User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2008/June

Thanks for the heads up on that recreated material. I was eating dinner at the time, so someone beat me to it, but thanks for letting me know. That may need to be salted. Useight (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I can't actually view it now, because it's deleted. I was letting you know with a fuller explanation, because I was concerned that another admin patrolling CSD might not realize what I was saying. I wasn't familiar with the article, but I did an Internet search and discovered an interesting Wikipedia page. That tipped me off to what was going on. I tagged the article and reported the creator to AIV. Enigma ^message 05:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. That's a great catch. The article creator has been indef blocked. Useight (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought id bring it to your attention that instead of letting all this stuff with the london overground edit war lie User:81.110.106.169 is now accusing User:Dnotice of stalking them and is getting rather nasty about it.Tresiden (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP reported Dnotice to AIV a bunch of times, yeah. Don't worry, it'll be blocked shortly. Enigma ^message 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking?! All I've done is revert deletions which had been settled a long time ago and referred to a previous argument which led to them being banned D-Notice (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D-Notice, sorry about all the AIV reports, I hadn't noticed that when I left my message to you. I've left a message on the IP talkpage as well. I strongly recommend that all parties step away from the edge of the platform, as it were, and hash it out (again) on the articles' talkpages. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta D-Notice (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long live Brit slang! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User reopened it immediately afterwards, FYI. Gary King (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it? I was not implying that, (in fact i never even mentioned it!) and it's best not to give him ideas, and hope he can take a hint?

Thanks,

BG7even 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no joke. See his user history. Enigma ^message 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, i see now. 3 for Simpsons, 2 of which were days after another, one self nom, one nom by his sock, and then one last week and now this one. Yes, true. I just hope he doesn't see it as an urge to do another - can he not take a hint?

Thanks, and sorry for wrongly accusing you!

BG7even 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw two still open, and closed them. No problem - Thanks for the heads up! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Killer one apparently was closed out, but never actually closed. The other one, I guess, just slipped past. Agreed, it is a bit unusual. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I barely had time to get my !vote in before it was closed. Obviously I agree with closing it per NOTNOW, but whew, that was a close one. :) Useight (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) I waited until you were finished. Enigma ^message 04:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC) also, rfa is treated as a vote.[reply]

