User talk:Astronautics~enwiki/archive

Anon statistics

Hi Silsor. What are you studying at UofT? [I'm also studying there]. Regarding the anonymous editing statistics: You're right, it is an interresting statistic to know what proportion get fixed at a later date. However, I corrected everything after finishing the data-collection. (Which was 2 to 15.5 hours after each of the edits). The rationale behind this was that if it wasn't corrected in 2 hours after appearing there was basically no possiblity of it being found via the Special:Recentchanges page. After this period it would have to be stumbled upon by some other means. I will do another such half-day survey this weekend and then not correct the vandalism and check back to all of them in a weeks time. I'll also do a more detailed analysis, looking at what proportion of annonymous editors (as opposed to edits) were vandalous. Any other suggestions welcome. --snoyes 02:05, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm studying computer science at the UTM campus. Thanks for your research. --silsor 02:09, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Credit repair

The advertisement came back. I think we're going to have to keep a watch on Credit repair. RickK 16:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Alexandros

Yes I have been diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. :=) I didn't realise that it was not customary to nominate one's self. Thank you for being concrened about me. Best of luck and happy Thanksgiving, Alexandros

Actually it does appear that many people nominate themselves. It just may not have been a good plan to do it so soon. silsor 03:04, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Do you think the paras you edited belong in the section "substandard medical care"? They feel very off-topic and rambling to me.—Eloquence 23:50, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

I can't justify keeping them there. Go ahead and edit if you like. silsor

If you have the Britannica on CD, could you copy & paste email me the text of the Mother T. article to [...]? I have it on CD, but unfortunately it doesn't work under Linux.—Eloquence 18:47, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

I don't have it - I work at the U of T library ;) silsor 18:57, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Alexandros vote

Although a bit late, I want to apologize for my possible rudeness during Alexandros' vote for adminship. Now I fear it is an obsession stricto sensu. I think I was then wrong. Pfortuny 10:54, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No problem. I haven't heard anything out of him in about a week. silsor 16:40, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Test

Test, as requested. // E23 00:11, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

VfD tomfoolery

Sorry if it looks like I voted on my own listing, but upon looking at the page history it seems somebody accidentally merged two listings together yesterday (maybe Michael Hardy?) Anyway, with history view loads pushing 30 seconds I don't have time for this mess right now. Good night. silsor 06:35, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

I did not ever merge two lists together. I have no idea what that could refer to. Michael Hardy 21:59, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I said that because you were making some major changes to VfD at the time. silsor 23:19, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

...and I must say, I'm surprised that something like this of obvious genuine scholarly interest would be treated as if it were a silly article, or as if it were merely a list of words. The recent comment that such articles would be especially useful to people learning English as a second language is a very strong reccomendation just by itself. Michael Hardy 21:59, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Take it to VfD if you want to gripe. silsor 23:19, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Optical.greysquares.arp.350pix.jpg

Hi, do you have permission for Image:Optical.greysquares.arp.350pix.jpg? I've seen a few times on the Internet in the last couple of years and I don't know its original source. It's a very commonly copied picture.

If you had clicked on the picture in Optical illusion your question would have been answered. I always say where I got a pic from (even if I don't know!)

Adrian Pingstone 09:44, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see that it says "copyright situation unknown". Could this get us into trouble? silsor 17:50, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I therefore humbly request that you re-consider your vote

Hello, silsor. It has come to my knowledge that you have voted "Yes" on the second poll on the peerage. I wonder if I might be so bold as to request you to consider my position, and to perhaps amend the latter vote.

Firstly, I have come to the conclusion that, in general, the additions of articles take nothing away, but subtractions. For instance, consider the case of Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. What, if I may ask, would be lost by adding "1st Viscount Nelson"? However, the addition of "1st Viscount Nelson" is important, or at least it is in my opinion, because it provides a clue to the reader as to his identity as "Lord Nelson".

Nothing would be lost by adding peerage titles to article titles. What would be lost if they were removed is consistency, and, more importantly, accuracy, for the peerage title is considered to form a part of the name of the individual in question. Thus, the Duke of Rutland was not John Manners. He was John Manners, 7th Duke of Rutland. I therefore humbly request that you re-consider your vote. -- Lord Emsworth 19:11, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination

User:Snoyes has nominated you to become an Administrator. In order to accept or decline the nomination, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. -- Lord Emsworth

Protection policy

Please read the Wikipedia:Protection policy. If you protect or unprotect a page you must state the reasons at Wikipedia:Protected page. Good luck with the adminship. Angela . 04:49, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, I went for a walk. silsor 05:09, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

A walk? There's no time for walking now you're a sysop. :) Sorry, I should have left it a while longer before mentioning it. Angela . 05:20, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

I realized that I had been at my computer all day and it was time for a little reflection. silsor 05:23, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Shen Gong Wu

The article Shen Gong Wu which you deleted without VfD on 00:55, Jan 16, 2004 with the comments "lol what: content was: 'The shen gong wu are mystical power items that grant power to the holder'" returns about 50 Google hits and it is the name of the mystical power items of the animation series Xiaolin Showdown. May I suggest a Google search before speedy-deletions? Optim 02:17, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Shen Gong Wu, you wrote "May I suggest a Google search before speedy-deletions?" The article which I deleted falls squarely under the Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion guideline, Very short pages with little or no definition or context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). The article had almost no definition and zero context. Also, regarding the title turning up 50 results on Google, the Google test is a little shaky, as searching for my own username turns up 230 results. silsor 03:54, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

re:somebody done it

It was me. I meant to go back and remove the fulfilled request, but the browser window timed out and I lost track of it. Thanks for taking care of the tidy-up. Cheers, Cyan 04:13, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No problem. silsor 04:27, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

DNA

Any particular reason you unprotected it?168... 04:06, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I didn't actually, that was snoyes. I was going to unprotect it but then I realized it was an unprotected page with the protection message still at the top. I was originally going to unprotect it because the edit war was on the 7th of January. That's a really long time ago and the page should have been unprotected by now. silsor 04:27, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, it's been a long time, but I'd say little to no progress has been made. I expect to be warring very soon. 168... 04:31, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: AfghanistaN

Re:AfghanistaN
In general the old wikipedia CamelCase redirects are kept under the premise that someone might still link to it, and there is no reason to break links. Maximus Re x 02:08, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that premise is wrong. Nobody will ever link there, for instance. I found the redirect searching for articles which have never been viewed. silsor 02:30, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Removing spaces after headings

Note to self: [1] is where the rule about spaces under headers was introduced. silsor 23:16, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Silsor, I've just seen your edit to Series_(mathematics), removing the spaces after headings. There's currently a debate about this at Wikipedia_talk:How_to_edit_a_page, perhaps you'd like to share your opinion. I think the outcome of it is meant to be a change to the software so that we have a consistent rendering. As such, editing pages to add/remove the empty lines is probably a bit of a waste of time at the moment as in the near future they could all be standardised anyway. I'm not sure there's much of a concensus at the moment, even Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings) can't agree with itself! One thing I would say is that your edit has added some inconsistency to Series_(mathematics), the headers before lists still have the extra empty line so appear differently from the headers before paragraphs. Personally I think it looked better the way it was but I'm not really that bothered. Regards -- Ams80 23:29, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's news to me... silsor 23:34, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks...

Much thanks for the adminship nomination. - Seth Ilys 22:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yet more Alexandros

Please don't edit my user page. Thanks, --Ed Senft! 03:28, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

sorry

I am very sorry for my comments towards you and my deceptions. Please accept this apology as it is sincere. I can only promise that this will not happen again. Once again, I am extremely sorry that I caused problems, and I never meant to hurt you. Thank you for the support, Alexandros 04:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sant Cassia

Hi, have you any idea what happened to sant cassia page for it to be deleted then put back , do you know who had it deleted?

I don't think the page was ever deleted. If you're talking about the information on the page that was deleted, you'll find it in the page's history. silsor 19:44, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I understand Silsor, but I am troubled by the comment you put to justify the unprotection. Did you check with the different parties that it was okay with them to unprotect the page, or did you just do it because 2 weeks seemed a far enough time to settle a disagreement ? Before I left for a week, I check with them, and they still disagreed. What is more important ? That people settle on an agreement, or the length of protection ? fr0069

See m:protected pages considered harmful. We can't protect an article against everybody indefinitely just because two people can't agree. Two weeks seems like a reasonable limit to me. silsor 19:58, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, well perhaps the page should of been left on temp protection as fr0069 says? Two weeks isnt that long at all, you didnt consult with either party

Please read what I said. The page will go back to being protected if the parties can't reason with each other. silsor 22:36, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

The parties cant reason with each other, look how many times the page has been editied !

Menchi's proxy

Ah..thou hast unblocked the Vandal of Doom! Mmm... I can edit now, but for how long until I am imprisoned again... --Menchi 00:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Druidry

Hi Jeff. You moved a role-playing game context to the head of the entry on Druidry. I don't want simply to revert the move, if you really think that is the sensible balance between uses of the term. Perhaps you'd have a look at the entry. Thank you. Wetman 00:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, I thought myself that it looked very odd to move the niche definition of druid in a role playing context to the head of the article on Druidry. However, as I was going through the article, I noticed that the RPG definition was almost invisible at the bottom. It seems to be customary to move the tiny definitions to the top of large articles, so I did this. silsor 00:41, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Try this experiment: Set the following text ast the head of the entry Priest just to see how it looks:

In role-playing games, a priest is a character that represents a magic-user. They work with nature to achieve their goals. Priests are related to rangers and druids, except a ranger is more oriented towards traditional combat whereas a priest or a druid is more magically inclined. Some RPGs have a shaman class that ends up with similar abilities but is designed around the idea of a medicine man in tribal societies.

I got your point the first time, thanks. The solution is to make a separate article Druid (role-playing game character) and put a link to it at the top of Druidry. I'll leave this up to you since you are the one annoyed by the change. silsor 00:49, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Plautus Satire

You deserve seven kinds of praise for putting up with that absolute garbage from Plautus. Talk about remaining calm and honorable when you're being abused! If you ever need help with troll-wrestling, I hope you know there are a number of us who would hate to see you catch that kind of flak on even a semi-regular basis without attempting to draw some fire away from you. I hereby award you the famous/infamous barnstar for your noble Wikipedian deeds. Jwrosenzweig 23:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sant Cassia

I am the web master and editor of www.maltagenealogy.com and what I use from my own research is useable. Shouldn't be deleted. [Conte Said Vassallo]

Sorry, I didn't know the website you copied was your own. silsor 18:04, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thats ok, now we have a problem with the text being changed by some one without a profile. [Conte Said Vassallo]

I assume you mean this one, since the first anonymous contributor removed material that was inappropriate to the article. As far as I can tell this user has only edited the article twice, and you have never discussed the issue with him/her. Try discussing the issue on the article's talk page. silsor 20:45, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss SANT CASSIA page, but it seems now that [ghariexem] is not using his log in name or perhaps is using another computer. But just the same, I had it up for discussion and I got no reply. Should the following changes since my addition, the other day be blocked from entering this web site? We need a conclusion soon. Many thanks [Conte Said Vassallo]

There's no hurry, the changes they've made don't deserve blocking at all. I'd recommend giving the article some time. silsor 21:12, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

No problems, I am surprised that even those without logging in are able to edit. But anyhow, you and others shall kept an eye out. Thanks.[Conte Said Vassallo]

168

See Mav's recent comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/168 168...|...Talk 23:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. silsor 23:36, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll understand why I couldn't possibly have known you had seen it, because even now I haven't received your apology yet.168...|...Talk 23:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wait, who's apologizing for what now? Your conduct in the last week has been despicable. silsor 23:40, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

My conducts is is being widely portrayed as despicable, and I doubt that you have looked very deeply into the facts yourself. Does my mere portrayal as being despicable mean you are entitled to be despicable toward me? 168...|...Talk 23:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I got my impression of your behaviour being despicable from watching it myself. In response to my behaviour towards you being despicable, I removed your changes to the complaints against you because I believed they were inappropriate. silsor 23:53, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

You were reverting them as if they constituted vandalism. You have stopped doing so, hence you no longer consider them tantamount to vandalism. Although you have contributed to the public perception that I am tantamount to a vandal by treating me as you did, and although you implicitly concede you were wrong to do so, you feel no obligation to apologize. You must either really think I'm reprehensible or really not like to apologize.168...|...Talk 00:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Plautus satire

Your comments are requested on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire. →Raul654 05:14, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Will do. silsor 05:14, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Have you notified him yet? silsor

Jimbo & Plautus?

Regarding Plautus, I firmly believe it's a mistake to let him enter "mediation." It's a total waste of the time of the good contributors who will have to serve as mediator/arbitrator/whatever. As I understand it, mediation was set up to allow serious editors who have a dispute to settle that dispute. Letting Plautus use the system, when he has done almost nothing but bait people and cause problems, will only give him the attention he seems to crave. He's either a deliberate troll or a complete misfit, and you and I have both had ringside seats for it.

The problem is, I don't know how to stop this. He's made a request for mediation, and someone needs to let the higher-ups know that this can't go on. He'll take the thing all the way through mediation and arbitration, and he'll love every minute of it. I really think Plautus should just be given an ultimatum to shut up or leave. He's causing far too much trouble to balance out any contribution he might have made. I think he was most, if not all, of the reason Evercat has now left.

Would you be willing to approach some of the other admins, or maybe Jimbo himself, and say something to this effect? I'll back you up if and when asked (as I've watched Plautus from the beginning,) but I don't think I've been around long enough for my voice to be sufficient on this. I know you've been patient with him, so no one can say you're on a "personal vendetta."

Thanks, Isomorphic 02:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's too late at night to think about this, give me a while. silsor 07:45, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Whenever you feel up to it. I may talk to some other admins as well. I realize you're sick of dealing with this. Thanks, Isomorphic 07:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Silsor's Autotection

Silsor has engaged in a reversion conflict with Plautus satire and has now protected the page he was reversioning. In addition he protected the page with the apparent intent of protecting his reversion, as the page protection and his final reversion occured during the same minute. Both of these actions constitute a violation of wikipedia policy as I understand them. The following excerpts from the history of the page in question and the page protection log demonstrate this quite clearly.

04:44, Feb 22, 2004 Silsor protected User:Evercat/Plautus

(cur) (last) . . M 22:44, 21 Feb 2004 . . Silsor (Reverted edits by Plautus satire to last version by Silsor)

(cur) (last) . . 22:44, 21 Feb 2004 . . Plautus satire

(cur) (last) . . M 22:43, 21 Feb 2004 . . Silsor (Reverted edits by Plautus satire to last version by Silsor)

(cur) (last) . . 22:43, 21 Feb 2004 . . Plautus satire

(cur) (last) . . M 22:39, 21 Feb 2004 . . Silsor (revert)

(cur) (last) . . M 21:30, 21 Feb 2004 . . Silsor (reword: and by the way, people's personal opinions are not subject to NPOV.)

(cur) (last) . . 21:10, 21 Feb 2004 . . Plautus satire

(cur) (last) . . M 20:57, 21 Feb 2004 . . Silsor (markup oops)

(cur) (last) . . M 20:57, 21 Feb 2004 . . Silsor (note)

(cur) (last) . . 20:46, 21 Feb 2004 . . Plautus satire (sectioned and moved miscellany to the end where it would logically be)

Are you sure you meant to leave this note here? Perhaps Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges would be a better place. silsor 04:56, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I will CC there if you insist, but I'd prefer to keep this between you and me for now. Thanks for the tip. Perhaps you can remain objective after all, when you are backed into a corner. If that is your olive branch, I accept. Now we can end this petty bickering like civilized adults if you will allow that. Shall we bury the hatchet before this gets bigger and badder than either of us would like? I think if you can control your emotions a bit better you could make a perfectly adequate and fair sysop. - Plautus satire 05:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a no baiting zone. silsor 05:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

silsor, I really wish you would accept my my peace offering. I have no desire to continue this petty squabbling with you. I admit I am as much to blame for our mutual ill-will as you are. Can we not find some way to peacefully co-exist here? I sincerely hope we can. - Plautus satire 05:09, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, I'd really appreciate it if you would take this to Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges as soon as possible. I get cheerier with every minute that ticks by towards your eventual banning. silsor 05:14, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I really don't understand all this venom from you, silsnor. I am trying my best to try to talk, wheedle, cajole and coerce you into behaving reasonably, nothing is working. I don't think having your sysop powers removed would help either. - Plautus satire 05:37, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cry me a river. silsor 05:38, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I have done as you ask with regards to the CC to the abuse page, silsor, but I would just like to ask you once again to calm down. There's no reason to get uptight, I did not mean to upset you by calling your misuse of power to your attention. I merely thought it might encourage you to slow down and listen to me long enough for you to learn that I mean you no harm. Don't fear me, silsor, we can all co-exist here peacefully, even though we may have many disagreements. I know you may not enjoy hearing this, but even stupid ideas need to be heard. How can you know if an idea is valid or invalid if you do not scrutinize it? And are any of us so wise that we have nothing more to learn? - Plautus satire 05:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I thought I had already clarified that I'm done debating with you over anything. There's a place for people like you. silsor 05:56, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I will try again later after some time has passed and you've had the opportunity to calm down, silsor. If I have to make friends with every wikipedia user one at a time to feel safe contributing that is what I will do, happily and as fast as I can. - Plautus satire 06:00, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Toodles. silsor 06:01, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

One Trick Rocking Horse

Curse that three reversion rule! Curses from all the one-trick ponies! BWA-HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! Give us a kiss, silsor. :X - Plautus satire 05:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Delete thumbnails

Hi! Silsor,from Adrian. No problem, you are free to delete any of my thumbnails without asking me again. They are fairly recognisable because most have 250pix or 300pix or 750 pix or arp in the file name. Of course, you'll make sure they have been converted to the new code! I'll remove my objection notice on Wikipedia:Images for deletion.
Adrian Pingstone 13:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Spider

Thanks for catching that one, I missed it, Mark Richards 23:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I was just cleaning up the new Wikipedia:List of empty images. silsor 23:32, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Accidental rollbacks

Hi Silsor

I am really getting worried about this. I have asked a developer to take a look at this. Yes, I did look at Vicki's page, but have in no way reverted to any previous entry. According to the page history I have done it twice! I am just wondering whether it is my computer or something else that is corrupted. It's happened once before. I hope someone can give me an answer. Sorry about that --Dieter Simon 00:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VfD

Hi, don't forget to sign your VfD votes. RickK | Talk 04:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I signed it right after I voted. silsor 04:55, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar

Since no one seems to have done it yet - Jeff, I hearby award you the barnstar for all the good work you've done on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. →Raul654 07:15, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I already have one, but it's "in my pocket" so to speak. I'll squirrel this one away as well, and thank you. silsor 07:30, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

You are interfering with operation of Wikipedia

Silsor, you are gleefully blocking contributors but you have no idea why users are contributing. Specifically, RadicalBender is defending a badly flawed version of a schools faq which I attempted to improve by removing information that represents a very biased POV claiming Wikipedia is essentially as accurate as God. My edits include information endorsed on Wikipedia by the user who first contributed the FAQ adn then who later attempted to repair flaws in the hastily compiled FAQ. Apparently some Wikipedia users love the false, misleading version contributed by a writer who disavowed the FAQ and attempted to improve on the first draft by removing innacurate information and replacing it with accurate and balanced information. The FAQ falsely states Wikipedia contributins are public domain. Radical Bender has repeatedly reverted well intended edits to a version the advances the false claim that Wikipedia is a public domain resource.

