User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2013

Nice to see you're still around. =) · Andonic ^contact 18:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's the old guard. Always gotta be around! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 04:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, a year without editing? You're making my head spin. I was looking for your comment on Malleus's talk and then I finally saw you posted on December 23, 2011. Enigma^msg 06:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Pat, get with the program. Merry Christmas to you both, cheers to the old guard. ;) · Andonic ^contact 00:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you are still around, Andonic! :) And E, I laughed when I saw I left that comment one exact year since my last edit. I swear I didn't plan it. Hope you both had a great Christmas and New Year, guys. I'm gonna be in New York state in May/June, if you guys wanna have a beer or something. Ciao and take care. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that sounds like a cool one, especially since it isn't immediately obvious or apparent but it's an interesting factoid about particular people that makes them stand out. I say go for it, might be hard to collect info but I'm sure it'll grow. I always err on the side of creating something, if it turns out to not meet expectations you can always reverse it later, but in this case I don't see why this category wouldn't be a snazzy addition. Might be worth spending a few moments to clearly define "perpetual traveler" though (not sure if there is an official/technical definition), for example does the term necessitate that the individual not have a homestead (i.e. for tax purposes or otherwise)? Or is it more liberal, as in, as long as they're traveling constantly they qualify? · Andonic ^contact 00:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, so you're considering deleting it based on its potential inconsistency? · Andonic ^contact 07:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd probably be the right call. Too bad though, would've been a fun one. · Andonic ^contact 20:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enigmaman, thanks for watching this article and for blocking 76.98.218.70.

It seems that 75.150.181.65 is on the same 'mission' as 76.98.218.70, but I am no good at the official procedures. Therefore I thought: let me drop you this note, and maybe it can be useful information to you.

Name server lookup: 75-150-181-65-Philadelphia.hfc.comcastbusiness.net resp. c-76-98-218-70.hsd1.pa.comcast.net both point to Philadelphia=PA and comcast.net. Perhaps the first IP-address belongs to his office, and the second could be private.

Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thanks for the tip, I will take a look. Enigma^msg 00:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were merely pulled into WikiMedia Commons or reformatted into more sophistocated diagrams under a different title, but thanks. Perhaps it is time to get rid of all that red. And thanks for checking up on me to make sure that I'm still alive :) -- have a great day! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP user is back to vandalizing the Serena Williams page 76.98.218.70.HotHat (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it and blocked the IP. Obvious BLP violations in there, but no one reverted it. thanks, Enigma^msg 17:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally wish I was still an admin. Not. Has much changed on the Wiki? Most policies are still the same, yes? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 05:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Enigma^msg 17:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism rarely occured over the years. Although the topic is popular, as well as the show, I believe that not all unregistered users would harm the article. If in doubt, "pending changes" perhaps? --George Ho (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will unprotect it as a trial for a week and we will see what happens. Keep an eye on it. Enigma^msg 21:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about the vandalism, though. It has rarely occurred when the page was protected, for obvious reasons. Look at the log for periods of unprotection and then look at the edits during those periods. Plenty of IP vandalism. Enigma^msg 21:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the paragraph that you deleted due to lack of resource. I have added resource for it.

Let me know if there is any problem.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhangle (talk • contribs) 03:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:SchrutedIt08 is starting to get in an edit war on The Red Road (TV series) over what is currently a hidden episode table. I just posted on his talk page explaining my side and saw you had recently warned him against this same sort of thing in the past month or so. Also while I am typing so I can be clear when I come across other pages citing IMDb, is it fully credible or certain information or what? Encmetalhead (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure imdb is considered credible. As for your issue at The Red Road, I will look into it. Enigma^msg 19:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the imput! Encmetalhead (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they're saying imdb is not reliable. I don't know. If you ask at the wikiproject for tv shows they'll know. Regarding the edit war the whole thing is pointless. Hidden or gone altogether, it makes no difference. When it's verified, you can undo the edit in question to restore the info. No added work. Enigma^msg 19:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the imput! Encmetalhead (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]