I don't know if you wanted to reply to me again. If you did, I just wanted to let you know that I think that it would be better if we just left the whole thing on my talk page. With more than two users involved, it can get complicated... J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be snow closed, MFD isn't the right venue for what they're trying to do. Useight (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to the talk page of this particular MfD. — _Maggot^Syn 09:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, or it could be someone else who knows the user personally. bibliomaniac15 03:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you add this as it was part of the '08 draft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildthing2022000 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I had that coming (beaten to placement of the tag). Cheers.--VS ^talk 07:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you accuse me of vandalism? I am re-entering a well known phrase definition which was discussed in the talk page. Someone else keeps reverting it without discussion. They are the ones vandalizing. 75.40.251.3 (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have been forbidden access to edit pages? How is that appropriate? It is AndonicO who has been repeatedly reverting the changes without discussion. I am simply trying to add a commonly held usage to clarify communication to people. Why is there such resistance to this when there is sufficient support on the talk page? 75.40.251.3 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it could be argued that at least one of those edits is somewhat in good faith, if not adhering to NPOV. Stale report now though, so removing. xenocidic (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• heh, glad at least one person noticed the slight humor I tried to inject in what was otherwise an unpleasant situation =) xenocidic (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that there was a history of longer blocks. However, as this is a shared IP address, I decided to make it a short block to see if discouraging the vandal would be enough. If vandalism occurs soon after the end of the block, the next one could/should be for much longer. — ERcheck (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I've been really busy lately but I'm still alive, I still exist, thanks for asking.--Pewwer42  Talk  04:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your reversion of the vandalism to my userpage. Thank you very much, it's appreciated! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for helping spare a new user's feelings. Dlohcierekim 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not impossing, but I was prompted at the top of your talk page to leave another message. You don't have to respond. Cheers! Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the tags but you have no basis for which to put them up there. If Pinkeith has the issue he can come to the discussion and post his thoughts. However, you just reposted what HE put up and you have offered no rationale as to why, therefore they do no belong. Also, you've reverted 3 times, that's the limit. The onus is on YOU to shy why any content is not appropriate. I don't have to put in the reverse, that is not in the keeping of wiki rules. So, I suggest you follow the rules and if you have an issue, state it in the discussion page. Simply repeating what Chisjnelson does not wash. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't repeat what Chrisj said, and I didn't add the tags. I simply undid your vandalism. Enigma ^message 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting your meaningless warning because I didn't come close to violating 3RR and I didn't edit war. I reserve the right to remove meaningless unsubstantiated templates from my talk page. Please look at WP:VANDALISM and WP:EDIT WAR. Removing tags that someone added in good faith without actually addressing the problem is commonly referred to as vandalism, and repeatedly reverting various editors who undo your vandalism is called edit-warring. Enigma ^message 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are 100% wrong. I am sorry. You seem to not be able to grasp the truth and it is sad. You are calling something vandalism that is not. You also refuse to admit that you are vested in the process of changing good-faith edits on the Chris Long page. I don't get it. None of the things in the Chris Long article are against the rules. Like you, I reserve the right to remove meaningless unsubstantiated templates from the Chris Long page. The tags are not appropriate and you put them there via reverting. So, if you have no reason to revert them, why didn't you do it. Further, you don't have to technically vilolate the 3RR to edit-war. You are clearning in one and I just wish you'd put some things of substance in it so we can get a fair resolution.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You leave with me with no choice. Since you refuse to read or understand what I said, I feel I simply have to repeat myself. I didn't put the tags on the page. Another editor did. If you don't like the tags, take it up with that editor, not me. Additionally, you may want to review WP:DTTR. Enigma ^message 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do not remove hangon tags from an article. It is up to the admin reviewing the article to judge if they are appropriate. No reason need actually be given--thae tag by itself is understood to imply that the reason for speedy deletion is not valid. And in fact, for Body Rott, the speedy tag was not valid, for songs cannot be nominated for deletion via speedy as non notable, and the articles was not lacking in context--it was clear what it was about. If you do not think the song worth an article--and I do not have any opinion about that--, use prod or afd. DGG (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by the text of the {{hangon}} tag, which clearly states that the person intends to explain why. Whether the CSD tag was valid or not is not really the point of contention. Enigma ^message 00:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the person should explain why, because otherwise t he reviewing admin may well not understand the basis of the objection. It's excellent advice to give. But it does not invalidate the tag if it is not followed. In my experience, about half the people placing even well justified hangons get the details wrong--as well, of course, of a great many whose hangons are not in good faith at all. 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just redirected that particular song to the album on which it appears. There is no indication that that song is notable as a standalone article (although I will attest that the album and artist are certainly without question notable). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes,as Keeper well knows, redirection is usually safer than deletion in cases like this--the other alternative, of course, is prod. DGG (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it lacks notability, but redirect/proposed deletion are virtually indistinguishable in this case. Enigma ^message 03:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone may remove a prod template, including the article creator, for any reason. Once the template has been removed the prod is contested and it should not be reinserted into the article. I don't know where you read that an article creator can't remove a prod tag from their article, because it certainly doesn't say that anywhere in WP:PROD --Closedmouth (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've discovered the Wikipedia. If you want to experiment with deleting barnstars, perhaps your own user page would be the best place to start. Sukiari (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)You're wrong. 2)The barnstar was given by a banned vandal. Enigma ^message 00:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LULZ - Don't mess with him Enigmaman! By the way, scale down the god damn alcohol. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this diff, why did you remove several users from the list who are not you, and didn't remove yourself? I will revert you if you do not respond within 24 hours. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)I'm not on the list. 2)Those users are no longer active on Wikipedia. Enigma ^message 02:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment with the guy who made the ultimatum. I remember seeing a few users getting told off for that sort of thing over at the Nirvana/Foo Fighters articles. It's really not such a great way to get things done around here. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining yourself, although I wish that you had left it on my talk page, and not yours, since I didn't immediately see it. I wish that you had provided a more clear edit history so that your actions would be more clear. I re-added two individuals to the list that, according to edit contribution history, still appear to be active.