You and everyone else here lacks the technical resources to win an edit war, and I have the patience to assure anyone who refuses to allow correction of the misinformation directed as schools otherwise spends their days restoring other articles. If you care to avoid a spreading conflict, allow this writer to make well-intended contributions to the FAQ and block users whose only contribution ot the FAQ is to revert it to false, misleading versions.

You have thrown all credibility out the window by your actions. As you well know, we now have the technical resources to win any edit wars brought by vandals using open proxies. silsor 20:06, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks anonymous writers have or should have credibility probably does not even know the meaning of the idiom "out the window". The limits of your technical resources are apparent, and the only resource at your disposal is the publication of credible information, a task at which you are grossly failing. And giving somebody the rhetorical "finger" does nothing to support your case that a FAQ should represent a GNU site as a public domain site. This basic misinformation comprises attempted theft of intellectual property.

I am blocking you for your actions, not your words. I couldn't care less about the topic of the FDL. Feel free to email me to discuss this. silsor 20:38, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Angela

What's going on with the Angela account? RickK | Talk 22:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It was an experiment of Timwi's, "Angela" followed by a nonbreaking space character. I managed to construct a URL to block it, but it's apparently not blockable through normal means. silsor 22:19, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the explanation. RickK | Talk 22:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

larouche article

yo sils. this is vaketer/172.197.219.19/172.193.60.193 (no clue why I have 2 IPs (I'll have another here because this is another comp)). first of all I didn't add the paragraph you took out. Second of all, I added "Larouche's writings tend to be long, extremely polemical, uncompromising, and highly intellectual." I don't believe any of these statements are controversial. Many if not most of his writings are much larger than a typical newspaper article. Perhaps saying they were long is too vague to be uninformative, so under this criterea I can understand taking it out. The part about Lar's writings being polemical -- for example, he published a pamphlet entitled "Children of Satan" about Dick Cheney; he constantly insults his opposition often without explaining his position, and so on (get a paper copy of one of his publications if you want). Furthermore, and more to the point, members of the group say that they intend to use polemics because they think that it will shock people, wake them up, get them to pay attention to what Lar is saying. So I don't think saying "polemical" is controversial, because no one disagrees with it. The same kind of reasoning goes for "uncompromising." Talk to any of the people who belong to the group, they won't budge on anything, Lar isn't budging, his papers don't brook the idea of compromise. They'll say their ideology is uncompromising because the ideology is right, and you shouldn't compromise that. Saying "highly intellectual" -- sure, that's a judgement. But crack open any of his writings and you'll be peppered with references to historical and philosophical people and points of view, all somehow tied together into a uniform ideology. You'll never find a typical "our country is great, I will give you jobs" article/speech. He has some scheme for everything. Perhaps the statement of what I said should be clearer, but I think the bare fact of it is true. As for vandalism at the end, yeah. I seconded it. You would too (were you me). Thus the dangers of wiki. Also, on a side note, it makes no sense to make small changes if the major intent of the article is to label larouche a fascist. That seems, umm, pretty controversial to me. To say his group shares certain attributes that cults have, and to make historical statements about what it's done is one thing, and to quote people is one thing -- that's summarizing the available information. It's a bigger kind of accusation to straight-up say he's fascist, especially when the groups avowed aim is anti-fascism, to feed the world, to provide global infrastructure, etc. For an opinion, yes. For an enclop., no. You can talk about how his group shares the same structure as other fascist groups, but it seems like a leap to say it's fascist. And it says he's fascist throughout the article. I digress because that's not my issue.

what

I'm basically arguing that the sentence I added should stay in the article, in some form, because I think it's accurate. I looked at the article more carefully; while it doesn't state he's fascist, it does insinuate it, which is fine with me. Also note that a decent portion of the article is a verbatim copy of the dysinfopaedia(sp) copy, but it looks like the same guy added the info.

Message

Oi, thank you for your involvement in scientific skepticism user Reddi seems to be borderline vandalizing the page interjecting material on pseudo-science into the article. He is pushing it with reverts and edits but I disagree with him being listed on quickpolls. Can you think of someway to resolve the dispute between him and Lordkeeneth? Lets try to solve this before it goes to arbitration. thanks. GrazingshipIV 00:18, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved with it anymore. I thought that I could keep his material in more subtle, NPOV ways but he insists on keeping his complete version of the article, typos and all. I'd really rather work on other articles with people who are interested in reaching a solution. silsor 00:22, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I concur I might forward to the arbitration committee in a bit but as for now I left him with this message. I've got other things to do right now.

"Reddi you keep saying that, I do not think anyone Lordkenneth, silsor ot myself has told you that you cannot put in an opposing view. If you want to put one in-do it under a heading of "Opposition to scientific skepticism" or the like- You are adding your critque of it into the body of explaination which will make it confusing for viewers to understand how it is defined. That is what we are trying to prevent not showing other points of view. GrazingshipIV 01:05, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)"

Reddi

What are we going to do with Reddi?

Congratulations on becoming a MediaWiki developer

Jolly good show

I was about to award you a barnstar for your quick eye (and grace under examination) but I see you've already got two, so I'll give you one of Optim's wikicookies :-) BCorr|Брайен 01:11, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. silsor 01:17, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Do your work

Silsor

Finish your essay. Now. Get off Wiki and finish it!

In the News

Thanks for letting me know about the In the News poll, even though we stand on opposite sides of the issue. That was courteous of you. --Lowellian 22:03, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Only fair ;) silsor 22:04, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I unblocked JRR Trollkien. Since his temp-ban (following a quickpoll) he has made seven edits. They were not vandalism. "Trolling" is not currently grounds for unilateral blocking. Martin 18:06, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Erika Steinbach, Nico & Tannin

Silsor, that is nonsense. If I "involved myself with the dispute" by intervening in a matter I don't care either way about, then you too are now involved!

You reverted Nico on the page in question. This means you are a direct party to the dispute and by the Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy you may not start a quickpoll on him. silsor 08:30, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Mate, get real. Everybody has reverted Nico. That's why we are having a Quickpoll in the first place. Tannin 08:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're still involved. silsor 08:40, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Only the Polish lobby, known for their sock puppets, like now banned User:Gdansk, have vandalized that page. Nico 08:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Silsor, this is nonsense. I'm trying to help deal with a known troublemaker, on a subject that has zero interest to me, and you are telling me that I'm involved. It doesn't make sense. Tannin 08:48, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The known troublemaker is you. You've already made a lot of trouble for Wikipedia this morning. Nico 08:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But ?!? Hmm is just FirmLittleFluffyThing 09:44, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) Silsor

And the problem is?

Do you have a specific problem with the content you are deleting from the Wikipedia talk page related to discussion of the proposed three strikes rule, or are you merely asserting power for the kick of it? Stardotstar

Trolls feed on attention. Removing their content is the next best thing to blocking them. Any further material you post on my user talk page will be deleted. silsor 06:00, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Silsor, could you please quickpoll User:Cantus for reverting Mongolia 4 times? He's also using an obvious sockpuppet, User:Augusta. --Wik 08:40, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Meta sysop

Congratulations! You are now a Meta administrator. Please read the Meta:Deletion policy before deleting anything, and make sure you understand how to edit pages such as the fundraising page before doing so. Angela . 21:39, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

User:Reddi

I unblocked Reddi when the vote dropped below the threshold with it seeming to be borderline. It seems to be wavering around the threshold right now. I am not going to take any further action one way or another, so I just wanted to inform you in case you wanted to. -- Decumanus | Talk 01:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quickpolls#Reddi

I only see 3 Oppose votes. What happened to the fourth one? Rick K 04:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Martin switched. I linked to the version with four. silsor 04:54, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

User:Reddi Quickpoll

Per the quickpoll guidelines, User:Reddi should not have been reblocked. Once support for blocking a user falls below 70%, the block should not be reinstated. This is explained on the policy page. anthony (see warning) 14:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anthony is correct. I unblocked Reddi, as he cannot be re-banned following the same quickpoll. Martin 18:38, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, trick Angela showed me - you can add links to block messages - they don't show up in the blocklist, but they do show up for the blocked user. So I reblocked 24.69.255.203 and changed "see your talk page" to a link. Just letting you know for next time. Martin 00:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nice. silsor 00:22, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

hello

Hi Silsor (or Jeff) thanks for leaving me a message and introducing yourself. What are you studying at UofT? Which campus are you at?

I'm studying computer science at the Erindale campus. By the way, you can sign your messages by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~. silsor 20:26, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Evening Silsor :-) Just a quick word to thank you for your vote on the steward matter :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

YorubaMan

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

I've left my thoughts on this tiresome business with YorubaMan on the Talk:Nigeria page. Frankly, I'm tired of attempting to reason with someone who is so obnoxious and free with threats (three sent via email in 3 days) and insults, and I find the notion that there's anything like a mere disagreement of opinion going on here risible in the extreme. I have a life to attend to, and I'm not going to sit around pretending to engage in dialogue as an equal with someone whose penchant for foul insults ought to have gotten him banned long ago, if Wikipedia's guidelines were meant in earnest.

If the Nigeria and Yoruba pages degenerate into sinkholes for ethnocentric propaganda, so be it, and I'll know better from hereon than to attempt to contribute anything to this whole enterprise. Hopefully YorubaMan in all his myriad incarnations will more than make up for my absence with his erudition and objectivity. Abiola Lapite 20:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock. --Wik 09:31, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern shown in reverting the rant posted to my talk page. I probably won't always be able to respond promptly to messages, and postings, but for the most part I think I can handle them. I hope you like the response that I composed to the pernicious vandal known as PV. - Moby 17:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, he was copying-and-pasting the same spam on many pages, so I just reverted it wherever I found it. silsor 18:08, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Please believe me, my thanks on the matter are entirely genuine, no need to apologize. Occasionally, I won't be able to check in on things for nearly half of a day at a time, but I should usually be able to mantain scrutiny from now on at least once a day. I am inclined to become a bit more active in my edits here, and I expect I will sometimes encounter a bit of rudeness along the way. Thanks again. - Moby 18:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for protecting the page (Israel), Stilsor. Hopefully we'll now be able to resolve the issues over on talk; a couple days should do it. Rei 20:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Note to self: take care of Al Carnesale when back home. silsor 08:23, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for protecting Liancourt Rocks -- but could you revert to an older version such as this? The current revision has been mangled by User:Kunitaka, since links, formatting and the "East Sea of Korea" mention (the primary bone of contention, which was there before the present edit war started) are missing... -- Jpatokal 09:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

According to the general policy, I won't revert the article while protecting it, since this involves me in the dispute. However, according to my own policy, I may revert the article in the future, but only for the purpose of forcing a settlement if one party refuses to discuss their version which is enjoying the benefit of protection. silsor 17:33, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

It's been over two weeks now and Kunitaka ain't budging... IMHO this case is fairly clear-cut (note that neither MarkAlexander nor I are Japanese or Korean), but could we call for some neutral arbitration of this so as to have a fair shot at convincing him? Jpatokal 03:34, 23 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Augusto Pinochet

I like the copy-edits and other minor changes you made to the Augusto Pinochet article. It's nice to be able to edit an "unprotected" article again, isn't it? --Uncle Ed 13:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Like scampering under the feet of an elephant. silsor 14:28, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

chuckle, LOL, --Uncle Ed 16:50, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

deleting categories

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Quick summary: there is no concensus on if and how to use categories for ToL articles, so they are to be deleted quickly to prevent misuse. - UtherSRG 15:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FA format

Silsor - I reverted your 'usability experiment' on the featured articles. The "read the full article" part is redundant (and the main page has far too much of that already). →Raul654 02:16, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I put that there because clicking on the link in the featured text is unintuitive. Do you have another suggestion? silsor 02:22, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Anon

I just blocked the anon 172.200.25.14 whom you warned. He has been blocked under a dozen of different IPs today but keeps coming back. Unfortunately, a long-term block is not a good option, since those are AOL IPs which get used by other people as well. Andris 00:14, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

IRC

Why don't you ever come onto #Wikipedia on IRC any more? - Mark 05:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was away for the summer, and I haven't gotten back into the habit of IRC yet. Maybe I will again soon. Thanks for asking! silsor 06:12, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional curse words

Regarding the removal of "yakoo" from List of fictional curse words, I wonder if the word "krunk" is similarly off-topic and unimportant. like "yakoo", it wasn't created by an author of fiction, but rather for a late-night comedy show. It was the appearance of that word that led me to add "yakoo" to the list. --Arteitle 03:12, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Why did you reverse the edit I did with Islam topic?

You simply remove the work I did and gave no explanation. Why are you so inconsiderate? Are you anti-Ali Sina? The man deserves a link in Wiki! You took that away from him.

I've removed many links from that article in the past, you'll have to be more specific than that. How about a link to the edit? silsor 04:24, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I would not have needed to provide you with a link to the edit if you had explained why you did the reversion at the time. Are you in the habit of making reversions without explanation? Doing so, no matter how justified, can be viewed as a slap in the face to the person who spent time making edits, presumeably (as was the case with me) in good faith.

To answer your question, it was in Islam, and you removed the Wiki Link I had created for Ali Sina as well as reinstated, and then moments later re-removed, three unnecessary words I had excised from the article to make room for the four square brackets necessary for making the name Ali Sina into a Wiki Link.

Here is the link to the edit you first made to Islam. As you can see, you also removed the end of the article by accident. I reverted this change, and then tried to re-add the other changes that you had made. I apologize for missing the new brackets around Ali Sina.

The reason that you are chopping off the end of the article might be that your web browser can only handle forms with a certain amount of text in them, since it happened again with this edit. You might want to try a different browser that can handle larger forms if you want to edit big articles (see Wikipedia:Browser page size limits). Again, sorry for any misunderstanding. silsor 05:38, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

troll/vandal

Hi Silsor, thanks for reverting the vandalism on Communist Party USA page. I believe the person is using the following accounts;

Some edits are good, others are nonsense ([2]). I listed him on the vandalism page, and I'm sending this note to a couple of admins. Duk 15:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about not listing copyvios

I misinterpreted the instructions and thought that, as with Speedy Deletions, applying the template put them in a category and resulted in their automatically being listed. Sorry about that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:37, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem, the reason I started listing all those in the first place was that I noticed I had forgot some myself. silsor 16:18, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Hi, I noticed you opposed my RfA without comment. I was wondering if there was something I could clear up, questions I could answer, or perhaps some criticism which I might reflect upon? Concerned, Sam [Spade] 17:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Piła

Please take a look at Talk:Pila#Protection and new version and User:Halibutt/Pila. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 23:28, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

protection of United_States_Libertarian_Party

I am currently following the United_States_Libertarian_Party edit war. I found the page Wikipedia:Protection_policy but didn't find anything on when to unprotect. Do you just wait a certain amount of time until people cool off? Should we make a subpage under talk with a proposed compromise for the article in question? pstudier 04:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sysops are free to use their good judgement when unprotecting pages, but usually unprotection is done when an agreement is reached on the talk page or after edit war participants seem to have lost interest. silsor 04:29, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

School grades

You know, a better way to attack perceived Americentrism in Fifth grade (et al) would have been to add information on other countries to the articles -- not just knee-jerkly removing information en masse. - KeithTyler 04:47, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

If you examine the page histories you will see that the only text that was removed was the prominent "Education in the United States" series label from these non-US-specific pages. silsor 15:14, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. The label was the title of an infobox, and that infobox was specifically an infobox for the U.S. grade sequence. If you follow it backwards, you'll see it starts at Kindergarten, and moves forward to articles like High school freshman and ends at High school senior, with a final indicator of Tertiary education. Since you took out the indication that this infobox was specifically for the U.S. education system, are you saying that this is how grades progress in all countries? - KeithTyler 17:39, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Error: logic breakdown detected in User talk:Silsor. silsor 19:24, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

If you remove the context of the infobox, then the information it provides will be misunderstood as not having context. Can you understand that argument without making witty insults at me? - KeithTyler 06:44, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

The context is provided in the first sentence of each article. If you really want to improve the articles then go do it instead of wasting time flaming people who make legitimate, informative improvements to articles. silsor 07:21, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

North American Man-Boy Love Association

Hi Jeff, hello from Berlin to Toronto. I studied at U of T in 2001/2. Great people, great university, great city, great country. I really enjoyed it, and I met some of the most important people in my life over there. What is your area of studies? Do you take part in any sports activities?

Thanks for protection of that nasty article. That one and some related to it have been a nuisance for quite a while, with lots of links to pedophiles' websites and sick stuff about alleged scientifically proven harmlessness of child abuse, frequent reverts of information about therapy and even links to victims' organizations and such. I recently met Kurt Jansson, the head of the German wikimedia organization, and he told me that he even mentioned the pedophile articles in an interview about wikipedia with a newspaper because he thought it is bad for wikipedia's reputation but it would be worse if it seemed as if wikipedians were unaware of the problem. I insist that it is good to be aware of serious problems but vital to also work on solving them. I greatly appreciate that you do so. Get-back-world-respect 01:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good work on this article, esp. going paragraph by paragraph to resolve the conflict. I haven't really read up on the article other then having it brought to my attention in the #Wikipedia channel, but i may offer some suggestions to try to get it NPOV. --ShaunMacPherson 02:48, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, and any help would be... helpful. silsor 03:28, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I like your revisions and they strike the correct balance in my opinion. Perhaps it is time to start the ball roling by implementing yoru revisions into the article. As well, apparently GBWR is organzing people to push POV views, which I have a link to in the talk section of the NAMBLA article. I am unsure if organizing, and a history of POV fights, is necessarily against the rules but I do not think that obstructionist views need necessarily stop a NPOV article from being built.

