User talk:Moe Epsilon/Archive 5: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:46, 10 October 2024

←

→

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Francs2000

Hi there, would you be able to show me where there was discussion on whether more bureaucrats are required, (e.g. are the current ones overworked?) if such a discussion has taken place? enochlau (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't have more bureaucrats than are necessary to get the job done. Otherwise, bureaucratship becomes like the "next level" after adminship, which is wrong and not how it's meant to be. If there is evidence that we need more, then I'm happy to change my mind. If you're wondering I'm opposing why Francs2000 in particular, note that I also opposed the other RfB on the page. enochlau (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup

Hello SWD316, thank you for your support in the Esperanza election. Let me know if I can do anything for you in return. with kind regards Gryffindor 16:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Qwertysoup

You must be having a laugh! I thought I'd heard of this name before... This is the user I had a word with the other day about scoring 1,595.37 on the Wikipediholic test. I left him alone, assuming good faith, but now I'm having second thoughts. I don't exactly think he is a vandal, and there is nothing he can be blocked for to be honest. I find it pretty annoying that anyone can just come along and act like they've been here for years, especially on the Wikipediholic test - he probably just wants to be the best. I'll keep an eye on him. →Fir e Fox 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not going to remove his score just yet. I've asked for a discussion and people's thoughts on Wikipedia talk:Are You a Wikipediholic Test... perhaps you can comment there? I have, however, deleted his funny RfA thing :) →Fir e Fox 17:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

WoWjUnKiE7290

Hi. I had already unblocked this user as I notice the first contribution (just before I blocked) was an assurance that he was not Willie on Wheels. I hope I have not been suckered into this (as I was by your spoof "new message" notice at the top of your page, which I think was a pretty cheap trick, and could profitably be removed). --RobertG ♬ talk 16:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs 2000

21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediaholic score

Sorry I din't include you into the users I spammed about the situation on the tests talk page. If you like, after the decision about the false score is settled, I can add you to the top 20. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 22:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like that. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Qwertysoup

Hi there Cool Cat, Im SWD316. I would like for you to join in of the conversation about the above user at Wikipedia talk:Are You a Wikipediholic Test about his possible fake score on the test. I contacted you because you were one of the top scorers on the test, so you could probably tell if the score is fake or not. We would appriciate your input. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I scored higher than Cool Cat.. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that test thrives on honesty. One is not a Wikipediholic if they arent honest. Wikipedia thrives on honesty. There is little that can be done directly, if the user is disruptive by other means he can be treated for such. I'll check. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind if I, or you if you prefer, cross-post this to this to the discussion at the test's talk page? SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 22:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

NO I dont mind. Make it happen. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Qwertysoup

Hi there Pain, Im SWD316. I would like for you to join in of the conversation about the above user at Wikipedia talk:Are You a Wikipediholic Test about his possible fake score on the test. I contacted you because you were one of the top scorers on the test, so you could probably tell if the score is fake or not. We would appriciate your input. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 21:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I think you might have misunderstood me. I don't think your score was fake at all. It was Qwertysoup's score I was talking about. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad. I read too fast and not concertated. Everything cleared, I'll check that out now and answer in the relative page. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 15:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

rec.sport.pro-wrestling

Regarding your reverting the article rec.sport.pro-wrestling from my changes...your reversion only changed back the article TO vandalism. I do not care what sort of history you have with Mr. Chadbryant nor do I care what sort of history you have with his detractors. But had you read the talk page of rec.sport.pro-wrestling you would have clearly seen that the information that he "reverted" because of "vandalism" (or whatever stupid bullshit excuse he was using this time) was not for the article. He has been told on at least four seperate occassions by at least five different Wikipedia administrators and God knows how many Wikipedia users that the information is false, negligent, and unnecessary to the entry. Regardless of who originally places the information back in (and it's suspected that it may actually be Mr. Bryant under a Wikipedia pseudonym), it does not belong in the article. I am NOT a vandal, and I suggest that in the future you take the time to do your research a bit more carefully before making such a rash decision. Hope this helps. --Hootie And The NoFish 16:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem with IP Address person

Last December I deleted a message from the Wyoming Talk Page stating the Wyoming did not exist, the same IP Address person who posted it claimed I was part of a conspiracy to put Wyoming on the map so to speak then I posted I was sorry for deleting and posted,

Sorry, for deleting you comments but answer me these questions He wrote "I personally don't think Wyoming exists. Have you ever met anyone from Wyoming? The only person I know of that is from Wyoming is Vice President Cheney. This just suggests the biggest government conspiracy since pineapples. I hereby request that this article be deleted. I happen to know that the land that the "state" occupies does not exist either. The government has put up border signs in "neighboring" states to create the illusion that you are traveling through Wyoming. I say let this be the first site to stand up to the American government and say we won't buy your conspirasies any more. We must educate the people!"

I wrote If there is no Wyoming

Where is the majority of Yellowstone National Park the world's first National Park Located?

Where is the South Pass of the Oregon Trial located?

Where is Devil's Tower located?

Where was Rulon Gardner born?

Where is Grand Teton National Park?

