User:Redwolf24/Archive31

That was fast!

Thanks! Oh, dear: I see you've been speaking with some friends of mine who happen to play in the Uncyclopedia (I would spend time there, but my sense of humor was surgically removed at birth: it's a religious thing). It's nice to be back, even if I won't have nearly as much of a presence as I once did (at least not for a while). – ClockworkSoul 04:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, by the way, I do know you. Reciprocally, I'm actually very surprised that so many people noticed that I was missing, including some I've never had the pleasure to know. – ClockworkSoul 05:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipediology

I'd like to ask those fellows who have not indicated whether or not they grant permission for a wikibio on them to please do so soon. I'd also appreciate it everyone could expand or create the wikibios for which permission has been granted. The wikibio project simply won't be useful unless fellows actively participate; so I'd like to issue a challenge that each fellow contribute at least one sentence to two wikibios. I'll be on wikibreak for the next week and when I get back there will be prizes in store for the fellows who have the three highest edit counts on wikibios. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

George Bush

I would like this aticle to be protected and look like this[[1]]. The tag could NOT be removed by vandals, but the rest of the article would be editable(unless the template was protected as well). This will give are readers some forewarning to the possible POV vandal, and perhaps, with a bit of tag re-wording(or links), they might learn how to revert it themselves.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I just modified the test page tag a bit.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend such a tag. We clean up everything fast enough anyway, and if you see something like 'is a stupid prick' you should know it's been vandalized. I don't like the edit link either as it may get people to try and remove vandalism manually, which could lead to missing some vandalism. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA, Wilkes, Wyss, 141