As for my "ultimatum"; I don't consider myself making an ultimatum. I was merely trying to communicate a timetable for my actions to let you know when I might respond. Unfortunately, this was misinterpreted by some rogue administrator. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding is one thing, threatening to revert is another. As it says on the top of my talk page, "If you leave a message here, I'll reply here." Enigma ^message 16:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have officially closed that 3 year old CFD, thanks for the heads up on the unfinished paperwork. Useight (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also closed and deleted that second category of which you spoke. Useight (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Enigma ^message 16:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Enigmaman,

Thanks for offering to help me out in regards to these two pages. I made changes and updated references on the two pages that you put up on the AfD list. Please give me your thoughts and let me know if there is anything else that you'd recommend changing and/or removing in order to keep my page. I'd greatly appreciate it! Thanks.

-Isaac (DJ I-Dee)Djidee (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your last edits to the article. Keep up the good work! The article is in better shape than it was a day ago, that's for sure. Enigma ^message 21:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again,

I've made further changes on DJ I-Dee by removing the Championship titles and infobox for musicians. Very brief information is remaining but any advice would be appreciated. I understand the reasons for Solitude (Album)'s more than likely deletion but I'd strongly like to keep the DJ I-Dee in some shape or form.Djidee (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you removed the infobox. Now the article has just about no content to it. It's a problem. Enigma ^message 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, good point. I re-added it.69.84.110.39 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. This is all new to me so I really appreciate any insight whatsoever.Djidee (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a further comment, you can indent (indent using : and/or *) under your vote/!vote or indent under the comment you wish to comment on. Enigma ^message 22:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you edit warring? Now it is two-to-one. Please follow the rules.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's two to one? You make no sense. Enigma ^message 22:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Name-calling!!? Physician, heal thyself! You've called me so many names today I've lost count. So far, from recent memory, you said I'm bullying, "tag-teaming" you, "forcing my will upon you" (sounds like rape), and a few more. Wikipedia would be better without the excessive name-calling you've engaged in. You blamed Chrisjnelson for all the problems. I posit that some of those problems were caused by yourself. Enigma ^message 23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, never mentioned rape. Pointing out behavior is not calling you a name. One may not be a bully per se but may, in theory, engage in bulling bahvior. "Bullying" and "Tag-teaming" are not names I am calling you. I am offering may opinion about behaviors I have witnessed. Good people can do foolish things from time to time. I don't call you stupid, or dumb, or whatever I give my opinion on certain acts, or behaviors. I do it that way as to not name-call. I think there is a difference. Name calling tries to belittle and diminish, criticizing actions is an attempt to have those actions ceased. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, then. You claimed on IndeBiz's page that others were engaging in name-calling and incivility. I'd like to see the evidence, please. Obviously, Chrisjnelson is not relevant because he's blocked and not involved in what happened today. Enigma ^message 00:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to critcize my bahavior that is fine . . . I admit I do things wrong. However, I am not a idiot, or dumb or anything. I admit to being stubborn, though. Look, if there is a real issue in the ChrisLong thing, tell me what it is. Is it ALL the quotes? Some of them? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're dodging again. Here you claimed that others were "bullying" you and calling you names. I'm asking for evidence. Enigma ^message 01:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Define cluestick. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Something that gives clues? Enigma ^message 04:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, who praytell needs clues? Be honest. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)04:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of people. I didn't specify, naturally, because that would make it personal. I don't really see where you're going with this, because if you consider that name-calling, a lot of your edits to the talk were worse. It's hardly name-calling, because a cluestick is what is needed in just about every argument on Wikipedia. Enigma ^message 04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can look up the meaning of passive aggresive. I am not specifying, naturally. Own your own actions, sir.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I own all of my actions (however, I do not attempt to OWN articles). I did in fact say that cluesticks are useful. I did not, however, engage in any name-calling, and I daresay you might want to look over some of your own edits if you're looking for bullying and name calling. Enigma ^message 04:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Games Jake, silly tortuous games." You are lilly-white in all of this I am sure.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not regret anything I said or did in the Chris Long fiasco. I believe I handled myself properly, in accordance with policy, and in accordance with my morals. I acted completely of my own accord and did what I felt was right, which in fact, agreed with all the editors who edited that page except yourself. So while no one is ever lily white, I don't see any problems in what I did. Enigma ^message 04:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I imagine you don't regret anything. You got what you wanted all day long. It is my view that ends do not justify means but others are free to hold the opposite view. By the way, it is now deleted but what did you say about me not being decent enough to inform InDaBiz1 about my ANI? Perhaps you can explain that, too.