User talk:Ral315/Archive 2

History Archives:

Dec. 04 to Feb. 06
Mar. 06 to Feb. 07
Feb. 07 to May. 08
Jun. 08 to Present

2004-2005:

01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05 · 06 · 07 · 08

2006:

09 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18

2007:

19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28

2008:

29 · 30 · 31 · 32

Re: UTOC Article Split

I agree with you about keeping it the way it is for now -- at least until the finals are done and/or we have reached a community-wide consensus. However, at least revert it properly -- you just handily destroyed the work I put into the article this weekend. Where are the UToC finishes and career winnings for each player that I calculated and put up over the past three days? Take a look at the history and restore them as appropriate, please. Mwl 02:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up on this for historical purposes- these have been restored, as far as I know. ral315 04:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Current math COTW

From what I can tell, you're the originator of the math COTW. Seems like an interesting project, and I'll be keeping an eye on it. Any reason it hasn't been updated recently? It seems that by the posted rules it should have moved to a new article by now. I'm hesitant to change the page since I haven't been involved and could be missing something, so let me know if there is a reason it hasn't been changed for the new time period. I'll probably go ahead and edit it this evening or tomorrow if I don't hear back from you. -- Zarvok | Talk 05:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeopardy Results

Sorry for editing early - I thought the time was 9:30 ET. Trödel|talk 02:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem re the confusion - as I mentioned I don't feel that strongly about it and I usually see the results about 7:25 ET :) Trodel 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RfD postings

Hi, thanks for bringing us all those dead redirs, but I have a request: in the future, when posting a large block of requests, please try and accumulate them all on your local computer first, and add them as a block, rather than doing so one by one? For one thing, it clutters the history; for another, each time you edit a page the system makes a separate copy of the entire page, and the project is continually running short of disk space. Thanks! Noel (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Also, please list redirects only on WP:RfD, and not in other places, such as VfD (which is for articles). Also, since redirects have their own, separate, list of speedy deletion criteria, don't put speedy tags on them - just list them on WP:RfD; if they are speedy candidates they will be deleted right away. Noel (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Weiss

FYI, the VfD notice reads "You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, nor remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress."

Moving it during the VfD mucks up the links. I'm in agreement that if kept, it should be moved, but in the future, please wait until the VfD is closed. -- Norvy (talk) 03:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Again

Note: Said discussion was continued on RickK's user page, which was subsequently cleaned up. The original comments are presented below. ral315

Please don't edit other people's User pages. RickK 05:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have a script reverting Userspace edits by unaffiliated users, but User:Again is violating WP:WIN (Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider, Wikipedia is not Anarchy) In addition, I have an honest belief that the content of User:Again's user page violates the laws of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are stored. Such is explicitly against WP policy, and whatever space it may be in, I believe I have an honest right to revert it.
The quote on YOUR user page says it best:
We need to take due process seriously, but we also need to remember: this is not a democracy, this is not an experiment in anarchy, it's a project to make the world a better place by giving away a free encyclopedia.
User:Again's page does not make the world a better place, and it specifically fits what happens if anarchy reigns over WP. Until I am explicitly told not to make these edits by someone like Angela, Jimbo, or certain sysops/Wikimedia leaders who I would defer my decision to, I will continue to revert User:Again's page.
Sincerely, ral315 05:56, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Last warning. I don't care about your motives. The User page is listed on VfD. Let it run its course. If you edit the page again, I will block you from editing. RickK 06:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
So be it. Block me from editing. But my edits are not in bad faith; I truly and honestly believe that since WP policies contradict each other, and promoting warez on Wikipedia leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I respect your opinion, but in this case, I do not agree, and if you choose to block me, that's your choice. I did what I believed was right, feel free to do the same. ral315 06:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Note for historical purposes: I was blocked for 24 hours for reverting the page by RickK, after which I stopped editing User:Again. It was speedily deleted about a day later. ral315

(In response to a post on Mike's talk page about a similar edit on User:Again.) ral315

Sorry

I'm not the anon vandal that vandalized it; I just pointed out who made the edit (in case it were to be judged an actual vote, such information might be important. ral315 04:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I found that out shortly after changing the anon person who vandalized it. Sorry about the mix up. Dbraceyrules 04:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Re 152.*.*.* that you just banned.

And thank you for reverting my userpage! :) The "safe/courteous" limit for range blocks is supposedly 15 minutes, but I don't think that's long enough. I sometimes block for two hours, but then I get confused/angry users emailing me. So I hope 30 minutes is long enough to bore the vandals into quitting for the day, or at least short enough to prevent the emails. Let's keep our fingers crossed. :) -- Hadal 04:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you from me as well. I had my hands full with two vandals at once! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've been addicted for a while now too! By the way, do you know about this? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've set another 30 minute range block. If s/he comes back again, I may just set one for two hours so I can get to bed without feeling like I've abandoned the fight. ;) (I have yet to adopt CryptoDerk's programme, but it looks very helpful.) -- Hadal 05:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ugh. I bit the bullet and set a 2-hour block. I've already got one complaint in my inbox. Oh and well. :) -- Hadal 06:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo RFA

Thank you for supporting my nomination. --Theo (Talk) 07:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)