User talk:TFOWR: Difference between revisions

In a perfect world I'd keep threads in one place; in practice if you post here I'll probably reply on your talk page unless you ask me to reply here. If I post on your talk page I'll almost certainly add it to my watchlist, so reply where-ever you'd prefer.

Other than that, you know the drill - add new messages at the bottom, and sign your posts with ~~~~

Greetings...

Hello, This flag once was red, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Randomtime

Happy editing! RT | Talk 11:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ubuntu (Linux distribution). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Andareed (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website you mention for Jewbuntu states at the top that "This isn't real. There is no Jewbuntu yet, and this site is a great 'what if'." So Jewbuntu is clearly not an existing linux distribution (or if it is, you need a better source). Ubuntu for mixed marriages and Jubuntu appear to be only mentioned on the Jewbuntu site, so these are also invalid additions. The Satanic edition seems ok, and I've readded it. Andareed (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the vandalism on the gen y page and you reverted the last one done. I took a far more radical approach and undid a lot of versions (including your undo), could you cast an eye over it and see if you agree with the changes I made (and whether others need making)? Thanks, BananaFiend (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've got a couple on my watchlist that have been vandalised repeatedly - and this is my second significant rollback in 2 days. Once the first few go unnoticed, it's often only the first that gets rolled back, ho-hum! BananaFiend (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, this issue is being dealt in the edit war administrators section. You must notice that Suciindia is only reverting to the agreed versions by reputed editors like User: Soman. It is a puppet of User: Kuntan who was banned from wiki, who is causing trouble. This puppet is also abusive as you may see in the comments that he has made. Please refer to the edit war administrators page for the ongoing discussions. You will notice that most other editors have agreed to the stand of User: Suciindia regarding the issues dealt with. --Suciindia (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is your discussion page, what is your personal take on Laughingman78 and his 'vandalism'? Beyond that what got you looking at the Marmion Academy website? I'm interested to hear your perspective. I find the Indian organization your page links to to be interesting, FWIW. DavidMSA (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK well I'm glad to hear your conflict ended in a truce. I'm assuming a Truce has been reached on the Marmion thing as well. The parties involved have better things to worry about than wiki edit wars and old personal stuff, I know that. Take care DavidMSA (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry about that. I haven't actually read the graphic novel of V For Vendetta but I have seen the film. I was of the impression that the role of High Chancellor was a combination of monarch and Prime-Minister. I assumed Susan (or Sutler) was the undisputed ruler of all Great Britain and as such an emperor. Oh by the way, I like cats too. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good good. Yes I mean to read the graphic novel. I've read the article on Susan and he seems a much creepier character than Sutler. On an unrelated but geeky note I must say that Sutler seemed quite introverted himself. I got the impression he was very self-centred (then again aren't most dictators). --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Christian syndicalist, and a long-time Wob. (Milw. General Organizing Branch; I.U. 660). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you calling me a banned user? I'm not. Mastcell is simply claiming this. Smockroker (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put V in this category because his face is never seen. Wilson from Home Improvement is in this category because his face is never seen even though he appears in every episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco13 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure V for Vendetta is in Category:V for Vendetta, which is in Category:Vertigo titles, which is, of course, in Category:DC Comics titles. I don't have my TPB on-hand, but I don't recall it being published under the Vertigo imprint. Either way, it would be redundant of the self-titled category, even if it was moved up to DC Comics titles. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate update I added the Vertigo category, since the V for Vendetta category is about all kinds of media associated with the story. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already warned Blakeusa, and others have dropped notes, so I've removed your 3rr warning to avoid a pile-on. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article! Acroterion _(talk) 02:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just letting you know I have replied. ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 09:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have changed the infobox to Template:Infobox Fictional Political Party and made the necessary changes. I would appreciate it if you would check what I have changed is accurate. Cheers ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 13:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our IP edit warrior at Leo McGarry is back. What should we do about it? I'm leaving a message on his talk page urging him to stop, but can we take steps to protect the page and somehow get strong administrator intervention to make this user stop once and for all? --Hnsampat (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page, Cheers Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

