See /Archive 1 and /Archive 2 for past messages.
May I know who deleted the clitoris picture ? Where is the discussion and consensus over this deletion? thanks SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This was neither a mistake nor an act of censorship. All copies of the image are at Image:ClitorisNewLoc.jpg. Therefore, since Image:Clitoris.jpg is buggy and unused, it is a candidate for speedy deletion. Guanaco 16:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I saw this edited and didn't know whether to interpret as vandalism. I even wrote a True or false problem on this user's talk page. All comments please put them on that user's talk page, not mine. 66.245.14.250 01:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, the information on his appearance on the $5000 is absolutely correct as I stated it. See www.currencygallery.org -Levente (209.213.....)
Simonides has been bothering Adam Carr and others in other Judaism related articles, he is not just causing trouble with me in the anti-Semitism article. His shtick is that he deletes the sources that people add, then cries "There are no sources; it is just the unproven opinion of the Jews". Then when I add back the deleted sources, and add yet more authoritative sources, he deletes most of the sources again, and basically claims "This is just opinion; there are no studies!" This kind of lying-to-your-face is unacceptable in any communal project, let alone an encyclopedia. We can't allow him to edit out sources, claim no sources exist, and then revert everyone else's edits! RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Here are some more sources I was going to add; I understand that Simonides would just have reverted the article again and remove them, but the sources we have added are not for him; rather, the sources were for anyone reading the article. I feel that it is important that when big claims are made, multiple sources should be used if possible. Interestingly, the resurgence in anti-Semitism that Simonides denies exist is a fact that the EU, the Secretary General of the UN, and the ADL all agree on. RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
The Jewish magazine, Tikkun, ran a series of article on the resurgence of anti-Semitism across the world.
I would be very careful about editing protected pages. The protect policy very clearly states that no edits should be done, save a few, which your edit is not covered under in IMHO. Just unprotect the page and let the wiki magic take effect. If the wiki badness takes over, then reprotect, but you are compromising your integrity as an admin by editing a page when only admins can. Remember, you are not here to solve disputes. Burgundavia 21:09, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Guanaco, I just wanted to say thanks for stepping in, and sorry if it landed you in any hot water. In my opinion the protection was timely and appropriate. -- Simonides 02:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I notice and appreciate the cleaning up of old copyvios that I'm too ignorant or timid to make a decision on or too lazy to do the complex removing of copyvio while leaving legitimate article work. moink 03:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Since it's Lir intentionally violating the 3 revert rule, why not block him as well? RickK 05:04, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
Your blocking and unblocking policy just leaves me lightheaded. What ARE you doing? RickK 05:46, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
Guanaco, PLEASE stop unblocking indefinitely-blocked Users without discussing it! RickK 18:55, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
Because it makes it even a second more difficult for him. And it lets us keep track of the style of editing that he has used before. And by unblocking him it gives him the idea that it's okay if he does what he's been doing. And why is it such a big deal for you? RickK 20:14, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I can see you un-deleting it. I still think it's pointless - perhaps it could be a component of some other article, but nothing more IMHO - but you're right that it didn't fall into speedy-delete territory. Maybe you could wikify it a bit? - DavidWBrooks 19:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why did you unblock hard banned user Bird? --H. CHENEY 02:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm just curious, why did you create Elyaqim's user page even thought it is blank? --Merovingian✍Talk 06:23, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
