this category was actually speedied out of process. It hadn't been empty for four days or more; ] improperly applied the tag just ''minutes'' after emptying the category himself, and your subsequent deletion was only 20 minutes later. I've consequently restored it and taken it to CFD for a procedural review. His fault for following improper procedure, not yours, but I thought I should let you know anyway. ] (]) 03:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I created the protected redirect to prevent this page from being recreated again since it has been deleted three times before. The empty page it is redirected to is protected as well but will eventually be a valid page as the program is scheduled but all details so far are speculation. --] 03:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== status ==

As I understand our agreement, it was entered into voluntarily and not as a condition of editing. I am not sure whether it continues at this time as we were to re-evaluate it in the new year, but I have very much appreciated your advice to this point. In any case, Adam Cuerden is making claims which I would like to bring to your attention and would appreciate any comment you might have. I will also let Mercury know about this since he was mentioned, but this also seems like a good time for me to take a step back and let things cool down for a bit, which I will do. &mdash;] (''']''') 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
: I am criticized in some detail, if you would like to take a look. I think you should also perhaps (and maybe first) look at . &mdash;] (''']''') 08:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you for your comments on my talk. I have replied there in part, but I don't really need to go into more depth. Obviously this is an RfC for the benefit of the ArbCom, and my statement there is not to convince you but to provide evidence, so if you happen to disagree with any of my characterization, oh well. I appreciate the suggestions. &mdash;] (''']''') 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::By the way, I should let you know I involved myself in ] when the . I believe that upholding that dispute prevails over other considerations, and did not think it was necessary to seek your prior approval. Nor am I sure you still expect that provision to be maintained given your previous authorization. In any case, I thought this context might be helpful to you. &mdash;] (''']''') 08:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== "Image:TCR underground shot.jpg" ==

Hello, i'd like to find out exactly what made this a bad justification of Fair Use so it can be corrected and re-uploaded. Thanks. ] (]) 05:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
==Ashley Fernee==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--] (]) 14:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

==Vote for a post-meetup restaurant==

], so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at ]. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ] (]) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== Pat Miletich ==

Pat's page has been protected for 3 months and it doesn't seem like it's ever going to be unprotected. So why has it taken so long for this page to been protected? Just wondering since there seems to be some information misisng and more to be added. (] (]) 18:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

==User attack page==
Sorry you got the automatic notification of the CSD tag for those two. I think the existance of the page, perpetuates the attack. I realize you were just blocking the user. However, the user's userspace files should be removed for obvious reasons. ] (]) 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Response ==

Hello its ] responding here is the link... ]. {{unsigned|Write me}}

== Deletion of ] ==

Hi, while reading ] I noticed a redlink to ]. There are quite a few pages linking to this deleted page: and more here: . What did these pages redirect to? It looks like an accident might have happened somewhere along the line. ] (] | ]) 08:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Cool, thanks :) Could you please also restore ] and ]? Also, did you check the deleted contributions of the vandal? I wonder if he/she created broken redirects elsewhere. BTW in addition to checking the history, it is a good idea to check the "What links here" to pages that you delete, especially for spam, attack, and hoax pages. It is common that the spam/attack/hoax is perpetuated on other pages by linking to the bad page. Cheers, ] (] | ]) 17:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Rollback ==

Woohoo! ] (]) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== homeopathy is the future ==

WOULD YOU LIK TO CONTRIBUTE TO WIKIPROJECT HOMEATPHY? GOOGLE IT PLEASE TO FIND OUT HOW YOUC AN DONATE YOUR ITME AND HELP SAVE MILLIONSOF LIFES EVERY SINGLE DAY THROUGH EDUCATION AND WIKIEDITING. ] (]) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

yo sign up please visit . ] (]) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Image:Battlebowl.jpg ==
Why was this deleted? I'm pretty sure I did add a FUR since I always add one when I get a warning about an old pic I uploaded doesn't have one. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 00:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:I would appreciate that. I have sold my old VHS copy since I uploaded it (and don't have the image saved on my computer anymore), so it wouldn't have been a little hard finding another image. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== March 29, 2006 Capitol Hill police incident ==

Why delete ] as an implausible redirect? It's only one character off, and numbers are easy to mistake. I'm not going to wheel war with you :-) but would you reconsider deletion? ] (]) 04:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

After you rejected my request for page protection, another anonymous IP removed information from the article and put a bunch of POV stuff about their methodology in the lead that I took out.

Please reconsider. ] (]) 07:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Another mostly single-purpose account {{User|Big Brother 1984}} injects the POV back into the article, while putting in the edit summary some nonsense about me supporting the mixed-market economy. ] (]) 08:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
On what grounds do you claim this is a "content dispute"? The unsourced NPOV-violations in the lead were tagged with "citation needed" for over a month now and the claim about Bryan Caplan was clearly cited, but removed along with bad faith accusations of political bias. Articles relating to ] ''are'' persistently vandalized, no different than with other topics prone to violations of ], such as those on ]. If you don't believe me, take a look at the edit history of ] and how I cried out desperately for help on ] until ] fortunately stepped in to help and none of the trolls would dare edit-war with him\her because the amount of respect they have on here. ] (]) 13:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:You're an admin, so I don't mean to ] but intentionally disruptive edits are the very definition of ]:

:'''"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages."'''

