If you're here to post a message about a warning that has been left on your userpage or an edit summary attributes the wrong user, there's no need, it's a bug in the software that is under investigation over at WP:VP2.
Just remove the warning from your userpage (but leave an Edit Summary explaining why) and all will once again be well with the world. This happens when I go back to a previous page I've already looked at, whereby it keeps the new page editor details and uses the new editor details to leave a warning and compose the Edit Summary. As I now know how the problem occurred, unintentional vandalism warnings have stopped, but the Edit Summary issue is still being worked upon. Best Wishes Heligoland
My RFA : I'd like to thank all those who Supported me on my recent Request for Adminship, if your wondering where it went, I withdrew at 32/18/6. It looked pretty unlikely to reach a meaningful consensus. I'll consider resubmitting after New Year to Mid-January in keeping with the following successful RfAs where the candidates have broadly similar time on project or similar previous RfAs : Tawker Acetic Acid Daniel Olsen Fvw2 Hedley Inter Naconkantari Rob Church Zzyzx11
I just noticed that you reverted a good faith talk edit I made on December 1, but you attributed the edit to someone else. In fact, it looks like the person you attributed my edit to didn't even edit the talk page. Anchoress 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This IP belongs to a high school. Many constructive edits come from the school. Consider a soft block. Eclectek C T 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you revert the edits below?
[1] --Mac Lover TalkC 00:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Heligoland, as a vandal-fighter I thought you might be interested in seeing this discussion. Regards, Accurizer 22:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- | Hello Heligoland! I want to thank you for taking time to comment in my recent request for adminship. Though it didn't succeed, I value everyone's opinion, and hope to use the descriptions of the neutral and oppose votes to improve. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
What does a withdrawn nomination get the same treatment of a no consensus or a keep judgement. I.E., will there be a template with a link to the debate on the talk page? TonyTheTiger 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tony Robinson.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
((Replaceable fair use disputed))
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 03:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Template:Needimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --32X 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! 8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nick/Archive5, thank you for participating in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. Whilst delighted by the result and a little daunted, I appreciate the various comments re lack of experience in some aspects and I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience and I should welcome your feedback about any Admin tasks I become involved with. Again, a whole 1/1 thanks for taking the time to consider my RfA and cast your views. Feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
Thank you for your edits to Shilpa Shetty, I wasn't aware that the ((needimage)) tag was being deleted, but would like to know where you found ((reqphoto))? I didn't come across this at WP:TEMP, thanks very much anyway. Is it proper practice to put the ((reqphoto)) tag on talk pages? Wouldn't it be better on the article page as it was, in keeping with other tags for improvement, etc.? Ekantik talk
RfA thanks!
Thank you so much, Heligoland, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
I wonder, now that they've desysopped MONGO, what happens next. I'm waiting for the point where "If you offend someone you get permabanned" stage next. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 06:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Thanks for the support! MONGO 09:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
You forgot to sign...here [2]. best, Kukini 02:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw your report on WP:AIV. The vandal has neither been blocked before, nor has received more than a singular warning this day. The entry on the page has been removed by another admininstrator. Please report only those vandals who have gone beyond their last warnings, or have received more than two warnings (including a ((bv)), ((test4im)), ((test4))) Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the personal attack. I think this is a malicious application of the npa warning becuase you are involved in a talk page dispute with me. Please justify the applicataion of this warning or remove it. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA despite your concerns. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 12:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC) |
Hi there!
I'm not getting worked up over Malber (it's not worth that!) but I was merely giving a dramatic example of where his argument is flawed. I really don't understand why he continues to argue about a fallen cause, but ....
Anyway, thanks for supporting me and I hope we can win.
Cheers, Yuser31415 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asteriontalk 15:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Heligoland RfA Voting.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I am apologizing for any uncivil comments I made in Matt's AFD. As it stands, I have removed the comments and hope to let you know I was allowing outside influences (like work) affect my judgement when posting. I wish you all the best this holiday season, and yes, you can count on my support for your next bid at Adminship. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 22:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello:
I noticed that you reverted the division of the RfA for BostonMA; while its may be true that the Tangobot and DragonFlight have problems with divided pages, Wikipedia isn't designed for the benefit of bots -- but for human editors. For some users, the issue of very long pages, such as at this RfA has become prohibits editing. The subject of division has recently been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Voting_pages_over_30_kilobytes, at which Doc Glasgow stated:
Further, the author of Tangobot pointed out:
--LeflymanTalk 02:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Heligoland: As pointed out to you elsewhere:
What is your problem with the name "Heligoland"? It is inoffensive, not politically charged, and not religiously provocative. I would suggest you either provide a specific grievance that is severe enough to warrant a change of an account this old - or retract this demand. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Co-operative contributors should normally just be made aware of our policy via a post on their talk page. Voluntary changes (via Wikipedia:Changing username) are preferred: users from other countries and/or age groups may make mistakes about choosing names -- immediate blocking or listing on RfC could scare off new users acting in good faith.
