User talk:Ixfd64/archive 10

I generally prefer to keep discussions in one place and will reply to your comments here unless requested otherwise. Please add new comments to the bottom of the page. Thanks.

Archives: November 15, 2005 · February 24, 2006 · May 18, 2006 · July 11, 2006 · October 26, 2006 · March 25, 2007 · February 20, 2008 · March 8, 2009 · October 11, 2009 · February 14, 2011 · January 22, 2014 · November 15, 2016 · October 10, 2020 · August 25, 2022 · current · search

Revert

Thanks. :) Acalamari 21:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting!

Please immediately stop mass deleting images and their talk pages etc. You don't know what you are doing. I'll write a longer explanation in a little while.

Please stop while I investigate and then write the longer message. This takes time since I am not a native English speaker.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a common practice for administrators to delete local copies of Commons media. Since the cascading protection on Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items and elsewhere already covers these images, I saw no reason for keeping them locally. In fact, quite a few images on that page have already been deleted by other administrators. However, seeing that some of the images there are currently being discussed, I'll leave them alone for now. I'm sorry if I caused any inconvenience. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should almost never delete protected images, even if they have copies at Commons. The copies at Commons just act as backups for the high-risk images here. (And it makes the images available if/when the templates that use them are copied to other Mediawiki projects.) The reason you have seen other admins deleting such images is that unfortunately this is a very common mistake...

Since other admins are likely to repeat this mistake I wrote the longer explanation over at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items. And the very reason we created that cascade page (and the old lockbox pages it is based on) is that admins keep doing the mistake of deleting or unprotecting templates and images here.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a good point. Do you think it would be a good idea to create some sort of template that warns against the deletion of certain copies of Commons media? I'm thinking of making something similar to {{c-uploaded}}. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have two such templates: {{pp-template|small=no}} and {{nocommons}}. See how we use both of them on for instance File:User-info.svg. We should probably see to that those templates are used on all the high-risk images.

I would like to move/copy this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#Do not delete or unprotect because listed here, since this discussion will have relevance for later visitors to that page.

Oh, and I ask that you undo the deletions you just did. (I really have to go to bed so I am not able to clean up after you, it's already 5 in the morning here.) And don't forget to reprotect the images after you undelete them, since unfortunately they don't automatically get their old protection back.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are much quicker than me. Is it okay with you if I copy parts of this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#Do not delete or unprotect because listed here for future reference by others?

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that is fine with me. :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PyKen

Hi Ixfd64

In re this edit are you aware of any servers running this implementation available? Also, what's the meaning of your username, if I may ask?

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 04:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.[reply]

I'm pretty sure PyKen is not a server-sided application, so I don't think there are any servers running it. Also, you can find out about the origin of my username here. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten

It had completely slipped my mind that {{click}} was deprecated. Thank you for fixing my talk page header. All the best. Bobo . 10:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. By the way, it seems that some images do not display properly (i.e., they become slightly larger) after being converted to the new syntax. I'm going to try to find out why that is happening. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huckabee

I'm a little confused as to why you changed the protection level on Mike Huckabee. It was already semi-protected; all you did was give non-sysops the ability to move the page. Mistake? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article had no history of page-move vandalism, so I didn't see any need to protect it from moves. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not reflected in the reason you posted. You cited POV concerns. It's fine for pages with no reason to be moved to be move-protected, as is the case with that, so I've put it back. It's highly visible at the moment; if you disagree about the protection, let's take it up at another time, okay? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually another reason why I removed the move protection; the administrator who added it said he was lowering the (edit) protection but made no mention of moves, so I assumed it was a mistake. The reason I cited POV converns was that I wanted the most recent log entry (my removal of the move protection) to reflect why the page was semi-protected ("POV edits" seemed more descriptive than "BLP violations"); it turns out that I actually forgot to mention the move protection in my summary! I hope this helps. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of the Children

