User talk:OwenX/Archive 3

RfA voting

I must say I don't get your vote on Wackymacs' RFA. He uses edit summaries about 60% of the time, therefore... he'll abuse the tools? I understand not lending your support for those, but really, is opposing him necessary? I'm not sending this message to Xoloz as his opposition makes a lot more sense, but edit summary percentage seems to have absolutely no connection to being an admin, other than it may be understandable that you want admins to be of the highest quality, but then again, we really need as many as we can get, provided they don't abuse them, and as far as I know, sub-70 edit summaries doesn't indicate abuse. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying to you. I wanted to give this question my full attention, as I feel it is an important one.
A big part of adminship is the enforcement of our rules and guidelines. When a police department looks at a potential candidate, the first thing they check is his or her criminal record. Even a high number of parking tickets can be an indication of a personality that isn't compatible with law enforcement.
Forgetting an edit summary seems like a very minor thing, but consistently forgetting to enter a summary for one out of every three or four edits is a symptom of a much deeper problem, I believe. Someone who casually ignores edit summaries is more likely to also do a sloppy job in closing AfDs, or properly warn vandals before blocking them.
I think it is no coincidence that Stevertigo, for example, has poor edit summary usage. He didn't stop using summaries when he was sysoped; he was always this way, but we chose to ignore this seemingly minor issue. In retrospect, this was a red light which should have indicated to us that we're dealing with someone who doesn't care about guidelines.
I don't expect everyone to meet my personal standards; I believe out of my last 1000 edits, 2 are missing an edit summary (and both caused me to cringe as soon as I pressed the "Save" button). This 99.8% rate may be too high a standard for most people; even 90% shows an editor takes this issue seriously. However, it is not unreasonable to demand that admins, who are essentially the face of Wikipedia, be expected to use edit summaries almost all the time. If we are to enforce guidelines and lead by example, our own behaviour should be exemplary. Owen× ☎ 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone pretended to be you.

Thanks for your work in preserving Wikipedia's integrity and quality. 69.44.61.197 pretended to be you at User:Slo-mo and vandalized my user page in the process. That warning is the same warning found at User talk:71.141.7.161. Slo-mo 20:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

  • Thanks I was planning to nominate in November 8th when I get the one month hit of my last RFA and not now which makes it in 2 and a half months also which I think a few passed before around that time. I could nominate in November 21th as well which is my 3 month anniversity but im just to impatient :) --JAranda | watz sup 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im nomianting myself now and if it fails which is very possible I could wait until someone nominates me. Thanks for your advise --JAranda | watz sup 03:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My evil IP twin

Hello Owen! Thanks for explaining. Okay then, I'll keep that IP blocked whenever I'm offline and will temporarily remove the block for the duration of my editing only. I didn't realize I could rightfully do that - I felt terribly guilty about unblocking myself. Thanks for explaining that it's okay. In that case, we can block that IP by default for a while, and it will be unblocked only when I need it. Thanks! David Cannon 09:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've been watching this guy:

User_talk:167.206.174.99; no sooner the October block removed, back to vandalizing various articles. Bill 17:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you continuing to block my copyrighted text?

You have blocked two texts to which I hold the copyright, one on composer, saxophonist and conductor Paul Wehage, the other on composer Gian Paolo Chiti. I have the right to use these texts as I wish, since I am the publisher of one of the texts and the author of the other. Why are you blocking these articles?

I, as copyright holder of these texts, can use them as I wish. I choose to use them in this way. Why are you acting as a censor? Is this part of your function as someone who tries to delete articles?

I have already discovered other texts for which I hold the copyright in use on your site. I have opted NOT to complain, as I wanted this information distributed. However, when I choose to publish my own copyrighted texts here, I am censored.

Please remove these blocks as quickly as possible.

My usename here is Musikfabrik and my email is musik.fabrik@chello.fr As a performing musician, conductor, music publisher and record producer, I don't have the time to learn how this system works; If you don't want the information that only I have, then just say so and I'll delete it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musikfabrik (talk • contribs) 15:58, 2 November 2005 UTCMusikfabrik 01:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,
As I have explained before, the fact that you are indeed the copyright holder for the text in the articles you posted here does not give you the automatic right to post it here. Wikipedia is not your private Web host; it is provided by the Wikimedia Foundation for a specific usage under the GFDL license. Under these rules, any text copied from a copyrighted source must be proven to have been licensed to us.
The text you copied in the Paul Wehage article you posted, for example, was copied from a web page which claims it is "Copyright 2005 paulwehage.com". Do you represent or own this legal entity? If a lawyer representing paulwehage.com shows up tomorrow with a court order, do you expect me to say, "But hey--I got permission from someone with the email address 'musik.fabrik@chello.fr'!"?
I marked the material you posted as copyrighted material according to Wikipedia policy because it is copyrighted material; period. It takes time and effort to find out who really holds the copyright, and whether or not we can use it under the GFDL license. In the meantime, the articles must stay tagged, for our legal protection. If this is not acceptable to you, feel free to remove the text you posted or to stop posting copyrighted material.
Please keep in mind that even if the copyright issue is settled, there is still a fair chance some or most of the content of your articles will be changed or removed by other editors. Wikipedia frowns on advertising, and it is likely these articles will be rewritten to conform to a more neutral point of view. I appreciate the fact that you are doing this in an attempt to promote and support these struggling musicians, but an encyclopedia may not be the best place to do that.
Regards,
Owen× ☎ 01:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvivos

I have deleted the contributions by Musikfabrik and will be writing regarding my decisions to do so. --HappyCamper 01:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please take a look at Musikfabrik at your leisure so that you are in the loop. --HappyCamper 02:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on User talk:Private Butcher

I found your comments on the above user's talk page to be rather crude. Giving a message of "Get high and get laid" to a user who is struggling with a strong drug addiction is very churlish. I hope you will think twice about your words in the future before clicking Save page'. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were made in jest, in the spirit of some of PB's own past comments. I don't think his comment about "using meth" should be taken literally, just like the one about having schizophrenia shouldn't. Private Butcher is obviously under a lot of stress, and I thought a light-hearted show of support would help. Anyway, I self-reverted, removing my comment from his page. Owen× ☎ 05:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. I just assumed good WP:FAITH about his comments (believed they were true), and thought that if this guy was going through a tough time, we should give him all the support. Thanks, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 13:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually schizophrenic, and am a meth user, but I still found your comments on my talk page humorous. Why would I joke about something like that? There's no point in it. But I still thought your joke was funny, and I'm sorry people found it offensive or crude because even though you said about "getting high" which I'm really struggling with, may of been out of place. I still think it was all funny. Everyone needs humor in bad times, its just how it is. Private Butcher 02:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my RfA

hydnjo, what bothers me even more than edit summaries (which, by the way, are still under 85% for the three day period since he made his promise!), is the gleeful way in which he rushed to suggest removing Private Butcher's "Oppose" vote a mere 21 minutes after PB announced he was leaving WP, and embracing the "Support" vote of an obvious sockpuppet [1]. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The point is that my edit summaries are improving, and not decreasing in usage. I did not honestly think that that user was a sockpuppet, though I was very suspicious and was very annoyed at Private Butcher for being rude at me. I'm sorry that I'm not perfect. Might have been obvious that it was a sockpuppet to you, but think about others first. Thanks for your efforts towards my RfA. — Wackymacs 20:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete

I, GraemeL, herby award you the The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your speedy cleanup after the page redirect vandal. --19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC) (KC)[reply]

I can hardly keep up. You seem to have the rolled back, the IP blocked and be deleting the duplicate articles by the time I try to revert his first change. --GraemeL (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting my page! :)

Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded comments for {{test}}/{{test-n}} series

Can they be enhanced? I think, in particular, for example, it should say something akin to:

For next instance of vandalism by same user, use {{test2-n}}.

Thoughts? --Nlu 23:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pol Pot

can you revert pol pot again? i dont know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.76.185 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 5 November 2005 UTC

User:Dglynch

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my User and User Talk pages! --Dglynch 02:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Vandalism

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Please accept my personal award, the Psi. I bestow it to polite, courteous, and helpful users. It is to be used in good mental health or to fight wiki-stress. Take care. -- Psy guy (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey, I wanted to thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I really appreciate it. That was actually the second time today, so I must be doing something right :).--Sean|Black 04:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Frühlingserwachen

I moved the article from Operation Frülingserwachen to Operation Frühlingserwachen. That's the correct name for it.

--137.248.1.11 02:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the congrats. I would love to be on RC patrol tonight, but I have to attend a silly little curriculum evening, so afraid not. However I will be soon, and you will be getting a proper thanks later on, probably tomorrow! Thanks again. FireFox 18:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Martin's RFB

Hi, I produced a graph in response to your request at User_talk:Durin#Data_request. It's linked from there, I hope you find it useful. --Gmaxwell 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

I'm sorry you found reason to object to my adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future.  ALKIVAR™ 07:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal returned

Hi, you helped me dealing with User_talk:64.235.242.204, but now he has returned and again vandalized Disposable email address ([1]). Could you block the article (and this IP) for a longer period, like a week or so, cause he seems to always return again. Thanks Peter S. 12:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more of "yours"

