First off, Sagan wrote a famous article about his experiences with cannabis in 'marijuana reconsidered'. His wife has spoken out against cannabis being illegal and spoke nothing but good things about both of their experiences. You are making silly assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.65.99 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
edit: i just read your reply back, i'm afraid the whole way you and the other admins are acting here is (as i mentioned before) very similar to the vorgons. Wrapping everything in red tape for the sake of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.65.99 (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, please stop adding these at the top of the page. Use the "new section" button or link.
Moving on, yes, I am aware of Druyan and Sagan's position on the drug - and I will freely admit it is not one I agree with - but an image labelled "Smoke Weed" has the potential to be extremely destructive to Sagan's reputation and to Wikipedia as a reliable source. Lastly, you must stop the personal attacks or you risk being blocked.
Admin/mod/authority position of some sort, the name dosn't matter much to me, whatever authority position you guys are in you're wrapping everything in red tape, don't worry , maybe it would be helpful for wikipedia to add a 'no fun zone' tag to pages, you guys do seem to have something against it. Night night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.65.99 (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have no authority that you do not, though there are a few system operations (such as page creation) that can not be performed by non-registered IPs.
I see. The premise is fairly sound - I have some issues I will not go into here - but this was too good of an opportunity to "pass up". (I really do not like that phrase; it reminds me of vomiting.) -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail05:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, should we give this vandal the "wet trout" treatment? Or is it time for me to charge my laser? Either way, :I'm not one to eat vandals myself, but the vandal has been blocked, so I guess you're free to do something there... AuroraIllumina19:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This started rather humorously, but it has rapidly turned sour. It is clear that this user has a rather irrational hatred he or she wants to vent, and I have no intention of allowing my userpage to be their airlock. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail23:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. I was going to mention it the other day after seeing the completely inappropriate baiting at User talk:70.30.5.114. I've blocked people for less. If you can't be nice to them then just report them and ignore them then we can be done with them, else, we are all likely to see even more disruption than now. This is true of all vandals. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk)00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added one for each edit; it is only because of my watchlist that I found their last edit first. Had I not checked contributions (and had it not been an IP reverting one of his edits; IPs don't usually warn), someone else would have added the warnings. Also, the account is being used solely for vandalism (it was created very shortly before the vandalism began, and has no constructive edits); even had I not dropped the other two warnings, I would have still reported him/her. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail00:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it you are not familiar with the instructions at the top of WP:UTM that state, "you should check that the user has made harmful edits since their last warning – the user must be given a chance to see and react to each warning given"? Since FergalG has not made any edits since your first warning (and as the next two are improper escalations), I have declined your block request. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with them, but I would have thought VOA accounts - yes, I know that is redundant - are an exception, as their "wikifaith" and intent are clear and malignant. Do you really think it likely the user will make constructive edits (under that username)? More likely than not, when the warning but no block is given, the account in question will go permanently dormant, and the user will find another identity from which to vandalize, or less statistically likely, make constructive edits under that new username. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail00:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BLOCK, we are supposed to educate new editors when their actions conflict with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case, the editor in question stopped making test edits eight minutes before you slammed him or her with three levels of escalated warnings, so I can hardly justify blocking the account when the person has not actually disregarded any of our attempts at education. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is where our mindsets differ. You apparently see the contributions as test edits; I do not, though they are indeed far less overt than a lot of other vandalism I see (had I seen ones like this, this, and this, I probably would have dropped a uw-bv). That seems a logical reason for our differing approaches. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail01:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the Megafauna IP
I just want to let you know that this particular anonymous editor (who uses several related IPs) has a history of trying to indiscriminately stuff things into category:megafauna or permutations of category:megafauna. I mean, "megafauna" isn't a well defined category if you include every animal bigger than a dog or a shrew in it.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. That does indeed change how I view the inclusion, but I cannot help feeling that this organism does indeed fit the megafauna description. It is larger than most land predators, and by far the largest recent ave that I know of. I'm not a paleontologist or a biologist, so my word is far from law. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail04:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diatryma was indeed a great and terrible bird, but it wasn't the largest: the title of "largest predatory bird" goes to the phorusrhacid Kelenken. But, I digress: what's the point of having Diatryma in category:Megafauna if you're also going to put Hyracotherium in it, too?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Loremaster, and welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Reptilians. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that I should add mroe edit summaries, my recent edits of the Reptilians article was not controversial. That being said, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years. During this time, I have improved the quality of numerous articles painstakingly making sure that my edits are factually accurate and supported by references as much as possible. The fact that some of these articles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article demonstrates my knowledge and respect for Wikipedia guidelines and standards. So I don't need to be lectured like I'm some newbie. Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I posted the message is because your edit (the second one) consisted only of removing the name of the website, and thus making the sentence "...Brian Dunning on suggests that...". On suggests that? That makes no sense. Which is why I reverted that one (and only that one, the others were useful) edit. Oh, and please do not recopy the warning onto my page - it makes it look like I gave myself the warning. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I notice the functional group (to borrow a chemistry term) is this link: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RadicalOne/Status&action=edit&amfind=.*&amreplace=online&amlocal=1&amsummary=Setting%20status%20to%20%22online%22&amautosave=yes&amminor=1 <span style="color:#00ff00">On</span>]. I can parse and understand that. However, that link takes me to edit my status page; it does not auto-replace it. Why? -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail03:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that I have to replace the "&"s with "?"s to get the links to work properly - and not just here, but with every Wiki-action in an URL, including edit, section, and purge. But if I replace all of them, I get a "no such action" error message. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail03:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your post at the creator of "our" Status indicator and thought you might be able to help me. I've installed the indicator but can't get it to work, other say I have the code wrong on User:Mlpearc/monobook.js but I've changed it around every way I can think of, and all I can get the indicator to show is that I'm "LOST" which is correct. Every time I click a status button I get sent to Editing User:Mlpearc/Status this page. If you could help ?Mlpearc (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had that same problem, so yes, I know of a likely solution.