Ok I understand why there are reasons that prevent an editor from erasing a big chunck of an article. But please take a look at this article, the 1976 coup section. I find it rather ironic that, by trying to revert some vandalism, I am treated like a vandalist myself. Maybe this is the reason why there have been such a sharp decline by the parts of editors in respect to the encyclopedia. So please, if you, or anybody knows how to delete such and outlandish and silly section from and article, then please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.76.36 (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should use edit summaries, especially when removing content from an article. That way, other editors are less likely to mistake your edits for vandalism. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ixfd64! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 12 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Don Davis (artist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Henri Cohen (athlete) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Edward Charles Allaway - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:76.102.12.35

One welcome template is enough. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Criticism of YouTube

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of YouTube. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of YouTube. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to anonymous user 216.55.193.246 re Cars (film) vandalism

Thought you should know that the user edited it but I changed it back. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed that. Thanks for fixing it! --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons question

I see that you tagged File:LAHS marchband.JPG as being moved to the Commons. I have no qualms with that. But the immediate link that the template provides is dead [1]. Did you actually move the image to Commons or did you mistakenly put on the wrong template? --haha169 (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sorry, I just realized that the template provided an incorrect link. You are an administrator, right? Could you delete the local copy of the image? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did transfer the image to Commons, but the file name somehow got changed from LAHS marchband.JPG to LAHS marchband.jpg. I've updated the image link on Los Altos High School (Los Altos, California) and deleted the duplicate file. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --haha169 (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: Tile join vandal (Virgin Killer)

For future reference, feel free to block ones like this on sight. This is one of thousands of socks created by Tile join, aka the Genesis vandal aka The Virgin Killer vandal. These socks are so identical I swear it's a bot making them. The page has been semiprotected, but that won't stop him, but it makes him easier to identify. He will add and subtract a comma from a defunct user talkpage for the required ten, then blank the VK page. Even though he cannot remove the picture, his actual goal, it won't matter. After he is reverted, he will go blank the user and talkpage of the reverter, even if it's a bot. For several years he would replace the Evolution page with the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible. He makes dozens of socks at a time. He doesn't ever speak to anyone, he just methodically vandalises over and over and over again as he has for years. He is on a mission (presumably) from God. He cannot be reasoned with. He knows no remorse, no pity or fear. And he will never stop, ever, until he or the wiki is dead. </bad paraphrase of Terminator> Auntie E. (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'll keep my eyes open for this fellow. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your last unprotection

"[move=sysop] (expires 13:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (featured article move-protection shouldn't be indef" Could you please check page logs? It was protected indef before the article was TFA. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 15:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake

Hello Ixfd64, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on August 30 2005, 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Zoomzoom99 (page has mainspace links, and more than 49 edits). This has been done because the page is either pure vandalism or a blatant hoax (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Zoomzoom99. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Zoomzoom99 (talk · contribs) 11:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

While I understand your point of view, I feel that what I did was not vandalism. First, the article itself is way too long. It discourages people more than anything from wanting to learn about race because the article is so long and rather difficult to navigate. I mean to be honest, that whole article could in fact be summed up in my one sentence. I did not intend to vandalize the page in any way. That is just my point of view of what race is. University professors also preach that same sentence I posted on the "race" page. Therefore, I would not say my statement is radical and controversial. I have been taught this concept so many times in University of California courses I have taken over the past two years. It may be controversial in your opinion, but to me, it is the simple truth of what race is. However, thank you for your message and I am in no way trying to attack you. I'm just expressing my views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrion20 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I never said your edits were vandalism. What I did say was that it's a good idea to discuss potentially controversial edits before implementing them. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, still. It can't be that controversial if there is a section bluntly titled "Race as social constructions". I just put it at the top of the page, in my own words in language that people can understand; this should be the focus of the article. I've taken many eye opening classes about race and ethnicity, and this article does not move me at all. I just feel lost in this article everytime I go back to look at it. I don't think "race as a social construction" should be hidden in the middle of article, and be the shortest of all the sections. I just think it should at least be in the begininng of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrion20 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please read edits before reverting

thanks for the attention to my recent edit. you should've checked the actual full edit--i didn't remove anything, just *moved* text to the proper place. thanks! Joanouvair (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. However, may I suggest using an edit summary next time? It would help prevent misunderstandings like this. :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help in putting the picture up, it looks great! I've learned loads in the process.. Archiesgone (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]