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He specifically asked you to notify him when you created the AN/I thread, and you didn't. Not only is it common courtesy to notify anyone you start an AN/I thread about, he specifically asked you. Enigma ^message 05:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed the time limit. Are you the enforcer of that time limit? It had to be done in how many minutes? Next time, I'll know.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be done immediately. You don't have the luxury of waiting until you feel like getting around to it. If you create a post about someone on a noticeboard, you immediately notify them. Especially if they ask you to notify them. Your sarcasm is not appreciated, because this is a serious matter. Enigma ^message 05:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparantly it is. That is why I asked you to look into passive aggeresive behavior. I may or may not apply, I don't know, but it may be helpful if you looked into it. The choice is yours, obviously. I mean this seriously, not as a slam. I think it may be an issue. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. I'll go see my psychiatrist about it. Enigma ^message 07:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to understand is if you've really contributed to so many encyclopedias and publications, how is it that you still can't write well? Do you want me to highlight the mistakes in all your sentences? Enigma ^message 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, either it is true or not true. I assure you that it is. You can choose to disbelieve. I was a contributer [sic], not an editor or proofer. Content is the key. There are those who research well and write well enough, but there are others who take take raw materials and make them better. I am the former not the latter. However, what that experience gives me is a good iead [sic] as the the nature of content and what is and is not encyclopedic. Just because someone cannot type well does not mean they are stupid. Just because they can type well does not make them smart. I write well enough but I am not a good writer. When somehting [sic] is summitted [sic] I go over and over it. When I post on a blog or on wiki I don't go through all the steps. This is a conversation not written piece. I don't care to mull over typos or grammatical errors or mispellings [sic]. It's pointless. But if you must nit-pick go ahead. Feel free.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice it to say that I'm skeptical. It is absolutely not pointless to be careful what you type. I don't need to proofread my work. I just thought that someone who has written for so many encyclopedias and publications would have a better grasp on the finer points of the English language. Enigma ^message 19:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good personal attack. I guess I need to be more exact, I guess I have to say, "FOR ME, it is pointless to be careful what I type. What businesses would it be of yours? I couldn't care less how you type. Why would you care anyway? Kind of weird if you ask me, to be concened with a personal choice of how I care to self-edit posts on a talk-page. See: passive aggerssive. If you want to call me a liar, go ahead. Your view as to what I've done in my life has zero affect on whether it is true or not. I specifically said it neither makes me more or less than anyone else. It was so people of good-faith would understand I have a basis in knowledge in what is encyclopidic. It was not posted to brag or to win some debate or anything, I posted it after all the acrimony was over as a simple matter-of-fact. I didn't even post it here. You got it from other talk pages. So, disbelieve it if you will. I don't care. Also, David Boies and Einstein have/had big trouble with the English language. Neither could wright well. Einstein couldn't spell worth a darn. This will be my last post with you. I'd rather your steer clear of me from now and I will steer clear of you. The debate is over, you win.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for clarifying. So when I respond to your attacks on my talk page, that's a personal attack, but not when you come here and make attacks yourself. We should write an article about Wikipedia according to you. Steer clear of you? You've been trolling my talk for days! What am I supposed to do? Enigma ^message 21:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were offering an olive branch. I misunderstood the nature of your post. My mistake. Sorry. (I hope you're not a bot.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were a bot, I'd be doing my best to deny it, so you can't take my word for it either way. I simply wanted to know where I or anyone else today called you names. You keep saying you're being bullied and rolled over. Sorry, I don't see it. Since I probably am a bot, I don't have a mood or anything like that, so I am incapable of offering olive branches. Enigma ^message 01:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "I hope you're not a bot" comment stems from the bottom section of his/her talk page. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I saw his response to SineBot. Us bots need to stick together in bad times, and I was ready to defend SineBot when I noticed that both you and Pats1 commented. Enigma ^message 02:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of bullying? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Cheers! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked around the bureaucracy, per WP:IAR. News of the weird has this running gag about the middle name "Wayne".... -- Kendrick7^talk 04:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the article you've created. It's most likely going to be deleted again, although I do agree that deleting and salting is not the proper course of action. If it's a BLP nightmare, then remove the defamatory material and protect it. Simple enough. Enigma ^message 04:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, as the man who fell off the skyscaper said to himself on the way down, so far, so good. Like I said at the BLP noticeboard, the guy is notable for scandalmongering. I'm sure Paula Jones would have had the same problem if wikipedia was around in '92. Insomuchas the sources are skeptical, the article is skeptical, so I don't think there's a real BLP problem here. These media side shows happen every election. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to message on my talk page) - Yeah, I wish Firefox 3 was a little better too. For example, it would be nice if the Downloads Manager had a button to open up the Downloads folder where it saves everything, rather than having to right-click to get there.