User:64.141.49.2 I'm not an admin, so I can't back up my threats.... Best, Bill 17:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so low-frequency as that; multiple anonymous addresses, I've reverted that same identical graffito two or three times now. One of the best things Wikipedia could do would be to require registration for editing: 95% of the vandalism and graffiti, on which so much time is expended by the rest of us, is anonymous editors. Bill 17:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And a few hours later, a new vandalism (blanking Manhattan Project) by the same person, whom we warned it would be his last. By the way, I discovered there is a "Multiple IPs" template — {{multipleIPs}} — available for people who vandalize each time from a new IP, providing an explanation for a stiff warning like Test4 for what appears to be the first time. Best, Bill 23:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked this one for 24 hours. Alert me when he or any of his other IPs return, I bet this isn't the last we've seen of this vandal. Owen× ☎ 00:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FireFox RFA

OwenX/Archive 3

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

FireFox 18:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Vandalism Clean-Up

Great job! You have the pages deleted before I can load them up! Tom 03:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Very much again for your kind support of my adminship. I'll do my best to live up to your and my other supporters' expectations. Thank you! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our Talk Page

Can you please unprotect our talk page now? It's been about two weeks, which is getting ridiculous. We can't engage in any dicussion, nobody can tell us to stop vandalising...also there wasn't very much vandalism on our page, I think protecting it for so long has been a bit extreme. --203.173.8.12 01:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Owen× ☎ 02:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

I didn't realise it was a user page for some reason. I must have clicked the wrong thing on the CDVF as I usually look for userpage vandalism separately. Thanks for waking me up, though! jnothman talk 04:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Happens to all of us. :) And on another topic, I hope you didn't forget about Schopf & Weiss - you started the AfD process, but never finished it...let me know if you need any help. Owen× ☎ 04:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re the AFD... I sort of did finish the process. I used a script to do the process for me, but that script (coincidentally at an experimental stage and written by me) didn't handle the & in the title properly, because it retrieved its name with the HTML entity &. So, indeed, the script created [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schopf & Weiss]]. Now, due to MediaWiki bugs with similar problems, it seems that the system simply won't let me rename "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schopf & Weiss" to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schopf & Weiss (it's already got a bug report at mediazilla, #3097). I only just noticed that the afd on the actual page, then, is missing a correct link. I considered making a redirect page, but didn't want to waste another article to be deleted on it. So now I've just hard-coded in the amp part to the link on the article page. שוב, תודה על העזרה, כל טוב ושבת שלום! jnothman talk 05:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

circuit city

i noticed that you reverted a change in the logo size on the circuit city article. since you're an administrator, would you mind blocking 4.242.192.58 for repeated vandalism of the circuit city article. the user has been warned more than once, and if they are not blocked now, the warnings seem like empty threats. thanks,--Alhutch 05:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Owen× ☎ 05:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psy guy's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

User: Jake Remington

Why did you revert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.19.208.4 (talk • contribs)

You really shouldn't be editing other users' User pages. If you are User:Jake Remington, log in. --Nlu 05:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "blocked" templates to a User page who isn't blocked, or making any such changes to a User page which isn't yours is considred vandalism. Owen× ☎ 05:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jake should be banned. All his contributions are negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.19.208.4 (talk • contribs)
Given that he has only made three edits (two were to the sandbox and one to his own user page), this is not supported by evidence. If you believe that he should be banned, there are proper channels to go to. I am beginning to think that perhaps you should be banned. --Nlu 06:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwoohoo's RfA

I did not simply dismiss the opinions of the 10 Wikipedians who chose to oppose my application. In fact I messaged several thanking them for their time in giving their opinions. I will also be getting round to messaging all those who voted too, in whatever form. Plus yes, I keep forgetting these ]] at the end of links, it gets a bit silly sometimes! Wikiwoohoo 21:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Have a look at this: [2][reply]

This is not about the "]]"; we all forget things like that once in a while. BTW, the link is still wrong: it should link to this page, not this. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was deliberate though. Anyone who stumbles across my user page would be taken to the link and see the other RfA's going on. That way they could decide not to vote for me but for another user. There's method in my madness!;)Wikiwoohoo 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Safety pins

An indispensable tool for the good Wikipedian :-)

My first thought was this: Why are we putting safety pins on AfD? Then I read a little bit more, and a light came on - *oh* - that's what we're talking about!

Disregarding the utility of safety sipings, Saf-Tee Sipings, or whatnot - I thought you might find a genuine Wikipedian brand safety pin handy. They're made of the highest sort of integrity and mettle, and are very durable; known to last. Thanks for your part in making Wikipedia a nice and comfortable place to be! :-)

Hopefully in a few days I'll get a chance to write a bit more. Stay tuned... --HappyCamper 01:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reverting my user page back to the way it was before it was vandalised. I appreciate it very much. Figaro 15:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's hipocritical that you go removing my site (leftoverchef.com) but you leave other external links on the pages - EVEN THOUGH MY SITE IS COMPLETELY RELEVANT. I've only been adding it to sections where it would belong. and I"m not trying to hijack the Wiki.