Again, good work, and feel free to let me know if there are other NPOV disuptes that I may give some neutral proposals in, it is very rewarding to resolve issues. --ShaunMacPherson 11:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reminder

Please remember to list pages that you protect on Wikipedia:Protected page (see the protection policy). Thanks. Angela . 00:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. silsor 19:42, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

unprotection

Silsor, I'm unprotecting Pila, since it's been over a week. Cross your fingers. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:16, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

looks like they're right back at it. silsor 19:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright on images

Just a reminder, Wikipedia: Images for deletion is not for images with copyright problems. It's not really your fault in this case, since another user deleted the link to the correct page, Wikipedia: Copyright problems, for no apparent reason. I'm migrating your listing to there for you. Derrick Coetzee 22:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm unable to find the URL the image was taken from, so I'll have to simply remove the image and ask you to list it on Wikipedia: Copyright problems yourself. Please read the listing procedure carefully. Thanks. Derrick Coetzee 22:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I gave the URL in the original listing you deleted. silsor 22:41, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed it somehow. I didn't intend to sound condescending — I asked you to read the listing procedure there not to suggest you hadn't done so, but because it's not very visible on that page. I don't hold you accountable for this mistake, as I indicated. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Derrick Coetzee 23:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. silsor 23:23, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

UNBAN ME AT ONCE

THIS CENSORSHIP MUST STOP! FIRST WHISPERTOME, AND NOW YOU! WHY WAS I BANNED? WAS I DEFACING SITES? NO! I DID'T DO ANYTHING! THIS INJUSTICE MUST HALT OR THE GNAA WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO CONSIDER RETALIATORY MEASURES FOR THESE HEINOUS ACTS OF CENSORSHIP. - GNAA Popeye

Vernon Corea

just to let you know my father's site is not a commercial site

I assume you meant the blog that was added to Islam. I have no doubt that it is not a commercial site, but in my opinion it doesn't add to the article. silsor 18:08, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

ivancorea@hotmail.com

United States Libertarian Party & United States

FYI, I just unprotected United States Libertarian Party and United States. (It's been over a week.) I hope they play nice this time. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:41, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

It would be really nice if we had per-user article blocks so that so many pages wouldn't have to be protected while no discussion ends up taking place. Fortunately it seems that some discussion has taken place here. silsor 18:09, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

GNAA Popeye

For some reason user:Mark Richards proceeded to unblock GNAA Popeye and GNAA Popeye2. I observed directly some of the vandalism and saw your messages on the block log so I reinstated the blocks. Mark stated there was no reason given as a justification for unblocking. Perhaps, you shoud so inform him. Thanks. Arminius 02:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this controversial topic on the Village Pump with a lot of unanswered questions which I hope you can shed light upon. Thanks. Sam Hocevar 17:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Harry Anuszewski

Hah! This was going to be my first speedy and you beat me to it! Cheers, Fire Star 06:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're going to have to be quicker on the draw ;) silsor 06:07, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Redirecting

You wrote:... You can make an article automatically redirect to another article by putting #REDIRECT in front of the link you want to go to....
Thanks.
Please: What should I do exactly? If I want to make the word qwerty redirect to the page zxcvbnm, do I create an empty page named qwerty#zxcvbnm ? Or what?

You would create the page "qwerty" and put as its contents "#REDIRECT [[zxcvbnm]]". By the way, you can sign your posts by typing ~~~~. silsor 07:03, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Page Protections

Howdy, Silsor! I'm curious about the comment you left in the Protected Page section of Wiki. Can you elaborate a little on the "POV" comment you made? I'm in a bit of a dilemma here and any info would be appreciated. -Rob

I don't think there's much to be said. You characterized point-of-view editing as vandalism to make your point. silsor 15:04, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. When an editor institutes a complete article revert to remove a single sentence of alleged POV, and in the process destroys several paragraphs of subsequently added content -- I consider that vandalism. Especially when the reverts are done repetitively, and with complete refusal to engage in discussion about the issues in question. Such was the case last night. I agree with you, however: There isn't much to be said. -Rob

Forbidden City Photo

You're welcome, although the photo has been there for several months. Beijing was awfully cold at that time as you can tell by the clothing of the tourists. Allentchang 18:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RFC

Hi Jeff. You will recall, there was a discussion on Village pump (miscellaneous) about the blocking of GNAA Popeye , in which I asked some question about our blocking policy and the circumstances surrounding the block:

I would like some clarification on our blocking policy. Specifically I'd like to know:

Can you be blocked for "trolling" and if so what is the definition for "trolling"?
What were the specific reasons for the block of this user? As I said above I think it would be helpful to know the specific edits which were the reasons for the block and reblock.

Paul August 15:37, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one every responded to my questions. Now, as you may know, Sam Hocevar has opened a RFC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Silsor, concerning this case. He has also added, my questions and your lack of a response as "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" In addition he has asked me on my talk page to "certify" the RFC. I haven't done any real investigation yet, but from what I gather GNAA Popeye is something of an "agent provocateur" and I can imagine why people are upset with him. It would be easy for me to believe that he had done something which would justify an indefinite block. However, It would be very helpful to me if you could please explain to me exactly what he did do and on what grounds he was blocked.

Thanks in advance and regards, Paul August 05:21, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that there was an RFC. I'll do my explaining there instead of here. silsor 06:36, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've read your response on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Silsor. But my questions (above) were not answered there. I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to answer my questions. I would especially like to know which specific edits were the cause of the block.? Paul August 16:33, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The RFC is a joke, the guy cut his own throat with his example, since the edit he made on that article was not one I blocked him for. I don't plan on changing anything I did. Rick K 23:08, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Mine is a bit of a joke as well, the guy who brought it said he couldn't see any vandalism when GNAA Popeye vandalized a user page as one of his first edits. silsor 00:30, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not quote me out of context. At that time I had only had a look at Popeye's contributions to articles, and the assertion was immediately followed by "Anyway, even if there was, there is a vast majority of valid edits." Since then I have also asked for two other examples of vandalism, as well as the reasons for reblocking this user. Sam Hocevar 23:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Silsor; as you have seen, your RFC page was deleted instead of archived, I don't know why. Even if I now realize that the RFC was probably not the best way to get my questions answered (someone on the Village Pump suggested it, I was not aware of the procedure), let me assure you I did not request the deletion. Since you said you'd do your explaining there instead of here, could you now suggest a better place to explain why GNAA Popeye was reblocked? Thanks in advance. Sam Hocevar 14:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe it was deleted because the instructions on the page said it would be deleted if nobody could support the complaint. Did you read them?

Well, since there was a discussion going on, it's a bit unfair to remove that page during the night and not archive it. I could not read the answers to my questions. I am also a bit frustrated by the vanishing of all the links I provided since they might be useful to an external reader (and I did not save them).

WRT GNAA Popeye, I have already explained all I feel necessary. If you feel this is not enough feel free to follow further steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. silsor 18:00, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

You obviously haven't explained anything, and if you did, the page was removed and I did not have the time to read it since it was the night for me. I also cannot find any edit log. Could you please copy-paste the answer you gave to the question "Why was GNAA Popeye reblocked?". Thanks. Sam Hocevar 18:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unlikely, since you were the last person to edit the page, after my edit summary "my last edit to this page". Tell you what, I'll just restore the page and move it to a subpage of your user page, where you can do whatever you want with it. silsor 18:39, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Sam Hocevar 21:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does the above mean that you are not going to tell me which specific edits were the cause of the blocking? If so could you at least tell me why? As i've said before, I'm perfectly willing to believe that this user was blocked appropriately, but I would like to be able to verify this for myself. If you won't say which specific edits were the cause of your action, how else can I or anyone know whether the blockings were legitimate? Paul August 19:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

See the very first contributions of GNAA Popeye, and these IPs under which he has edited: [3] [4]. I also cited some vandalism on the RFC page which is now linked above. silsor 20:36, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to concede the edit you mentioned on the RFC page might explain the first blocking. What edit caused the reblocking? Also, what do the contributions from anonymous IPs have to do with the blocking of a user who makes legit edits? Can't they be blocked separately? Sam Hocevar 21:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at what I take to be the first 12 edits for User:GNAA Popeye. As far as I can tell they are:

20:54, Sep 2, 2004: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America [5]
20:58, Sep 2, 2004: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America [6]
21:00, Sep 2, 2004: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America [7]
23:59, Sep 2, 2004: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America [8]
00:29, Sep 3, 2004: User:GNAA Popeye [9]
00:29, Sep 3, 2004: User:GNAA Popeye [10]
00:30, Sep 3, 2004: User:GNAA Popeye [11]
00:51, Sep 3, 2004: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America [12]
15:42, Sep 4, 2004: User:GNAA Popeye [13]
15:46, Sep 4, 2004: September 11, 2001 attacks [14]
01:43, Sep 6, 2004: User:GNAA Popeye [15]
02:10, Sep 6, 2004: User:Hadal [16]

Were these "very first contributions" you wanted me to look at?

The 12th edit I think is the edit of Hadal's user page that was been mentioned above and on the RFC. Besides that one which, if any, of the other edits were the reasons for your block? Also what is the evidence for concluding that 67.18.10.244: [17], 70.177.62.79: [18] and GNAA Popeye are all the same person? Paul August 04:45, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Silsor I really wish you would respond. I think it is bad for Wikipedia to leave issues like this unresolved. The only specific edit you've mentioned so far looks like clear-cut vandalism to me. If the user was blocked for repeated vandalism say, then fine, that's probably appropriate. Is that why? If so please just point out the other specific edits which were acts of vandalism. I can understand that this user's views and actions might be offensive to you and others. However it's important to demonstrate that we don't block people just because they are obnoxious, or because they have unpopular views, don't you agree?. If you won't be specific about the reasons for the block and the edits involved, then some people will conclude that was the reason. Please respond. Paul August 02:43, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Boy it sure stinks in here, time to clear the air. silsor 23:27, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

192.197.71.189

I've extended the ban on 192.197.71.189 to indefinite, because a goatse.cx on the main page is beyond unacceptable. -- user:zanimum

I'm moving the conversation to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 16, 2004. -- user:zanimum

User:Dante Alighieri reblocked for 24 days. silsor 22:12, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Not a speedy?

Thought that "Bud smiley" thing was speedy-delete fodder. Thanks for the heads-up. - Lucky 6.9 23:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I push the speedy deletion rules to their limit as is, but they're pretty constricting if you take a good look. silsor 23:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. However, patent nonsense is reason for a speedy and various tries for hits on Google produced absolutely nothing of relevance. I've put the speedy notice back on...not as an edit war, mind you, but because it's unverifiable as being something that exists outside one person's imagination. I appreciate your concern, BTW. - Lucky 6.9 23:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

bud smiley

The "bud smiley" is a long standing tradition in the ways of the old. I speak of BBSes. As I am sure you are well aware, in this day and age, the internet is overrun with braindead AOLers. Most of which I am sure you have run accross in your time as an English Admin here.

For the DOC and YAWC community, the Bud Smiley is widely used when such normally boring discussions turn to heated debates ( see: 2000 Election ). It has been mentioned that the entry deserves to be deleted due to its underwhelming amount of hits on Google. There is, lest we forget, a world outside of Google. And all of this information wouldn't begin to register on Google. But it is still there. It still deserves some amount of recognition. Our entry does not deserve deletion simply because a handful of people never heard of it, or because Google never hear of it. To subject any bit of wisdom to the same specific scrutiny would only cause the information available to future users bland and regurgatated.

I have no doubt that the "bud smiley" actually exists, but in my opinion it doesn't meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. silsor 02:53, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Clearing the Air

Silsor, thanks for getting back to me, I really appreciate it! I'll have to ponder this. I do have lots of questions. But I will be gone starting Saturday for two weeks (cruising the Caribbean ;-). I'll be in touch when I'm back. Paul August 01:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

thanks

You know your mind is going when you misspell the title of your article... thanks for fixing the typo --Spangineer 21:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Comic store

What are your hopes for Comic store? The user is creating redirects for synonyms of comic book store and redirecting them to eachother. --fvw * 04:50, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

I left a warning in case s/he was actually trying to accomplish something. I will delete them all as well as the other attempts in a few minutes. silsor 04:51, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

File forums

It's not private information. Please get over it. Bsdusr 03:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Please get over it. silsor 03:14, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

There is no public law or Wikipedia rule against publishing this information. The rules of the forum do not apply here. Bsdusr 03:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So how's the SA permaban coming along octalc0de? silsor 05:57, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Bsdusr isn't me. edit: I keep getting logged out so I can't sign this.

Who is "me"? silsor 19:04, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Can you tell me what was wrong with the Fairmont Queen Elizabeth?

Read the copyright violation header on that page, it tells you everything you need to know. silsor 14:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Changed title: sorry for the abusive heading

I just unblocked myself. Two things here:

you never left a message on my talk page, though I notice you did (uselessly) message me while I was blocked about this issue
I have developed time travel, and thus was able to post a message on your talk page, while you were blocked, regarding the question you posed in your self-unblock message. silsor 04:27, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
I was still blocked when I got that message. Care to explain that? So what you're basically saying is that you left me no warning, as you would with other users and treated me with contempt. That sucks! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was sending an administrator related query to all the admins on the list asking something specific. Only angela left me a (fairly rude and abrupt) message on my talk page. So don't tell me that I was left POLITE messages on my talk page!

I may have made a mistake, but this doesn't give you the right to block me. I'd advise you review the way you do blocks or I'll setup an RFC on you. I mean this.

Ta bu shi da yu 04:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Sending an administrator related query to all the admins on the list" is otherwise known as spamming. In my opinion you showed a severe lack of judgement in spamming the talk pages of the administrators, and showed no signs of stopping despite being asked, so I gave you a very short (five minute) block in an attempt to slow you down. It would have been very appropriate to post on the Village Pump or send an email to the English Wikipedia mailing list asking interested users to participate.

On another note, I don't understand why you are messaging administrators about this, since administrators have no special authority over this issue. I'm not sure administrators actually have any authority, only privileges.

If you would like to start an RFC on me over this then be my guest. silsor 04:27, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Because access to the RFC section is in the domain of administrators? Because I'm asking for administrators what their opinion of me removing something from VFD before it's 7 day limit is up, which is in the domain of administrators? That answer your question? Oh, I've opened an RFC on whether you should have blocked me and why messaging other admins is counted as "spam". See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu - Ta bu shi da yu 04:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "access to the RFC section is in the domain of administrators". silsor 05:10, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I wasn't clear. I mean, removing RFCs and moving them about is in the domain of admins, right? Maybe I'm wrong. Incidently, you haven't answered any of my points about VfD so far. And now you've forced me to put your talk page on my watchlist: great form mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No need to address the VfD comments, since there are zero policy issues on this project that are decided by administrator consensus instead of the consensus of all users. As for the watchlist comment, I can only infer, but not conclude that you are smoking some excellent crack cocaine. silsor 05:25, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. That's right. I'm smoking crack. Nice. Guess you need to read no personal attacks, as admins keep telling controversial users. And exactly how did you want me to get admin consensus if I can't message them all? Also, do you expect me to periodically check your page to see what you have to say about things, in particular about your action in blocking me? That is incredibly poor form. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for the "crack cocaine" comment, I was using a colloquialism to respond to what struck me as complete nonsense and I didn't mean to insult you. As for the administrator consensus thing, you read the exact opposite of what I wrote: I said there are zero policy issues that require administrator consensus. The group of administrators is not a decision making group. This though has nothing to do with why I blocked you, which was for spamming.

Yes, I do expect you to check my page if you want to read my replies to comments that you wrote there. I'm not one of those people who carries out conversations on two separate talk pages, requiring people to page back and forth in order to make sense of it. silsor 07:10, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've calmed down enough to be rational now. I'd appreciate it if you would please give me some warning before blocking me in future. That came out of the blue, and I got mighty pissed off about it. I might have misread what you said about the zero policies about admin consensus. In that case sorry. I also accept your apology about the crack cocaine comment. This whole issue has gotten out of hand quite fast, and its not good having two admins getting pissed off with each other. Truce and friendship? I'd prefer it that way, and now I've blown my top I fear I have to mend some burnt bridges with you. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, I have no bad feelings towards you. I have a soft spot for reconciliation.... silsor 09:05, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Please cut the insults. Cool Hand Luke 05:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is that to me, or Silsor, or both? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Both seem a little upset! Dr Zen 05:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me moreso because I've been treated unfairly. My last word about the matter, but I'll keep this in mind next time I see a controversial admin action by Silsor. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to say, silsor, as inappropriate as it was in this situation, that crack comment made me laugh out loud. Mind if I immortalize it forever on my user page? Andre (talk) 06:33, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. silsor 07:10, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Dude, sorry for abusive comments. I realise you were just doing an admin job... now I've got some space from it I see you did the right thing. My unreserved apologies for the comments I've made here. I'm going to remove the RFC... also, thanks for comment on my user page. I'll certainly try to get some rest! Hey, could I get some help with CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus? She keeps making massive changes without any talk and I'd like some advise on what to do here. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bugmenot

A word to the wise: be careful blocking these accounts. I find that numerous IP address get autoblocked and you'll get thousands of annoyed AOL users emailing you via Wikipedia mail come Monday. My suggestion is to unblock User:bugmenot and a_a, then change their password and email address. Then they can't use the account. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Those accounts are already deactivated. silsor 21:17, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, do you know how to make the Wikisource link show up in one of those neat iceberg boxes while still retaining the description of "chord structures" in the link? Is that possible at all? Everyking 06:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

? silsor 06:56, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

No, lots of articles have a little box that the link goes in, with that picture too...don't they? Similar to the Wikiquote link...I could be crazy, I guess... Everyking 07:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't you think I've forgotten about this, oh no. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Take a look at the bottom of the article Little Drummer Boy to see what I'm talking about. Everyking 18:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In that article it seems to be caused by {{wikisource}}. Why not paste that into your article? silsor 20:58, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I want the caption to say "Pieces of Me chord structures", not just "Pieces of Me". Everyking 23:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So go to Template:Wikisource, copy the HTML and paste it into your article. silsor 14:35, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Dsc00003.jpg

On Dec 9, Tagishsimon listed Image:Dsc00003.jpg on ifd. On Dec 11, you wrote "Somebody deleted this, but there is no record in the deletion log or in the deleted edits (is this a bug?). Please leave this listing here until somebody figures out what happened."

Did you ever find out what happened? If not, you may want to move your question somewhere else. (Everything on the page is normally deleted after seven days.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:15, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

No, I think it's a bug in the software that the deletion wasn't recorded. I'd rather leave it for now if you don't mind, since it was deleted against policy. silsor 20:26, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Polish mythology (?!)

Hi Jeff, Some time ago you added lots of stubs and sub-stubs on the alleged Polish mythology. The problem is that there is no such thing as specifically Polish mythology and some of the deities described were but elements of the other world of all Slavs, not just Western Slavs. Other deities you marked as belonging to "Polish mythology were deities or personalities popular only among Eastern Slavs while a huge part of them does not ring a bell in my head at all.

Anyway, I'm currently merging the Category:Polish mythology with Category:Slavic mythology. Some of the articles belonging to the earlier will be wikified and expanded, while I will list the rest on WP:vfd. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:00, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Halibutt, I know nothing about Polish mythology. Any stubs and sub-stubs I added were articles that I was creating due to us being granted permission by "Margi Bailoboginki" to use all her content in Wikipedia. It's hard to remember now, but I believe the articles may have been undeleted by me, or something. In any case I was a third party to the situation. silsor 14:25, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Image tag

Thanks for uploading Image:Mother Teresa.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Aqua 03:40, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

PS I see that the origional has been deleted. You wouldn't happen to know what tag that was under would you?