Again, this doesn't need to take place at all if the user chooses to comply with policy of his own free will. To take this step now would be premature and amount to assuming bad faith.Where a change must be forced, we first discuss it. This can take place on either (A) the user's talk page, (B) a subpage of the user's talk page, or (C) a sub page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It should be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the appropriate section. The user should also be made aware of the discussion.
Let me quote Heligo's old user page:
Heligoland is a little island formerly part of Britain, just off the German coast. It's most famous for being the first Shipping Forecast area to be changed, becoming present day German Bight and for coming close to being wiped off the face of the Earth by the British after WW2. Have a look at Heligoland for lots more information.
I see no reason not to WP:AGF and force him to change his username. I agree that this seems to be a disruptive attempt to get your way, SA. – Chacor 02:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect to SAJordan, this request is inappropriate at this time, it is directly related to an ongoing RfC on which I have commented. I'm not involved with the actions that resulted in the RfC and don't wish this situation to get out of hand. I have no intention of changing my username, I've had the username for 3 months, and it was checked and changed here [3] by a bureaucrat. I based my name on the island of Heligoland, first named in English 199 years ago. The band seems to be only moderately notable and precedent has shown that users name after a place but sharing their name with a pop group or TV show have not been asked to change their username. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 03:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope this is different enough, your username has been found to be acceptable, sorry for the hassle. Here is a copy of the discussion just prior to it being closed: [4]. Happy editing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Heligoland, I don't mind your oppose vote. An admin needs the respect of the community, and it is clear that there are some concerns that have been raised. Regarding your suggestions, my impression of myself is that the contributions that I can make to dispute resolution are much greater than the contributions that I can make to stub articles. My impressions could be wrong of course. However, given what I believe to be the case, I think I am far more likely to involve myself in mediation cases, and consequently arbcom cases, than I am to be expanding stub articles. With regard to stalking, what I did do was remove about 40 or 50 external links to a particular website on the advice of an admin. You may or may not agree with that action. However, it does not qualify as stalking as I understand WP:Harassment. Please have a good new year. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
(please let me know if this is too long or complex to put in the RfA)
To explain these alegations, I need to present some background information. It is not my intent, when presenting this background information suggest that user rosencomet deserves blame in this matter. Relatively speaking, rosencomet is not a heavily experienced user, and in my opinion has overcome a number of earlier mistakes, and I do not have a quarrel with him. (see recent contributions by rosencomet).
User:rosencomet had on a previous occassion identified himself as the executive director of Association for Consciousness Exploration.
A number of pages with external links to the Association for Consciousness Exploration external website have been deleted. As a result, they do not show up in my contributions list or in the contributions list for User:rosencomet.
On 00:34, 26 Oct 2006 I posted this comment to user rosencomet requesting that he read WP:Vanity prior to adding new links.
I then removed a number of links in articles to the Association for Consciousness Exploration external website. Only 4 of those articles show in my contributions list, but I believe there was more.
I believe, but again, lack the diffs, that rosencomet added new links to articles, which prompted me at 00:49 to leave this spam warning on rosencomet's talk page. I left a note on an admin's talk page as well.
Paying more attention, I discovered that there was a discussion at AN/I (which can be viewed in the next link) in which User:Timmy12 was accused of stalking rosencomet by deleting links of the sort in question. I added this comment on the AN/I in which I explained that as an RC patroller, it was my practice to examine the contributions history of editors of those I reverted to determine whether other edits also require reversion.
Over the next few days, the situation repeated itself, with the accusations of stalking extending to other editors who had become involved in reverting the links. At various points I asked for advice, such as this request. The response which I received suggest that I nuke all of the links.
Although no evidence in the arbcom case has been presented in support of the allegation that I was stalking, I believe the allegations can only refer to the above events. My understanding of WP:Harassment is that my actions were not stalking. I am of course, willing to be corrected on the matter and behave accordingly.
Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Heligoland!
On the recent Esperanza MFD (which was deleted successfully, BTW), you !voted delete, with the comment "Delete - Especially admin coaching". Admin coaching was one of the few programs which was not deleted.
Because I am an active admin coach, and because I would like to see this program be successful, I'm requesting feedback from you on ways in which Admin Coaching might improve. Your above comment indicates you believe admin coaching isn't worthwhile.