Don't play coy with me, please. In addition to the Leftover Salmon band article, there was Leftover turkey - an article you've created for the sole purpose of linking to your site through Leftovers. In the one hour that you've been editing Wikipedia, you have edited six articles, all of them for the purpose of leading people to your web site. This, Mr. ******, is the definition of spam. Owen× ☎ 23:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Follow Up - Thank you to OwenX For coming to an accord. -mkamensek

Vandal

Hi Owen just thought I'd let you know that 65.30.212.36 has vadalised your user page twice i reverted it once and Francs2000 reverted it the other time. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 02:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Fenían Swine

Since you have perma-blocked User:Fenían Swine, it is very unlikely that user will be able to provide copyright information for the image that they uploaded. It is almost certainly copyrighted and has no source or copyright information. Would you mind either deleting the image or letting me know what username the uploader is now going by so that we can get the required information? Thanks. Jkelly 00:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can not log in

Hello,

I'm from the French-talking wikipedia, my user name is Wiz. I experienced some difficulties to create an account here with the same user name.

The user name you entered is already in use. Please choose a different name.

I had a look on this page, and I can't find any user called Wiz. You can answer me on this page. Thank you for any help, and sorry for my bad english ;) Wiz 01:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the most recent userpage vandal, and for dealing with the business of the threats. Joyous [[User_talk:Joy Stovall|(talk)]] 02:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Speedy tags

OwenX, Thanks for your comment. I have read the criteria for speedy deletes. The criteria that I have been focusing on are g1, g2, g4, a1, a3, a6, a7. Which articles that I marked with these do you feel didn't meet the marked criteria? ERcheck 03:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Actually, I changed my csd for Star and stripe to an AFD. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star_and_stripe. It is my take that the Pi Approximation article fit A3 as a "rephrasing of the title", as it was simply a numerical approximation of pi. The tree one was an error on my part -- sorry. I do try to take care in putting the proper tags when I make a nomination for speedy delete. ERcheck 03:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandal

Hey Owen, somebody vandalized my user page again with a message from an administrator. 69.44.62.216 did this just after 69.44.61.197 (who I told you earlier had vandalized my user page with a message from you) had deleted a section from New Trier High School and cited me for vandalism in the history section. They seem to be the same person. Please help. Thanks. Slo-mo 10:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Comments

Well much thanks for fixing the numbering issue, didn't realise I'd even messed it up by my edit - but I'm a little confused I must admit whe it's considered "poor sportsmanship" to reply to comments? I admit I'm not exactly a veteran RfA-er, so I don't really know what's 'proper', but I'm having a hard time seeing it as remotely offensive or anything. *shrugs* I don't think I'm well-known enough that we're going to be dealing with 50 votes or anything. But anyways, it's not a huge deal to me either way, if you think it appears abrasive or otherwise gratuitous, I'll happy either strike them out, or remove them. Sherurcij 02:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. :) Ambi 02:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

this user which you blocked before for vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=203.185.254.130

...just vandalised the mondrean page, just thought I'd mention it so someone can keep their eye on him or something! :/

Adjam

User 203.94.152.2

You gave this person their last warning two days ago, and they've just come and vandalised my user page (reverted). Just so you know. Reyk 07:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the vandal's back

Owen, thanks for all your help. The vandal's back. This time, 66.139.76.17 deleted your last comment on my Talk page. --Slo-mo 21:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 21:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. :) -- Rediahs 22:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 04:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the

I (202.63.233.11)got a message warning me not to vandalise ( the astrology page)again. Most mystifying!!! I have never opened the astrology page in wiki let alone vandalise any, thats the last thing I would do. 19 November 2005, 1410hrs

ISP spammer

He's on dialup and keeps switching IPs. He has also taken to posting links through redirection services like TinyURL, so keep an eye out for that. --GraemeL (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest

Please read the page 2nd Way to Split the U.S.A. before reading any of the regions sites. Please! Tcatron565

Look Again!!!

Well Owen X, I told you to read the page and did you read it? If you did than take down the merge. Cause then you will see why this page needs to be separate! Look back at your talk page to see the page that you obivously didn't read! Tcatron565

FINE!!!