I'm sure the devs will fix the boardvote security certificate problem the next time around. I voted today actually, and I just added the voting site as an exception. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was very worried there for a second! Bobo. 13:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I realized after I'd put it there that it was Fair Use-- Figured I'd leave it a little while to see what happened. At least the bot didn't tag the poor image for deletion :) Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the content you added to User:Enigmaman/Sandbox that was re-deleted per BLP1E, please do not recreate it in the future. MBisanz ^talk 07:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the violation? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has to do with this and this. Enigma ^message 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What strangeness. Why did you repost it in your sandbox? Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was going to be a problem. The talk of the deleted page was where a user was working on a copy to improve it to Wikipedia standards. It got deleted due to the "talk page of a deleted page" clause. I thought it was a worthy endeavor to improve the article, as there's no question that the subject has received coverage from reliable sources, thus meeting WP:N. Enigma ^message 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your improvements to Brian Stewart, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Thanks for all the hard work with ACCOTF. --SharkfaceT/C 02:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey E_man. Do me a favour. Keep an eye on uber-edit-warrior User:Johan Rachmaninov. It doesn't matter how many people edit the pages he wants to own he reverts them. I discussed his case with Pat the other day but I decided to AGF him for dozens of 3RR vios. I am not going to AGF anymore. I you catch him reverting anything from anybody on a page that he's reverted on, even once, in the past 2 days... let me know and I'll put him on the chop. Libs (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to Pat the other night on this one. He threw a 48 hour block at him. Now he's back and just look at his contributions today!!! With Pat in Munich I am short an ally. Know anyone who's friendly to the cause? Have a nice day! Libs (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't. You speak to KOS recently? I can try to continue to keep an eye on it for you. Enigma ^message 04:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Johan's vacation. And you have now seen Angry Shoplifter and his true Wiki colours. You may blacklist him if you wish. He is a short walk from Trollsville. :) Have a nice day! Libs (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Unless I do something special, 52pickup will be readded to the active list until his (her) last 30 edits are within the last 3 months (mid July I suppose). I suppose it's pretty clear when editors stop editing completely that they're gone but the active/semi-active/inactive algorithm doesn't really take this into account. I think I'd like to keep "inactive" as "no edits in the last three months", but I suppose there could be a "no edit in the last [n days]" criteria for semi-active. Any suggestions for n? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a criterion added that would shift an admin from active to semi-active once they haven't edited for n days. I'm no expert, but I would say 30 days for sure, possibly less. Enigma ^message 02:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and see if I can find any more sources. The article does look a lot better than it did before you cleaned it up nicely. Useight (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you take off my RFA and are you a admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin and I closed it due to WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW. It had no chance of passing. I would elaborate, but I'd rather not. Enigma ^message 20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off tell me why you edited my userpage in the guidelines section and how can you judge if it will pass. Another policy WP:SNOW is not a policy it says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed personal attacks from your talk page. They are inappropriate. Please read WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW. I am positive your RfA would not have passed. I would not have closed it had I had any doubt. Enigma ^message 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First those "attacks" are on MY userpage so I can do what I wish. Don't take down RFA'S it's not your job.Plyhmrp (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)plyhmrp[reply]

