User talk:UkPaolo

click here to leave me a new message
Remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

2023–2024 Sundhnúkur eruptions

Photograph credit: Icelandic Meteorological Office

Archives
Archive 1: May 2005 — February 2006

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 22:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I thought I'd voted in your RFA... Still, it still passed. Sorry about the whole Bling-chav affair, as well. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 23:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!! Mushroom (Talk) 23:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and congratulations.--Dakota ~ ° 23:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You deserve this! -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-21 11:06Z

Congratulations, UkPaolo --Ugur Basak 11:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Well deserved mop. Banez 11:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo! Well done. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C

11:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and a well-deserved one. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 13:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, surely a well-deserved one. Congrats. --Bhadani 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Félicitations! — TheKMan^talk 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 03:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job man! Brianherman 01:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Can you email me? add @gmail.com to the end of my name.[reply]

Monobook

I noticed that your monobook says "NO JAVASCRIPT"...does this mean you don't want any. My monobook is VERY useful...you might want to copy it. It automatics a lot of tedious things.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 16:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that suggestion, I will certainly look at your monobook when I get a chance. I did try Lupin's popups previously, but it seemed to cause my browser to crash so I gave up with it. Still, I'll definitely have a play at some point! Any add-on's in particular that you'd recommend? _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry...I don't use pop-ups as they cause lag everytime I scroll over words and intefer with the rest of my javascript. Mine has an AFD-lister/closer/quick vandal warning tabs/vandal revert/quick protection template tabs...and more. Just copy and past mine...you'll see...:).Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah hang on now dude!

That is not nonsense! im totaly serious about all the stuff i put on there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starfishkiller (talk • contribs) .

I have no idea as to what you may be referring. Your contribution log shows only three edits: once to Chiz, then to your user page, and then the above comment on my talk page. I have never edited Chiz or your user page previously. If I can be of assistance, then please leave an explanation as to how on my talk page. Thanks. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Well done - have a user box! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper?) 08:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admin

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

hey sry bout the miscomunication

Hey man sorry bout that. my computers screwed up. i ended up emailing the wrong dude.

Sarvajanik College of Engineering and Technology

Someone keeps vandalizing the following: Sarvajanik College of Engineering and Technology and it's principal Perci Engineer. Is there any way to guard against this besides a revert war? (I'm asking you since one of the recent reverts was yours; thanks for that!) Milobot 15:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I will keep an eye on Sarvajanik College of Engineering and Technology and ensure that vandalism is reverted. If the need be, I can protect the page from editing but I don't think that is necessary yet. Regarding Perci Engineer, the article has not been vandalised, but another editor considers it elligible for deletion, since it is an article about a real person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. As the template says, if you contest this, then you should place the template {{hangon}} in the article, and write an explanation as to the significance of the individual on the talk page. I hope this helps, let me know if I can be of further assistance. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with those articles; it seems like we've fought the vandals off for now! Milobot 17:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confucius Reversion

Its nice to know that there is such a quick response to edits on the Confucius page. Sorry I was, in fact trying to get rid of the text I accidentally seem to have reinserted. Thank you for the correction. Ig0774 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I did wonder from the edit summary whether you were trying to remove the vandalism. Not to worry! _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving my page

I already had noticed the 'move' tab, but i got the following: "You cannot move pages because either you are not logged in, or your account is too new. In the latter case, please list the page at Wikipedia:Requested moves." I guess my account is still too new :).. So thanx for helping Grioghair 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah! I didn't think of that, yes it probably is due to you having a very new account. No worries :) _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting November

What was your reason for deleting the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awaiting_November? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.216.44 (talk • contribs)

I felt that the article met speedy deletion criteria A7, as did another user who tagged it as such. This criteria is about unremarkable people or groups. "An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." Since the article made no attempt to "assert the importance or significance of its subject" I felt it was deletable under this criteria. For reference, you may like to read the notability guidelines for inclusion at WP:MUSIC. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Edits

