User talk:WarthogDemon/Archive/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

64.6.42.20

If you are an admin, how about blocking 64.6.42.20 for all his blanking. I would do it now if I were an admin. •DanMS 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone already did. •DanMS 06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not an admin though I did report the IP. -WarthogDemon 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Merranvo

Didn't your user page say you were an admin?  :-) But seriously... I'm not an admin either so someone will have to do it on AIV. I have no idea why his talk page is locked though. Pascal.Tesson 06:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no admin. Merranvo put it there. >_> -WarthogDemon 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

About that edit, it looks like I went to revert the article at the exact time the vandal was adding something else. It was just a time fluke that I noticed right after, but you were able to revert again before me. Sorry about the confusion. --Bobster687 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okays, no real damage done at any rate. Thanks for helping out. :) -WarthogDemon 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Either way's OK.

Not a prob, Paul. I figured that's what had happened. Besides, I was able to tell what it was you had in mind.  :) - Lucky 6.9 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. -WarthogDemon 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reverting the vandalism to my user page. No, I'm not superstitious. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No prob. :) -WarthogDemon 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Userpage reversion

My pleasure. Anytime -- Samir धर्म 07:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My page

Hi, can I ask why do you keep editing my page? I thank you for your message and everything, but think that's a little too much. Can't I choose what I want to keep there? Lenineleal 08:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon? I only edited once with a warning. -WarthogDemon 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And now everytime I delete that warning it gets posted back again. Aren't you the one doing that? Lenineleal 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Checking your page's history it looks like it's User:Kukini doing the edits. -WarthogDemon 08:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The user has been blanking that warning. I replaced it. I also notified Lenineleal that it is not to be deleted. -Kukini 08:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he identified him/herself as the one responsible. Thanks and sorry about that. Lenineleal 08:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No prob. -WarthogDemon 08:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My Userpage

Thanks for sending that message to the IP Addressed user who edited my User page the other day. It was actually me - I just forgot to login before making the edit. But, regardless - thanks for your ongoing vigilance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucanos (talk • contribs).

Ah, sorry for that. ^_^; -WarthogDemon 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

No problems here! I didn't even notice your edits until I looked at the page history. (And it turned out the guy I was reporting was just being indef blocked, so I went back and removed him). -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, apologies regardless. It would've been better had I triple-checked or at the very least edit my correction instead of just reverting and correcting. -WarthogDemon 21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

AIV question

Hi there, regarding this edit: why did you remove my report of User:69.169.151.61 (who has 23 22 instances of vandalism to his/her name)? I'm assuming it was an accident, but I'm wondering. Mikker ^(...) 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a goof up. I noticed one IP address (a different one) had been blocked. I went to remove it, but ended up removing the one below it by accident. By the time I reverted my mistake, seems you had already reported them, so I had to work and trying to fix that. I was pretty sure I had copied/pasted your reports. Sorry for the mess-up. Next time I remove a blocked IP I am triplechecking in separate windows. x_X Apologies again. ^_^; -WarthogDemon 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries WarthogDemon. As soon as I sort out an edit conflict (which takes quite a while on a modem...) you'll also see my reply at AN/I. Mikker ^(...) 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I see it. Sorry for the messup. ^^; And respects to your modem. My comp is fast, and I still had to use notepad just to see what I was typing. oO -WarthogDemon 21:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Noob3333333333

Clearly a vandalism only account; I went ahead and reported him to WP:AIV. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I had my suspicions of it being a vandalism account though I decided to assume good faith. (Which I think I'm starting to overdo. Once gave a spammer 3 last warnings...) -WarthogDemon 04:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you're right to assume good faith as long as possible. If the good faith is misplaced, no harm done, a vandal just gets to vandalize a few more times before he's blocked. There's always the outside chance that someone will give his head a shake, stop vandalizing, and do something constructive. (But I had serious doubts about this one from the start -- I considered reporting him on sight as an obviously random username.) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

K, thanks :) -WarthogDemon 06:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for looking out for my page. Wi-king 05:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC) No prob. -WarthogDemon 06:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

Thank you. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC) My pleasure. :) -WarthogDemon 06:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding my thanks as well, for your reverting vandalism to my user page. You were so efficient that the reversions happened before I even noticed the vandalism itself. Thank you!! -Markeer 14:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Andrew Winston

Warthog Demon, You have recently issued me a warning about vandalsim. I have not vandalised, as when i have edited my user page I have forgotten to sign in. I hope you now understand the situation. From, User:Andrew WinstonAndrew Winston 05:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that then. -WarthogDemon 06:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Andrew Winston, It's ok Warthog Demon. It was an honest mistake. Could you tell me how you issued a warning to me? I would like to know. Thanks, User:Andrew Winston 58.108.110.1 07:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Patrolling Special:Recentchanges. The template I used was either [[tpv1]] or [[[[tpv2]]. -WarthogDemon 07:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Jonsiker

Not doing any vandalism so I just blanked the page with the message "wikipedia is not myspace.com, please find somewhere more appropriate for this.". If they continue like that ill block the accoutn indef. Thanks for the notification. Viridae^Talk 05:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up again. Left a message on the again blanked page asking them to stop and watching the page. (both of which I forgot to do last time). Any further problems, don't hesitate to leave me a message. Viridae^Talk 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Order of Druids in Ireland

Hey there, Warthog ;-) I saw your comments about this article on the talk page of User:DruidEire. Was the article deleted and then re-started by the same contributor? Since the summer there have been a few incidents of this user posting strange, non-encyclopedic discussions and statements in the Druid and Neo-druidism articles. The Order of Druids in Ireland itself does not seem notable. I'm pretty sure the only sources are their own, recently-created website, which is full of inaccuracies and unrealistic claims. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep seems to be the same person. I'm going to put a prod tag up and recreated template on their talk page. I too think their sources are their own. -WarthogDemon 19:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Raja gupta

No, you didn't. I think the userfying and my tagging happened almost instantaneously. When I saw my error, I reverted myself. Good call on the userification (is that a word?). Cheers! ---Charles 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Whereas I think my tagging conflicted with your userfying, in that my browser history says I hit edit on the original page, but actually ended up tagging the page after you userfied it. But I second the good call on the userpagification! Inner Earth 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob then. And I do believe userpagification and userification are words. At least they SHOULD be... -WarthogDemon 06:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I'm not vandalising - keep your oppinion to yourself. My article can be proven as a fact - don't assume things. Thanks for your "Understanding", and go get some real vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adonaiii (talk • contribs).

It may be fact but that hardly makes it notable. -WarthogDemon 19:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Doll Graveyard

I marked it for AFD since it clearly fails Wikipeida notability standards, not because its "rubbish." It just happens to be rubbish, but that's not why it should be deleted. Please take more care in your accusations and please pay more attention to subtleties in language and meaning. Thanks many, --Mr Bullockx 03:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the article of his that was dleeted that started this off? Viridae^Talk 03:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Or am I going mad? Viridae^Talk 03:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest clue. Lucky 6.9 deleted his page. He complained uncivily to Lucky on Lucky's talk page and I reverted that (by a previous request of Lucky). I'm assuming this person is just looking for something to hassle me over. -WarthogDemon 03:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just remember to always be civil, dont lose your head, dont get into a revert war. You did well. Viridae^Talk 06:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

All tags gone

Just the Afd - thats next, then Ill look a bit closer at the users edits :)  Glen  03:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The source tag seems to be there still. Or did you keep it there? -WarthogDemon 04:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

All sorted!!  Glen  04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Are commercial entries vandalism?

I see this in my talk section: Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as Montchevre. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. -WarthogDemon 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) I simply got online the other day after buying some Montchevre cheese at the store and wanted to look it up...I used my Wikipedia search bar and was surprised that nothing came up. So, I thought I would add a page giving a quick description of the company and a link to their site. Perhaps I'm out of touch with the Wikipedia standards, but I assumed it was ok to put up a page that pertained to a commercial entity? Was there something specific objectionable about the page? I read the section on vandalism that was linked from the above comment and I didn't see anything that sounded like vandalism as described. Now, your deletion of another page I created not long before had a much more understandable explanation: Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Edetic may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, all users are entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. -WarthogDemon 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) The edetic site is an external mediawiki instance I run that will be a school curriculum that is freely available under the GNU Free Documentation License. It is definitely in it's early stages, but I thought it was important to link it on Wikipedia early so that users looking for wiki educational tools could find out about it and be encouraged to contribute. Again, I have only contributed a few bits here and there, so perhaps I am not clued in on the expectations. nathanbthomas 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Commerical entries are usually spam (except in very VERY rare cases) as far as I know. How much content was on the page of cheese? If I'm recalling, it was small to no context and I marked it db-blank; I don't recal it having spam. *Unless I need my memory refreshed.* -WarthogDemon 06:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there wasn't much on it. I don't know much about the company in question. Would it have been :::better to mark it as a stub?-nathanbthomas 09:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. It'd have just gotten prodded or tagged as spam. WP:CORP probably explains it better than I can. -WarthogDemon 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please block Mary Thayer

She keeps spamming in spite of multiple warnings, and she has recreated a deleted vanity page a couple times now. This woman is beyond the reach of educational efforts, so a long block is urgently needed: [1] Regards, User:Fyslee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fyslee (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm no admin so I can't block her, though I've just reported her. Thanks for the heads up. -WarthogDemon 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Though it appears she hasn't recreated the article past her last warning. -WarthogDemon 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your input on my RfA and the note you left on my Talk page. I understand your point of view and I agree that I'm not as well-rounded as other admins are. I am primarily focused on vandalism reverts as you noted, but I will work on expanding my participation in other areas (after reading up and learning the ropes, of course). Thanks again for the input and I'll see you around. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not doing Edit War

Actually I am not trying to "edit war" I just figured I did something wrong when I posted. The initial rejection was for "external linking" but I didn't *ADD* a single external link. I just left the initial advertisement crap in-place and added my analysis in the middle of it all. That inferred that my addition was being rejected because of the the not-my-contribution part. What *exactly* was the reason for the rejection of *my* part of the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IBitOBear (talk • contribs) 04:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I warned you specifically due to WP:3RR whether you are the anon or not, controversia edits should be discussed on the talk page (posting the same content there is also discouraged) and then decided upon. -WarthogDemon 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The "anon" was a noob mistake, not some clever plot. I was just trying to fix the attribution (I actually re-posted before I even noticed the rejection because I thought my failure login was the reason the page disappeared in a single page refresh. In total my thought process was "Oh, it's gone and I'm not properly logged in in this window, gee I'll log in and post the page so it isn't rejected for being from some random IP address.") How can you discuss a "controversial" edit be on the discussion page if the content isn't posted anywhere? Since nobody "discussed" anything on the discussion page how is referring me to that page a valid response? What, specifically, was the point of the first reject for "external linking" when *I* didn't provide the link but instead simply didn't *remove* the existing link, which is still sitting there on the "restored" page? Why is the existing page (external link and all), which is nothing but an advertisement, more worthy of approval and existence than the full text of the existing page with a bad-then-good deconstruction of the product in question? (If critical deconstruction is against Wikipedia policy, then that explains something at least.) Did you even read the text? The first reject took about as much time as a page reload, much as if it wasn't even compared to the original content or evaluated for content, policy, or correctness. Is anything being done about the _other_ disappearing content on the referenced page? (The old discussions on the discussions page hint at prior content that has clearly been replaced by marketing boiler-plate.) While I write in the active voice (which might be a valid reason to reject the post) with some good humor (which isn't very encyclopedic) I made sure to explain the perceived flaws and the perceived benefits with equal weight, and I even went into where some of the flaws and benefits were trade-offs. I couldn't cite any actual documentation to *prove* my anal sys because, as mentioned in the text, that Teleogic doesn't *provide* any publicly linkable documentation, so if the lack of citation is the problem then the page, by definition, could *only* provide the color glossy brochure it currently displays. So my comments met every (available) journalistic standard, and it was a quite balanced in the end. So what was the reject for (and yes, I can take "it didn't meet our stylistic guidelines" for an answer). So far I find my first Wikipedia posting experience seems to be raising more questions about the editorial honesty of this site than I previously suspected could exist. -IBitOBear 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -WarthogDemon 06:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page again. =) -- Gogo Dodo 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) -WarthogDemon 19:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me too:) — Lost^(talk) 19:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. This must be our lucky day, we've both gotten a threat of violence! ^_^ -WarthogDemon 19:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Username Blocking