78.144.96.28

I fixed something that this user did on Glasgow, I see he (or she) has got a block. It looked to me like just adding images (in good faith). Forgive me I'm new here, but that seems a bit brutal Mcewan (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reponse - I appreciate the time you took to reply so comprehensively. Seems there was much more to this than met the eye (or my eye, anyway). Kind Regards Mcewan (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Infobox Flagsx2

Hi. Good work on this BTW - I wouldn't know where/how to start. I was surprised at how different things look depending upon the browser used. At work, (MS Explorer), the difference in margin was not so pronounced as on Firefox. I've captured a screen shot on my home PC, (Firefox), FYI. (The flags look as though they are both justified to the left of their respective cells, rather than being centred in each). Hope is of some use - keep up the good work! Regards Endrick Shellycoat 20:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for your reply. Endrick Shellycoat 03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your last, I'll likewise have a crack at equal scaled images, possibly as .png images if I can't get my own head around the .svg stuff. Appreciate your taking things forward to a successful outcome. Well done and thanks. Regards Endrick Shellycoat 20:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He shoots

Looks like User:He Scores ? and another new one (User:Willy Blackwood) are sockpuppets of the Nimbley troll. I've blocked them. They have a distinctive tell. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find the original case. I think all these accounts need to be tagged and categorised so as to help other users and admins spot the tells. The Amy Macdonald (singer) and Garbage (band) edits were the biggest ones, but ones to Irn Bru, reams of images to Glasgow and other various additions about Scottish inventions are also big give aways for Nimbley. The kid won't take a hint. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just tagged some more from the past. I really must get check user status sometime - I hate sockpuppetry, and it's always the same few goons who do it. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh

Can not see the relavance of a supporters forum match report [1] in a reference to an old name for the city, when added into an existing reference (yes the term is used in the web article, but but forums are poor references generaly). if a valid reference it should be a separate one then. It looking like a case of adding a external link to a forum rather than a reference, was my reasoning behind removal. I leave you to review its format/relavance then - BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rain543

Hello there! I hope all is well. I'm sorry that Nimbley struck again, but I commend you for maintaining WP:AGF and WP:BITE all the same.

This is an odd situation we're in. The kid (and he is only a child - 11/12 ish) just will not stop, and he has randomly generated ip addresses, which makes the blocking hard to sustain. Furthermore, I'm not sure there is any official word on how to deal with such an issue, but, from my experience alone, WP:RBI is a good one, and WP:TROLL can be helpful.

I'm reluctant to engage (again) with Nimbley as I've tried it in the past, but he just refuses to co-operate. I believe he may be somewhat congnatively impaired.</political correctness> --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm the one at fault here? The anon has been blocked three times for edit warring, I have tried everything to gain consensus! I have had to ask for semi-protection again. I don't really see myself as the problem here. Surely I've been more than reasonable? The anon has made editing the article impossible. I should also note that I added an extra source to the MTV movie awards - which was reverted!

If you feel that I'm being unreasonable, then OK, I'll give up on that article and let the anon revert back to a crappy and unsourced article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I didn't see the extra comment, for some reason it got lost as it was in the if conditional [2]. The problem is: I have followed process, yet they are deliberately bypassing all reasonable means to edit the article.

In case you aren't aware, I was an admin too, so I know process. I also know WP:IAR, which for once I feel that this is a reasonable course of action! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I know... but it's fairly irritating to have done quite a bit of work (on such a minor article!) and have it all reverted just like that. It also gets me down to be peppered with abuse like I've been, although I know that to everyone else it seems unreasonable. It's pretty unpleasant! I appreciate your efforts though... this is just an exercise in frustration at the moment though :-) - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ex-Red Flag (sorry, easier to call you that...). I'm going to keep on doing what I was doing, which is basically to work on the backlog of trivia. Which was the reason I got involved in editing this article anyway! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's totally getting out of hand. See the contributions of Coberloco - that account is now reverting! I have a CU on the account, but that takes some time to get done. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm going back to the trivia backlog. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief. Too much wikidrama - the reason I left for some time and created a new account in the first place! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ye, but moore states that if the labour government won the elcetions, it would disarm britains nuclear supply, so that is contradictiory. if labour won, the uk would not have a relation to the events in the sotry. Moore later mentioned that the conservatives won, which favoured nuclear weapons. if we leave the statement, we have to mention that the conservatives won in the end. they were the ones who made decisions that made any relavence to what the story was about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightandright (talk • contribs)