Hi UKPaolo - I was going to insert a photo into an article about Crawford Castle I created and you "reverted" it. I don't mind that you did it because I wasn't aware at the time it was copyrighted. My question is - how did you do it so fast? I put a sample picture in where I was going to put the real picture in and you removed it before I could download it? Also, does your "reverting" edit give me a bad reputation in this fine community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawnmowerman (talk • contribs)

Hi Lawnmowerman. As part of the ongoing fight against vandalism of Wikipedia I was browsing through recent changes (in fact, I was using a tool to help me do this faster). I noticed that you had made an edit in which the only change was to add an example image to the page, so I reverted it - that's all. I can assure you me having reverted you won't have given you a bad reputation at all. For reference, for help uploading and using images you may like to read Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Images. If you have any other queries, feel free to leave me a message. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Horn (instrument), are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY my friend was a bit drunk i stopped him there shouldn't be anymore trouble — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.21.87 (talk • contribs)

I hope not. Thanks for the apology. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding tb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.21.87 (talk • contribs)

school project

I realize that I am vandalizing Wikipedia, but believe it or not, it's for a school debate topic. In class, my group was giving the topic of why Wikipedia should be allowed for use by college students. As part of the debate presentation, it is my job in the group to prove that people can't just put anything they want on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a highly renouned source of information and we want to prove to the class that it is indeed a reliable source. This is why I have been putting in political, false, and ridiculous messages. To prove that I will get reprimanded for doing so, and that moderators do take care of false or political statements quickly and efficiently. Thanks for your understanding.

Blackjackgirl17 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea and a project which, I hope, will have shown you that vandalism of articles is indeed reverted quickly. I appreciate your explanation as to why you have been vandalizing articles, and have also copied it above to ensure it is seen by other editors. Please note, however, that vandalism will not be tolerated, and I trust you have now made sufficient test edits. Further vandalism may see a temporary block from editing imposed on your account, which would only show you further that vandalism is taken seriously here. Thank you for your understanding of this. Whilst I appreciate it cannot be used to test how quickly vandalism is reverted, to play around with editing pages, please remember the sandbox. I've left you a welcome message at the top of this page now, too, and hope you may find some of the links useful. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding. I do have a question. What would happen if I were to vadalize one more page? (I won't do it, but I wonder what would happen, I need this info for the final part of the debate). And yes, so far, we have concrete evidence to show that Wikipedia is a a very trustworthy source of info. Did you know that for every 3 mistakes in Encyclopedia Britanica there are 4 mistakes in Wikipedia? Only one more mistake. I'd say that's pretty reliable. Not to mention that on Wikipedia, errors are corrected within seconds, whereas an encylopedia takes months, even years to edit. And the bonus is that Wikipedia is open source. Free information for all. Thanks again for understanding. I'm sorry I didn't explain the meaning of my edits before now. Thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackjackgirl17 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I did see that report comparing Wikipedia with Encyclopedia Britannica in the news — interesting stuff!

Our response to vandalism is basically that any user should be given due warning (using messages such as those which you were left above). Any of our editors are encouraged to revert vandalism which they come across, and to leave such messages, full details can be found at Wikipedia:Vandalism. If vandalism continues despite warning, as those messages say, the vandal would be blocked from editing Wikipedia in accordance with our blocking policy. Since only an administrator can block users, non-admins would need to ask for help at this stage. This block is only for a temporary amount of time (possibly less than 24 hours for the first block), and only prevents the user in question from editing Wikipedia. After the block expires, the user is free to continue to edit the encyclopedia, although of course, future vandal edits would be taken significantly more seriously. I hope this helps, feel free to leave me a message if you have any queries (and don't forget to sign messages by typing ~~~~ which is changed automatically to your name, and the date and time). Hopefully you have gained an insight into how useful a resource Wikipedia can be, and will be encouraged to make useful contributions! :o) _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove deletion tags

