Revision as of 03:08, 29 March 2012 editWarthogDemon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,408 edits →Thanks!: Replying here.← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:56, 29 March 2012 edit undoGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits →Thanks!: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
Thanks for the revert. That was a sockpuppet account from vandalism a long time ago. -- ] (]) 18:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC) | Thanks for the revert. That was a sockpuppet account from vandalism a long time ago. -- ] (]) 18:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Replied here: . -]] 03:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | :Replied here: . -]] 03:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
Re : And here I thought the gap between edits with the sockpuppet you reverted was long... I blocked the account. -- ] (]) 04:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:56, 29 March 2012
Archives |
Dell Schanze
Removal of his country picture and court record is a valid external link. It is validated by the state of Utah itself, and you need to stop removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- AGAIN, the County Arrest picture of him, and the data there are verified by the state of Utah, it is the Utah County Jail website. It is a valid link, please stop removing this link or you will be reported for abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Repled here: -WarthogDemon 15:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- That was a tad vague, so clarified: . -WarthogDemon 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Repled here: -WarthogDemon 15:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- AGAIN, the County Arrest picture of him, and the data there are verified by the state of Utah, it is the Utah County Jail website. It is a valid link, please stop removing this link or you will be reported for abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Jano Janosik
Re your message: I would probably do an AfD. Some One (maybe two) of the bands listed have articles, so it could be in the gray area. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 03:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re your message: Yup. Stewboss was about the band. It seems to be mentioned in a few other articles here and there. And the other may be Bardo (band), but kind of hard to tell. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: -WarthogDemon 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re your message: Well, an AfD was opened on the article. A couple of Deletes so far. But if you can find the sources, perhaps you can rescue the article? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re your message: Probably not. The first one is more or less an ad, so doesn't establish notability. The second is a fairly trivial mention of the band and then Jano Janosik has even less mention. I think it's going to be tough to find enough references to make an individual article about him. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 03:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re your message: Probably not. The first one is more or less an ad, so doesn't establish notability. The second is a fairly trivial mention of the band and then Jano Janosik has even less mention. I think it's going to be tough to find enough references to make an individual article about him. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re your message: Well, an AfD was opened on the article. A couple of Deletes so far. But if you can find the sources, perhaps you can rescue the article? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: -WarthogDemon 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re your message: Yup. Stewboss was about the band. It seems to be mentioned in a few other articles here and there. And the other may be Bardo (band), but kind of hard to tell. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Re your message: I suspect that was where article was headed. And you don't need my opinion on resurrecting the article. =) You have a good sense of what should and shouldn't be an article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Good question
I don't think there's been a change in policy re. AfD, but I thought I'd err on the side of caution and point out the reason why the thing should have been deleted. Seems like someone agreed with my rationale. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Attachment theory
I think I accidentally undid what you did, as I was trying to undo another editor's faulty wikilinks. Apologies if I did. Paul Erik 02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Double/French spacing in TFAs
Hello, I saw by your recent contribs that you have recently been removing the French spacing from Today's Featured Articles. According to the Manual of Style, both double or single spacing is acceptable: "The number of spaces following the end of a sentence makes no difference on Misplaced Pages because web browsers condense any number of spaces to just one. However, editors may use any spacing style they are comfortable with in Misplaced Pages." As the major contributor of Flocke, today's TFA, I prefer two spaces after a full stop, and tend to write entire articles in that way; with that in mind, I've reverted your recent edit to the page. Others may feel the same in the future, and simply revert your painstaking changes, so you may want to desist since the MOS is against you. Just a suggestion. María (habla conmigo) 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I did not take your tone as hostile and did not intend mine as such, either; I apologize if it came off that way. My comment was intended as a suggestion -- hence the "just a suggestion" note at the end, right? Double vs. single spacing makes no difference in how an article is perceived by a reader, but it's a pain to write an article in a specific way (and to maintain it a specific way), depending on one's personal style preferences, and then have someone not previously affiliated with the work step in and change things to a separate style without any reason given or discussion opened. I'm a picky content editor, and you're not the first who has changed my double spacing to single for whatever reason; however, you're the first I've seen consistently doing so to TFAs. I'm not sure how familiar you are with article writing, but as with other certain aspects of a page -- infobox or no infobox, citation templates or freehand references, British or American spelling -- it's all a matter of what the major contributors are comfortable working with. Double spacing, although it may be minor in comparison to the other aspects I've listed, falls under the ambiguous category of "the MOS doesn't say, so I choose to do it this way". As far as article size issues, I would agree with your point (that removing double spacing lowers kilobites and increases readability) if it were not for the fact that, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be implementing an arbitrary style change without taking into account the size of the TFAs. Flocke, for example, is one of the smallest FAs in regards to readable prose, and certainly poses no size issues. It isn't exactly William Shakespeare, is it? ;)
- Sorry for the lengthy response. I may have been the first to bring your attention to the matter, but how many of your double-spacing-to-single-spacing changes have been removed? Have you commented on the talk page of these articles to discuss how the major contributors feel about double spacing as opposed to single spacing? What I'm getting to, really, is that double spacing is my preference, and the preference for many other contributors out there, and if you have valid points to make against it, perhaps you should begin a discussion about the issue before changing every TFA on the mainpage. Again, that's just a suggestion. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know
My edits are not vandalism because it talks about how many professional wins does each player have. The (3) indicates that the player has three wins, and you can see the list of victories below the headings of the wins section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.32.98 (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Myachi