What wrong with the image i put in place of the dark one it shows the woman better than just her face and a mic --84.13.122.134 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP is a sock of two indef banned editors  This flag once was red  19:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Im just asking a simple question ? --84.13.122.134 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question can be found here.  This flag once was red  19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok im sorry i just think the other picture is better than the one just now. I Am stopping now. --89.240.245.159 (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please say what you like but i have thought about it and it HAS GONE TO FAR so i PROMISE YOU IM STOPING. --89.240.245.159 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am stopping now. Heard it before. You're an indef banned editor; You'll be reverted every time you play these silly little games.

 This flag once was red  19:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is to recognize your diligence in reverting and reporting all the edits done by indefinitely blocked user Nimbley6. Thank you for all your hard work. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! Thank you for keeping ahead of this. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! The barnstar's appreciated, and it's good to know that other people feel the same way - there have been times when I've felt I'm being a little obsessive ;-)

Cheers,  This flag once was red  06:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Obsessive would be having someone's talkpage watchlisted, seeing something about a barnstar and dropping by to congratulate them. Good work by the way ;) ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 12:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted the image on that article. Was the revert due to your preference to the prior image, or due to what looked like an edit war?

I can help guide the user who added it over to the talk page if needed; but it's not really a case of edit warring. They first tried two times to change the image link, which mangled the format so that no image was showing - that's what I reverted, I had thought they were just playing/testing. They then returned and correctly made the change to a new image - which to me seemed just as good of an image (lower quality, but showing more of the ship - so a trade-off), so I didn't touch it or say anything further. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

An image change in which you were involved is being discussed at Talk:RMS Queen Mary#Infobox image. Please join the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wanted to ask you about this edit. It's great that you can add that kind of thing, I didn't know regular users could do that... Would you mind filling me in a bit on how? Where do you check the IPs for comparison?

Thanks –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the information :) –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 00:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only two editors are butting heads, though. If he was debating the merits of whether to include the link more explicitly within the body of the article itself, I could work with that. Instead he's dismissing it as a continuation of previous debates (that I had no part in), and therefore not even worthy of consideration on its own merits. That's the problem I wanted a third opinion on. Thank you for at least considering my idea, even if you disagree, but I needed another editor to note that debate only works when we listen to each other. What would be a more appropriate venue to ask for help? Westrim (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately only the content dispute part falls under the remit of WP:3O - WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF issues would need to be raised elsewhere. Assuming that discussion via talk pages has been tried unsuccessfully, you could next try WP:Wikiquette alerts.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I had actually gone to wikiquette alerts first, but from the description it seemed too harsh a first step. I'll try to get through to Nukes one more time, and if they still refuse to consider my idea on its own merits, I'll go ahead and report them (they and them are singular, as I try not to assume gender). Thanks. Westrim (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I tempt you with Wikipedia:Rollback? May make reverting those Nimbleysocks a little bit easier. Let me know if it would help. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Any problems or questions, let me know. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Norsefire-flag-comic.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i noticed you have recently reverted a report i made with the edit summary "rv dispute, not vandalism", if you read here carefully and thoroughly it is clear to me they are playing fun&games. They are saying things such as "you are DodgeChris", i suggest they be blocked for 24 hours or so to teach them a lesson, i suggest first though you ask them yourself what they mean, this may also be helpful. 86.143.121.28 (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the advice. I had a follow-up question at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#Follow_up_question_re:_sources. Any opinion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROYAL ANTHEM OF SCOTLAND i am not vandalising wikipedia i am simply typing FACT God save the Queen is the nation anthem of the united kingdom and the royal anthem of scotland

I warned [[::User:Lee setters|Lee setters]] ([[::User talk:Lee setters|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Lee setters|contribs]]) for a possible 3RR violation. You're also in danger of violating it as it's not strictly vandalism. I do have some sympathy though because he's obviously trying to force his own PoV without discussion. Let ne handle any more reverts. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well i wish you would stop reverting my edits. if you clicked on the link i provided you will see that God save the Queen is the royal anthem of the United kingdom which includes Scotland. I am going to change it back and hopefully you wont delete it this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee setters (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 Hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Jac16888 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]