Please do not delete deletion tags. The no Eu image had already been deleted as it clearly cannot help in any way to improve an encyclopedia. Someone restored it ignoring the rules. It is solely used for divisive user boxes that violate wikipedia policy. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Image:No-EU.png, I would agree that it is needlessly divisive, but I do not feel that it meets any of the speedy deletion criteria for images (in a nutshell: redundant copies, corrupt or empty images, improper or no licensing). As an admin, I was unwilling to speedy delete the image (for these reasons) and thus removed the tag. Per my edit summary, I posted an explanation on the image talk page. You are quite welcome to list the image on WP:IFD for deletion, and I may well support it's deletion there. It is not, however, speedy deletable under our current criteria. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the image is solely used for divisive user boxes that can get speedy deleted, speedy deleting the image itself is appropriate and was already done before someone ignoring wikipedia policy just restored it. You could have pasted the deletion request to the appropriate place yourself or at least leave me a note - only by accident I still had it on my watchlist after it had been deleted. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is currently in use on a number of people's user pages. Until such time as it is removed from those, I see no grounds for it to be speedily deleted (although I am aware it had previously been deleted). If an admin chooses to speedy delete the template on which it is used, I would fully expect them to delete this image if it then became orphaned, without need for it to be tagged. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now guess what - the user box already got speedy deleted. The users just set it up on their individual pages then, so the easiest way to stop ignoring policy about divisive user boxes is to speedy delete the image as was already done. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is quite clear: criteria for speedy deletion are given here. I fail to see any of the image deletion criteria which this falls under, and it thus cannot be speedied. You have already listed it at WP:IFD, and I have tagged it as needing a license, but it must be left for seven days to give the uploader a chance to add licensing information before it can be removed on these grounds. A number of users clearly wish to make use of this image and I am not willing to speedy delete it. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained why I think it falls under the criteria for speedy deletion, it is only used for remplates that fall under the criteria. Your licence note is nitpicking given that it is just an edited version of an image that has a licence. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not used on a template! You said yourself that the template was previously deleted, yet plenty of users are still making use of the image on their pages (admitedly probably by having subst'd the template). The image needs to have a licence specified, that is not nitpicking. I would agree that since it is only an edited version of a licensed image, it is not a copyvio, but that only gives support for it to be kept, not deleted! I am entirely for the EU, but I stand by the fact that this image simply does not meet any of our criteria for speedy deletion. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the image cannot be deleted for copyright violation, and I call asking for a licence that is obviously there nitpicking. And I call setting up templates again that had previosly been speedy deleted a violation of policy. As an administrator you should not endorse such loopholes in wikipedia policy. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With your last edit on my talk page you deleted an answer of mine to someone else. Please be more careful next time. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has setup templates again. None of the users making use of the image are doing so via a template. A license needs be explicitly stated for every image on Wikipedia, and no licensing is given here. I do not count that as nitpicking. I apologise if I accidently removed content when editing your talk page, there must have been an edit conflict. I must admit that I find it bizarre the way you seem to prefer to keep removing this conversation from your talk page, but that is your decision and I am happy to respect it. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There is, as yet, no formal policy regarding user boxes. You may like to read Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. The speedy deletion criteria refers only to templates, and the template which previously made use of this image has been deleted. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the deletion, you are obviously not some kind of vandal who does such things on purpose. There are people who have created the same thing that had used before in a template on their user page, giving the same equally divisive result. That cannot be tolerated. There is already discussion about speedy deleting such things on the speedy deletion page. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of discussions currently taking place regarding accepted policy on userboxes, and I would certainly agree with you that one important issue is that of divisive userboxes which are transcluded in a page rather than coming from a (deletable) template. Regarding this image, I suggest waiting for some input from other editors on the WP:IFD page. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have added a licensing and source section to the image description, since I found the image description page on Serbian wikipedia. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:ROGNNTUDJUU!) I see exactly what you're saying, but the trouble is, it's not (yet at any rate) policy. As Metros232 said above, what if people are using this image, in a userbox, without ever having known about the template. That's currently not against policy, and doesn't make the image speedy deletable. Whether or not it should is a different discussion. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the people know they violate the policy about divisive user boxes. I informed them anyway. And if an image is solely used for divisive user boxes it should be deleted just as divisive user boxes. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you make such points somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Userboxes. It is a fair comment, but despite proposals there is not yet a formal policy in place to prevent users from creating divisive userboxes (without use of a template). _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted image