FINE DELEATE ALL MY PAGES ON THE REGIONS IF YOU WANT TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just tell me when they are gone so I can leave Wikipedia forever. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcatron565 (talk • contribs)

User page vandal

I gave our friend a little time to think about what he/she has done. Keep up the good work! -- Psy guy Talk 03:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

I'm so sorry of what I did last night. You can do whatever you want with them. I'm not going to do anything to them anymore. Thanks! : )Tcatron565

165.21.154.111 and .116

You might get some complaints about these, since they're Singapore ISP proxies (and the same guy used .108 just now). A better solution might be to block 165.21.154.96/27 for a short time (a range block which blocks .96 through .127). I've done this just now. -- Curps 00:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

116 is above 111 :-) -- Curps 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on this on Curps talk page. «»Who?¿?meta 02:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeL's RFA

Hi OwenX,

I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support and kind words 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) 14:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi OwenX,

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 15:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape cheats article under attack yet again

First, I want to say thank you for helping control the vandals on the article, it's very appreciated. Jagex employees (the company that makes the game) are now trying to get the article deleted; stating it is POV, instructional, and 'illegal information, and 'copyright vandalism' (I don't get that last one). If you would please comment on the talk page, I'd be very grateful, I'm currently outnumbered there by Jagex employees about 5 to 1. I'm writing to all editors who have helped with the article or with vandalism to ask them to also comment. Thank you very much. Jonathan888 (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism at my user page. I was blocking him as you were reverting him. Titoxd(?!?) 03:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up AIAV, please

I see you're doing some good vandal catching tonight. Thanks. But please also keep track of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, so that those of us chasing vandals who aren't admins don't have to vollow them around. This administrator intervention page takes way too long to be enacted. If admins were awake in #wikipedia-en-vandalism, that would be good too. Thanks heaps, and keep up the good vandal catching! jnothman talk 15:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to non-existent articles

Actually I was in doubt about redirecting or not to non written articles yet. Anyway, I think you have deactived the redirection. I'm gonna create the articles and redirect them to the "finished" article when they are done. Until that, I will do what you said, not redirect to non-existent articles. Thanks for the advice --Alberto msr 01:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elitism

I have the right to put a speedy deletion tag on pages that offend elites, especially because I am elite.Jake. Remington 03:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You placed that Speedy tag seven times, and you did this for the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. If you disagree with the contents of that article, discuss it on the Talk page. If you think the article doesn't belong here, nominate it for WP:AFD. The article does not qualify for Speedy deletion. If you continue this pattern of disruption, you will be blocked from editing. Owen× ☎ 03:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's on WP:AFD now. But now, show me signs that you have education. Jake. Remington 03:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Block on 202.72.148.102

Hi Owen, thanks for undoing that block. I am working with Westnet to have Wikipedia removed from their transparent proxy so hopefully this problem will go away. It is rather anoying that blocking an IP address also prevents logged in users as well. This seems like a shortcoming that should be able to be resolved technically. You could probably direct me to where I should bring it up? Thanks IanBailey (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this subject has been brought up many times before. I mentioned it myself in September. The official place to report such bugs or request software improvements is on Bugzilla. I do hope we get this bug fixed soon! Owen× ☎ 04:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elitism

Please protect elitism. I am on the side of Jake Remington, since I like elite people better than poor people like the other people involved int he war, but protect it to stop the war.Dark Lord Farley 04:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police officers and donuts

Would you please return to this AFD debate and consider changing your vote to a merge to Donut as reasoned by Gazpacho? - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emir_Arven

I must point out that I was going to lodge an appeal to the administrators about User:Emir_Arven who is constantly vandalising history articles. The only reason for my "spamming" is that I atempted to nicely (according to WP:COOL and WP:CIV wiki policies) warn him to stop vandalising articles (I am a historian). HolyRomanEmperor 10:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emir_Arven is arguing with nationalists alike on the History of Republika Srpska, Doboj and other talk pages. I have absolutly no interest in getting near to those endless loops of nationalist tendencies that seem never to end. I am only interested in History, Music and Litterature (which, as discussed at [3], Emir appears to have a tendency to change, see Petar Petrović Njegoš, for instance). I guess that he was deleting my "spams" because he has no justification for his (vandal-sort) edits. HolyRomanEmperor 11:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you

Thanks for helping to get the vandalism off my user page. These guys are vicious, albeit not that scary.Bjones 15:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Remington

Jake Remington is not Remington and the Rattlesnakes. Stop this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.19.212.163 (talk • contribs)

Blocking of 24.158.177.25

Just wanted to say thank you so much for taking the time to block this truly irritating vandal. Whoever he is, he seems to have a seething hatred of Forrest J. Ackerman, and its nice to seem him blocked from further vandalism (even if its only temporary...I'm sure he'll be back again). Hal Raglan 21:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fairuz...

Dear sir... why are you removing important imformation in Fairuz's biography ?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabe88 (talk • contribs)

OK SIR, I AGREE WITH U...