Please provide a set of diffs showing that you have attempted dispute resolution prior to your filing of this RfA, as required by Wikipedia policy. Moreover, please provide a short summary as to your interest in this matter, and a short summary of what you think you think the disagreement involves. Your RfA summary doesn't explain any of that. Thanks. Wyss 23:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If you'd take a look at the template it says 'why such attempts would be fruitless'. Don't try and call technicalities on this, it's a request to merge to a previous case. Also it'd be appreciated if you said RfAr rather than RfA. As for my interest: this is not something I have to explain, and in fact my only reason is because I feel you two are harassing Onefortyone. That's my interest, harassment sucks. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you have demonstrated zero effort towards dispute resolution, and seem unable to cite any meaningful efforts towards dispute resolution by others, I respectfully suggest that your request for arbitration is in violation of Wikipedia policy and that you withdraw it. Otherwise, your actions could be considered as abusive and harrassment. Thanks. Wyss 00:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Disagreement from me, if it's out of policy (which it most certainly is NOT) then the arbcom will decide that. I'm not trying to get you banned, I'm trying to get you to stay away from Onefortyone. Fred Bauder has told you to lay off, and yet you two continue. If the arbcom makes it official, then harassing him will be a blockable offense. I am not harassing you as I'm not really prosecuting you and the only 'punishment' I hope for is a restraining order. There are 30 million things to do at wikipedia, you two seem to be focusing on Onefortyone. Do something more productive. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you can't describe the dispute, I don't see how you could determine that arbitration is needed or helpful. 141 is already under probation and you'll note that I haven't touched the articles since Fred Bauer contacted me. I have not violated any WP policies. I think you're taking revenge on me for trying to explain Ted Wilkes' action on Fred Bauer. I think that's an abuse of your admin status. Wyss 00:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not friends with Fred Bauder (with a d), so no, I'm not taking revenge. Bauder has also chastized me before, so no, I'm not working on his behalf. I am not abusing admin status, and in fact admin status is not a big deal - wikipedia is not a hierarchy. The only way to abuse admin status is to block, delete, or protect (or unblock, undeleted, or unprotect) outside of policy. But back to the dispute - the RfAr was filed more against Ted Wilkes than yourself, but of course you're involved too. If you really have left Onefortyone alone, then what do you have to fear? I elaborate: I'm not trying to get you banned, put on probation, or otherwise; I'm trying to get a restraining order. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. An attempt to get a "restraining order" is an attempt to procure a sanction. However, you're apparently almost completely ignorant of the circumstances surrounding 141's edits to the articles. As a result, you have no way of knowing whether or not what you're after would be helpful or not. As such, it's abusive and since you have admin status it's even more so. Meanwhile, I'd like to remind you that 141 is on probation. Wyss 00:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I know he's on probation, and I'd like people who aren't Wyss and Ted Wilkes to enforce this. You're contradicting yourself when you say you've left him alone, but you fear a restraining order. If someone made it illegal for you, and only you, to perform open heart surgery in space, you probably wouldn't care. It's not something you do, or ever plan to do. So what's your problem with getting one from Onefortyone? I fear you will in fact return to harassing 141. 141 has made some contestable edits, but you seem to be reverting every edit he makes on any celebrity article. Let someone else do it, he's not banned! And once again, my admin status has nothing to do with anything. If I block you indefinitely, then you can call it admin abuse. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think I fear a restraining order? Anyway, I haven't harrassed 141. If you had researched the issue even casually, you'd know that. We can end this exchange but please understand that I do think you're harrassing me. Wyss 01:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Really, I had Ted Wilkes in mind when I filed the RfAr, and I have researched it. 141 is more often than not a POV pusher, but the way you two have been handling it hasn't been satisfactory. Coupled up with Wilkes' exchanges with Bauder and Martin, it's been a burden to the community even. I originally had no bias against you, but when you say I'm being an abusive admin like this it too can be considered harassment. I care more about Wilkes getting a restraining order though. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If you originally had no bias against me then please remove my name from the RfAr. It is unwarranted and un-neccessary. I haven't touched the articles since Fred Bauder contacted me (even if I did express my unhappiness with how he handled that). Wilkes' RfAr against Bauder is an entirely different subject and I violated no WP policies in attempting to explain Wilkes' reasoning for it (although when 141, a WP user on probation, injected himself into the conversation, which had nothing to do with him, I expressed my opinion of his edits). Please remove my name from the RfAr, Redwolf24. I can accept that it was a misunderstanding with no harm at all intended. Wyss 02:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Would that be fair? I think if you're innocent, it'll be shown. The worst thing that could happen would be to keep you away from Onefortyone, which shouldn't be a big deal as you say you've already stopped that. But at the same time reopening the case may allow the arbcom to change its past decision. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not acceptable. The RfAr is unfair. I haven't touched the articles since Fred Bauder contacted me. There is no reason for a restraining order. As a result of this discussion, hearing your side and pondering the timing, I now understand that your RfAr is simple revenge against me for my contributions to the RfAr talk page re Fred Bauder, in which I broke no WP policies. You cannot possibly assert that if I had not participated in that discussion about Fred Bauder yesterday that my name would be in your RfAr concerning 141 today. I'm being punished ("railroaded" as another editor put it) in a backhanded, dishonest manner in order to evade WP policy. That is reprehensible, a form harrassment in direct violation of WP policy and an abuse of your admin status (and please don't criticize me for defending myself against it). Wyss 02:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not revenge and of course I abhor you saying such a thing. I'm not friends with Fred Bauder! I've interacted with him twice, it's not revenge. But when you say I'm abusing admin status you don't really compell me to remove your name from the RfAr. This is about 141, I don't care about Fred Bauder's RFAR, Fred can handle himself and he's had much worse than that while on the committee. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm....

I just saw this on Cryptoderk and wanted to check what's up. This conversation seems to be going nowhere, but from my experience as an admin, endless conversations like these often go nowhere. Can we please move along? Karmafist 01:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi, I tried to make a text only barnstar it worked but wouldn't let me upload it so sorry about that one. I'm reworking on it though I hope to have it to you soon. :-D I've been looking over WP:MC/S that looks like an archive. Where would I go to nominate myself? Or would that be considered bad form like nominating yourself for a RfA?. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 02:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You list yourself at WP:MC, and everyone nominates themself. Use a template from a previous nomination (like my own, or Wikiwoohoo's which I haven't taken down yet) for yours. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much sir! I;m going to read and study the contents of Wikipedia:Mediation before making my choice again thanks so much. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 03:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Dubya

Thanks for that note (and good point). Something you might wanna consider, however, is that items inside comment tags are not wikified (because they aren't seen by users. You might want to go back and add that yes, this is the infamous Redwolf24 who has spoken. Thanks again, and happy editing, Mysekurity 05:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal on my talk page

Thanks for the proposal on my talk page. You said, "Obviously enough you can talk about ON with myself and Taxman, even before he accepts this," so I am bringing up the subject according to that.