I don't know the copyright status of this image, since I just copied Image:Mtheresa.jpg to fix the spelling error in the filename. silsor 12:30, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your support on my RFA request. It seems that had I waited one day with self-nominating, it would have succeeded. Jordi·✆ 09:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Al Hubbard (VVAW)

The plagiarism that exists in the article deserved no discussion.

From the opening paragraph in the article:

Alfred H. Hubbard entered the Air Force in October 1952, re-enlisted twice and was honorably discharged in October 1966, when his enlistment expired. At the time of his discharge he was an instructor flight engineer on C-123 aircraft with the 7th Air Transport Squadron, McCord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Washington.

Now from a National Review article [19]: Alfred H. Hubbard entered the Air Force in October 1952, re-enlisted twice and was honorably discharged in October 1966, when his enlistment expired. At the time of his discharge he was an instructor flight engineer on C-123 aircraft with the 7th Air Transport Squadron, McCord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Washington.

I would also point out that the user in question has had a long history of plagiarism in VVAW related articles. [20]

Admin 172 has blocked one of the many IP addresses he uses, but that will not stop the long term problem of vandalism by this anon user. The anon cites "fair use" clauses when defending his plagiarism without realizing what they entail. The anon is also argumentative to the point of being a nuisance, even going so far as to start a revert war on a talk page [21]. Please revert to the last non anon entry.

Thank you. TDC 23:40, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hi TDC, what made me choose to protect the article was that you just reverted and did not discuss the issue at all. Even pasting that URL into an edit summary would have made all the difference. That said, I am withdrawing my protection of the article. silsor 23:58, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Howdy, Silsor. Just a little heads-up regarding TDC and the article you protected:

User TDC cites one opening paragraph as a problem, yet his edit has deleted significant content elsewhere in the article. He has pulled this same stunt on the Vietnam Veterans Against the War article, among others - which coincidentally bears your mark as the most recent history entry, Silsor.
If you'll look closely at the National Review source cited by TDC, you'll see they were themselves quoting a public domain source (the Department of Defense public press release). That opening paragraph is also contained in Hubbard's military record - also public domain. There is no plagiarism there, and I'd have been happy to point that out if the editor had merely entered into discussion.
Now user TDC accuses me of plagiarism in other articles? I'd advise you to pay closer attention to those accusations as well.
Regarding the assertion that Admin 172 has blocked my IP address, again you are being misled. That admin did indeed block a user IP briefly, and then after review he removed the block and admitted he should have been more critical of TDC. And it wasn't my IP in any case. The details may be reviewed at [[22]].
Regarding an accusation of revert wars on a Talk page: Tripe. User TDC is trying to bury his past transgressions in an "archive" and other users have reverted his attempt. It's there for the reading.
Finally, regarding TDCs accusation that I, or other users are argumentative, I remind you it was TDC that states, "...the article deserved no discussion" on this very page. It was TDC that threatened, "Do so now, or this edit war will never end. That I can promise you. TDC 19:41, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)" here [[23]]. On previous occasions, when asked to enter into reasonable discussion, TDC's response would be something like, "05:37, 29 Oct 2004 TDC (RV, I am not going to argue this with an Anon user who is trying to stuff this garbage into an article)" as recorded here [[24]]. Whom is argumentative?

If you have the time, can you please look at the status of the Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War articles as well? User TDC appears to be pulling the same stunts with these articles as with the Al Hubbard (VVAW) article. Namely, wholesale massacre of articles, while complaining about just a sentence or two of alleged plagiarism -- and when approached to enter reasonable discussion about the issues, he doesn't. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -Rob

Thank you for lifting the protections on the Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War articles. You mentioned on WP:RFPP that you hoped you could trust my word that discussion by the protection requestor had ceased. You also mentioned that you were prepared to re-protect the articles if necessary. First, you can rest assured that discussions have not only ceased, but they never really progressed to begin with. User TDC seems content to simply revert to an article version many months and edits old, and then repeatedly institute that revert until he manages to get an Admin (usually 172) to lock it into place with a protect. Then he refuses to enter into discussions about what he has done, as long as it remains protected in his preferred version.

Just moments ago, I re-inserted the content and edits that have been productively developed by many editors over the past few months. TDC's most recent edit of these articles was to delete 70% of the content of each (which was added by MANY users over several months) and then comment in the Edit Summary that such a large amount of "questionable" additions should be discussed on the talk page. Well they were. Months ago, when each of the additions were first made. What needs to be discussed is user TDC's sweeping deletions of those months of development -- yet he refuses to enter discussion, despite my many requests. Silsor, I wish I could promise you that revert wars will no longer occur with user TDC, but I just know that won't be the case. Here is my prediction of the events to come:

TDC will notice that I have reinserted the content that he mass-deleted from the 2 articles.
TDC will institute a revert to both articles, adding an Edit Summary comment something to the effect of "These changes need to be discussed" while hoping that no one will notice that he just reverted dozens of changes from dozens of contributors over many months with his single revert -- and he has no intention of discussing his massive revert.
I will eventually see TDCs undiscussed revert, and again re-insert the content, spelling and grammar corrections, formatting, etc., that his revert inevitably wipes away. I will again request that he please explain his edits on the discussion page. I will again be ignored.
This will continue until Admin User 172 sees the activity on his watch list, and protects the pages yet again - carefully timing the protection to lock into place TDC's most recent mass-deletions. Admin 172 will also conveniently forget to log these particular protections on the Page Protection log, lest unwanted attention be drawn to those protections. (Ok, that last part is speculation of mine. But that is what has happened thus far, and 172 has admitted on his talk page that he is less critical of TDC than he should be due to past amicable exchanges with him.)
After several days of futile pleading for TDC to engage in discussions, I'll once again request that the pages be unprotected due to no discussion by the protection requestor.

Any advice you can give on how to break this vicious cycle would be appreciated. When TDC tried this same routine back in October, another Admin tried her best to get him involved in editing discussions to no avail. He refused to participate. Nothing has changed in the past months. -Rob

If you feel "stuck" while dealing with a user, my advice is to advance to the next stage in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. silsor 03:50, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Silsor, would you kindly stop feeding into this moron. What I am doing is an attempt to save the article from a general blanking on grounds that much of it was lifted from copywritten sources or is the result of plagarized public domain info.

Even after Anon removed the passages I marked as plagarized, there is still much more plagarized information in the article. I could go line by line to verify that the info has not been plagarized, but thats really not my job.

Anon keeps bitching and moaning that I am wiping out the contributions of dozens of users, but every anon contribution on the disputed articles is the work of one fucking person.

The newest example is from Winter Soldier Investigation

Al proposed that CCI join forces with Jane Fonda, Mark Lane, Rev. Dick Fernandez of CALC, and Donald Duncan (the Green Beret who had testified at the Russell Tribunal in Denmark).

Taken word for word from [25] TDC 23:08, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

If you two don't stop trying to drag me into the debate then I will move all your comments onto a separate oubliette subpage where nobody will never have to see them again. silsor 23:33, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Danby

why did you put up an NPOV tag? there is no justification for it. Herschelkrustofsky has continually reverted it to a factually incorrect, highly POV version, which does not warrant acknowledgement. before you put up the tag, did you do any research into Danby or even the history of the page? i ask you to remove the tag. any person who is not trying to edit that article from a POV, and knows all the facts, will see that Herschelkrustofsky's version is meritless. and for the record. i voted against danby at the last election. Xtra 21:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV tag states that there is a dispute over whether or not the page is POV. It definitely belongs there as you just proved here on my talk page. silsor 23:07, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Block

I assume you're aware that thanks to the inept developers blocks currently don't expire automatically, so it's your responsibility to unblock the users you have blocked when the set time is expired. Gzornenplatz

Yes, I'm aware. silsor 00:13, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Then what are you waiting for? My block has expired.

First, there's no internet access on public transit where I live. Second, I suggest you email me with a really good reason for autoblocking a few dozen IPs in the space of a minute if you want the autoblocks removed. "I wanted to give you a big cleanup job as punishment for blocking me" doesn't count. I consider this abuse. silsor 01:55, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? No internet access? You're obviously here. Autoblocking a few dozen IPs? What are you talking about? I'm not responsible for those blocks. Complain to the developers for their bizarre system that seems to remember any IP that was associated with a username in the last year or whatever, and if you have a dynamic IP the result are those endless IP lists. You don't have to remove all IP blocks, just my username. 217.85.218.250 02:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked, try to stay out of the revert cookie jar. silsor 02:19, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tsunami protection

Hi Silsor, it's been about 24hrs since you protected tsunami, I'm sure the threat is over (or is diminished at least). Could you unprotect it now, please? Dan100 17:04, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Done, thanks for reminding me. If you ever need protection or unprotection done in a hurry, use WP:RFPP. silsor 18:01, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Thank you, Silsor. We'll make sure the differences are properly discussed so that the page can be unprotected soon. Best, SlimVirgin 18:02, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

I saw what you did

... and you're going down! -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Re: "plasma stealth"

Jeff,

I posted an article to Wikipedia entitled "Plasma Stealth". It seems that it was turned down due to suspected copyright violation. There is none: I am the author and copyright holder of the original article on www.aeronautics.ru. I'd appreciate if you can allow the "Plasma Stealth" article to appear on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Venik

WP:AN

Any reason I shouldn't archive the sections of WP:AN you just pitched? (I.e. you're not in the process of so doing, right?) I try and do archive runs twice a day, in the morning and evening when things are responding quickly, but I've been busy reorganizing things a bit. Noel (talk) 00:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

I understand completely! I'm somewhat on the deletionist side myself - I became an admin because I wanted to delete useless redirects! Anyway, I'm adding an index to the incident archives which will quickly take people to the (few) interesting discussions, bypassing the less interesting stuff. Noel (talk) 00:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to something like the removal of Ashlee's statement that she gets hit on more as a brunette than as a blonde. But I wish you wouldn't say things in edit summaries such as "trivia" and that you "picked some lint off the article" (as amusing as that second comment was to me). Everyking 00:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How come you don't want me to call it "trivia"? silsor 00:43, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Because it seems like a deliberate provocation to say such a thing. Everyking 01:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ET

Thanks for protecting the Enemy Territory page, but the discussion page for it also needs to be protected, it's being vandalised as well.

My inclination is to unblock the talk page, because someone may have useful suggestions for the article, not many innocents are likely to come across this page in the next few minutes, and at least we know where to look for the vandalism.-gadfium 01:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It'll be temporary, GNAA's attention is on it for the moment. silsor 01:36, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt

Hey, Thanks! Davenbelle 08:07, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking

I blocked him after 4 reverts and yet he's still reverting. He must have unblocked himself. That's why I increased it to 48 hours. Rick K 05:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I did not earn even a 24 hour block. I never made more than three reverts and I have no idea what Rick was doing increasing the block to 48 hours; I did nothing but rollback vandalism while doing RC patrol, as I felt obligated to contribute in some other way if I was not able to edit normally. Although your feelings about me are obvious, I nevertheless appreciate you unblocking me. Everyking 01:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You reverted three times with edit summary "rv", then Madame Sosostris removed some material and you reverted him/her with edit summary "restore some info". silsor 01:43, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. I restored part of one paragraph. I realize that you may not feel the matter is important enough to be worth researching properly, but it very important to me if it means I'm going to prevented from editing for 24 hours. Please review these blocks more carefully and unblock people when it is done as a violation of policy. I would suggest to RickK that he do the same, but he would probably block me for two months just for daring to bring it up. Everyking 02:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some of the text that was completely removed by Madame Sosostris in his/her edit was this:

As she says on the show: "I'm writing a song called "Pieces of Me", and it's about Ryan." In one interview, she said that "Ryan's my best friend, and he's the only one who gets me. After a long day, he'll come over and I forget about everything else."¹ She also called Cabrera her inspiration for the song in the thank you section of Autobiography's liner notes. The song's lyrics express the comfort she finds with him: "It seems like I can finally rest my head on something real," she sings. Regarding Cabrera's reaction to the song, she has said: "I think he said, 'Ohhh, baby you're so cute' and gave me a big hug. He was so excited."

In the very next edit, you added this text back in:

As she says on the show: "I'm writing a song called "Pieces of Me", and it's about Ryan." In one interview, she said that "Ryan's my best friend, and he's the only one who gets me. After a long day, he'll come over and I forget about everything else."¹ She also called Cabrera her inspiration for the song in the thank you section of Autobiography's liner notes. The song's lyrics express the comfort she finds with him: "It seems like I can finally rest my head on something real," she sings. Regarding Cabrera's reaction to the song, she has said: "I think he said, 'Ohhh, baby you're so cute' and gave me a big hug. He was so excited."

As far as I can tell the block was completely justified. silsor 02:18, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

If it was a revert, I would have added about five times more content back than that. As far as I can tell it was completely unjustified. Everyking 02:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocking and use of administrator powers

Thank you for unblocking me. I have read carefully the policies relating to blocking and to sockpuppets, and I am sure you are more familiar with them than I am, however I ask on what authority you purport to be able to indefinitely block the usernames you have blocked.

On my reading of the policies, I believe your action lies outside your power and I would like to work that out with you so that I understand whether I'm right or not (the latter being more likely probably).

Thank you

Ollieplatt 21:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're a vandal/troll, and your sock puppets are blocked for being disruptive and deceptive (creating the illusion of wider support for a position). End of topic, get banned soon. silsor 21:22, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

AOL blocks

There's no problem with blocking single AOL ips for 24 hrs, the chance that the person logs out and someone else uses the same IP and wants to use Wikipedia is minimal, and no different for AOL than for any other ISP. The limitation of block time is only for range blocks, which limit large swaths of AOL's IPs, and hugely increase the chance of innocents being blocked. --fvw * 01:29, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Thanks. silsor 01:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Native American Pottery

Looks like you connected with my start of a type of "bridge" article between art and anthro. I'm a beginner -- so will try to do as little damage as possible. If you have advice on things I do on the page, please leave me a message on the discussion segment. I'm not yet officially logged in. Suspect I will once I feel more comfortable with the environment. W

Ohio Wesleyan article

Silsor-

Could you take a look at the Ohio Wesleyan University article and perform your magic on it? I seem to be in a tug of war with Rananim (who also travels through Wikipedia under various names and I.P. addresses, most recently a new IP in the past week). My goal is to get the article towards NPOV and factual; Rananmin seems to want to drag the entry back into his perception of the school. Personally, I think the last edit I made could be halved with great ease. One thing that I am picky about, is the fact that OWU was founded in part by the Methodist Epsicopal (M.E.) Church, which is one of the number of churches that merged to create the modern United Methodist Church in the 1960's. Rananim (who insists that the U.M.C. isn't activly involved in the operation of the campus, which is contrary to OWU on the matter) has called this fact bizarre and has fought me on this tooth and nail; it is however FACT. Let me know if you can help... user: stude62 talk:stude62 19:05, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard of anybody having WikiMagic before, but I've tried to clean up and resection the article. I think it looks more professional now. silsor 23:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Silsor - since Rananim appears to be using sock puppet tactics to revert the OWU page, can we get the page protected a for period of sufficient to break the cycle of bad edits and reverts? If you view the Ohio Wesleyan University talk page you'll see that I'm being threatened by one of his/her shift indentities. user: stude62 talk:stude62 19:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since I have involved myself in the dispute it would be inappropriate for me to protect the page, but if you ask on WP:RFPP you should have no problem finding someone to do it. silsor 20:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Noticeboard

That's a personal attack? You've been around here long enough to know what a personal attack really is. Everyking 00:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks silsor 00:48, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said... Everyking 01:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, I haven't as yet had the pleasure. But this conversation was between Silsor and myself. I asked for his help and he was gracious in providing it, I hope you can respect that without confusing issues at hand. user: stude62 talk:stude62 02:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All right already, sometimes I'm lazy about adding in my own headings, sorry, I've added one now. Everyking 02:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom blocks

Thanks for blocking IZAK per the ArbCom ruling. However in the future please make note of such a block at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested in order to prevent double blocking. --mav 08:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Justification For Eagle Contributions

Hello:

Please note the following comments I made in response to the Wikipedia community. I am not trying to be obnoxious. I am only trying to justify my contributions. I need your support in defending my contributions.

This page, Alvin Joseph Michael Reed, is not a copyright infringement because I am the original creator of both the article and the external link. So give me the courtesy of restoring it to its original location.

In response to the List Of Eagle Scouts on the Eagle Scout page: This section should be reserved for those individuals who have attained scouting's highest rank, the Eagle Scout award. Listing the name or names of serial killers and pedophiles is a disgrace to the badge. Anyone who has earned the Eagle award as a youth, then later become a serial killer forfeits his award or the right to claim name to it. That person is a disgrace to the others who behave in law-abiding ways and uphold the honor of the badge. I was appalled to see the name of a serial killer and pedophile listed here. So to get the attention of the Wikipedia community, I feel it is necessary to add this statement in defense of the Eagle Badge. I will only identify myself as the proud mother of an Eagle Scout. I would like to see the badge's good name upheld. I am sure that every Eagle Scout and Eagle family would agree with me. If I see another criminal listed, I will remove his name in order to PROTECT THE DIGNITY AND HONOR OF THE EAGLE BADGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please respect his very unique badge and list only those individuals who are living up to the standards of an Eagle Scout, both in the past and especially in the present!!! Please help to uphold the dignity and honor of this distinction by keeping Arthur Gary Bishop's name off of this privileged list!

In response to Finis White: All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. This has nothing to do with vanity!!!!! NOTHING!!!! I worked on this article from scratch as the boy's leader. He is a very notable young man. Just because you have not heard of him does not mean he is not noteworthy. Who are you to decide? If this article is deleted, I will replace it. I do not appreciate these negative comments on this accomplished young man. His story is an encouragement to young people everywhere. I don't understand this site at all. You allow criminals like serial killers and rapists to be listed, disgracing the honor of the Eagle badge; but you want to take issue with the addition of articles about accomplished youths who are making a difference in this world and living up to the Eagle Scout honor! HE IS NOTABLE!!!!! Thanks. --Sistertina 14:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't fix typos that are not typos

Please don't assume that [a, b[ is a typo that should be changed to [a, b] in a mathematics article. Your doing this made it incorrect. I have changed it to [a, b) with a SQUARE bracket on the left and a ROUND bracket on the right. That is synonymous with the less frequently used notation that you incorrectly "corrected". Michael Hardy 21:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mike

Check Mike's talk page... I've decided that I might as well be friendly, since staying bitter doesn't seem worth it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:17, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

A long term block requested

Hello Silsor!