:That would ''include'' egregious violations of ] such as, for instance, pushing ] on the article on ].

:Lastly, your invocation of "long-term" vandalism seems to go against ], since the burden of proof for page-protectionism is "severe vandalism" not "long-term" vandalism. Since the violations of ] here are, to use your words "egregious." ] (]) 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Again, another editor: . This is clearly not a content dispute and if you would wish to avoid a tarnished reputation as an admin I recommend you '''''enforce''''' Misplaced Pages policy or at least attempt back up your decisions with arguments instead of making hasty decisions, then subtly telling confused editors to shut up and go away.

::If you ignore these comments, I shall issue an RFC on your behavior, it shall be reviewed by the community, and they shall decide the matter. I'm certain, based on the above, you ''probably'' wouldn't want that, though I admit your user contribs overall seem very, very good. It would be a shame to see what appears to be a very good editor's hard work be undermined by one poor decision. ] (]) 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

After removing Skomorokh's edits and attempting to engage in discussion by noting the contentious edits on his talkpage ], he has since to make other contentious edits, again, all involving what appear to be an ] at promoting ] and deleting its ] critics, like the others. A review of my edit history and userpage, on the other hand, yields the fact that I take an interest in ] and ], making edits entirely neutral about the silly ] vs. ] POV pushing on both sides, ]. ] (]) 20:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::Also, to perhaps give some clarity I could've offered earlier: In case there's any denial about the wild fringe views here, I have some interesting source material for you from the ] itself:

::], which the Misplaced Pages article names as the "uncontested dean of the Austrian School of economics," says of ] in ] (published in 1944, re-published in '''''1969'''''):

::

::{{Quotation|It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.}}

::And of ]:

::

::{{Quotation|Nazism conquered Germany because it never encountered any adequate intellectual resistance. It would have conquered the whole world if, after the fall of France, Great Britain and the United States had not begun to fight it seriously.<br>...<br>With regard to these dogmas there is no difference between present-day British liberals and the British labor party on the one hand and the Nazis on the other.}}

You said, "Cheers," so I'll take a wild guess you're British. How 'bout that ] ] and the ] ], eh? This is why all of the stuff on ] raises huge red flags and I've attempted to work through it all with them ] in an attempting to get me blocked. You have a broad array of people doing this: On the one hand you have the ] (some of whom buy into the ] conspiracy aka anti-semitic "The Jewish bankers" conspiracy). Others aren't necessarily out-and-out ], but they are, however, ] attempting to wipe mainstream economics from Misplaced Pages and inject their heterodox theories into any article they can.

For precisely this reason, I've been planning on writing an essay on the matter, elucidating the monetary crankery on Misplaced Pages.

In my personal opinion, the ] is a ]. I don't, however, put '''''that''''' into articles because that's just my personal opinion -- not something I can verify with reliable sources.

] (]) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Quick on the draw ==

* 12:43, 10 January 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Karl Wilhelm of Baden-Durlach" ‎ (CSD R1: Redirect to nonexistent page)

You deleted ], a page linked to by ], while I was in the process of creating ], ]. Is there really a need to delete that quickly, frustrating editors who try to fill gaps? And if so, does it have to be you who scores such a kill? I wonder if that funny block of yours is somehow related:

* 10:50, 26 December 2007 DarkFalls (Talk | contribs) blocked "East718 (Talk | contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 years ago ‎ (for being a dick :p)

--&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp; 12:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:"any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe". ] is considered beginning East of Poland, while ] and ] are topics pretty much in my back yard. When I created the redirect, you assessed it, surely while assuming good faith and that I am here to ''help'' the project, and then deleted it. Is that correct, or incivil, personal attack, or assumption of bad faith from my side? Anyway, thanks for restoring it. With just a little bit more patience, you could have saved us this issue. So, as you did blow off steam on IRC among fellow admins, where am I permitted to blow off steam, for example after witnessing ? German Nobel laureates are not exactly topics related to Eastern Europe, yet an editor not under the Digwuren restriction, never having edited the article before, shows up shortly after I did so, coincidentally. See also , showing how Misplaced Pages spreads added by another editor. The article has not been edited since, despite obviously having double entries now. Maybe you want to take a break from boring maintenance work to fixed this? ] is also a policy that needs to be respected, as I believe. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp; 14:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Image deleted ==

Hi, I see you deleted I have uploaded, saying it was ''Orphaned'', but, as you can see , the image was removed from the article on January 3, and deleted on January 5, just 2 days after! And also, , I didn't receive any warning about ''Orphaned non-free media'' before the image was deleted, I think that's unfair. So, can you restore that image, so I can use in the article again? — <font color="DodgerBlue">]]</font> 17:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

======
:Thank you! — <font color="DodgerBlue">]]</font> 17:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== A Wikiquette alert involving you ==

I have filed a wikiquette alert involving you. It was not a "threat," and either way, it is something you should take seriously.