What are your verifiable sources for Wyoming not existing? ^ That is why I deleted his comments so I am sorry for deleting them but I asked next time when he’d post something, please register a free wikipeda account or you won’t be taken seriously. PS My best friend is from Wyoming so I do know someone from there. BionicWilliam 22:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) He then posted

Fiends He wrote My best fiend is from Wyoming as well. I mentioned him above (Cheney).

The I wrote that I ment friend. The wrote However, what are your verifiable sources for Wyoming not existing? Please remember Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Oh if you edit the Wyoming page don't forget to post your verifiable sources because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and if you post unverifiable information it's vandalism then me or somebody else will revert your changes. If you have no sources for the state not existing beside Cheney then it does exist. Oh also answer my questions if you want to. BionicWilliam 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I’m taking this person to seriously but I want to stop them before he vandalize the Wyoming Article

My Question is what I should do now? Thanks BionicWilliam 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Yeah, I've already stopped, it's so boring and wikiusers are tightasses about it. :( - Rudykog 18:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I should note that it was and still is a joke though. - Rudykog 19:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hey SWD316, its WoWjUnKiE7290, just thought i would pop a post onto your discussion page, to begin and further my wiki invasion = P WoWjUnKiE7290 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

hi

HI!!!! WoWjUnKiE7290 15:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome banner

Thank you for the {{welcome}} banner. :) Solar Serenity 01:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Puppeteer

I think that if they all admit to being sockpuppets of each other and one is vandalizing, then we can block them all when the time comes, but I wouldn't be able to say for certain. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 19:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you're 'you have new messages' thing on the top of your page made me think my talk page was vandalised for a sec ;) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 19:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It was kinda funny, after I noticed it wasn't really my talk page ;) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Puppeteer

Thanks for alerting me. I have to admit that I hadn't noticed the nature of the User name when I left the message about vandalism. Have you raised this at W:AN/I? If not, it might be worth doing it, as I think that all but one (at least) of the accounts should probably be banned. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikiscore

ha ha ha, that was a scream, I had that score in mid-October; my edit-countitis has increased by many times since then, so much so that I am afraid of taking the test again. I hope some one will break your record, though ;). --Gurubrahma 10:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Still a little new to Wikipedia

I've been refreshing your talk page for the last 2 minutes and wondering if you were leaving more messages to my talk page. That's a damn good one. I admit I clicked it. Well, I've been meaning to ask someone... anyone about this for a while and since we got off on the right foot, I thought I'd ask it here. You know when someone edits a page and in the edit description it shows up as an arrow pointing to a grayed out section; eg. ---> The Brand Extension. I've been calling it the best kept simple secret on Wikipedia because no matter how many help pages I go to, I can't figure out how to do it and I'm sure it's something ridiculously simple and I'm going to end up regretting having this recorded in Wikipedia history forever. Thanks for the help. tv316 18:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please refran from vandalizing Wikipedia. Your experiments (note hte correct spelling, you retard) have been reverted. Please do any future experaments inside the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Thank you. --Dahc Tnayrb 20:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

The twit who left the above illiterate message, and who vandalised your page, is one in a long line of abusive sockpuppets; I've blocked him indefinitely. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No problem! I love that new messages spoof. ;) Sango 123 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

YW

You're welcome; I'll go through the history in just a sec and do blocks where needed. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from a New User

Thanks for the invitation on my talk page to ask you questions. I was wondering if you (or anybody else who reads this note) wouldn't mind looking over what I've been working on and letting me know if I'm doing a good job.

The big thing I've worked on is the Anagrams board game article. I made a small edit to Maria Montessori and I've also posted some comments on Talk:Jack Kevorkian and Talk:Serial killer, as creepy as that is.

I was wondering if these efforts so far seemed in the wiki spirit and represented wiki-worthy work? I'm so excited about being an official user and I hope that I'm getting it right.

Thanks again! -- Max the Anagrammarian 22:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks from a New User

Great. Thanks so much for looking over things. Much appreciated. Will try to watch over wiki-ing! ^_^

I'll have to tell my girlfriend that we have a mutual Wikipedia friend now.

Anagrammarian 22:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

Could you edit Horseheads High School please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courier new (talk • contribs)

Please don't delete it. Isn't its significance POV anyways? I do attend it--it's my last year--and all these things are true. Anyways, wikipedia is known so very, very obscure topics, which obviously cannot be found in traditional encyclopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courier new (talk • contribs)

10 Christian biographies nominated for deletion

Thanks for voicing your opinion on several of the Christian biographies that A.J.A. nominated for deletion, yesterday. Here are several others that could use your input:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greg_Baker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim

God bless, --Jason Gastrich 22:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I understand and I shan't change any of your user pages again. My apologies. --Mystaker1 04:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Rakion Page

You sent me a vandalism message concerning the Rakion page which I'd like to dispute. My last edit was deleting a section that was just added that day which was outside the scope of an encylopedia article of the game (it went into specific strategies for each class). The section was also NPOV and used informal language. I saw you reverted article wiping by 67.39.189.233, but you went back to a point which also re-added things I deleted in good faith, like the last section of the profanity filter section about how to bypass the filter (this sort of information shouldn't be included since it encourages doing such a thing). I've been watching over the Rakion page for a couple weeks now and slightly resent the claim that I have vandalized it. As for using an unregistered IP and not signing in, this computer is shared with my housemates, so I just don't sign in here. (I don't want to be confused for a random vandal). Sorry to take up your time, but something just irked me about being called a vandal and being refered to the sandbox.