You cannot attack other users anywhere, whether it's on your talk page or not. Enigma ^message 20:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Also I will not allow certain people to post on my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space , you do not own your userpage, it belongs to the community. I endorse Enigmaman's decision in this matter. Your RFA has no chance of passing - it wasn't even formatted correctly. I suggest you take the advice he pointed you to (at WP:NOTNOW) and let this one go. –xenocidic (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will not make attacks but I can and will say certain people can't post on my page.Plyhmrp (talk)Plyhmrp

I'm afraid that Enigma is absolutely correct. You have the right to blank whatever you wish on your talk page as that is your prerogative. However (and this is a big however), you do not own your userpage. It belongs to Wikipedia since it is public domain. Also, see WP:NOTMYSPACE. Userspace is not the property of the user and you cannot prevent other users from editing it. With regards to WP:SNOW and closing RfAs. Any user in good standing (whether they are a crat, admin or non-admin) may close the process if it is certain to fail. SNOW is an extension of WP:IAR. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you do that? AGF plz? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNOW. Automatic close for under 500 edits. Enigma ^message 06:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I agree with that... But hey, he'd only get opposed massively anyway. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you agree with that? Would you prefer waiting until he got 25 opposes? Obviously edit count is not what determines who is suited for adminship, but a user with under 500 edits is not even going to get close to passing an RfA. There's no point in waiting until the opposes pile up. This is to avoid biting newbies. Seeing as you opposed yourself... Enigma ^message 06:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is even worse than when I had admin rights. I'm sorry, but I am seriously not interested in continuing here. The fun is gone and it actually becoming dangerous. Thanks for caring, but I am outta here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're taking the vandal a little too seriously, really. By leaving, you're allowing the vandal to win. That was his (?) goal. To drive you off Wikipedia. Gotta have a thick skin. I hate seeing good contributors being driven off. Enigma ^message 03:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey...sorry, I just checked my email. That particular account I don't check very often. I Next time send me a :) in my talk as a bat sign in the sky to check my email! Peace!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do that next time! :) Enigma ^message 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... for reverting vandalism on my user page. ... discospinster _talk 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Tennis_scores_2, I just do things fast. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your automatic edit summaries you've used in reverts to the Chris Long article. Usually you only use the automatic revert summaries when you're reverting vandalism. Both of the edits were good-faith edits. I would suggest that when you revert a good-faith edit you not use the automatic edit summary, and instead explain why you reverted the edit. Ksy92003 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect. [1] The "Jake Long's brother" thing was vandalism. Enigma ^message 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people might just not know. For the longest time, I honestly thought they were as well. Ksy92003 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continually changing it like that makes it clear that it's vandalism. I've never heard anywhere that they're brothers, because they aren't, and no newspaper/TV station/radio station would say they are. That account is a vandal, and I'm using rollback on it, because the editsd are vandalism. Enigma ^message 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the article had a reference. [2]. Look at the history of the article. Not good faith. Enigma ^message 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your change of Danilo Gallinari's team status. He is not a member of the Mavericks until he is signed to a contract, and that has not yet taken place. This has been discussed elsewhere with other articles about 2008 NBA Draft selections. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a member of the Mavericks in general. Enigma ^message 04:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a formal complaint with Comcast regarding that threat and they took it very seriously. Since my pages are protected, I figured, what the heck.