I am requesting a block against Gzornenplatz a second time, as per the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#Gzornenplatz and other related discussions on various pages - hopefully for longer than 24 hours, as Gplatz reverts upto 30 articles at once and wastes other editors' time, and since this is not just the second offense but the nth in a series of edits that was mentioned during arbitration: the entire list of images being reverted can be found on the arbitration Evidence page. As the first link shows, Gplatz has actually consented that the CIA map of India is not NPOV, but he continues to revert to it anyway, and besides the long edit war with me, has been edit warring with User:Nichalp after the discussion here. -- Simonides 15:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN

You could have merely added a pointer to the appropriate location, or, if you wanted to refer to a frozen version of the discussion, put it on a page somewhere and included a pointer to that on WP:AN. Would you mind doing so, to ease the bloat on WP:AN? Thanks. Noel (talk) 16:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'll do this shortly (put it on a subpage), unless you have a problem with that. Do you have any particular preference for a location? Noel (talk) 16:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks great. silsor 22:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sleep tight

) Rick K 09:41, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

GNAA

According to the weblog article, Slashdot is a blog. --SPUI 16:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. silsor 16:42, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

A New Record

Two articles riddled with plagiarized information, protected for over three weeks! I think that sets a new record, one that you can be proud of. TDC 21:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

If you want articles protected or unprotected use WP:RFPP instead of suffering silently. The articles were protected for a length of time because they could not be protected without the edit war continuing, as was demonstrated several times. silsor 21:52, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, the only persons "suffering" were those who read that bullshit, Wikipedia opening itself up to a Copyright infringement suit, and the credibility of those who are facilitating both. The length of the protections will not influence my decision to revert the article back to a previous version that does not contain plagiarism. TDC 22:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

TDC still has yet to substantiate his claims of plagiarism. The discussion pages for both of the articles still remain devoid of explanation by TDC, despite several requests. TDCs reverts demolish the edits of several contributors, including formatting, spelling corrections and link maintenance -- and he thinly veils this vandalism as a supposed revert of plagiarism. His reverts continue. From my previous post to Silsor: "User TDC seems content to simply revert to an article version many months and edits old, and then repeatedly institute that revert until he manages to get an Admin (usually 172) to lock it into place with a protect. Then he refuses to enter into discussions about what he has done, as long as it remains protected in his preferred version." [26] Gee, who'd have guessed. Since I see Silsor has removed the "I like controversial subjects..." wording from his user page, I'll try to refrain from posting anything more about this here. -Rob

Hey Bobby, get a clue, I dont deal with tards or liars. TDC 04:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

AAAARGH GET OFF MY TALK PAGE, I THOUGHT I WARNED BOTH OF YOU LAST TIME

VFD Page change

I have to apologize that I boldly changed the VFD format. It was based on a suggestion on the discussion page, suggesting that days should be placed on subpages, so that if the VFD page were changed around from newest day to oldest day, it would be a lot easier to do. I do apologize if this has created more work for you. However, the other reason why it was done was that it got more and more difficult to try to add a new vfd to the main VFD page. To me, I believed that an automatic link was required, one that would allow me to quickly add the VFD to the page, without having the trouble to go through the entire VFD just to add my vote. Mind you, Wikipedia has enough problems of page loading... loading the whole VFD page with all the votes just to add one just got really annoying. I felt that if each page was subsectioned, then the new VFD would go on a per day basis, showing the VFD subpages for that day, rather than 5 or 7 or more days. Well, I don't think a bot would be that extremely difficult to program, since it would just need to figure out how to visit each day's page and process it like before... -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

loller.

tsunami

I don't know what the vandals have against this one particular page, but that last bit was mostly just one anon IP User:216.255.36.168 over the space of about 20 minutes, although User:24.210.62.133 did participate slightly too. I'm reluctant to leave it vprotected too long... let's cross our fingers. -- Curps 04:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Silsor's edits

Silsor. More edits for calc and Antro, plz(he knows what this means. It's not just grafetti)

vandalism report

I just removed some vandalism from the Zurab Zhvania page, I think the offending IP was 210.0.177.84

OWU Article

Silsor- FYI, the Ohio Wesleyan Article is back under rananim control and he alternative identifications.user: stude62 user talk:stude62 03:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: OWU Article

Silsor-FYI, I did make additions to the OWU article. Feel free to take a look at them. All I did was adding OWU's majors and corrected a few typos. Nothing major. You will see for yourself. What should I do to make stude62 stop lying and harassing me every time I make changed to an article? This is neither inviting any contributions nor consistent with Wiki's policies. Let me know. User:Ranamim 05:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

spam blacklist updates

I've compiled a list of URLs used so far by the spambot that is attacking PHP and some of the pages linked to it (DBpp, CCVS, Cybercash, DBM) and their talk pages, and have listed them at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist. Since you are also an admin on meta, could you consider adding these to the filter list? Thanks. -- Curps 20:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling the list, I added them all. silsor 01:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio protection

What's the point of protecting an article when the last revertion was an hour ago? Please try not to be rude in your response. Thanks. —Cantus…☎ 06:26, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Protection was requested on WP:RFPP. Sorry it wasn't on your version, I just took whichever was handy at the time. silsor 06:54, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

UTM

Haha! I came to your user page from Talk:Autofellatio, and I noticed you attend UTM too! What do you study? I'm in computer science and physics. :) —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-10 07:25 Z

Ooh, a coincidence! I'm trying to get into the computer science program as well; right now I'm taking anthropology and history related courses. I've never met another wikipedian in real life before but I'll have to try and see if I can recognize you from your picture! silsor 07:31, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

spambot

The spambot is now attacking PL/I and other pages, I have had to protect them too.

I'd say you should seriously consider filtering all of 6x.to and uni.cc (despite the 2-3 legitimate external links that use them), and probably all of .su (although Google search makes it impossible to see how many Wikipedia pages use such external links).

-- Curps 08:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PL/1 was on the 8th. If this continues I will temporarily filter out those two domains. When was the latest spam? silsor 08:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hangul vs Hangeul

Dear Silsor, the "Hangeul" is the formal transliteration, but "Hangul" is the most common one. Even in Korea, most people's name are still transliterated with the common spelling, not necessary the formal transliteration. However, for places names, they have changed already. -- Tomchiukc 05:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking?

Not to sound ungrateful, but I was wondering why you did indeed unblock me. Borderer 05:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In these enlightened days of Wikipedia we're trying to offload jerks onto the arbitration committee instead of having sysops having to make judgment calls all the time. Also you probably shouldn't have been blocked by the user you were flaming. silsor 05:48, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is a tongue-in-cheek comment and does not represent the views of anybody. silsor 05:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for letting me know you unblocked this guy. You DID see what he wrote on his User page before I reverted it, right? And you DID see this, right? You really think this is the kind of editor we want here? Rick K 06:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't to say that he shouldn't be blocked, but that you probably shouldn't be the one to do it. silsor 06:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you don't feel fit to do the blocking yourself shows that you approve of the edit. Rick K 06:08, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Headache

Any suggestions for dealing with this particular headache that involves with the protection/unprotection of two particular articles? And, yes, I'm being paranoid, because I have a feeling that someone is tracking my contributions. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend WP:RFC, or if that has already been done then WP:RFAr. silsor 22:47, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

full set of spambot domains

See Category:Protected against spambots

I left a message on meta as well. -- Curps 01:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For spb.ru, I'd suggest blocking at least these subdomains of it:

Baccarat Blackjack Card Cigarettes Gambling Hobby Maxtor Mortgages Pain-relief Percocet Pharmacy Phone Poker Prescription Shopping Tramadol Toys Vicodin

He seems to use the same bunch of subdomain names across different domains in .ru and .su ... but for 6x.to and uni.cc he's much more inventive, so we need to keep blocking the whole TLD for those two.

You could do the same for any other domain where you want to be on the safe side, and for the others just blacklist the whole TLD.

We do need the spamfiltering in place though before we can unprotect PHP. Right now it's not safe to do so, it got hit again when we tried.

-- Curps 05:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting to test it. ~~I'll keep an eye on it and reprotect it when I'm done.~~ This shouldn't be necessary.... silsor 05:42, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

We already did so earlier today (yesterday). It got hit. See the history.

For spb.ru, I'd suggest blocking at least these subdomains of it:

Baccarat Blackjack Card Cigarettes Gambling Hobby Maxtor Mortgages Pain-relief Percocet Pharmacy Phone Poker Prescription Shopping Tramadol Toys Vicodin

He seems to use the same bunch of subdomain names across different domains in .ru and .su ... but for 6x.to and uni.cc he's much more inventive, so we need to keep blocking the whole TLD for those two.

You could do the same for any other domain where you want to be on the safe side, and for the others just blacklist the whole TLD. Spb is probably "Saint Petersburg" and Msk is probably "Moscow"... these are geographic TLDs. The .ru versions are probably more legitimate than the .su versions.

We do need the spamfiltering in place though before we can unprotect PHP. Right now it's not safe to do so, it got hit again when we tried.

-- Curps 05:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you want to be conservative, write a script that creates combos of Baccarat ... Vicodin for every one of the .RU and .SU TLD domains. It'll be a big list, but if the spam filter can handle it, that will filter out nearly everything (hopefully) with no disruption to legit sites.

Anyways, I have to go in about 15 minutes. If I don't hear back, I'll talk to you tomorrow. -- Curps 05:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I filtered all the domains except for the ones that I found in use on various wikis. I have unprotected PHP to see what happens, but I think we should leave the various other articles protected until we see what happens. silsor 05:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

You should at least block grozny.ru subdomains Baccarat thru Vicodin. We did get hit by Gambling.grozny.ru already. Talk to you tomorrow. -- Curps 06:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And we've already been hit by percocet.spb.su

I'd recommend blocking Baccarat thru Vicodin for the TLDs not blacklisted. -- Curps 06:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately I was wrong about grozny.ru being in use, Google shows that it is actually terek-grozny.ru, so we can block for grozny.ru without affecting that. silsor 06:41, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't sure if you were still up, so I temporarily re-protected PHP. Don't forget to re-unprotect it after percocet.spb.su etc. I gotta go, talk to you tomorrow. -- Curps 06:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo

Rienzo is still editing under further sockpuppets User:65.161.65.104, User:MahBoys, and User:Sandor, and User:130.236.84.134.

This is in violation of a 3 month ban from the arbitration comittee - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

I would appreciate an immediate block of these accounts. CheeseDreams 14:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you please provide evidence that these users are Rienzo? silsor 21:18, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

pillsbook

The Russian vandal or someone very similar is also using pillsbook.com

The entire TLD needs to be blocked, see my note on meta.

-- Curps 19:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done, looks like they're finally running out of steam. Watching for more spam... silsor 21:19, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

pillsbook.com struck again at 21:47–21:49... as a guideline to know when to unprotect, roughly how long does it take for spamfiltering to take effect after being added? -- Curps 22:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we might still see some spb.su subdomains in the Baccarat thru Vicodin list. The problem is, nobody other than you seems to be working on spamfiltering on meta, so the turnaround time for spamfilter requests can be quite long and the bot can make a lot of mess in the meantime.

Should we create a Wikipedia:Spamming in progress page and transclude it into Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress? Not all Wikipedia admins are meta admins, but it would at least get attention faster if posted here rather than on meta. Meta is very slow-moving, with few edits, so I doubt that most meta admins spend much time there checking their watchlists or their messages. -- Curps 22:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see that Andre Engels already removed tagil.ru from the spamfilter list. These are geographical-name TLDs, so we could have problems long-term with legitimate sites being filtered. We haven't seen any tagil.ru spambot domains yet. -- Curps 22:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems like I'm endlessly sending you messages.

For the Russian spamlist, probably they should all be prefixed with "\." Is there any performance hit in doing so? Otherwise, "nov" could pick up "ivanov", "romanov", etc. "bir" could pick up "sibir" (siberia), "msk" could pick up "omsk", etc. -- Curps 23:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No real performance hit, that's a good idea. silsor 23:33, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've also nominated you for adminship on meta, this may help getting changes through faster. silsor 23:42, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

the case of NSM88

Hi, the case of the Nazi user is being discussed on the wikien mailing list and you might want to go there to give your opinion. Cheers, 11:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, why did you unblock that Nazi

Why shouldn't he be blocked? Everything he stands for is hatred. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, mostly because he didn't do anything that was blockable, and I don't think it's a good time to start banning people based on opinion. Also I had a hunch he might turn out to be reasonable, which turned out as well as could be expected. silsor 17:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Other Nazis

I'm merging Kevin B. MacDonald's ideas on Jewish ethnocentrism from Culture of Critique into Kevin B. MacDonald. It's a long row to hoe, but I think the author's own article is the best place to describe his ideas.

Nobody seems to want an article on "Jewish ethnocentrism" itself - at least not under that title. Mikkalai made himself unpopular by tangling with SlimVirgin and company over this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism logs

It may interest you to view this: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jewish_ethnocentrism/Logs as your name appeared in the log. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I blocked Xed

Please see [27] and let me know if I'm wrong or what... -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Who? silsor 21:53, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a clear personal attack. Of course, Slrubenstein wasn't entirely in the clear, provoking it by saying to Xed on three separate occasions on his/her talk page that s/he has a "small, petty mind", also calling Xed a "moron". silsor 21:56, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jump???

Why did you change the name of the Go button? I hope such a major change was discussed somewhere first. sjorford →•← 14:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sjorford, I don't really think it's a major change at all, since it makes quite a bit more sense than the previous arrangement. Anyway, it wasn't my idea, I made the change in response to a bug filed here. silsor 22:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

uni.cc unblocked?? Spambot came back

Can you add uni.cc back to the spamfilter? Thanks. -- Curps 08:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems like there was an edit to the spam filter list by Kate at 07:32–07:33 which shouldn't have resulted in any change, since uni.cc is still listed there, yet the spambot hit PHP at 07:38–07:39... can you check just in case? Thanks. -- Curps 08:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The spam blacklist had a momentary bug that may have resulted in the entire thing not being read for a while. Fixed now by Kate, I believe. silsor 08:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hunter S. Thompson

WTF do you MEAN who?? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 12:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Never heard of him before. I read the article on him before removing his death from ITN and couldn't find anything that would make him notable enough to mention his suicide on our front page news. I know this news story has been going through American media like crazy, but did you think that maybe this is because he was an U.S. journalist? If you still think his suicide is notable enough for the front page, check out [28] and ask yourself why every single one of those is not on the front page. silsor 21:53, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Russian spambot

Two new domains:

linktrim.com
notlong.com

-- Curps 23:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I blocked those earlier this afternoon :D silsor 23:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. The site was temporarily experiencing a really slow response time just before I added that, which was causing me to run late before going out, so I did it in haste without too much checking.

One interesting thing though this time: out of the IPs used by the bot, there's one that shows a legitimate edit only 13 minutes later: Special:Contributions/62.254.0.38. Of course it could be a different user on dialup, or it might be circumstantial evidence for the theory that the bot hacks unsecure machines. -- Curps 02:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also noticed this. The host name of "nott-cache-9.server.ntli.net" shows it is a cache server of an ISP, which web traffic from all (or most) customers of that ISP will pass through. This just shows that a computer which accesses the web through this ISP is compromised. silsor 03:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Kaifeng Jews

Hi there, i just wanted to tell you that the dellitions where not mine! i was the guy who placed this article in the first place (the IP 64.230.84.216 is mine - Static). later on i registered as User:carbonbase. i was wondering for the deletions my self but did not know what to do about them, thank you for reinstalling the deleted text.

It was you that deleted the text, but maybe it was an accident. Here is the edit: [29]. silsor 13:48, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Silsor. I see that you've reverted my edit to Wikipedia, where I replaced the 'over 490,000' count with {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, or 6,914,995. Indeed, there used to be a warning there not to do what I did. But why? Any idea of the rationale behind eschewing {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} here? I'm just curious, because it seems that it would make much more sense to use {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}. It looks as if someone has mentioned this already. Might there be some aesthetic, some technical problem, or (dare I say it) some Anti-{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} Cabal I don't know about? :-) Chris Roy 22:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I changed it back on the principle of "don't take down a fence until you know why it was put up". I will look back in time on the history page to try and find where that notice came from. silsor 23:00, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be this edit: [30]. I personally think it's a bad idea to include live numbers in the page, for this reason: pages are often copied out of the wiki and become static somewhere else, on other sites or on paper or whatever. If we write "x articles" using NUMBEROFARTICLES, this becomes out of date, and if we write "over x articles" using NUMBEROFARTICLES it looks ridiculous. So it's probably best to keep updating it in the tens of thousands. silsor 23:20, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, sticking in a live number would be inconsistent with the rest of the article. Also, the number could get unwieldy (e.g. '1000001 of which' (concise, but difficult to read) instead of the better 'over a million of which'). Thanks for your opinion on the matter. Chris Roy 23:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slashnotablog :)

Boy, you sure got balls. Thanks for your bold move in weblog. Let's see what Booberry does now. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 04:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pilcrow Image

Hi Mike, I am putting Image:Pilcrow gentium.png up for deletion because I have replaced it with a free version. Just letting you know, silsor 22:42, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yay! Free images good! Thanks for letting me know... — MikeX (talk) 05:55, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio

Hi Silsor. I noticed you changed "Photograph" to "Drawing" in the linkimage template at autofellatio. Then, the image directed to the commons Autofellatio.jpg, which is the drawing (also available at Image:Autofellatio_drawing.jpg.) That was because User:Ahoerstemeier accidentally deleted Image:Autofellatio.jpg after it was used in a vandalism campaign. I've restored it, so the linkimage now goes to the photograph.

So, to make a long story short, could you change "Drawing" back to "Photograph"? I would, but it's protected (over the inclusion of the drawing, bizarrely). Thanks, TIMBO (T A L K) 06:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Timbo, editing the page was an accident on my part originally since I didn't actually notice it was protected until afterwards :) I will just rollback my change. silsor 12:15, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Chadbryant

Just FYI, I blocked the user User:ChadBryant for violating naming policies (seeing as how User:ChadBryant has only been editing for about an hour, and User:Chadbryant has been editing for the better part of the day). I did this before I saw your attempt to resolve the dispute, so I'm passing the torch to you so that you can unblock or handle the situation as you see fit. :) – Clockwork Soul 22:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, just temp unblocking until we confirm which is which. silsor 22:08, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

impostor

I assume that the entry below is a typo, correct?

I saw the message and User:Chadbryant is blocked for impersonation. Time to work on the article. silsor 22:12, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, should read ChadBryant. silsor 22:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

More RSPW fun

The user from 24.211.33.167 is the owner of the Geocities site that he's inserting into the "External Links" section of the RSPW entry - he has also removed the Google Groups link for the group. - Chadbryant 01:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bring back quickpolls

I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? --Ryan! | Talk 05:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Meh. silsor 05:26, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

You might like to have a look at this, but don't do it until you have a strong stomach. There's about five screens of utter childish argument since last night. Did you get anywhere with your investigation of what was behind this? There are now three people involved (several of whom are accused of being sock puppets of each other). My ideal solution would be to bang their heads together and send them all to bed without any supper. DJ Clayworth 14:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like it was more sorted out than I thought it was. Well done on finding the correct impersonator. DJ Clayworth 14:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop

Wikipedia:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop' -- please check it out and see if you'd like to contribute. The article will need quite a few graphics. --Xiong 18:13, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

It's very good and should probably go on Wikibooks. silsor 21:59, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Not enough of it yet to be very good, but thanks for the pep talk. But I want to know, will you join in? What if I farm out a specific set of tasks to you -- say, section and subsection icons?