Please stop creating work for people by playing with the blocks they have made. I find your actions extremely frustrating and hope that you will please stop. Maximus Rex 05:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just stop unblocking. There is no reason that these accounts should be used again. What exactly are you looking to accomplish? Unblocking accounts that have been blocked for good reason will just piss people off unnecessarily. It also sends the message, unintentionally, that it is okay for them to vandalize. If any of these people did want to become useful contributors their first step should be to sign up for a new account. Maximus Rex 05:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What was the edit that you said was not a test?? 66.245.30.216 21:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
True or false: Paul is the second strongest vandalizer of Wikipedia only to User:Michael. 66.245.30.216 21:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
152.163.252.102 has taken it upon himself to remove other people's comments and post all kinds of nastiness here. So I reverted. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've found a way to deal with our good friend Mike. I'm complaining to AOL about his ban-dodging. WhisperToMe 09:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Many could consider your block of User:68.36.175.254 to be censorship. Especially after you whitewashed their comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hcheney2 yourself... when those comments were negative towards you [2]. I believe you may have a slight conflict of interest, but instead of holding you to the standards you hold me, I am going to assume good faith yet again. --H. CHENEY 07:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have reverted myself to reinstate his comment. Guanaco 07:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have blocked that IP myself. Thank you for recusing yourself. Trolls like Lir are far worse than your little User:68.36.175.254. We can easily ban vandals, but trolls get patrons so they can continue their destruction without fear. --H. CHENEY 07:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
May I ask why you reverted my edit to Blog spam? I removed the link to the blacklist on Wiki because it is clear from recent activity there that a sizeable amount of Wiki's participants do not want it there - to be fair, myself included. Linking to it from here gives it some credibility, and also a false appearance of reliability that is not present in reality, when as the subject of one of Wiki's interminable deletion wars it is as liable to be vanished as it is to be there when you try and see it. -- Hex 09:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No, the stuff cited in Lir's new RFC is not just personal attacks.
It's also for causing reversion wars. WhisperToMe 19:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Please go back and revert your article moves regarding Plural marriage and state your proposal for such a drastic change before doing so. I get weary of folks like you who have no respect for the time and effort and discussion that has gone into making and naming articles and make unilateral changes like you did with absolutely NO discussion beforehand. —B|Talk 00:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Mr. Newcomer, "be bold" is not the end all to be all rule, and it does not mean to go forward with drastic changes WITHOUT DISCUSSION and especially without any regard for the discussion that has already taken place on the same issues. To rationalize what you've done just shows that you are an uncooperative jerk. —B|Talk 03:30, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. A lot of this has to do with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism). Your initial move wasn't consistent with that convention. If you feel the convention could use modification, please contribute your thoughts on its talk page. —B|Talk 12:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Plural marriage" appears to be a better title than "Plural marriage (Latter-day Saint)". It follows these guiding principles listed in relative priority:
America Online has a very dedicated group responsible for stopping spam and .. shall we say .. black hat activities. It may do you well to send a message to the AOL Member Services NOC (contact me privately) if you notice consistent vandalism from AOL netblocks eg, the 172/8 range (minus 172.16/12). Avriette Thu Jul 8 00:33:46 UTC 2004
Hi Guanaco, as there were no objections at Wikipedia talk:Bots for over a week, Guanabot is now marked as a bot on the English Wikipedia. Angela. 23:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Guanaco! Please get the sloppy looking ":" out of the fair use msg! It dosen't show up in the template itself (when viewed by itself), but it shows up inline inside image description pages.
Please fix and unlock the template if you can!
JediMaster16 19:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Guanaco! Please get the sloppy looking ":" out of the fair use msg! It dosen't show up in the template itself (when viewed by itself), but it shows up inline inside image description pages.
Please fix and unlock the template if you can!
JediMaster16 19:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
((fairuse))
Hi Guanaco - I'd deliberately used the redirect [[George Walker Bush|George W. Bush]] so that [[George W. Bush]] (which gets edited very frequently) didn't keep on clogging up the 'Related changes' link which I use to check for changes to any of the listed shrubs. Mind if I change it back? - MPF 23:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you did some cropping and added transparency to Image:Four stroke cycle start.png. It caused some goofiness in the layout of the four-stroke cycle article, though, since one of the images is taller than the others now. I deliberately left whitespace around the images so they would be spaced out nicely in the article; such spacing could be achieved other ways, but that seemed easiest in terms of wikicode. Also, in adding transparency, it appears that you made some parts of the engine transparent that shouldn't be: I know it's very faint, but you can see the edge of the intake and exhaust ports, as well as the lower edge of the engine block where it attaches to the crankshaft. Those are supposed to be solid parts of the engine, and having them transparent makes it look like they're not there at all. Finally, your cropped image is larger (in filesize) than the original! So I hope you don't mind, but I will probably revert to the original version. -- Wapcaplet 15:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi Guanaco, I saw on Wikipedia talk:Bots#Guanabot that you are updating wikilinks such as [[twentieth century]] to [[20th century|twentieth century]], amongst other chores. Please note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Years specifies 20th century as the preferred style, although I know it's not unanimous. --Zigger 19:25, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
I see you're running the disambiguationbot for several pages in parallel. If the reason is that it is otherwise going too slow, you could consider running it with the options "-throttle:1 -putthrottle:2" to shorten the time between requests. - Andre Engels 22:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Bots#Current_policy_on_running_bots it shouldn't edit faster than once per 10 seconds. I stopped the bot as ran faster than that. -- User:Docu
Guanabot should not be changing kilometer to kilometre for US cities and other US topics. That's why we have redirects Gentgeen 04:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
but it does appear in text pop up boxes, especially for [[kilometre|km]], links. Gentgeen That isn't really a problem. The pop-up boxes are most helpful when they tell you exactly which article you are being pointed to. Guanaco 04:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In Talk:City of New York there was discussion about the article name. In that context, a user's reference to [[Los Angeles]] is different from [[Los Angeles, California]]. Some people thought the article on LA should be at the former title, while some preferred the latter. The bot's introduction of piped links somewhat confuses the meaning. I'm reverting these changes. More generally, is there any need to take the time to run the bot on Talk pages? It might make sense to exclude all Talk pages. JamesMLane 19:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Michael is a hard-banned User and is not allowed to post to Wikipedia under any circumstances. His postings are to be reverted on sight. RickK 22:35, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
I honestly can't tell whether you're a good-faith contributor or whether you're a troll looking to make enemies. In good faith, I'll assume the first and offer an unsolicited word of advice: Plenty of other sysops are attentive to vandalism and capable of instituting blocks. You don't seem to be able to manage blocks without causing angry, frustrated objections from users who aren't often prone to either anger or frustration -- so maybe you should avoid blocking, altogether. Leave it to those who can handle it without creating controversy, and direct your efforts elsewhere. Cribcage 22:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Gedday, is there any chance using your bot on doctor, most of them should go directly to medical doctor (aka physician in North America)? best wishes Erich 00:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the note. Much of Wikipedia talk:Geographical names naming policy (proposed), and Wikipedia:Geographical names naming policy (proposed) directly concerns the redirects. Of course the bot is undermining one of the main arguments there (that since the majority of links are simply to the city name rather than to the city, state form, the articles should be at the simple city name). older≠wiser 19:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have replied to various images you listed on Wikipedia:Images for deletion, see the trauble with each one, solve the problems with each, remove them from the old dates and re-list them. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:54, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
You reverted your own vandalism! 66.245.23.108 00:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(I haven't noticed any changes like this yet, but I wanted to pre-emptively add this comment to make sure none occur.)
I've recently created redirects from dates using the BCE convention to the actual pages using the BC convention. I've also been going through articles and changing date links of the form [[301 BC|301 BCE]] to [[301 BCE]]. Please do not bypass these redirects! They're in place in part so that we can begin to determine relative usage of BCE vs. BC conventions (by looking at "what links here" for the date pages), and to keep ease of use for BCE and BC more on par with each other. If these redirects are bypassed, tracking BCE usage will be much more difficult. --Wclark 01:14, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
I fixed those references you pointed out to what show they were from. I took some of those screencaps myself from my video collection. --DragonZ
Why did you delete USinVietnam.jpg? I've not seen a more clear example of fair use since I've arrived. The photograph of Kim Phuc Phan Thi is one of the defining images of the Viet Nam war for Americans and the world. If you were to do an image search of Kim Phuc Phan Thi, you'll find multiple news agencies using this photograph, including the BBC and CNN. You'll find multiple universities using this photograph. There are no problems with using this photograph. Stargoat 13:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, that was quick. I went to revert it and it has already been done. You're in good hands. Mike H 02:32, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)