This is an archive of past discussions with User:Redvers. 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.
NowCommons: File:A username graphic for Chili14 v1.png
File:A username graphic for Chili14 v1.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:A username graphic for Chili14 v1.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:A username graphic for Chili14 v1.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I want to know the reason of deleting the article venenux, venenux is a linux distribution and i thik nedd to be documentated just like all others —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manganelli mario (talk • contribs)
i'm writing perfect i don`t understand why appears like 8 years old writing.
mmm the notability of this article is on gnu.org and fsfla the two most important organizations of the free software on the world if you see that references yo will understand.
only about ten distributions are recommended by these organizations and is one of them venenux from thousands
I wirte this article becouse i cant find sources of information in English and and i translate everything to help anyone looking info about it
--Manganelli mario (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't understand how your writing is coming out like that either. Perhaps your keyboard is faulty, although there could be other reasons. It's worth getting it fixed, as communication is key at Wikipedia and a keyboard fault, or some other reason, makes it quite difficult to understand you, let alone communicate efficiently.
Hi -- I don't remember seeing your essay before, but that & your lengthy explanation to Lars for the essay sounds depressingly similar: there seems to be an increasing tendency to focus on trivial things -- the Wikipedia equivalent of counting paperclips & arranging sharpened pencils in the proper direction -- over attention to what matters, namely the content. In my case it is a lengthy, fought-in-my-spare-time feud with some of the regulars over at WP:MoS, who are under the delusion that they are writing Policy Which Must Be Enforced. (Yes, you too can be banned from Wikipedia for incorrectly linking a date!)
I recently made extensive edits to the Cork Graham article, and would appreciate your taking a look at it as an admin and someone with history on it. For your background, I recently stumbled across it (don't ask how) and rather follow my first instinct and put it up for AFD I researched the topic and essentially rewrote the article (I'm not even sure why). I think the article is now well cited and reasonably stable, a run in the mill "b-class" article. But I'm concerned that a host of single editor-anon ip's will come out from the woodwork sometime in the future and take it in another direction. And so I thought I'd ask you to take a look at it now.--Work permit (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Another one I reverted was Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9), which has been significantly modified by both the registered (and now blocked) user, and by another user, so I can't really revert myself on that one without causing further trouble. Unfortunately, when you issue a revert against a page not on your watch list, it doesn't add it to your watch list, so I don't know how to find any others. However, I'm thinking it was just those two, so hopefully that's the end of it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots12:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I should further point out that my labeling of these guys as socks of each other is also an assumption, based on behavior. It was a long week, and I might be making too many assumptions for my own good. Luckily, this is a 3-day holiday weekend just starting. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots13:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
<-The straw that broke the camel's back was Brandnewfanx reporting you to AIV. You and I have rarely interacted, but I know that you ain't no vandal. Such editing is disruptive and not indicative of a useful user. Add in the IP action and some throwing of weight around on other editors' talk pages you've got a block, at least until the editor shows they understand why they're going wrong. I'd still like that from them, but if you'd prefer an unblock, just say and I'll do it. ➲REDVERSThe internet is for porn15:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Kind of a chancy call. My first reaction is to think he needs to chill for awhile, because of his belligerent attitude. And I'm still not convinced he and the IP are not the same guy, as they have the same interests and same attitude, even before he got blocked. However, if he felt the block was unfair, his after block attitude is understandable, even though it seems excessive. If he posts a reasonable unblock request, an unblock could be fair. And even if he doesn't, an unblock could be considered. Let me think on this for a little while. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots16:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Not gonna happen. [2] But I appreciate your good faith, even if they are a tad too [self-censored] to have been worth it. I think that's that, alas. Sociopath's paradise, this place, sometimes :o( ➲REDVERSThe internet is for porn21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, yesterday you acted on this ANI report by blocking the user. Today, the user has come back as an IP and added the same content directly to the artcle Khatri. I've reverted the add on Khatri, but this is getting a bit tiresome. Since the thread has been archived already, didn't post there, but thought I'd alert you. Not sure what you can do about it though, since a range block might be a bit excessive for this as a good chunk of contributors from Delhi are likely to be in that range. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Trying to create Strøm page - you seem to have blocked it
Hi Redvers, I've created a Strøm {{surname}} page but I cannot edit Strøm – you deleted a page called that, and now it seems to be locked. Can you unlock it please?
My page is parked at User:Hebrides/sandboxstrom but I'd like to move it to its rightful place, especially since I first created a link to Strøm from Strom since I didn't expect this problem.
What's wrong with this username? He's requesting unblock, and I can't see anything in his edits that implicates it as promotional. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:BBC Broadcasting House 532073098.jpg
File:BBC Broadcasting House 532073098.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:BBC Broadcasting House 532073098.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:BBC Broadcasting House 532073098.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, it looks like this was deleted, then restored by you as not on Commons. It isthere. Maybe you restored it for a different reason but I thought I'd mention it if for some reason you just didn't pick up that it was available at Commons now. Thanks. Unusual? QuiteTalkQu16:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No, not restored as not being on Commons; restored as I don't want my images to go on that awful project but, being unable to prevent it, I prefer to keep a local copy here that won't be fucked around with as much as Commons chooses to. Hence the {{nocommons}} tag. Hope this helps! ↪REDVERSI dreamt about stew last night19:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Can I also ask you to protect the logos in question from deletion for that two week period? Otherwise they will no longer be there to discuss, once everybody has cooled off. Jheald (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Start the discussion somewhere and I'll link back the images to it so random admins and bots will hold back. (Also, deletion of images isn't permanent any more, so if it happens, it can be undone should a discussion agree.) ↪REDVERSI dreamt about stew last night11:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
In my view the best place for such a discussion is WP:FFD -- it's what WP:FFD is there for, and it means the discussion can get some drive-by input. The advantage to WP:FFD is it's focussed to a decision, and it's open to the community. Otherwise it's very hard to see a way forward from one side saying "all the images should go", and the other side "no, they're valuable, they should stay". I tried to engage in rational discussion at WP:NFCR, and this [3][4] is all the civility I got from User:J Milburn for my pains. Jheald (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