Could you possibly take a look at some admin coaching sessions and point out potential problems that could be avoided in the future? For example, if there was something you specifically objected to, or something you felt should be added, we could address that, and improve the program. Here are some examples of Admin coaching sessions which I have participated in: My admin coaching page (June '06) Ginkgo100's coaching page (Oct '06), Exir's coaching page (Oct '06), Fabrib's coaching page (current). (Feel free to seek out others yourself; each admin coach has different techniques or ideas, and this may not be a representative sample).
Feel free to leave comments on my talk page or on the Admin coaching talk page. Best wishes and happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I just reread my comment, and see that there is an omission that could make a difference in how it is viewed. I mentioned that in the first round there were 4 articles (in my contributions list) that I removed links from. However, in the following days, I removed 20 or more (would need to look that up.) I hope that you did not base your support decision in whole or in part on the assumption that only 4 articles were involved. If so, I am terribly terribly sorry if I misled you. Please let me know. I will be changing the text on the RfA page momentarily. --BostonMA talk 00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Heligoland! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey. You removed my image Hugh grant american dreamz 2.jpg from Hugh Grant because it was an "incorrectly used fair use image". I'm curious as to what a correct use of that image would be. I'm not all that attached to it, but I uploaded it for the Grant article because people kept sticking his mugshot in and I thought it was crass to have that be the only picture of him in his wiki article. Kolindigo 00:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
p.s. I am especially grateful for your willingness to explain your initial oppose vote, and your suggestion that I respond to allegations raised in the ArbCom case. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Just a note. Per WP:AWB#Rules_of_use, one should not use AWB for tiny edits like this and this. They don't add much value, and pop up on people's watchlists, potentially obscuring vandalism and distracting from other things.
I would suggest you check each edit you make before submitting it, and cancel edits which simply add a space, remove an underscore, or something equally small. Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my talk page "per instructions" during my recent wikibreak :). NoSeptember 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I recently added some external links on cell biology pages that deal with the cell nucleus and transport mechanisms. You mentioned I might want to directly donate my images to wikipedia. I did create those images, and I do have the copyright. Some have been published, but the publishers generally allowed me to keep my copyright. I am looking into this further to make sure there are no issues with posting them on wikipedia. I will be moving into other fields of work in the near future (few months) and anticipate being able to post the images directly to wikipedia at that time. Thanks for you comments! Posterlogo 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, understood. Let me know when it's ready. DS 01:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)
Hi, I noticed you have one again reverted my edits to the Abuse Report page and in doing so, claimed "for something that you just made up?" - I resent the implication that I made anything up. If you look at the history of the page you'll see I and 2 other editors have reverted your edits. In case your not aware, Abuse Reports are not officially sanctioned by the Foundation, my comments were that we cannot ban any IP address or range as that falls outwith Abuse Report and indeed any administrators remit. This was changed to "block" which is going to be outwith the remit of Abuse Reports, as reports requiring immediate administrator attention should be made to WP:AIV, WP:AN orWP:ANI. There is nothing in the blocking policy which supports blocking IP addresses on AbRep unless they are actively vandalism at the time of being reported, and for effectiveness, the report for the IP address or range should be made to any of the previously mentioned areas, ideally with an Abuse Report then being filled by the blocking admin, if necessary. When it comes to banning users, there's no single administrator who can place a ban, and certainly not sufficient numbers of Abuse Report volunteers to be able to ask for a community ban, which leaves us needing to ask the arbitration committee, Jimbo or the foundation. I hope you'll realise why I'm trying to ensure users who are thinking about using the Abuse Report system know exactly what it does. Perhaps it should be renamed to "Long Term Abuse Reports" so as to make it clearer, and in any case it must be made clear that asking for blocks and especially asking for bans is outwith the remit of the remit of the volunteers on AbRep. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I will take care to be more explicit with my grievences next time. All the best! SERSeanCrane 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi - saw the statistics on your user page, was curious - what's the source of the data? (In short, how does one distinguish between an external link added and a spam link added?) Thanks. John Broughton | ♫ 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to Jimbo's request that it be added to the blacklist? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you closed a couple of the current AfDs on today's AfD log. I have no qualms about a non-admin closing AfD discussions; after all, I do so myself. However, I do have a couple of comments. First, and most importantly, you should read non-administrators closing discussions, which states:
"Non-administrators may not "speedy-close" deletion discussions. They must either express their view that the debate should be "speedy-closed" in the normal procedure, or wait until the discussion has run the full AfD period to close it as a "keep" if there is a consensus to do so."
I point this out to you because I know you ran for adminship in December, and suspect you'll want to try again. When that time comes you'll want to be able to demonstrate you adhere to the policies as they exist at the time.
Of lesser importance, I noted you used the