The format (so far, with one icon built) is 72x72px, no border or bevel. Just to start, a FreeHand icon and a Photoshop icon would be nice.

If you have the experience, you probably see the drift of the tutorial, and you might want to work on some of the text, too. Up to you. --Xiong 03:24, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

www.aomaa.4t.com blocked- new user

Hi Jeff

Hope you can sort this out. I am so out of time and skills on Wikipedia.

User:Lucia Cargill, President, AOMAA Hi, I am new tonight. Tried to put our info on the tsunami page and got blocked at www.aomaa.4t.com, a free,temp website put up by one of our docs in Kosovo. What to do? Jamesday set up a prior block on .4t.com in Dec because it was the beast number, or some such folly. I don't know anything about that except our good guy in Kosovo has been using this template because it is free. Can we unblock the info and get the American Overseas Medical Aid Association listed on the international non-governmental orgs list, plse? -- 24.126.41.233 12 Mar 0133 PCT (UTC)

User talk:24.126.41.233

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I can see that 4t.com is spamfiltered, but I'm not the right person to ask about that. Try User:Silsor. Tell him it's listed twice in the spamfilter list, commented out the first time but not the second time. -- Curps 09:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lucia, I removed the second entry for 4t.com (shouldn't have been there) from the spam blacklist. You should be able to add your page now. silsor 13:35, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

This site is pretty fishy though... silsor 13:45, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would expect an organisation that's been around since 1962 to have its own domain. There are a number of Google hits, but they refer to an organisation based in Chicago, and the 4t domain is advertising an LA box number. This could be legit, or could be a scam. I think we'd want to see some proof that this website genuinely belongs to the organisation.-gadfium 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

andy.jpg

It is a picture of Andy Huebner, who i am createing an article for.

Ban please?

Hello.

My user page was vandalised by the IP address 205.188.166.12

I think that this possibly is because of the ongoing dispute over the entry rec.sport.pro-wrestling.

This particular vandalism was extreme because the person posted a website and potentially slanderous personal information of an individual who, while NOT me, nevertheless was libeled. Can you please look into this?

I believe (but I have no proof) this vandal was the individual Chadbryant.

Normally I dont care, I just delete the posts, but THIS valdalism was way over the line.

Thanks :) TruthCrusader 23:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)TruthCrusader

Hi TruthCrusader, I agree that that is unacceptable. There is nothing that I can do, however. That is an AOL IP which means that even if it were blocked, it would have no effect on the person behind it while blocking very many innocent people. Additionally, there is no real way to check whether it was used by Chadbryant. silsor 23:31, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ah I didn't realize it was an AOL IP. Oh well, I'll just have to keep an eye out.

Since I got you here: I uploaded a picture to add to the entry Wartburg named warti4.jpg (its a picture I took myself). The upload session said it was uploaded correctly but everytime I try and add it i get the "missing image" error.

The pictire I added for zizkov didnt have this problem.

any ideas? thanks! TruthCrusader 12:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)TruthCrusader

Only the first character in a title on Wikipedia is case sensitive. You uploaded the picture as Image:Warti4.JPG with a capital JPG, according to the upload log. silsor 13:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

it's not working

Hey silsor.

My user talk thing is not working. I'm not showing up new messages. Hell I can't even FIND my messages in the first place really.

So. Yeah. Fix plz. (I am not some random sociopath nor do I intend to whine to any other sysops. But see, silsor likes to cuddle with me so I'm allowed to be whiney and demand he fix things...or just show me where they are.)

Spambot back at PL/I and PHP

offshore-finance.spb.su
consolidate-debt.spb.su
pay-day-loans.msk.ru
credit-counseling.msk.ru

spb.su and msk.ru were TLDs in the spambot list that you commented out because legitimate sites were using them. But I'm afraid that it can just use an infinite variety of subdomains. -- Curps 21:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, looking over this. silsor 22:40, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the ones that are coming through are due to a very small set of the original Russian domains that was uncommented so that other wikis could use them. Either we are lucky that most of the attack is being blocked, or they are looking at our blacklist and coming in through the cracks. I'm not sure there is anything that can be done with the blacklist right now about this, since they can register any domain they want to under msk, spb, and uni. I think we are fairly lucky considering that they can still be added in an emergency, and/or the pages protected. silsor 23:12, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Protected against spambots is slowly filling up again. As usual, PHP was being hit particularly hard. I suppose it's too much to ask the developers to come up with a spam whitelist, or filtering on a per-wiki basis. What's the lesser evil, blocking the remaining TLDs or permanently protecting PHP? -- Curps 17:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alfredo Dominguez message

Dear Mr Bonham:

You edited my text on the My Lai article. I cut and pasted the text :

Mylai . I got there after Mylai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored- http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/32160.htm

directly from the US gov site. I know Mylai is the wrong word but that is how it is recorded on the US Gov. record. The record is incorrect not my reporting of it. If you edit it, then you alter what was truly recorded. Would (sic) work?

Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. I am new to this project. I am amazed at what has been done.

Respecfully Alfredo Dominguez III aka Alfdom

Hi Alfredo, I went to that link as well and read it before I made my changes. The reason I changed "Mylai" to "My Lai" was that the state site has a transcription of a video interview, and so "Mylai" is the transcriber's interpretation of the place name. I changed it to "My Lai" for consistency within the article. I don't think changing it to "My Lai" is any different from fixing the incorrect punctuation in the transcription. silsor 06:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Silsor, thanks for the saving my talk page. I own you one.--Jleon 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ditto here. Much thanks. -Kbdank71 20:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And my thanks as well. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an action hero :P silsor 20:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks also for blocking User:ZA. I don't usually use foul language, but it's little shits like that that make people want to delete autofellatio. TIMBO (T A L K) 23:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Andy.jpg and Andy1.jpg

Hi. Thought you might like to know that these have been marked for deletion (see User_talk:Locket) TigerShark 17:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Bible code

Can you reply there, since Zero0000 reverted the result of our discussion on #wikipedia, believing that I had just resubmitted my own POV opinions. Thanks. -- BRIAN0918 13:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, replied there. The page and its talk page are on my watchlist. silsor 00:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Soul of a New Machine

I'm a little confused by your edit of The Soul of a New Machine. Most of the statements that you removed I don't see as particularly biased nor controversial. If they are biased, biased against what? Dyl 21:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

The sentences I removed are:

It is one of the few books which gives a realistic portrayal of work within the high tech industry.

I removed this because it is a personal opinion; and

The work environment described in the book is in many ways opposite of what is taught in business schools. Instead of top-down management, many of the innovations are started at the grass-roots level. Instead of management having to coerce labor to work harder, labor volunteers to complete the project on-time. The reason for this is that people will give their best when the work itself is challenging and rewarding. Many of the engineers state that "They don't work for the money", meaning they work for the challenge of inventing and creating.

I probably misinterpreted this as you saying that "the reason for this is that", which would make most of the paragraph useless. I'll add it back in. silsor 00:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

It is one of the few books which gives a realistic portrayal of work within the high tech industry. -- I support that statement. Other books speak honestly about the business side and the personal/party side, but I cannot think of another book that goes into such accurate and deep detail on the technical side itself, without being a pure insider's book. Kidder is amazingly lucid and honest about a topic impenetrable to most outsiders. I speak as one of those (former) kids who stayed up night after night breathing life into a new machine, subsisting on Chips Ahoys and Cokes and occasionally crashing under the desk. Life inside the lab really was like that, and I've never read the story anywhere else. Compare "The New New Thing", which talks about the business, but not about the boys in the lab. — Xiong 熊 talk 05:47, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection of Nothing Nice To Say

Not sure what that attack was all about. Trampled 01:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably linked from offsite. silsor 01:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

1.0 Editorial Team

Hi, thanks for the clarification and softening. The Slashdot post was an overstatement. Maurreen 16:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Outstanding contribution

Often people forget to coment when a great job is done, your BAT speaks for itself. Since you appear to be an elite mediator I may have usage for your tallents in Armenian Genocide article. I am having difficulty reasoning with Fadix all over the place, while his attitude is unacceptable we can only try to find common ground. Thanks. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, but what is a BAT? I am a little hesitant to get involved in a long-standing dispute with thirteen pages of talk archives. silsor 03:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki wifflebat! The Armenian Genocide archives are mostly personal attacks between Torque and Fadix. Average response from fadix was an archive on its own. Which he pointed out is how they do things on forums and will not continue on like that. It was one of the few agreements we had. I sugested a 50/50 aproach but apperantly such a "Neutral" aproach is unacceptable. If we do the article in smaller chunks we may have progress, at a point fadix would revert any of my edits without reading. We need good mediation, or this will end up nasty for sure. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also introduced a color format to discuss the topic. What do you think of it?

Sorry

Sorry about editing that Terri scene. I just heard rumors today that she was dead. Didn't really know that she was not dead. Sorry about that.

No problem. Enjoy Wikipedia. silsor 05:42, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah

Can you tell me how to view another person's comments?

I can't answer that question because I can't tell what you want to know, but you might want to start by looking at the "user contributions" link in the left sidebar when you're at somebody's user or user talk page, or at your own talk page which is linked in the top bar, or at other people's talk pages which are linked with "discussion" near the top of the page when you're looking at someone's user page. silsor 18:03, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you & apology

Thank you for unblocking 62.254.0.38; I didn't check everything that I was supposed to and made a terrible mistake as a result. I am very, very sorry. - RedWordSmith 22:16, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not your fault, I only found out after somebody emailed me from within the block. silsor 22:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

BugMeNot

Yesterday, I sent a message to the host of BugMeNot asking for the removal of Wikipedia (and the other WikiMedia Foundation projects). Today I received a positive response... The removal of the sites from the Index. I will publish the message and response. From the sound of it bugmenot's creator is a user, and probably even contributor to wikipedia... but most likely he (or she) only publishes anonymously...

--Tacvek 17:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See User:Tacvek/BugMeNot --Tacvek 17:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rick Aviles

Dear Jeff: Hi! Thank you for the message left on my page. Now I get a clearer message of what that buser was talking about, although I still have no idea what happened. I dont remember protecting that page. Also, the user seems to be confused, as he also acusses my dad of protecting it as well.

As far as being bothered by what he told dad, I didnt like the WTF phrase he sent my dad. That was uncalled for and disrespectful, specially when my dad, as far as I know anyways, hadnt said anything of that kind to him. I was mad when I read the message, but since the person is new here, I think that it would be sensible that someone explain to him that respect prevails here, via mediation. Don't you agree?

I mean, I would go out and punch anyone that talked to my dad like that in real life, because its my instinct to protect my family members, but in this case, Im not taking sides because I see something did go wrong but I dont know what exactly went wrong, but still, it should go to mediation shall it escalate. Like I said I felt anger at this new guy using a phrase like that to dad, who has been here for a year already, , is number 497 in the list of edits out of 5,000 editors, and is a hard worker. But Im choosing to see if it can be solved peacefully. Hopefully it can. I believe that the person's expression problem comes from the fact he's new.

I promise I will talk more about this with dad. I apologize if anything was done wrong.

Thank you and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio Loco Coco Martin'

Order

As RickK is from NoCal, is his Order of Canada honourary? I'm also wondering where you got "Silsor" from, 'cause this Belgian fellow I know is fond of using it as a mild oath. *He* claims it's from sci-fi. :D

Yes, it's a bit of a joke, since I don't think he really qualifies for Hero of the Soviet Union either. "silsor" is just a name I've been using online for a long time, as far as I know there is no word. But I would love to hear more about your friend, because I started the list of fictional curse words article and am always looking for more to add to it. silsor 14:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalise this page

Funny, but not a good idea, IMHO. _R_ 02:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Hi, you are welcome to mediate the article. Thisgs are looking cool now. You have to kick in before instults and other good stuff start again. Thanks. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do you want me to mediate this article so badly? AFAIK I've never touched it and am not interested in the subject. silsor 00:33, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Reference to material lifted from www.european-defence.co.uk

Dear Silsor.

In reference to your comment regarding my rant over the use of material from the European Defence website. I wrote the piece before I worked out that it is possible to remove the material myself... for that I apologise. I then added a piece to the discussion forum on that page. It appears that "CeeGee" has now updated the Turkish military piece, having used listings taken from a German forum. There is no further action now that I want Wikipedia to take.

Thanks for responding. I'll copy your response to the requests for removal page. silsor 19:39, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

blocking both

Because I rely on people repoting stuffGeni 18:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me of not reading histories? why is then that I have never blocked someone for reverting a page 4 times when they had not? How is then I have been able to spot the cases where other admins have made mistakes (ironicaly you just made a noncritical mitake yourself what you had listed as Adam Carr second revert isn't a revert[31])? No I look at the histories all right I go through the reported editors edits on that page with a tooth pick. This takes quite a while I have no intertest in cheacking out all the other users on the page to make sure they stayed within the rules becuase most of the time it is reported if they have not. If you want to do this be my guest but I ask you to be a bit more careful in declareing an edit a revert in futureGeni 19:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that you didn't take a look at the history.

(cur) (last) 1182951711829517 03:58, Apr 3, 2005 Corax
(cur) (last) 1182895911828959 03:53, Apr 3, 2005 Adam Carr
(cur) (last) 1182885611828856 03:45, Apr 3, 2005 Corax (Alia iacta est)
(cur) (last) 1182868411828684 03:40, Apr 3, 2005 Adam Carr
(cur) (last) 1182858311828583 03:20, Apr 3, 2005 Corax (This page will soon be protected if you continue to obstruct.)
(cur) (last) 1182809611828096 03:18, Apr 3, 2005 Adam Carr
(cur) (last) 1182803111828031 03:09, Apr 3, 2005 Corax (Not so fast, chap.)
(cur) (last) 1182786611827866 03:05, Apr 3, 2005 Adam Carr
(cur) (last) 1182776811827768 02:35, Apr 3, 2005 Corax (Which parts exactly were editorializing? See talk page before editing further.)
(cur) (last) 1182716411827164 02:29, Apr 3, 2005 Adam Carr (my agenda was solely the removal of the extensive editorialising which this article was full of)
(cur) (last) 1182705011827050 02:17, Apr 3, 2005 Corax (Removed agenda-driven editing and removal of verifiable and pertinent information)
(cur) (last) 1182682611826826 00:00, Apr 2, 2005 Adam Carr

17:42, Apr 3, 2005 Geni blocked "User:Corax" with an expiry time of 24 hours (three revert rule)

~~I did make a mistake myself while copying URLs into the 3RR page. Fortunately for me it has nothing to do with our conversation.~~ I assumed that I had made a mistake based on the fact that you said so in your comment above. However, it appears completely false. The URL you gave is not one of the five URLs I quoted as a revert by Adam Carr on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. silsor 20:00, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

the edit after corac leaves an edit summery of "Which parts exactly were editorializing? See talk page before editing further." isn't a revertGeni 20:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is. He reverted the entire article text back to his version, then changed several words in the introduction. silsor 20:11, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

which is what is know in the trade as a complex revert ans should be listed seperatelyGeni 20:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Petty legalism

I just wanted to compliment you on your handling of the Snowspinner/John Gohde reverts. While I like the three-revert rule because it prevents the monstrous revert wars we once had, the blocklust with which some people pursue personal vendettas is rather obnoxious. --Michael Snow 16:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. Right now I am disenchanted with 3RR because the people most likely to report offenders are their opponents, so they are rewarded with positive feedback from conflict by seeing their opponent blocked. Some of the listings on that page seem to be motivated by dislike of another person. silsor 16:25, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Which is part of why I've often taken to protecting pages in these cases; ideally, I'd like to block both of them (there is just no excuse for a mature person to get into an edit war), but usually one of them has been careful and waited for the other to fall into the 3RR pit, then reported them. Noel (talk) 17:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN archiving

Thanks very much for noticing, and the "thank you"! I think you're the only person who's said anything. It's a fair amount of work, not sure how much longer I can keep it up without going bonkers, but I'll keep going for a while. Alas, it's definitely cut into other things (especially articles, but also the "Incident Index" I had planned to do for WP:AN). I should probably try and recruit someone else to give a hand - it needn't be an admin, even though it is the AN. Noel (talk) 17:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Give me a chance!

Hey man, how about you give me a few minutes before reverting changes I make. -Bobsky 19:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Bobsky, from the page history all that was visible was you chopping off the top of the article by accident. silsor 20:51, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Down the memory hole

This comment originally appeared in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC). It was not only removed from the Pump, but from the Pump's history itself -- pure Orwellian censorship, and not by a common user, either.

If you think this is unacceptable, I hope you will work to preserve not only these remarks, but to discover the actor who obliterated them. — Xiong talk 03:18, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Following process on Templates for deletion

Who are we? Why are we here? I'm not speaking of the entire project or our grand mission, only of the small group of regulars who work within TfD. What are we doing here?

Each one of us will have a different answer to that question; so to guide us in our efforts, we have a written process. Process should not act as a straitjacket, but as a way for us to agree to respect each other's differing views.

If all of us had the same exact opinion on each template, there would be no need for the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion page -- not in its present form, at any rate. We would each individually mow down templates we found insupportable, and log the deletions. No need for debate, no need for discussion. And since we would all be in perfect agreement, we would have strong justification for refusing to hear appeals from other members of WP.

But it is not so. I think {{widget}} should stay and {{blivet}} should go; El Supremo thinks {widget} should go and {blivet} stay. Sometimes, we can discuss these issues and find a meeting ground. Maybe I can accept some changes to {widget}, with which El Supremo can tolerate its continued presence. But what do we do when after a week of wrangling, I still say "Widgets forever!" and El Supremo grunts, "Blivets or death!" -- what then?

Our process specifies that after seven days on TfD, if consensus is not reached, the nominated template is free to go -- the matter is over. We also say that a template should not be renominated for a month, if then. No good purpose is served by chewing old bones.

Recently, the nominated template {{divbox}} came to the end of its seven-day roasting. There was considerable controversy, a more or less even split of opinions (4 delete to 3 keep), and certainly nothing approaching consensus, or even overwhelming majority. Our process says {divbox} goes free, and that's the end of the matter -- at least, the end for this month. Those determined to keep a dog in the fight may do so on the nominated template's Talk page.

Shortly after I removed the offending listing and carefully began to archive all its debate -- not merely the debate within the TfD workflow, but wherever I could find a scrap of it -- a certain user, without discussion of any kind so far as I know, restored {divbox} to the TfD page and simultaneously juggled the entire contents of the page, including our written process guidelines. Am I the only one in this project who finds this a bit questionable?

TfD page, including process guidlines, prior to Orwellian reversions -- here is an excerpt:

"It is also possible that no concensus has been reached. Action: Remove template from this page entirely. Copy the entire discussion to template's Talk page. Remove {{tfd}} tag from template's main page. ("Disputed" subsection deprecated.) Absent concensus, the disputed template is kept."

I have to disclose that it was I who wrote the text of this section, as part of a complete cleanup of the page, including explicit workflow process. The cleanup stood unchallenged througout the recent heated debate over {divbox} -- nobody found it offensive or even felt a need to correct my misspelling of "consensus" -- but now that it permits {divbox} release from jail, it must all be destroyed. (!?)

This process, too, is subject to change -- but have we come to the point where we are permitted to change our guidelines for how we work at the same time as we cite our changes to process as justification for what we do?

If we have come to the point where everything is up for grabs, please let me know, and I will start work on Jimbo's home page, VfD, CfD, RfC, RfA, and all the other pages which manage the way we manage the work we do. If I don't need to discuss any of my changes before making them, then why should I? And if someone disagrees with me, why should I not alter existing process to make his disagreement illegal?

If we have not come to that point, and we still cling to shreds of social fabric, then I ask you to take whatever action you think necessary to hold those shreds together, and allow me to return to the work I do best -- making things that work for us all. Thank you. — Xiong talk 10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

I think you should go write an article. silsor 04:43, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA protection request

My comment had not "travelled forward in time from a few days ago". I understood what you said in reply to it. It's just that it was my impression that since then the article had lurched back and forth between different versions so that a reader might get the Corax view or the Adam view depending on what day he came to the article. But I understand that Wikipedia doesn't want too many pages protected and I defer to your judgement on this matter.Hjs 04:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question re: NAMBLA talk page

I'm not sure if you have been following the recent discussion thread on NAMBLA, but I have become curious about the identity of an anon editor who has so far signed his posts on Talk pages as Hermitian... and yet is actually making the changes under an anon IP User:66.235.1.193. I happened to notice that he was typing in "User:Hermitian" on his talk page comments, but in the page history it actually is recorded as an IP address. [32] I figured it was a matter of inexperience, so I left a polite comment on the IP's talk page asking him to register for an account. [33] I also made a note of the inconsistency on the talk page, for clarity's sake. [34] Soon afterward the anon removed my comment. [35] I restored my comment and added a request not to remove other users' comments from talk pages. Soon after that, I noticed that someone had removed the same comment again -- this time it was User:Corax. [36] I can't fathom why Corax would have removed that comment in the first place, but especially a second time after I had already noted that it was removed by the anon? I am not bringing this to your attention because of the removal of the comments -- I feel like I dealt with it and presume it won't happen again. But rather because this makes me question the identity of the anon editor and wonder whether this is not Corax using an anon IP to bolster his side of the debate. I hate to even bring this up because I assume it would be considered using a sockpuppet, but the thought did occur to me. Although, Corax usually does better with supporting his information with sources. For what this is worth, I mention it to you. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

This does look suspicious, but I'm afraid the only part of it that I can deal with is the part about removing comments, which seems to have stopped. If you want a sockpuppet check you'll have to speak to a developer. silsor 19:08, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks a lot. I am relatively inexperienced in what options are open for dealing with other users when questionable situations arise, so I'm still sort of feeling my way. I wasn't even sure it was possible to do something like that (research sockpuppets). Can you point me in the right direction -- is there a page I would need to post at to contact the proper people? I think before I go so far as to make a specific accusation I will wait to hear Corax explain himself. I figure I owe him that. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  - Discussion about the new sockpuppet check feature is open on m:CheckUser, which is probably your best bet. silsor 19:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    - Thanks much. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia - missing copyleft notice

Hiya. Thanks loads again for recording Buzkashi! However, as I'm sure you're aware, your recording is lacking a copyleft notice. I was wondering if I could persuade you to add it and upload the updated recording? I would be most grateful if you did. Thanks in advance! — Timwi 20:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, as far as I'm aware, we don't require GFDL JPEGs, GIFs, PNGs or SVGs to carry copyleft notices in their image metadata, and audio files are no different. silsor 21:01, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Do you feel that the addition of a short spoken line at the end of the recording would reduce the usefulness or value of the recording? — Timwi 22:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, that's a good idea though. I hope somebody does it. silsor 22:39, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

I believe you, but can you add a link to the article? I went to Google News, and I couldn't find it. → JarlaxleArtemis 02:17, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Just search for "Turkish State Archive" and you'll find it. silsor 02:39, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

shoreleave

This shouldnt be suprising. They find ways to remove my work, they do not allow me to get involved in other articles, they watch my every move. Honestly who else is treated like this? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, if I admit surrender I dont have a reson to stay here. If wikipedia cannot protect editors trying to make wikipedia better, those editors dont have a reson to make wikipedia better. I see this as a test of wikipedia. While I am a disposable nobody, they are "to be disposed" nobody. I want to see if Arbcom sees this. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On a second thoght, I will stick around. Since they annoyed me for my edits on Armenian Genocide, I shall stick with that. Once I am done there they will either stop their childish "Annoy the Coolcat" game. I noticed you were slowly getting involved with the article, I encourage you to stick around. It is very depresing for me to leave wikipedia just because of a few uncivil individuals. Oh they'll probably read this before you. Currently past agreements are ignored. I wont be reverting in order to not give them a 3rr ban excuse as they are multiple people who completely agree and I, one. I dont know how silly this sounds like but I never got results for my stockpuppet inquery. Are these people same people? Are they posting from home/work/net cafe as different individuals? They appear to have seperate characters but I am not certain. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you'll be staying. As an admin I don't have the ability to do sockpuppet checks, so I don't know whether they're related or not. silsor 02:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings

Can you help me defend project itself from sarcasm? If I can get usefull posibilities harnest this will make things better. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop_hand.png is a bit big, and the template:message box doesnt override the size value. Maybe smaller? -SV|t|add

Yes, whatever size you think fits. I have been fixing the scale on a couple of templates but I don't know how it looks in different browsers. silsor 07:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

How's the 40px version look to you? silsor 10:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Diagnosis: Murder copyrighted material

Hello, I noticed you removed the copyvio notice based on Cool Cat's assertion of permission. However, the article contained material copied verbatim from two separate websites, and Cool Cat's permission, if valid, only covers one. Do you not think that justifies leaving the copyvio notice in place until permission is verified from that other source? Postdlf 18:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why moving Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox?

These are criticisms, not comparsion. This sounds like comparison of web browsers. --minghong 10:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a great idea, since there's hardly anything useful in the article anyways it should be merged with comparison of web browsers. silsor 11:27, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Diagnosis: Murder

Hi Sislor, I've been clearing copyvios lately and have just started on this one. You reverted a copyvio notice, saying permission was granted on the talk page. I don't see this permission, can you please explain?--Duk 16:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's the part that says "you can add it if you like". This seems resolved now, however, with the editing of the page to remove the copied parts. silsor 21:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Divisions of the field

Hi Eixo, just to let you know I have nominated these two images for deletion at WP:IFD, because I uploaded a replacement as Image:Divisions of the field.png. silsor 05:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Also Image:Ordinaries.JPG, replacing it with Image:Ordinaries.png. silsor 06:08, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cool, looks better I guess. Eixo 21:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre protection

Rroser167 is asking that the page be unprotected; there seems to be a consensus to proceed cooperatively. I agree with the request. Could you please unprotect the page or explain its continued protection there? Thanks. — Davenbelle 17:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. — Davenbelle 17:33, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cricket

Hi. You commented on the move of the cricket portal to cricket. Having moved the whole affair back, I have made my own proposal. Could you come and comment, so that we can get consensus for the best version. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you please take a look here and determine whether you believe that a 3RR violation occured and a tempban is justified?

Thanks. AndyL 16:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Defamation claim

Jeff, FYI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Defamation complaint. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, I think I've had enough of a hand in it for the time being. silsor 01:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thule_Society

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Why did you protect a page you were involved with a revert war on, and why did you make a false claim of vandalism? If you didn't notice, there was no concensus on the talk page for your version of the article. Please unprotect the page promptly, and discuss the text you'd like to delete in the article talk page, thanks. Sam Spade 12:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Because the anonymous user is vandalising the page with large texts of insane material. No, I won't unprotect. silsor 12:42, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK, than I will be forced to make a complaint about your highhanded misuse of admin powers. Sam Spade 12:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

[37]. silsor 12:46, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Silsor

Sam Spade 12:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Chad Bryant

Hello. User Chad Bryant is constantly accusing me of being someone he has engaged in some pretty childless flame wars with on usenet. Normally I don't give a damn but when I went to his user page to state, very nicely, that I wasn't the person he keeps posting that I am, he edited my comments to make it appear I was saying some pretty nasty things. This stems from the incident involving the entry for rec.sport.pro-wrestling, which I have tried to keep clear of the trools bringing their flamewar to.

Is there a rule that says a user cannot make flase or libelous claims about another user on their talk page? Is there a rule that states you cannot edit a users comments on your talk page to make it appear they said something they didn't?

Thanks TruthCrusader

Listed on WP:AN/I. silsor 11:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

"ku klux klan" article external link

oops! sorry!

Check the page history, it was added about 100 revisions ago by somebody else. silsor 16:04, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Whats the point?

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

What was your point in refering to my previous user name, other than to harass me? Maybe you should spend some time editing User:Spleeman/Sam Spade if your goal is simply to attack me. I thought you were a respected admin, not a troll... Sam Spade 13:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I referred to your old username because it seems that's who I'm dealing with here. I am beginning to suspect IHBT. silsor 13:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so now I'm a troll because I complain about your abuse of authority. Thats great. Sam Spade 13:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Unprotecting Thule Society

I have unprotected the page for reasons stated on the talk page. Since this is my first "official" action as an administrator, please feel free to correct me if you think I've made a mistake in judgement or etiquette.

Note that unprotection does not express any opinion on the actions of any editor on the page. I am furthermore watching the page to revert any vandalism that may crop up. JRM · Talk 14:55, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Christianity

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When you protected the page you forgot to revert to the last edition from an actual Wikipedian, instead you protected the version of the I.P. vandal. Can you please correct this? Users Globeism, Apollomelos, Angr, Cobalty, Haiduc and Jonathunder all agree the I.P. address person is engaging in nothing more than vandalism. This is why:

Your new introduction is not based on reality - it contains many lies. "concept of a homosexual orientation per se." - not per se - they did NOT at all. "modern studies implying a "sexual continuum" rather than a bipolar situation in which people are either entirely heterosexual or entirely homosexual." - these studies do not say this, the majority are bisexual and minorities are INDEED exclusive. I would appreciate if you actually researched before editing. Globeism 00:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC) (to IP address)

Another lie: "hinges upon the idea that God would make a distinction between promiscuous versus monogamous homosexual sex, which is contradicted by the fact that no such distinction is made either in Leviticus nor in other revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's writings" It is not that there was not a distinction it is that it NEVER mentions monogamous homosexuality. To make a distinction you would actually have to mention both forms. (to IP address) Globeism 00:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've replied on WP:AN/3RR. silsor 00:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Noncommercial/permission only images

Hi Silsor,

what are your current plans for these images? I could write a bot that will inform all the original uploaders that they have 1 month to tag the image as fair use, if they believe it is, and that it will otherwise be deleted. That might be a more practical approach than going through them all on IFD. What do you think?--Eloquence * 19:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

A script might be a good approach, but I don't currently have any plans for the images, I was updating the tags in accordance with Jimbo's email. I don't want to get involved because I will be really and truly gone during June, July and August. silsor 23:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry — I didn't notice that his edit summary mentioned archiving, so all I saw was that he'd deleted chunks of the page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

vandalism detection

I coded a simple bot (for now) serving on #en.wikipedia.bot on regular server. I know you are on a stinky peice of s*** 56k link but you may see the bot in action.--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC by Coolcat

Hi there! You wrote your opinion on this RFC - however, it seems that you're presenting your own point of view rather than re-asserting Coolcat (as you're saying that all three need to stop mudslinging). If that is so, could you please move your comments to the section 'outsider view'? (since you're not Coolcat, Davenbelle or Stereotek, you count as an outsider). Thanks. R adiant _>|< 11:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I endorsed the RFC because I had attempted to cool a couple of conflicts between Coolcat and them, which brought me "inside". You don't need to be one of the named parties to endorse the RFC, otherwise RFCs brought by one person could never be supported and would be deleted after 48 hours. silsor 14:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Midwest disambig

Under WikiProject U.S. regions' naming conventions a disambiged regional article should be at Midwest (United States). I'm moving the page there. Not commenting on the merit of disambingi the page just where it should be if it is. Thanks. -JCarriker 11:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't really know what to call it. silsor 14:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete vandalism

I wrote several arguments why the article should be restored. Unfortunately, i twas all erased without discussion. Could anyone restore the article so the arguments can be answered?????

Use Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. If you need the text that you wrote on Ameriphobia, I can retrieve it for you, but that's not the place to argue for the article to be undeleted. You can sign your comments with ~~~~. silsor 18:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

You know, you and others could avoid a lot of conflict just by being more polite. Being lied to, have your contributions recklessly deleted, being threatened by wannabe bullies -- do not breed cooperation. I would include the arrogant command "Enough!" and "this is your last warning" as obnoxious, rude, vulgar behavior. Sadly, this type of sneering, rude, overbearing attitude is the rule on Wikipedia. So you want a cheery thank you for threats/warnings? And as for reading instructions, rude behavior towards newcomers is explicitly discouraged according to Wikipedia's own documentation. Just a tip.

Very angry people

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You are a very patient person... - Tεx τ urε 21:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I hope you know we appreciate your tireless effort in our defense. Three cheers for Silsor! Jachra 68.225.242.19 22:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, it's been 4 months and I have no idea what this section was regarding. silsor 22:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank You

I added the extenal link Oh Yeah That's Quality] ages ago to see how quickly it would be removed. It took quite a while, but thank you for doing so. The website itself had nothing to do with Quality. Supersaiyanplough 22:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bryce Harrington

Hi -- Since you've worked on the Inkscape article, I thought you might be interested in the fact that the Bryce Harrington article is up for deletion.--Bcrowell 03:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I put it there. A little cheap trying to swing a VFD by inviting everybody likely to vote "keep". silsor 15:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't consider it "cheap" at all.--Bcrowell 22:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that you've withdrawn your vfd, is it OK for me to delete the vfd notice from the page?--Bcrowell 22:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course. silsor 23:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking Mentorship

The Everyking mentorship has officially been approved by the arbitration committee (see here) and is now in effect. →Raul654 05:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

In case it should be useful, I've created a centra page for mentoring issues: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2/Mentorship. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slash&Burn Deletions in trolltalk vfd

Excuse me, will you please not make unilateral decisions to delete not only what you perceive as troll postings, but also entire discussions arising from these "trolls"? I believe you characterized this discussion as a "bite," but obviously the participants felt differently. Get over your deletionist spaz attack, please. Babajobu 22:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wah wah wah

Well said. Your contributions are of a consistent quality. Wild deletions, sprinkled with the occasional infantile babbling. Terrific.Babajobu 22:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wah wah wah

Maybe I just don't like mad rants on my talk page. silsor 22:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I just don't like people deleting broad swaths of discussion for no reason. Babajobu 23:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Avaunt! silsor 23:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, you must have me confused with a silly Frenchman. Babajobu 23:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean you want to have an Official Wikipedia Talk Page Last Word Competition? Cool, okay, your turn! silsor 23:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I kicked your ass. Babajobu 00:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no yuo. your turn.

Coolcat

Coolcat contends on VfU that he copied the material from a Canadian government website. He has lied about copyright statuses in the past. Rick K 22:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

(moved chat to WP:AN/I) silsor 05:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism today

It looks like someone has been very busy vandalizing today, and you have been trying to clean up after him/her. In doing so, however, it appears you've accidentally deleted a number of valid articles, like Bugsy Siegel, where the vandal had replaced substantive content with their nonsense. You might want to go back and check the History of the articles you've deleted!! Russ Blau (talk) 18:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like I wrote too soon, as Bugsy Siegel has just been restored and I assume you are in the process of fixing whatever else the vandal(s) broke. Thanks for your efforts! Russ Blau (talk) 18:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sanjan

Sounds logical to me. --Xcali 19:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added Theology of Sanjan to the same VfD. --Xcali 19:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I would have bothered moving the comments from the version without the dot at the end. Unless I'm mistaken, none of the articles in question linked there, and the "votes" could only have come from meatpuppets. --Xcali 20:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather have it all together in one place anyway. I signed all the anonymous comments with the respective IPs for tracking. silsor 20:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

RickK

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK 3

An RfC has been opened to document today's events. I think you're eligible to endorse it, being that you were involved. -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Cadaver Synod. silsor 21:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Amusing article, but I don't think it applies. RickK has "left" before, and saying you're leaving is a common tactic used by those who've gotten themselves in trouble. If he never comes back, that's his choice, but I think he will be. -- Netoholic @ 21:46, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

KKK and terrorism

Hi -- I've partially reverted your edit on the KKK article, and I've given my rationale on the article's talk page. Could you discuss it there, please? --Bcrowell 22:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Already seen it and replied. silsor 22:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks muchly for the congrats -- in time, she'll come to accept my Wikiaddiction ... I hope ;-) — Matt Crypto 21:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...

~~When, and where was this agreed to? Dysprosia 11:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~

Someone informed me on IRC. Thanks Dysprosia 12:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfC case you may want to comment on...

Hi, just created the second RfC case, added a few things not much. Last one was deleted as you may recall. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 1 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek

Daitokuji

Hey, you added a thing to Daitokuji last January saying that some stuff there is a Korean national treasure. Can you give a source for that? It seems a little weird for Korea to label stuff stuck in Japan as a national treasure. --Carl 3 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)

I can't remember where, but on reading the article it seems silly. I may have misread something in the books and sites I was using to research Korean national treasures. It would probably be best to remove it. silsor July 4, 2005 01:02 (UTC)

GNAA

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've created Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, which is a world famous national gallery in Italy created for a pope in the 1600s. You may want to leave your opinion on the disambiguation talk page, either in support of alphabetical order, or in support of notability (since this gallery is obviously more notable than the other GNAA) -- BRIAN0918 18:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Silsor,

Im a new user on Wikipedia,

this page is represents a legitimate Buddhist organisation headed by Lu_Sheng-yen, however there are a group of people who are slandering him, by practically putting up many false Accusations, such as accusing the monk of Sexual misconduct, and false teachings, etc etc.(i dont want to bore u , lets say the case what dismiss from the court as lack of any legal basis to continue with any legal prosecution) i would like you to help us to protect this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu_Sheng-yen

thank you

British counties - again!

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Silsor,

This topic has become a hot potato all over again. There's been constant discussion and argument for weeks. We've now reached a critical point and are having a straw poll on a particular issue to see if we can make some progress that way; if this fails we may need to go to official mediation.

Would you be willing to take a look at the straw poll and consider voting? It was posted on the policy talk page on 22nd August 2005. Many thanks Chris Jefferies 23:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

RfB

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am considering to nominate you for a burocrat position. Was wondering how you'd feel b'out it. I've seen your contribution. I've seen how you work. For me you are fair and are unsing admin powers to benefit wikipedia with no abuse. (Also few people hate you) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

No thanks, I'm not really involved in Wikipedia until I return to the internet in mid-September. silsor 21:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hey there

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi silsor, gesture appreciated. I came across this picture and thought it would make a perfect conciliatory response. If anything still bothers you, let me know. Next step: try to have a beer together somewhere. Sam Hocevar 21:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bringing Wikipedia to Toronto

I've been working on a bid to bring Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. I have contacted KMDI, an institute at the University of Toronto. They are very interested in partnering with us, and can get us a full range of U of T facilities for free. With this offer I think there is a very good chance of bringing Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. The only thing we currently lack are people willing to help out. I'm willing to do much of the work, but for the time being I am in Ottawa and having some people on the ground in Toronto will be necessary. We also need a number of people willing to assist at the actual event, likely the first weekend of August 2006. If you are interested in helping out sign up at Wikimania 2006/Toronto. Preliminary bids from various cities need to be made by Sept. 30, 2005, at which point a committee will choose which city gets to host the event. The number of people willing to help will certainly be an important consideration. - SimonP 18:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

NAMBA/Rind et al

As an occasional editor of NAMBLA, you may be interested in also watching Rind et al. Some recent edits to that article appear to introduce a particular POV. I'll admit that this obscure topic is beyond my interest or knowledge, but it could use attention from a good editor. (PS, I'm also posting this note on a few other editors' pages). Cheers, -Willmcw 19:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Income tax

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Thank you for protecting the page, but the spammer managed to get in his edits before you actually locked the page and now the spam links are locked in there. Could you revert it to the non-spammed version and re-lock it? Thanks. — Mateo SA | talk 00:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This looks taken care of. silsor 02:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it has been. But thank you anyway. — Mateo SA | talk 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Spam blacklist

Hello again. Would you mind adding the links www losthorizons com and joebanister blogspot com to the spam blacklist? Below is a copy of my request on Talk:Spam blacklist:

www losthorizons com

Commerical "tax protester" site, added by multiple IPs to multiple articles on WP, including Tax protester [38]; Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad [39]; and innumerable additions to Income tax (e.g., [40], [41], [42] [43])

joebanister blogspot com

Another tax protester site, added by multiple IPs to Income tax multiple times ([44], [45], [46]), sometimes along with www losthorizons com above. Also added to IRS ([47])

Mateo SA | talk 20:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Added losthorizons, not sure about joebanister because he's not selling anything and the damage isn't too heavy. silsor 22:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Actually, Banister is selling stuff. It's just that it's at www freedomabovefortune com, not the blogspot link. The blogspot page links directly to "freedomabovefortune". — Mateo SA | talk 22:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Liss-Kompendium

Hello Silsor, please do not forget this: [48] If you need more information you can ask me on my German discussion page. -- T.G. 19:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC) My English account is still "sleeping".Reply

Hello Silsor, Mr. Liss is back: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ged%C3%A4chtnis&diff=prev&oldid=12511697.

Was this IP edit possible because of the changed URL of Mr. Liss' website? Is this the reason: "arcor.de" --> "arcor-online.de" (In October 2005 you already added: www\.liss-kompendium\.de # requested on talk # 2005-10-18 and: home\.arcor\.de\/eberhard\.liss # requested on talk # 2005-10-18 on the spam blacklist.) German discussion page --T.G. 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this was because of the addition of -online. This one too is now in the spam blacklist. Thank you for the report. silsor 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

kempo dot 4mg dot com

Could I please get this site whitelisted? It is the web site of a dojo of Kiyojute Ryu Kempo and I would like to add it to the links section of the article. --Wingsandsword 19:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

User Categorisation

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ontario page as living in or being associated with Mississauga, Ontario. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Mississauga for instructions.--Rmky87 02:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Paleobotanist

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for making that a redirect. It was short but factual; kind of a judgement call to blow it off. Later! - Lucky 6.9 05:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Reintroduced a Jack Thompson paragraph

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

You removed a paragraph I personally had no problem with, so I reintroduced it with some changes to make it a touch nicer than the original editor made it. It documents the community reaction to Thompson's "modest proposal". Given that it had citations and reflected editorialised opinions in those citations, no less, I don't think it qualifies as NPOV (any more than an editorial by Thompson himself counts as NPOV in the JT article). I think it's fairly relevent given the then-natal stages of the development. In fact, I personally saw some of this backlash on several webforums, such as FARK and a couple minor ones I frequent and would be happy to provide these citations if you feel the paragraph remains merely a declaration of the editor's opinions rather than the editorials of the community-at-large. Professor Ninja 06:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

My problem with the paragraph is that there are still statements in it presented as fact without citations. Because of the way the paragraph is written, you need to demonstrate that:

Many people found the proposal ironic. (How many is "many"? Who are they?)
Many people found the proposal hypocritical. (How many is "many"? Who are they?)
The people who found the proposal ironic were opposed to the proposal. (How do we know they weren't just commentators?)
The people who found the proposal hypocritical were opposed to the proposal. (How do we know they weren't just commentators?)
The people who found the proposal ironic did so because of of his threats of legal action against violent video games and the buddy icon. (You need to show direct cause and effect.)
The people who found the proposal hypocritical did so because of of his threats of legal action against violent video games and the buddy icon. (You need to show direct cause and effect.)

If this paragraph were written in such a way as to only present the known facts, it would be fine, but it's written as an sloppy editorial. There is so much spin on it that it's practically flying apart. silsor 07:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, let's see...

Okay, so fair enough, "many" is vague, but then again, you have to consent, and I think people recognize this, that barring counting the actual amount of replies of this nature and then adjusting the article to reflect that number every time it changes (a monumental task), you're kind of allowed vagueness in these cases. Firing up dictionary.com tells me that many's probably acceptable in this case as it is, as an adjective, "1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day.", "2. Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends." I think it's safe to say that it will remain an indefinite number (and rather large -- I'm going to guess from the webforum replies I saw that the number is around or in excess of 500, so the use of many in this case, while vague, is not hyperbole.) As for who they are, I recall the original paragraph giving an identity (and I changed it to give them a different, more succinct identity, as I don't personally believe one must be in the videogame industry, community, or periphery to oppose these views in particular.)
See above.
I think finding something ironic or hypocritical when originating from another human being is to oppose it. I can't fathom a situation wherein somebody thinks to themselves that a view is inherently hypocritical and ironic, but remains decidedly neutral on that view. It's clear that the original editor here isn't referring to dramatic irony.
Again, as above.
Well, this could be rather easily remedied with the citations I offered. I replaced the original paragraph on its merits, not on its lack. You'd do well to remember that one should assume good faith; if we're presented with a likely situation that has no citations, should we assume that it was a truthful contribution with sloppy copyedit, or should we assume it was an NPOV attack? I'd say we should assume the former, not the latter. I'd hope that the philosophic principle of charity wouldn't need to be illustrated at the beginning of every article, section, sentence or paragraph that contained a single turn of phrase that could be considered vague or ambiguous.
Yeah, same goes here...

In short, I'd prefer that somebody, and I guess the task has fallen to me, simply alter the original paragraph to reflect better structure, rather than excising it completely. Professor Ninja 07:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: Given your points 3&4, I find it interesting that the paragraph is merely a spun editorial. Doesn't having neutral commentators finding a statement ironic or hypocritical imply a larger backlash than direct opponents (that can therefore be reduced to no more than nay-sayers)? I'd say I'd much rather have somebody who's known to hate me detracting from my views than a completely neutral party -- so how do these points fit into your idea of NPOV spin? If anything, they buffer it -- possibly untruthfully, though my thoughts on that are already up above -- and cause you to contradict yourself. Professor Ninja 08:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ori Klein and removal of comments

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, During a recent editing spree on Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney) Ori Klein removed some comments that you and I posted: [49]. I left him a message about it on his talk page. But I thought that you might want to know. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

GNAA

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The edits in this case have been discussed long ago and the issue was closed with a simple solution. I am well aware of the 3RR, having enforced it many times. The editor in this case was someone with an agenda of disruption, as you can see by checking their edits and their vandalism to no pain no gain. silsor 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

LOL -- Femmina 21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

GNAA page discussion

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GNAA - Please read my comment at the end of the page. Femmina 14:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Link Re-insertion

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, sorry to bug you about Jack Thompson (attorney) again. But user:Maluka has readded the link to his/her article. When I removed it s/he re-added it again. If would be very grateful if you could provide your two cents on the situation. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

RFA

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Ive made some comments at WPT:RFA#Inappropriate delisting. I'd appreciate your input. -St|eve 04:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why me, specifically? I know nothing about the delisting. silsor 05:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Although I do support your desire to reapply for adminship in your own time. silsor 05:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I made the request because of your long history as an editor, and your elementary principled stance of requiring more info before making a judgement. I respect that. -St|eve 14:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't really have anything to say there, but I did email the arbcom on the 25th asking them to allow admins more control over standing a second RFA in the future. silsor 14:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Everyking

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could you please add your view to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Repeal_of_Everyking_mentor_arrangement

The other two mentors both feel the mentorship can safely be repealed do you agree? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, done. silsor 16:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've formally repealed the mentorship. Thanks for the excellent mentoring. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

We didn't have to do anything! silsor 16:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Never Say Why being redirected to Planetside...

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Can you explain to me why you did that?...The two really have nothing in common, it's just that the idea for NSW came from the PlanetSide General Chat...

Hi Tigerbot, PlanetSide General Chat and NSW aren't notable enough to have their own articles, so instead of deleting them I just redirected them to the nearest topic (PlanetSide). If you think this is wrong, then restore them and I'll start a deletion request instead where Wikipedia users will comment and decide on whether they should be deleted or not (this would be final). silsor 17:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The PlanetSide article could use some work from knowledgeable users, though. silsor 17:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've been following the thread on your forums, but unfortunately it takes three separate registrations just to post. Regarding the request for deletion, if nobody commented on it at all, nothing would happen. Somebody would have to actually support that it be deleted. silsor 17:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

help with an article

Silsor-

I request feedback from you about my first page here at wikipedia. It is titled "Victorio Peak". I just want you to tell me if I am approaching this wrong. Any suggestions or hints would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a great deal in advance!

Arencher

re: itn

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

ITN stories should be relevant to at least more than one country.

What guideline or policy are you referring to? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

See your talk page. silsor 17:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

the nomination of a judge isn't of interest to the non-American world, and in terms of international importance or affect, it's nil.

Do you have evidence to cite that? In my opinion, much like our deletion policy, the burden is in you to cite reasons and evidence to remove an entry like that. Keep in mind, I was not the one who put it on ITN originally. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

See your talk page. silsor 17:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Your "RfA"

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Ahoy. Myself and a couple of other users are rather perplexed by your RfA. Initially, it appears that you are asking to be desysopped (which normally does not go before the community), but the rest of it makes it sound like you are asking for admin status (which you already have). Any clarification would be swell, and thanks for your time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

It seems you have just extrapolated a tad. Nevermind. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Except that I am very perplexed, and your comments don't clarify anything for me. Would you mind telling me what you are doing, and your purpose? This would help me with any "vote". I think you could just ask Angela for a de-sysopping, if that is what you want. Thanks, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's very simple, either you think that I should move on to user or remain as sysop. Please review my edit history and other pertinent facts and then indicate whether you support or oppose my desire. I don't want to bother Angela; we on the English Wikipedia have so many RFAs that we developed a special page just for it. silsor 02:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

But you're not moving on, but returning to a previous state. And also, you are not putting forth an RfA. It is more like a Request for De-Adminship (a request that doesn't exist yet except on meta) or a Request for Usership (which also doesn't exist). I'm confused at what your motives are; surely you could just ignore your admin powers if you don't wish to enter conflict?? Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 13:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Silsor, whether we think you should remain as sysop or move to regular user is irrelevant. If you wish to give up your sysophood, just inform Angela or one of the others, who will have to be informed anyway to remove your powers. There is no need for community approval. If you wish to conduct a poll, you are welcome to set up one on a user subpage perhaps, but RFA is not for people to set up polls at their whim. I'm removing your request for adminship, as you are already an administrator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

It seems that you have not read my comments on the RF{A|D}. Please read them first, and then restore the listing. silsor 18:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I did read them, and even searched for "silsor" to ensure that I didn't miss any. I couldn't find any that explained why this should be a vote. Perhaps you could clearly state it here so I can understand, as I appear to not be the only one who cannot find the explanation. Also I notice you referring to it as RF{A|D}; the D would appear to be your own addition, as the page is Requests for adminship only. The procedure for de-adminship for other users is through RFAr, for one's self it is through a simple request to be de-sysopped. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your RFA, I posted another question down at the bottom; you might not have had a chance to look at it yet. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have moved your request for de-adminship to meta:Requests for permissions. It is possible that one of the stewards may contact you to confirm your request prior to acting upon it. No vote is required. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for fixing that. I was very confused! lol Thanks again!Gator (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Cool Cat

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hmmm, that's pretty scary. I noticed today that an AOL IP (152.163.100.200) used to attack Aranda56 matches the IP used by Aranda56 himself at a different date... could his machine be compromised too? What information do we have about how the hack was done? -- Curps 22:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

My RfA

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just wanted to leave you a brief note thanking you for your support on my RfA. Thanks! — Phil Welch 21:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I still hate you :-P

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The sincerest form of flattery, but I should have been first!

Kim Bruning 03:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hey Shortly

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good to be here!

Wolever 03:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

MONGO RfA

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think, about 6,000 edits ago and back in January of this year, I got upset becuase the George W Bush page was protected by you...mainly to prevent me from edit warring and making an arse of myself. I need to thank you for that! I appreciate your support on my RfA and I'll do all I can to ensure you know you made the right choice. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you! Thanks again!--MONGO 08:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Image up for deletion

Image:John.patrick.ennis-mugshot-20050303.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:John.patrick.ennis-mugshot-20050303.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Arnold1

KITT typos

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for corecting all my typos in the KITT article, I thought I had fixed that myself, but I must have missed over it. Cyberia23 20:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! The credit should go mostly to Konqueror's spell checking feature. silsor 20:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Versace article

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why have you created a redirect for all the sub brands to the Versace main article. Some did need such work but did ALL of them. Versace Precious Items for example was a useful article, some just needed expansion.

I think that even if those articles were expanded to be the best possible article on their subject that they could be, they still would not be important enough to sustain a separate article (except Palazzo Versace), so I wrapped them all into the Versace main article. The old text of Versace Precious Items is still available here so to satisfy your complaint I have copied it into the main Versace article as a new paragraph. silsor 00:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Keep up the great work! --YHoshua 19:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) Do I get to know the reason for the encouragement? silsor 20:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for greeting me. I am trying to do little things, so I am used to it, and maybe I can a pro.

Hello

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I need to contact you because you said I should let you know if I have a problem with wikipedia... well an admin or two are reverting my good faith edits as vandalism with rollback, no explanation given. Please review, the edits in question were [[50]] and also [[51]]

I tell you now that I am grateful very for all the support, but this kind of treatment is appalling! I realise some may have preconcieved ideas, but I believe I should be owed at least explanation. Anyway, hope you can advise.

Yours, Marmot.

Hi Marmot, I took the time to check out those two edits. Your first edit was to delete somebody else's comment while adding to the serious polls a suggestion that arbitrators be chosen essentially randomly. Do you really think that it was appalling that this edit was reverted, especially given your history of trolling? Your second edit was to add a quote to a vandalism in progress subpage that refers to some software, but the page does not mention any software, and there is nothing to "confirm" there without context. Your edit was apparently reverted because it made zero sense. You also said that an "admin or two" were reverting you when it was actually one. If you want me to spend any more time on the matter, please explain why these reverts were bad. silsor 01:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is apalling that they revert with no explanation, my edits good faith were and simply deleting suggestion gives no opportunity for discussion of benefits. I do not edit here very often but on the occasions I do I expect humane treatment. Now I have much expertise in many fields, and it seems like many admins are here not for contribution of content but for social or boredome reasons. If I make honest edit, it takes only two minutes to explain rationale for removal, but that courtesy was not even extended. So I say again, what is to be done?

Marmot

First approach the editor who reverted your changes instead of involving somebody else. silsor 03:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've taken the initiative and left Marmot a reply on his talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bottlenose Dolphin capitalization

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You previously participated in a discussion on using upper versus lower case for the Bottlenose Dolphin article. This is a courtesy message for those who participated in that discussion to let them know that I have proposed a move; if you would like to share your opinion, please see Talk:Bottlenose Dolphin#Requested move. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

RFC: Curps, Zoe, Mysekurity, Nandesuka, vs myself and Chooserr

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You're invited to go look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges to certify that there is, indeed, a major problem with this mess and that, for what it can be trusted to accomplish, the community needs to get involved. --24.221.8.253 08:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

No thanks. silsor 08:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Quit hounding me on IRC (or: "On the Internet, you don't have to admit you were wrong!")

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

For several weeks now, you've been hounding me on IRC -- acting like a schoolyard bully really -- apparently because you don't like my sense of humour. I notice that other IRC users frequently joke around in a more risque fashion than myself, but for reasons known only to you, you continue to threaten me. I don't appreciate it, so I am asking you politely to stop. Barry Wells 00:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a problem with your sense of humour or how risque it is. What I have an issue with is the way you keep spamming your stream of consciousness jokes into the IRC channel when nobody is interested in listening to your performance. The only reason I've had to ask you more than once (you like to interpret this as "hounding") is that you don't listen. If you participate in the channel without trying to be some kind of internet diva or nonstop random sentence generator you probably won't have any problems from me. silsor 01:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

"What I have an issue with is the way you keep spamming your stream of consciousness jokes into the IRC channel when nobody is interested in listening to your performance ... If you participate in the channel without trying to be some kind of internet diva or nonstop random sentence generator you probably won't have any problems from me."

I strongly disagree with your above characterization of my participation on IRC. Why is it that it's just you that I have a problem with? while I have many pleasant and unfettered conversations with other IRC users. To me, it seems that you're abusing your IRC channel-op privileges and are acting in a discriminatory manner. For whatever silly reason, you've targeted me, apparently someone who you think you can push around and are relying on your channel-op status to do it. Stay away from me and we'll both be happy. Barry Wells 01:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Very well then, shall I copy some of your conversation from my channel log so everybody can see for themselves how I am "abusing my privileges" and "pushing you around"? silsor 03:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and be sure and include the stuff from yesterday where one user was uttering a plethora of racial slurs which you were ignoring until I asked you to get off my back and pay attention to that idiot that was making the slurs. Apparently you were too busy on your witchhunt against me to notice a real abuser on the channel. Barry Wells 20:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Make that homophobic and racial slurs. