User talk:Optakeover/Archive/2009

This is an archive of past discussions with User talk:Optakeover/Archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy New Year!

Christmas was yesterday: Happy New Year!

---

Happy new Headcheese!-hexaChord^2 02:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. To you too! Optakeover^(Talk) 07:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Vijayakanth - a drunkard

To be noted here is that Vijayakanth is a day time drunkard for which he was chucked out of DMK and Jayalalitha too speaks a lot about it.

Please refer http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vijayakanth+drunkard which will give lots of information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.5.39 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, understood. But you have to write them out correctly as they sound too un-encyclopedic! Refer to WP:MOS. Optakeover^(Talk) 12:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, sorry about removing the your {{Talkback}} from User talk:59.92.5.39; I was intending to add it back once I copied the missing parameter. Gail (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. Optakeover^(Talk) 13:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Userpage Shield
		Thank you for reverting the offensive message on my talk page. I greatly appreciate it. Leujohn ^(talk) 09:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar! Optakeover^(Talk) 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith question?

New user asking why an edit was reverted... What exactly makes that a bad faith question? --Onorem♠Dil 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that might be a mistake on my part. Sorry! You can remove the vandalism warning and ignore this. Optakeover^(Talk) 01:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick tip

Hi there OPTAKE, VASCO from PORTUGAL,

I noticed you left a message on PASD08's talk page. Well, my wiki-friend, rest assured he will not pay any attention to that one. First, i think he is Portuguese, since he operates solely on FOOTBALL from that country, mine also. Second, i get the feeling he either does not pay attention to his talk page because he does know he has one, or he does and does not understand what is conveyed there, because i saw him "contribute" and his English is appalling.

Thirdly, and much much more important, here is this story: this individual has a history of disruptive editing, which consisted in removing links, refs, brackets, pcupdates and gluing all sentences into a big, incomprehensible one, and operated first under the account PARARUBBAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pararubbas), which was, after several unanswered warnings, banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pararubbas#Blocked)

Then, the person switched to the account PEP10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pep10), repeating the same disruptions, and being too banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pep10#December_2008)

Now, under the third account, the current PASD08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pasd08) it goes on (see that was why i wrote contributions in quotation marks earlier). This person also adds INFOBOXES, the only thing he does really, the rest are sentences, which, other than the already mentioned lack of language knowledge, consist solely of POV and WEASEL. I have warned him in PORTUGUESE, ENGLISH and reported several times this new account to WP/ANI, but so far, he is not being deemed for blocking/banning (beats me why not, since the pattern is the same).

Just letting you know, have a good week from PORTUGAL,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Then do tell him in Portugese that he must not disrupt Wikipedia. Optakeover^(Talk) 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My wiki-fellow OPTAKEOVER, not quite sure you read my text thoroughly or clicked on the elements provided in said text...Tell him in Portuguese not to disrupt Wikipedia? It's been done (and in ENGLISH) extensively (i also provided TALKPAGES with warnings) and, i said in the beginning, he has not answered to messages, not one single (mine or anyone else's), and has continued to disrupt and vandalize. Not quite sure, then, what is your request, and i did not mean anything else with my message than warn you about this vandal, since, browsing his talk page, i saw you dropped a line (which will also go unanswered). Until some other time, sorry 4 any incovenience, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that somebody has to tell that to him until he listens. That was what I meant as well. Optakeover^(Talk) 13:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Link spamming?

I'm curious as to why you're assuming that my changing the classification of an article amounts to link spamming when I added no external links. Am I misunderstanding, or was this a mistake? Faschwaa (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was a mistake. I'm very sorry about that. Optakeover^(Talk) 14:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the quick response.--Faschwaa (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take care before reverting

Hi. You should note that your recent (automated?) reversion [1] actually restored earlier vandalism that was corrected by the ip editor you accused of making a test edit. I know vandalism is a serious problem and it's great that you are helping to patrol for vandalism in articles, but please try and take more care to ensure that you are actually reverting vandalism rather then blindly relying on automated tools and accidentally reinstating errors into articles. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that was attributed to not knowing about the names well enough, therefore pronouncing the edit as vandalism. Of course it's important to be careful, but my style in vandalism patrolling is to 'revert first, explain later' to defeat sneaky vandalism (yet taking enough care to avoid reverting perfectly good edits). Of course, that is the reason why I make loads of mistakes (see my whole talk page) but I don't care about the mistakes, since it doesn't disadvantage me in any way (everybody makes mistakes) and that I personally try to remedy them by removing vandalism warning/reverting my reverts, if the user haven't done so already. Anyway, I apologise for my error. Optakeover^(Talk) 11:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk back re Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Hi Optakeover, Sorry for any confusion I was editing without being logged in. I was in the proces of merging two articles as I have noted on the IP talk page.

1. Environmental Information Regulations
2. Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Do you have any objections to this merger?

92.14.255.12 (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to merge, I suggest that you put the template notice that you are for merger; we need consensus. Personally, I don't support the merger. Optakeover^(Talk) 11:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, logged in now (John Cross (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)). I did put up the template in November (?) I received no feedback either way. I recently read the guidance on mergers (Help:Merging_and_moving_pages) and decided to be bold. I think a merger would be useful because at the moment both articles are about the same regulations. Could you explain why you don't support the merger?

John Cross (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just took another look at the thing, and I change my mind; it looks good for merger. Sorry about that, but I think we still need some more consensus. I'm not sure; I've not dealt with mergers before so I'm a bit fuzzy at this, whether such mergers require consensus. I suggest you ask the people who know it; maybe the sysops or some other people. Thank you! Optakeover^(Talk) 11:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting IP unblock

Sorry, you need to add the information given in the block message for us to be able to do anything here. Its very hard to find autoblocks without it. Syrthiss (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Do I have to edit the unblock template? Optakeover^(Talk) 19:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats probably the best course, or you can just cut and paste the block message here. Syrthiss (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Is it correct? Optakeover^(Talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll pop over to the proxy wikiproject and have someone take a look. Syrthiss (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This IP address is currently a confirmed open proxy, with port 80 open. It belongs to a Singapore ISP, so Singaporean editors are likely to have an excuse for using it without knowing it's an open proxy. I'll leave it to another admin, probably Syrthiss, to look at IPBE. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Syrthiss (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you very much for your assistance. Optakeover^(Talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :) Syrthiss (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ben Stiller

You restored the vandalism [2] -Regancy42 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for informing me. The anon contributor who helped me to re-removed it has also been informed. Optakeover^(Talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For reverting vandalism to my talk page. Cheers, 99.155.206.57 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for helping to stop vandalism even as a anonymous user too. Optakeover^(Talk) 03:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for the revert on my user page. That was ummm... very odd. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Optakeover^(Talk) 10:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For this bit of tidying up. I found it odd that the Secretary of the Air Force was unable to distinguish my IP address from his own. Stangeness...oh well, see ya 'round :) Tiderolls 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks to you too for helping to mop up vandalism on Wikipedia. Happy holidays. Optakeover^(Talk) 19:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Can I ask what did the vandal actually say? (It was removed)--Coldplay Expért ^Let's talk 22:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he went on a rant, posting messages on others' (including my) talkpage asking for someone to get his rollback privelleges removed. Optakeover^(Talk) 03:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks--Coldplay Expért ^Let's talk 03:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Revert

Hi Optakeover! Thanks for the revert to my talk page yesterday. I’m not sure the fellow was vandalizing my page so much as making an insincere effort to keep himself from getting blocked since, by that time, the warning messages were piling up on his (anonymous) talk page. Thanks to your revert, at least I don’t have to respond! In any event, he continued to vandalize even after your final warning to him and earned himself a block, which expires in about seven hours. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 23:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy holidays. Optakeover^(Talk) 12:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Google

Hello! I, iBen^discuss, would like to invite you to join WikiProject:Google!

As a sporadic Wikipedia editor, I have to decline the invitation. Thank you anyway. Optakeover^(Talk) 07:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)