Observant you are! When I saw Spermy's username, I decided to check and see if anyone had ever created the account "Sperm". It happens that they did, and it had gone unnoticed for awhile. I was about to block Spermy, but someone beat me to it. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad I was able to find two birds with one stone. :) -WarthogDemon 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Resumebuilder

Yes, I'll definitely watch that user's contributions, which he hasn't made any other than his user page. Nominate it for MFD if you want. If it wasn't in the user space I would be speedily deleted as spam. I'm not going to nominate it though because I don't think it's that important. Academic Challenger 04:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Advertising

Middlesell is a website I use every day. How is this advertising? This is the only way to check my email on campus... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.74.73 (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

It seems to be an external link that doesnt' seem relevant. If there's something I'm not getting, then explain the link on Talk:University of Mary Washington. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I know...we had a talk about this today in my compsci 220 class. My prof. saw the wiki-war thing that happened and told us that it was unique because the group that runs the website actually had a point...but that it'll never be allowed to stay because the admins think it's linkspam. He told us to add the link to see what happened, so I guess he was right. It's actually not a bad website though, I use it to get to my e-mail and to get to banner. They also have this campus restaurant guide. But on the other hand, they do have advertisements...so I guess there's two sides to the story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.74.73 (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

sorry about not signing, i'm new at this 199.111.74.73 06:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, understood and no prob. Hope your professor doesn't think this a bad site. No probs with the signing. Takes time to get used to everything. (Heck my first major effort to a wiki defaced the page...) -WarthogDemon 06:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really that new -- just new using this IP address; see 199.111.74.57 (talk · contribs). --A. B. ^(talk) 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So I see . . . any reason to stop assuming good faith though? -WarthogDemon 06:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

His accidental page blanking was the page of the admin who blocked his other IP this morning, User:Samuel Blanning. --A. B. ^(talk) 06:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. I'll try to help keep an eye on it. -WarthogDemon 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See:

• Talk:University of Mary Washington#Middlesell Links
• User talk:Dannyisme#"Right to Vanish" abused (note to Foundation Office)
• contributions for Analyzethis
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#University of Mary Washington

This guy is adding the same links and engaging in the same behavior. He's why my user page is semi-protected.--A. B. ^(talk) 06:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

oO Very well. -WarthogDemon 06:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've had an interesting 24 hours -- hang in there!! --A. B. ^(talk) 17:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Those 24 hours were the most unusual 24 hours I've had on here yet. Thanks, and I'm hanging in there. The good things about this place far outweigh the bad. :) -WarthogDemon 18:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ew

riana_dzasta has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks... and sorry s/he decided to get you back too. I just noticed it on my watchlist and was going to revert, but you're too quick for me! Thanks again, riana_dzasta 08:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) (And secretly I like it when they decide to vandalize my userpage/talk page. More for my vandal count.) Though earlier today I got a message way grosser than what this vandal gave you. Trust me. -WarthogDemon 08:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ew, I just checked your page history, I think I know the one you're talking about... Some people have far too much time on their hands. Keep up the good work! :) riana_dzasta 08:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs) 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Oscar rodriguez

"Why did you take the rfd off? oO The page it redirects to is merely a blue link because it's been protected from recreation. -WarthogDemon 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)"

I took it off accidentally, I meant to tag it with "hangon" as it was oddly flagged for deletion anonymously, I already corrected the mistake, and removed the "hangon" --Matthew 19:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay. Sorry for the confustion. ^_^; -WarthogDemon 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. IP Vandal Goof

No problem. :-) Keep up the good work. Regards.--Húsönd 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reporting Oopsie

Heh... It's no problem. I didn't think it was big enough to leave a note about, thanks for the note though! Logical2u 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Just wanted to apologize. :) -WarthogDemon 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, some break.

Yeah, I thought I'd take time out while on vacation but (a) I have my wife's slick new Centrino-powered laptop with free wireless hookup here at the hotel and (b) slaying vandals is SUCH fun. Besides, I plan on a tremendous expansion of a stub article and the creation of a new one all before heading for home. See what fun vacations can be? So many wiki subjects. So little time.  :) - Lucky 6.9 06:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)