I genuinely appreciate the greeting. I am not the sort of person in real life to back down from a bully (heaven help one who tries to take me on directly) and I'm not about to back down from a coward. BTW, the little moron is vandalizing an AT&T page as well as a Comcast page as I write. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I helped file a report about a vandal who was repeatedly hitting my page and making threats to many users, so I know the feeling. As long as your userpage and talk page are semi-protected and move-protected, you should be in good shape. We need contributors with a thick skin who won't back down from the vandals, because the vandal/troll is trying to get you to quit. That's why they do these things. To get attention and frustrate good contributors. Enigma ^message 04:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that he's choosing to taunt me by my old username. Must be some guy I blocked back in the day when I was an admin; at least I gave back the mop and bucket in good standing. If so, he's been (a) holding a grudge for the better part of two years, (b) vandalizing the site all the while and (c) he can't get a date on a Saturday night. Can you imagine a pickup line from this guy? "Hey, baby. Whaddaya say you come on over to my place, slip into a Harry Potter Halloween costume and we'll vandalize Wikipedia by candlelight? Got some Yoo-Hoo chillin' on ice." --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian? This is getting ugly. Enigma ^message 05:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that. I was trying to leave word on the admin noticeboard saying I'd returned and while the section is listed in the index, it wasn't coming up on the page. That's when I saw the latest idiocy. All those IPs, lots of AT&T and Road Runner Cable this time. LIke I said, he can't get a date. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. I can see what you wrote when I click the diff, but not when I go to ANI itself, where the section is listed but not the content. Enigma ^message 05:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it. It wound up at the bottom of that pull-down list at the bottom of the page. No idea how to fix it. That's a new bug for sure. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bug. I didn't look at the code, but I'm pretty sure what happened was that someone used "{collapse}" on the previous discussion, and didn't close the tag. That led to everything after it being included in the collapse. Enigma ^message 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're right. I've nver used the template myself and I didn't know how to fix it. It seems to be OK now and the ANI page has been protected. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww. Is this about my semi-retirement? If so, don't worry, I'm not completely retired. I just won't be editing as often as before, and probably not more than 10 or 20 minutes each day, which should leave enough time for me to check my watchlist and make a few contributions where needed. Best wishes, ~AH1^(TCU) 13:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww. Well, I might try to contribute once in a while if there's enough time to vote, or maybe add a few mottos. I don't think I'll have time to participate in the closing process, though, but I'll try to help whenever I can.

~AH1^(TCU) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Best wishes, ~AH1^(TCU) 19:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It turns out that now I will no longer need to take an indefinite semi-wikibreak right now. Also see my message at Wikipedia talk:MOTD. Sorry for any inconvinience. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to do it anyway. Wrapping up the stuff I got it down worry Etan (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Please make him leave me alone.He is now attacking me personally on his talkpage. He characterizations of my account and verifiable discussing of what he thinks I am are indeed attacks. Please have him go somewhere else. You are correct, I made a mistake with one editor months ago , and crossed the line in the heat of the moment. This is not the case now. My reporting of his name was in good faith. When an admin reviewed it and removed it, I was satisfied. Strongly suggest he be asked to just leave me and my talk page alone.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make anyone do anything. I suggest you both stop interacting with each other. Hopefully he won't edit your talkpage anymore, and you shouldn't edit his either. I confess I don't see why he edit warred with you or reported you to AN/I, but I'm not taking sides in this dispute. Enigma ^message 10:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. BTW, I have never left anything ever on his talkpage. I really just want him to quit bullying me and leave me in peace. Thank you for your sagacious counsel to both of us.maybe hell quit lurking around my talkpage now--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this. WP:3RR isn't the only policy he is having trouble with today. Do you want to do the WP:CIVIL thing for me whice I compose a 3RR listing for this youngster? Libs (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually.. on further review based on the number of IPs this guy uses to edit war he has gone past 3RR'ness and into the full bore world of trolling. Don't you think? Libs (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the step-in. East718 spoke to the little mister as well. Unfortunately we were all ignored. The edit summary ending in don't like it, too bad pretty much reveals the editor's intentions to ignore WP:3RR, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL and every other WP:X he can get in there. :D . I'll take vandals any day over POV pushers, soap-boxers and edit warriors. At least the vandals are easily dealt with. Libs (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He should be blocked for 3RR, but the policy wonks you run into there will scream about the fourth revert not being within a 24 hour period. I suppose we wait until Pat gets back. He should be back by now! Enigma ^message 21:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be back tomorrow afternoon your time, Enigma ;-) - I am currently sitting in a beautiful living room in Munich, sipping coffee with my mother in law. So up yours. :-D (I'll deal with the guy tomorrow) Much love. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked now for 24 hours. East finally did it. Thanks for nothing, you lazy admin! Enigma ^message 21:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not lazy, I'm just editing with my eyes closed... Night night! 88.217.20.177 (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]