oops, my bad. sorry about that, i didn't look at it too carefully.--Alhutch 17:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for adding a {{unsigned}} to my accidentally unsigned comment in a current AfD. Vslashg (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD question

Question, An article has been removed twice now and I see it has been added for a 3rd time. At what point do articles get removed permanently? Or can it be introduced over and over and over? Thanks in advance. JackassCKA 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JackassCKA, welcome to Wikipedia! Regarding your AfD question, I'm not too sure what you mean. Looking over your contributions, perhaps you are referring to the the AfD discussion for Canadaka.net. To merit inclusion in Wikipedia, a website must be considered sufficiently notable. For an idea of how notability would be defined in this context, you may find it useful to read the guidelines at WP:WEB. Any article on a website which is not deemed sufficiently notable to merit an encyclopedia may be deleted, in accordance with our deletion policy. There is no firm rule regarding the recreating of an article with the same name as one which has previously been deleted, but note that the "recreation of deleted material" (defined as "a substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy") is a criteria for speedy deletion. To request the undeleting of an article, you would need to list at Wikipedia:Deletion review (but make sure you read Wikipedia:Undeletion policy first).

Basically, then, to answer your question, once an article has been deleted it should not be recreated. There's nothing which would physically prevent a user from recreating the page, but it's liable to be deleted by an admin, without further discussion (and if this kept happenning, the page would end up protected to prevent future recreation). If you feel a page has been deleted against our deletion policy, then it should be listed for deletion review.

If you were referring to Canadaka.net, I'd advise that it's currently not sufficiently notable to be deemed encyclopedic. Of course, if the site gains in popularity, or gains press coverage, it would then be deemed noteworthy, and the article could be recreated with revised content which could enable notability to be established.

Hope this helps, feel free to leave me a message if you have any other queries. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading my question, I don't think it came out right. Yes i was referring to the canadaka.net AfD but after watching it get deleted twice, I noticed someone added it a third time. It has subsequently been deleted a 3rd time now. My question is, is there a limit how many times an article can be introduced? or can someone just continually re-enter the page/site/article and hope for inclusion? Or does the site/page/article eventually get banned? JackassCKA 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, there's nothing in place which would physically prevent a user from recreating the article, but this should not happen, and if it does the article is likely to be "Speedily Deleted" by an admin (without the need for AfD discussion) as "recreation of deleted material". The thing to do is to request deletion review, not recreate content.

If a user did persistently recreate deleted content, it's likely that article name would be "protected" to prevent future editing (ie the article would be created with the sole content as template {{deletedpage}}, and then protected to prevent changes). Depending on how maliciously an editor continued to add deleted content, despite warnings not to do so, it's possible they could be blocked from editing too. Hope this helps. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I noticed in the deletion log that Canadaka.net has only been deleted twice:

22:48, 7 March 2006 InShaneee deleted "Canadaka.net" (recreation)
06:52, 7 March 2006 Aaron Brenneman deleted "Canadaka.net" (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadaka.net)

IE, it was originally deleted in accordance with the AfD discussion, subsequently recreated and speedily deleted without further discussion, as I said above. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shut up you disconnected white trash. I do not want to here what I can and cannot do form people like you. Can you make your self useful (may be prepare you self to be a nice fuck for someone) insetead of wasting you time over here.