] ] (]) 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Unprotect shareaza ==

I think the current talk on shareaza seems to have found a solution for the issue of shareaza, and it can be unprotected. (or let the current protection exprire in 16 hours from now.). http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=protect&page=Shareaza 14:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC) {{unsigned|Leuk he}}

== AfD/Magocracy protection ==

Please see my comment at WP:RFPP. Thank you, - ] (]) 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:I apologise for stepping on toes here, but I really don't think protection is justified by only 2 vandal edits by IPs. Semi protection effectively means users without accounts are prevented from expressing an opinion on the fate of that article. I think we'd need to see a lot more disruption before semi protection would be necessary. I've unprotected the article. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::That IP has been stalking Jack Merridew and harassing him for a while now - but I'll defer to your judgement. ]

== New Roosevelt Logo.PNG deletion ==

I would like further information on why the image New Roosevelt Logo.png was deleted. I placed the template in as requested as soon as I was notified it was a candidate for possible deletion (2 January 2008) and supplied reasons for including it as part of the article it was uploaded for and the fact that as a logo it is not "replaceable" with a free image. I don't see why this low-resolution logo is any different than ones included for other high schools or universities. Thank you --] (]) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks...I wasn't sure if I should remove it. Now I know. Much appreciated! Thank you --] (]) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== Please! ==

Hey Pal. Please put back the "List of Star Fox planets and locations" article. I really would apperciate it. Please put it back on. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Deleted image ==

I'm new to the whole Misplaced Pages thing and made some edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wendover_Arm_Canal but you removed an image. Can I ask why? Rob (Wendoverarmtrust) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Violation of dispute process - image with disputed fair use rationale requires "Nomination for Deletion" process ==

Hello.

Sometime before Jan 5 2008 you added a "no use rationale whatsoever" flag to the ] image used in the ] article.

On Jan 5 2008 I added a full and complete "fair use rationale".

On Jan 11 2008 you deleted the image <b>without</b> putting it through a "Nomination for Deletion" - as is <b>required</b> by ] and ] (scroll down to Speedy Deletion and Enforcement respectively) for images that have a disputed fair use rationale.

You deleted it with a comment that you had notified the uploader 48 hours previous, however that justification for deletion can only be used for images that do not have a "fair use rationale" and that are not disputed. Images that have a fair use rationale must be Nominated and can not be arbitrarily and unilaterally deleted unless they are "clearly an abuse" or they are not remediated.

Restore the image and rationale then Nominate it for Deletion at ] as per standard protocol.

] (]) 00:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Unclear Why Image Ws Deleted ==

As per the note above by CraigWyllie, I wonder why you deleted an image from ] even though it was from a family member, and thus there was no copyright issue. An explanation, rather than a rash deletion, would have been appreciated. At a minimum, you could have restored the inferior picture that it was replacing. --
comment added by ]

Revision as of 18:29, 13 January 2008


Archive
Archives
Leave a message, sign your posts, get a reply.

Courtesy notification of incident report

This is a courtesy notification that I have submitted an incident at WP:AN/I in which you have been listed as being involved. Please review the report, and comment there as you deem appropriate. Thank-you, JERRY contribs 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but as you will see, my complaint about this situation was more of a systemic one. Your involvement was small and understandable. JERRY contribs 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Truncated

Did this run User:East718/DFUI/Logos truncate early? or did we actually solve all Logo issues beyond "M" :)!. Its probably a lost cause at this point, of the 11,000 images tagged on Jan 2, only 5,000 have been screened and fixed/deleted, and with all the drama around here, I think the focus on image work has been lost. MBisanz 06:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lists of disputed images

D'oh! That would have been the obvious thing for me to do in the first place. I know nothing about bots, so I don't know what they are capable of doing, or if it takes the bot operator a long time to get the bot to make such a list. I will let you know in the future, thank you. Bláthnaid 14:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocking of IPs

Hey, sorry about this and this. I guess I should know better, but as they say experience is worth it's weight in gold. Rudget. 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to unblock former TOR exit nodes

East718, I checked the last 5000 blocks via Special:Ipblocklist (mostly out of curiosity), and found that

which you blocked as Tor exit nodes, are no longer exit nodes. Barring circumstances unbeknownst to me, would you please consider unblocking these IP address? Thanks, Iamunknown 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I award thee...

The Barnstar of Good Humour
For this AfD closure! :) the wub "?!" 12:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration involving you.

A request for arbitration involving you has been proposed. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Austrian_economics Zenwhat (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)