BUT AT LEAST LEAVE THE GOOD INFORMATION AND HER CHORONOLOGICAL BIOGRAPHY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabe88 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. --Nlu 03:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Rv

Thanks again. BTW, I like that blocking template you are using (with the clock) is it new? «»Who?¿?meta 04:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 08:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough

Fair enough, I consider myself to be warned. But wow, you people are fast, good job and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.108.99 (talk • contribs)

Indefinite block message

I kind of like inviting them back after an indefinite block expires, though... :-) --Nlu 00:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== Who are you? == KnowName 00:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had no clue what you were talking about. Someone else also jumped on me for a technical glitch. KnowName 01:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A gift

Since you never seem to leave your keyboard to go to the bathroom, I've arranged for you to have your own private relief station. Joyous | Talk 02:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A little thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page! Always, --White Wolf 03:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to change a title

Hey, How would one change the title of an article that has been already created? The article David Nyhan needs some capitalization, but I am unsure of how to change the title. --Master Jay 03:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You use the "move" button on top. I just fixed David Nyhan; next one you can do yourself. :) Owen× ☎ 03:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to block

61.68.140.25 has vandalized after your final warning. --Master Jay 03:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(vandalism)

im sorry. not speak english good. i come from russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.39.124 (talk • contribs)

My user page

Thanks for nailing the little SOB to the wall for me ;) FCYTravis 04:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion process

According to that, it says I am authorized under those specific conditions. Thanks. StabRule 07:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you can check, I was the one who nominated all those AFDs and I made a condition that I would revert my nominations if another list was put up for deletion. It was. Therefore, I kept my word and closed them. I understand that if I wasn't the creator of the afds then I shouldnt' close them but in this case it's harmless. StabRule 07:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Have you seen OwenX's barnstar?

Thanks for participating in my Political Perspectives of Wikipedians subproject! I never expected two people to do this, let alone four on the first day. Please tell anybody you know that's interested, i'm curious to find out how we Wikipedians tend to view things.

Also, since it looks like you've gotten more userpage vandals than barnstars lately, I figured i'd put out an apb on a milk carton for that barnstar you so richly deserve. I'm sure it'll come up sooner or later ;-) karmafist 13:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:StabRule