First off, the javascript page must be under your skin. Monobook is only the default; I use vector - and thus have User:RadicalOne/vector.js - and you may use yet another.
Second, the default code appears to be nonfunctional. Try copying my code - custom-written - which is linked above. It will require slight modification to your template (and therefore you need to create your own subpage with it like I have.
"Lost" means a non-recognized string is on your status page; for example, a "3152" would generate "lost". It is a default intrinsic to the template and to the "switch" function; my template, rather different would look like the following:
Sorry I tried to leave this message aboved but the only thing that showed up was my sig. I just want to Thank you for help and time but I'm at a point where I'm creating pages I don't think I should be, copy and pasteing things I probably have no business doing so. Any way I think I'm going to try again later but I want to let you know what I've done incase I've messed up something in your system (I don't think so but if I have, I am very sorry and please vent and cuss at me on my User talk:Mlpearc ! Ive copied and pasted one of you pages and went through and changed every entry with your username to mine, thinking this would be a good building block. you can see what I've done here User:Mlpearc/Status Template. These two pages I know I need one of them which I can't figure out User:Mlpearc/monobook.css and User:Mlpearc/monobook.js and aparently the code on either is incorrect. I know I'm smart enough to be able to figure this all out, but for some reason I cannot get a grasp. I think I'll "nav-around" in Vector and see if It fits my fancy,at theis point I'm just brain dead and I sincerely hope I havn't given you a headache Mlpearc (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Vector looks very much like Monobook I think i can hang in for while Mlpearc (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you simply copied mine, then there is no risk of damaging my template.
Yes, changing all of the usernames to your own is a good way to start. It used to have a {{BASEPAGENAME}} tag, but I removed that for simplicity.
"[skin].css" is unnecessary to this template; you did not need to create it.
Did you try copying my (completely different) javascript?
The code should be fine as is; what it does is replace your status page with the text in the link ("On" will replace with "On", and so on). That should work no matter what. As long as your version of the template correctly refers to these cases - via the aforementioned "switch" command - it should work. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail00:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If my code is to work, you need to modify the base template (by copying it to your own user subpage) so that it knows what to look for on your status page. Otherwise, it will always read "lost".
Help
If I put together a list of links to my pages would you (only if you have the time) take a look and see what's wrong with my status indicator, ok I hoping to "be hooked up". I understand if you can't Mlpearc (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you have done wrong. Hold on; I am going to edit and create some of your user subpages.
OK, your template now reads your status page.
One thing: I was not aware you were using the default template; since you are, you must use the default code; my js file will not work to update your links.
Ok cool I see my status shows on line, but can't change it, so I need to create a status page for each status ? Or it would be better to change the default template ? Mlpearc (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time, I think I can get it working, though I do like your better. I just copy and paste " importScript('User:Henrik/js/automod.js'); " to my status page and erase the online you put there, ? Mlpearc (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool still not changing, but now a least I know I'm down to one page I'll play with the code tomorrow, and again thanx for your help, If I can ever help you just let me know Mlpearc (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Not Confirmed"?
{{adminhelp}}
I was checking my watchlist, and then received a notification message: "Your account is not confirmed!"...
I was autoconfirmed a long time ago; is this referring to some "official" equivalent?
The message behaved like the "new messages" notice, but was the color of the speedy delete notice; an attempted simulation is below.
Not sure what happened. The confirmed user right is given manually to users who haven't been autoconfirmed, but autoconfirmation happens (shockingly) automatically by the software the instant you meet the 4 day/10 edits requirement. You might try asking on WP:VP/T. Killiondude (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sol
I notice that although you have userboxes refering to Earth as Terra and the Moon as Luna you do not have one referring to the sun as Sol. Surely that isn't deliberate?! :P Abyssal (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