On my talk page, I asked if it would be OK if I suggested a couple of articles for your consideration as external links. It will not be every single article on ON, but just those that have previously had support from admins but were removed due to the blanket decision. They will also not be used as references (where they would be inappropriate), but are suggested for use as external links where more information can be obtained. If you'd like, we can do the discussing via email to avoid wasting time on talk pages. However you'd like to go about it is fine; I don't want to cause any trouble or step over any boundaries.

Let me know what you think. Uriah923 06:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious about your reply. You mentioned that the articles have been found to not be notable enough to be included. However, how can you make that determination when you haven't read them? Do you even know to what articles I am referring? If you don't and are simply basing your decision on the the fact that ON articles have been found unworthy of being used as references, I would ask that you look at the existing external links on the majority of WP sites. Most of them would not qualify as references, but they are included.

I urge you to at least allow me to recommend the articles so that you might consider them and the comments made concerning them by other users (listed on my talk page) before making a sweeping decision.

Oh, and thanks for the signature modification tip. uriah923^(talk) 00:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Modifying signature

I have a random question. How do you modify your signature? I've seen others with different colors and links to their talk pages. Uriah923 06:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping by...

..on my talk page and for your kind words. It is much appreciated. Thankfully I'm back and ready to dive into the editing! Thanks again. Banes 10:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Another mediation update

Ryu mediation moved to inactive; Locke Cole rejected the mediation because of an ongoing community poll, which is what I would have suggested anyways. Open again. :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:RfA

Thank you, and I believe I will accept. I'm flattered, and I hope that my fellow wikipedians think of me as highly as you have. It's an honorfor someone to even consider nominating me, let alone someone as respected as you. Thanks again, and I appreciate it. Out of curiosity, what brought my name to your attention?--Sean|Black 01:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for your support. I've now been made an administrator. I'll do my best not to let you down :) --Sherool (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me for adminship. The RfA passed today. I look forward to working with you to make Wikipedia a better place. --Nlu 03:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Need your help to Unprotect a page

Hi,

Recently, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashad_Khalifa has ben protected by an admin (Ragib) to deliberately block an alternative point of view regarding an allegation. The admin has protected it citing "vandalism", which is horribly unfair to anyone reading the discussion on the issue. The matter is simply an edit dispute in the way and manner the allegation is represented to the public.

I need your help to unprotect the page. It is simply unfair for Ragib to block the page.

Thanks, -- user:H.yahya

The protection will stay to prevent Wikipedia:Edit wars, but I warned Ragib about some sysop abuse. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Redwolf,

Thanks for taking the time to correct the "vandalism" part and also restoring my faith in Wiki. It was really unfair to term edit war as "vandalism". If you had seen the history, I had consistently reverted to an edit which I found less tabloidistic but like you correctly mention in Ragib's talk page, POVs in certain cases are extremely subjective. There are always multiple views on controversial historical figures. And thats why we all love democracy...because of the diverse opinions and the freedom to air those opinions. I agree there is an edit war and don't mind the page being protected on that count, and this was expected because the page is about an individual who is extremely controversial in the Islamic world and are people are divided on this issue.

Thanks again for helping out, -- user:H.yahya

Image Tagging Image:JeanJacquesGoldman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JeanJacquesGoldman.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Agnte 20:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the template... That image is among those I uploaded as a n00b, and never tagged. If you find any more, then please just tell me what image, and I'll nuke it (without the template, preferably :) That image has been nuked, I'll see you around. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD alphabetically sorted...

The culprit is Mathbot owned by Oleg Alexandrov. I have already cited my complaint with him, but please feel free to tack on. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Culprit, he-he :) I was doing a service requested by the community, and AllyUnion was rather rude by the way in how he asked me to not do that anymore. That's why I ignored him for a while. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from the United Federation of Planets

You may find the folowing template of interest :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This user scored 630.3 on the Wikipediholic test.