Hi, I noticed your contact with this user. I have investigated their past contributions and this user seems to have joined Wikipedia with the sole intention of deleting Jewish lists. The user has used a number of ips which all trace to BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta. They first nominated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_18#List_of_Jewish_jurists. The nomination was placed by Special:Contributions/65.9.143.76 and then another ip from BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta placed the probable sock puppet vote on the nomination (Special:Contributions/72.144.71.234) which was noticed by User:JJay in his comment Strong Keep. Changing my vote. Don't like anon noms here + 2nd anom vote, both out of Atlanta.-- JJay 05:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC). The ip which StabRule acknowledges on his user page Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 is also a BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta address. I would appreciate your thoughts on this and whether any violation has been made. Thanks Arniep 14:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got the ips mixed up hope it makes sense now, Thanks Arniep 15:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have now discovered that this user again double voted on the List of Jewish publishers, the first vote was placed here and the second vote here. Arniep 16:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and on the List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Technology, the first nomination and vote here, and the second vote here. Arniep 16:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think having to close all his AfD noms as a speedy Keep will chill him down a bit. I don't see any major violations here, other than the obvious IP sockpuppetry, which any closing admin would ignore anyway. Please remember that non-admins are allowed to close AfDs, provided that the result is an undisputed "Keep", and the closing is done in good faith, ie the closer wasn't personally involved or has a personal interest in the outcome. In this case, since the outcome was the opposite of what he was hoping for, I decided to accept his closing of those AfDs, which would have been closed as a Keep anyway. His "condition" was, of course, invalid: once an AfD is opened, you cannot simply remove it, especially if you were the nominator.
You seem to be on top of this issue, so I'll leave it in your hands. Alert me if you see anything that requires admin intervention, and keep up the good work! Owen× ☎ 16:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Shouldn't this user be blocked considering they double voted three times and continually removed criticisms from their talk pages or at least be warned? Arniep 16:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel a block is neccessary. I already explained to him what he did wrong with closing those AfDs, and he corrected it based on my instructions. He hasn't done any real damage so far, and I'd rather turn him into a useful contributor, if I can. Owen× ☎ 16:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are you not going to warn him not to use sock puppet votes? Arniep
No, and please don't warn him either. IP votes are ignored by all admins; eventaully he'll stop. If you warn him now, he'll just find more sophisticated ways to interfere. Owen× ☎ 16:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure that ip votes are always ignored. Also I don't really understand the reason for not warning him, can you explain? I don't really see how warning him is going to make him discover any new ways of cheating. Arniep 17:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I feel really quite upset that you are not even warning this user. It is damaging my confidence in Wikipedia, please can you reconsider at least a warning? Arniep 17:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arniep, there's no reason for you to be upset. What will warning him achieve, exactly? Do you think he is getting away with anything? Tell me, if someone wrote something nasty about you on a washroom door, would you go chasing him for vengeance? The more attention we give those anonymous votes, the more of them we'll get. Do you have an instant messenger account? Email me your alias and let's chat about this. Owen× ☎ 17:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am upset, because I believe User talk:StabRule is not a new user as you seem to be treating him as but a user who has other accounts and is trying to use anon ips and the StabRule account to force the deletion of the Jewish lists . I tried to restore the comments they deleted on their user page and they have responded in an arrogant manner. I strongly feel this user should receive a block for violating Wikipedia guidelines as is applied in many other cases. I really don't understand why you are letting this user go off without even a warning. If you don't agree to even warn the user I will probably start a request for comment. Thanks Arniep 21:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arniep, do you have the names of those registered sock accounts? Would you be able to provide evidence on an RfC? Feel free to open an RfC if you want to, but I think you are overreacting. Remember, so far all those AfDs have gone your way; he was not able to get any of them deleted, right? Do you think placing a "Stop using anons to vote on AfD or else!" warning on his talk page would help us? Give it another day of thought before you rush into an RfC, please. In most cases, nobody comes out a winner from these public skirmishes. Owen× ☎ 21:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I don't really care about any registered accounts they may or may not have. However there is clear evidence that this user has consistently behaved in a dishonest manner as set out above, I think they should at least be warned about that, but you obviously don't think that so we obviously aren't going to agree on this so we need other users comments. Thanks Arniep 21:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Owen, this user has now placed a third vote on the nomination that they originally made here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_jurists under their StabRule name, please do something. Arniep 21:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the other two votes are anons, and therefore will be ignored by the closing admin. Arniep, the admins here know what they're doing, and making a fuss about it now wouldn't help anyone. This AfD will probably end up as a "No consensus". If those are really StabRule's sockpuppets, then he is wasting his time, and if you keep chasing him—so are you. Owen× ☎ 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have experience in the past with votes in cfd where anon ip votes were counted, therefore I am not confident at all that they won't be counted in this case. Arniep 22:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, he has just made a vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Engineering. The article was nominated by an anon ip Special:Contributions/72.144.139.115, and a second anon ip vote was made Special:Contributions/65.10.44.158 to delete. Guess what! They are all BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta addresses the same as all the other anon ips I listed in my discussion above. So this user has again voted three times on this list and people have argued to assume good faith on his ip votes! Arniep 00:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He has again voted twice on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian entertainers using his BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta address Special:Contributions/65.9.143.76 and voting under his StabRule account. Arniep 00:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He has voted twice on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish chess players, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in sports using another BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta address Special:Contributions/72.144.71.234 and his StabRule account. Arniep 00:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) Again, Arniep, I vote once per AFD - I'm not sockpuppeting. The anons are from my area - frequent contributors to Wikipedia who had their say. I'd like the crazed accusation to stop. I also stand by my AFD on List of Jewish Americans, but if speedy keep is reached then that's fine. StabRule 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your explanations do not stand up to scrutiny, I will lay out my reasons for this tomorrow. Arniep 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism????

dear Owen X. i'd like to complain about something I have noticed lately. a few days ago i expended the article about hitman and also a few new links. (such as the article on the book Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors) so i expended the stub since it says: "this article is a stub, but you can help wikipedia by expending it" so i intended to expend it since, in my opinion, the article is to short- about three phrases- so I wrote a five page long article about hitman after doing some researh on the internet. when i finally put the page on the internet, a few days later i noticed it had gone and the orignal,short one was again in place. at first I thought that my internet concetion wasn't proper. so i posted it again. later i found out it was gone again.... this time I was sure there was a stuborn author who didn't want anyone editing his article. so this time I combined the two articles together. the short one on top and mine (about four pages) beneath. next thing i find is that I get your warning seeing I vandalize the page and am blocked for three hours. Vandalize??? I expended it. Did you actually read the article? this time I'll put my article in the discussion page of hitman to prevent being blocked but I sugest you read it if you haven't because you will notice the page has nothing to do with vandalisem. so please, read the article and write beneath it what you think of the article and tell me why you call it vandalisem. thank you for your time. yours sincerly, Dennis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.113.26.19 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 November 2005

What you did with Contract killing is that you took a short, but well-written article, removed some valuable sections of it, like the section "Movies about hitmen", and replaced it with a long, original-research article about weapons, which has very little to do with the subject matter. I tried to warn you to stop doing that, but you ignored these warnings, and you still are, as your latest edits to this article proves.
Here is what I can suggest: if you want, you can create a new article called "Weapons used by hit men" or such, and link to this article from Contract killing. In either case, please stop removing useful content from that article. Owen× ☎ 17:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, please take a look at Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Yes, it's a lot to read, but I think you can become a great editor if you want to. I'd like to see you joining us as a serious, registered user, creating and improving articles on weapons, famous mobsters, and other such topics. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

User:72.141.132.139 is again vandalizing articles all over the place. deeptrivia (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted

Retracted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.36.159 (talk • contribs)

I already tagged him with {{attack}} for this. If he continues, I will contact his ISP abuse desk. --GraemeL (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'll drop it. It isn't an 'attack' so much as frustration at having 'new messages' every time I surf to this site that have nothing to do with me and then OwenX blocking me without even hearing my side. I don't plan on contributing here anyway, so I'll just depart into the internet for greener pastures. No offense meant, however please consider how the heavy handed police state mentality appears to potential new users.