Re your message: I think the CNBC and New York Times articles establish the topic's notability. The article is indeed a mess and needs major cleanup. As the IP who added the article tags to it said: "so many problems..." The style is wrong in the Basic Rules and Tricks, the Origin section should be towards the top, and the list of "Masters" should probably be completely removed since it is unreferenced, doesn't establish any of their notability, and probably more importantly, doesn't give any context at all (Former Butter Master? Umm, okay...). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Re:List of Pokémon (21–40)
Hello, WarthogDemon. You have new messages at Download's talk page.You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 20:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Continuing here: . -WarthogDemon 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- And furthermore: . -WarthogDemon 21:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Continuing here: . -WarthogDemon 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
=) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- ...again. I see my bureaucrat vandal has returned. Not sure what is up with that, but whatever. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- ...and again. Sockpuppet blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Double spaces
Take little kb space and can be eliminated in one edit, e.g. using a macro replace in Wordpad, whereas deleting them in several edits only clutter article history and watchlists. Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 00:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
UAA
What I had said on the UAA page was correct, except that the proper term is "hidden", not "locked". There is a log of all of the account hiding somewhere on meta, but when I went to look for it I couldn't find it. Sorry. I believe Popups will always return the correct "blocked" message even after an account has been hidden ... it's what I use ... though I can't promise 100% accuracy as I've never asked anyone who would know. Also if it's OK with you I'm going to remove the section you placed on my talk page as I think we would be better off if he had never existed. —Soap— 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 03:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay
ok. --123onlyyouhimandme (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Alright then. -WarthogDemon 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Grammar NAZI
I was reading comments on a user talk page where you introduced yourself in this manner. Then you offered insight which correctly improved the sentence at issue. From my perspective I recognized you as a potential asset and wondered if you would avail yourself to user requests to review text? If in fact you enjoy offering such a critique, I will almost certainly call upon you in the future to review text appendages! In fact you can analyze this paragraph, which I have written in the style I generally use, and advise where I may have erred. Thank you.My76Strat (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I assume the answer is no, as opposed to no, thank you.My76Strat (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 03:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I do not have anything at this time, but if you are willing, when I do, I would like to perhaps call on you. I apologize if my comment above gave you negative feelings. It was intended to gently nudge you in that direction and I am sure it was not warranted. Again Thank you!My76Strat (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Reply
Hello Warthogdemon. I reverted that edit as, it appears that the template was being used in a way other than its intended purposes. The user in question was repeatedly warned for vandalism (level 4, not at a level 1), and was given a cookie by another user in a act of "assuming good faith" (which, to be quite honest was a bit ridiculous in this case). The pattern of edits from the account is clearly that of a VOA/troll, so I reverted. But no, cookies are not bad. See User talk:Active Banana#Well for my message. —Tommy2010 02:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Elizabeth (Harriot) Wilson
I got your message about this page. Please see my comment following your entry, and please don't hesitate to contact me if there are any more questions. Talk to you soon.... PurpleChez (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 05:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. mono 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Romanization for words of English origin
On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).
Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.
One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.
What this invitation is:
- You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.
What this invitation is not:
- This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
- This is not a vote on compromises either.
It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the troll on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
...and again. We won't be seeing that account again. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Ila kumar
Re your message: Hard to say, really. There's a claim to notability with the Indian Railways award, but my quick look around for further information on that presents nothing explaining exactly what the award is. Placing the article under an AfD would be fine. The notability appears to be questionable. As for the COI, I would AGF and leave that part out. The editors involved in the article have similar, but not identical names.
Funny thing is that I edited the article two years ago trying to clean up a few things after cleaning up spam. Back then, I did a horrible job of fixing the formatting, but this time I did better. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Userpages
Userpages may be deleted under general CSD criteria; criteria such as G11 (blatant advertising) and G12 (blatant copyright infringement) are particularly relevant. Removing the speedy template will hinder the deletion of this spam page (though given its nature, it's possible it may simply be deleted by an admin later anyway), so please revert your removal of this template. GiftigerWunsch 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see you've self-reverted; thanks. GiftigerWunsch 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 18:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Yeşilnil
Re your message: It could be deleted. I would say a proposed deletion would suffice. It would not qualify under CSD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Inglewood, Mecklenburg County, Virginia for deletion
The article Inglewood, Mecklenburg County, Virginia is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Inglewood, Mecklenburg County, Virginia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Re: A Receipt For A Recipe
Re your message: The list is at List of Case Closed episodes (season 7). If you edit the subsection of the article, you see the {{:List of Case Closed episodes (season 7)}} transclusion. The tricky part of that article is that it uses the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags. Very tricky. I can't say that I've seen that before. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 07:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Re your message: No problem. I learned something new, though it took me awhile to figure out what <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> could be used for. Like the help says, it isn't use very often. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bloodbeasts.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bloodbeasts.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Replied here: -— Preceding unsigned comment added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs)
- Looks OK to me -difficult to tell 'good faith' vs. 'bad faith' with some of these edits... the FuR looks good to me! Skier Dude (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for cleaning up my talk page the other day. Long time, no see! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 03:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello WarthogDemon! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
- Er, um . . . thanks? >_> -WarthogDemon 19:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the revert. That was a sockpuppet account from vandalism a long time ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 03:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Re your message: And here I thought the gap between edits with the sockpuppet you reverted was long... I blocked the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)