Re: Rashad Khalifa

Hi Red, I replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks. --Ragib 05:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Cleared as filed

Hi, thanks for the barnstar. I've been around for about 5 months but I just became an admin on Friday, so I've been trying to make my way through some of the backlogs. Let me know if there's ever anything you'd think I'd be suited to help out with. —Cleared as filed. 20:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

2nd law vandalism

The issue is not a content dispute. The vandal has been consistently adding this wrong information repeatedly over the past few months, and the reversion is unanimous. Please have a look at the history and talk pages of Second law of thermodynamics. Infinity0 00:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

blocked. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You're a Prick

A limp 1 at that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.193.147 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

O RLY? Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Redwolf24,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB 13:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

GraemeL's RFA

Hi Redwolf24,

I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:List of people S

Our colleague who created a replacement for that page may already have pointed out this obviously accidental deletion to you. There's surely no harm but startlement done, and i assume that this kind of glitch could only by prevented by excessive caution. At the same time, i do think it's healthy that you be aware that such errors can occur, and my purpose in writing is to ensure that. (Actually, i think it would be healthy for every admin & for that matter every editor to be aware of it! But IMO it is far from worth the downsides of risking creation of a "poster kid".)

In any case, i'm undeleting the whole set of deleted versions.

BTW, the more i think abt it the more i like your handle ... even tho it leaves me wondering if packs of 24 are common [chuckle].
--Jerzy•t 17:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As you have probably realized, I've slowly been working on deleting the MediaWiki redirects to the Template namespace from back when templates didn't exist. The point of this all was so we can navigate through the MediaWiki software easier with Special:Allpages. There's a method for this, which is very time consuming (and I would not trust a bot, just think of the horror that could happen if it messed up!). It goes MediaWiki page (and I check EVERY one, even obvious ones like MediaWiki:Blockedtext so I can learn about the software yet more) -> if it redirects to a Wikipedia or Template page then follow the redirect back -> Delete -> Confirm delete. I have no idea how many MediaWiki pages I've deleted like this, but it must be over 300, and I'm only up to M (doing it very slowly though, and I refuse offers for help, because if someone messed up I'd feel guilty and it would reflect negatively on both of us.) Now, if I deleted one wrong template out of the 300 times I've pressed delete in this campaign, I'm doing fine. And thank god I deleted a template rather than a needed MediaWiki page <_<. Nevertheless, thanks for acknowledging me of this error in a non-sarcastic or condescending manner. And thanks for the name compliment :) Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree. And if you'd like to be still more thankful, that template is nice to have, but redundant, and part of only the slowest routes from outside the LoPbN to the pages "below" it in the tree. IMO a user would be unlikely to use it unless they had occasion to look for two names in succession that both began with S but differed at the second letter. And i have no sympathy for a user who, in that situation, can't come up with a workaround. Thanks for the discussion, and for the work, which i assume has no downside, and whose upside i can well imagine.

Oh, yeah: 300? Nah, looks to me close to 1000.
--Jerzy•t 02:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

1000? No, that'd be my total logs, not just MediaWiki pa--- holy shit, you're right O___O Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Mucho lol

19:05, 21 November 2005 Redwolf24 deleted "User talk:God" (We're sorry, God is not a valid IP address. Goodbye.)

:D :) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

My talk page

Hey there. could you do me a favour? Ive been trying to remove the 'absence' sign from my talk page, but everytime I press edit at the top of my talk page, it says :

Parse error: parse error, unexpected $, expecting ')' in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 3743.

No other page gives me any trouble to edit, and I think only my computer is affected. Could you see if you can remove the absence sign? (as you can see Im back). Thanx. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 03:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the help :D Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 04:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Np. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Becoming an admin

I'v been there awhile and I'd like to become an admin, but I'm not sure how. Can you help me?

Abaraibar 09:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for your answer and your kindness. -Abaraibar 08:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO RfA

Howdy! I sure do appreciate your supporting my RfA nomination. I'll do all I can to ensure you know you made a wise decision. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you!--MONGO 05:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EddieSegoura 2 --Viriditas 09:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This request is currently unlisted. I will list it when I feel I'm ready to sign up for a promotion again. Happy Thanksgiving. EddieSegoura 23:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)