Ethnic/religious list AFD suggestion

To the best of my knowledge Wikipedia has no formal guidelines for these lists. Perhaps in light of recent events on AFD it might be wise to open a discussion where editors can work toward consensus. I've posted my own voting rationale on my user page in response to periodic comments. I'd be glad to help start a productive dialogue. Durova 20:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piss Christ

Hi OwenX, Could you please have a look at the Piss Christ history for me. I am wondering if I have gone over the mark and broken the three reverts rule. The story is an anon IP made what I think is a POV addition, I reverted it, an anon ip un-revetred it, I re-revetred it and put a note in the talk page about it. A new user (User:Griffinman24) un-re-reverted it - I am assuming this is the same guy, so I re-re-reverted and added a note to his talk page. My question is have I gone too far, or been unreasonable? I feel that the fact that this guy has botherd to register is a good sign. Thanks AntiVan 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far you haven't broken WP:3RR, as your previous revert was more than a day ago. However, do be careful about multiple reversions. Instead, try to get some of the main authors of the article involved in the discussion, and build a solid consensus regarding this addition. There's no doubt that User:Griffinman24 and the anons are one and the same. Unless he can provide a citation showing that his interpretation of the piece is one mentioned by art critics or quoted elsewhere, I'm guessing his POV would (and should) be removed. Owen× ☎ 03:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks. AntiVan 04:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis again

hello owen,i followed your advice and made an article on "list of weapons used by hitman", a few hour later that article is also gone and so is the 'see also' link on the hitman page. why has that article been deleted??? Dennis.

Hammer and sickle

Hammer
Sickle

For doing so much work in removing vandalism and otherwise, you are awarded a hammer and a sickle. Thanks for helping to make sure that Wikipedia is not vandalism. --Nlu 06:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Naz Baker

I'm sorry about that, it was a bit immature of myself. Thank you.

Thanks

I'm sorry I don't have any Psis for you, but thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. jnothman talk 00:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small favour for the greater good

From one canuck to another (I could possibly take a bus to your place) Could you or your admin buds hook me up with some sort of revert button? I don't know what is wrong with my browser, but the little monobook.js patch from the sam.zoy.org/wikipedia site doesn't seem to work. Most of my work here at wikipedia is in counter-vandalism; some sort of 1 click approach to reversion would work well. Thanks --Master Jay 02:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC) (One last thing - grits or tories, and when is Hurricane Hazel going away?)[reply]

Block template?

Hi Owen ... what is the template you use for blocking? Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ΠΑΣΠ

If it is a copyvio, you can still Speedy delete it under CSD:A8, since it was created only 5 hours ago. Owen× ☎ 04:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I cannot. Please read the rest of A8. This is from the website from (as far as I can tell) a student club at the University of Macedonia, and doesn't look at all like a commercial content provider. —Cryptic (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True enough; I should be more careful in applying A8. The AfD seems to have reached the same conclusion, but at least it gave more people a chance to review it. Owen× ☎ 13:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CJS102793's RfA

Sorry for not following the discussions closely. Please do go ahead and revert it. Tintin 19:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Q22229T

Out of curiosity, why did you permablock this guy after only one edit? FreplySpang (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, two edits: First, he created MORON! as a duplicate of George W. Bush (by cut and paste), then he went and redirected George W. Bush to MORON!. All of that happened within two minutes of creating his account. It's pretty clear the account was created solely for vandalism. Owen× ☎ 00:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, well, it's a swifter and harsher block than I would have imposed, but I won't argue against it. FreplySpang (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously not a new user; he knew exactly what he wanted to do, opened a "throw-away" account, and managed to get a small, but well-directed vandalism before the account was shut down. Do you think a warning would have stopped him? There's no doubt this user has another, probably several other accounts, some of which may even be legitimate ones used for real contributions. But when it's obvious an account was created for vandalism, I think the only responsible course of action is a swift ban, don't you think? Owen× ☎ 00:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your reasoning. If you're correct, which seems likely, he would have been blocked within a short period of time in any case. Best, FreplySpang (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Londonderry, Derry)

No you haven't, get your facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.31.164 (talk • contribs)