Oh, about the talk page, those were my entries that no longer had any relevance to anything. I'll be sure not to remove any more of my old, badly formatted discussion from the talk page again. 209.158.250.104 02:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon blocked

Happy to help fight the vandals. I've blocked the anon for 24 hours. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:64.230.113.29

No problem :)--Shanel 03:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Come and vote your mind

Dear Christian friend,

I saw you on the list of Christian Wikipedians and wanted to let you know about something. The other day, someone nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion! They include a Christian university list of people (not unlike 68 other lists like it)[1], presidents of universities, and authors of many books.

Since that time, people have been voting. Please take this message as a call to vote; not a call to vote a certain way. I respect you and your ability to come, read the entry, and make a wise decision. In other words, I’m not vote stacking or campaigning; simply letting you know something that you’d probably like to know.

By the way, my friend recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ. If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see the site!

Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_DeYoung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Morey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Pack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mal_Couch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice

God bless you, Wiggins2 07:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist...

...On catching the vandalism on my talk page. Thanos6 07:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:220.233.65.105

I've blocked for 24 hours and sprotected the talk page. Canderson7 ^(talk) 17:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice of you to say, I'm always glad to help stop the vandals. Canderson7 ^(talk) 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User: 220.233.65.105

The user has been blocked for persistent vandalism. KHM03 17:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

165.247.83.151

I just now got your message. I'm sorry I couldn't be of help at the time, but I've watchlisted the talk page and will sprotect if the vandal starts back up. Canderson7 ^(talk) 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediholic Test

I only started after your edits, so it's really no problem (The only edit you got in after I copied over the list of questions is you rounding off your score). So thanks for removing those. At the moment, I am organizing them into sections to make it easier to count scores. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mayhaps a limit. I'll remove all questions with 0 and most of them with negative points. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikiholic (par excellance ?)

I just saw your score. Shit. I almost suffocated on my seat. How the heck can a guy be so holic!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

NoSeptember's RfA

Thank you, SWD316, for your support of my RfA. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Vandal IP

At User talk:165.247.83.151 you gave this anon the Template:test4 template. But he says he's already blocked. So I propose his talk page be semi-protected for a while. SWD316 talk to me 00:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I just saw Canderson7 semi=protect it. Never mind though. Sorry for the disturbance. SWD316 talk to me 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought that they might of been blocked but I warned them because when they are unblocked and in this case probably vandalise again the admin that blocks will see that they had vandalised one more time. --A dam1213 Talk + 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hah! :D — Ilyan e p (Talk) 00:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Leaving?

Well the funny thing is most things have been going my way in the Wikipedia community, its just the manner of how discussions are done (I've noticed especially since I became adminship) has left a lot to be desired. I still plan on using Wikipedia, just not as an editor, or at the very least I intend to take an extended Wiki-break. As well, I have found that in the week I was absent from Wikipedia, I was a lot more productive in the real world as well which most people would view to be more important, with the exception of some really hardcore Wikipedians. Also my frustrations were a steadily boiling pot that finally made me give up on it, at least for the time being. Thank you for trying to talk me out of it though. Croat Canuck 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, Moe Epsilon/Archive 5
	for voting in my RFA. It failed with a result of 31/11/2. Thank you for voting... If you have any comments, please say so here.

User talk revert

Thanks, looks like we both reverted it at the same time! Oh no itsJamie^Talk 00:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

vandal fighting tools

i currently use navigation popups, and the irc channel, of the cvuBenon 00:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

User:Paulley reccomended that I talk to you and invite you into my wrestling-wiki. It will be at http://www.wrestlepedia.org once the DNS updates, but for right now use this link http://www.crapplications.org/wrestlepedia

Thanks NickSentowski 18:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

3rr

I've blocked the 134.161.137.162 for Britches (monkey). But please be careful. [2] is a content dispute edit, not vandalism rv. Stick to 3RR yourself. William M. Connolley 20:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

Semi-protection of User talk:71.225.90.225

Done. Owen× ☎ 00:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of User talk:216.185.128.200

Taken care of. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

68.74.185.144

Thanks for the heads up but the 3RR doesn't apply to cases of vandalism. This user is removing warning pages from his talk page. That is vandalism. Cheers. 04:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Guru (talk • contribs)

I hear you but I'm not really concerned with what it looks like. Simple vandalism should be repaired as quicly as possible by whoever finds it first. That's my motto, anyways ! No Guru 05:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why I used the term simple vandalism. There is a huge difference between a content dispute and simple vandalism such as removing warnings and block notices from talk pages. No Guru 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandal.

I blocked him a little earlier today :) Thanks, — FireFox • T • 16:58, 26 January 2006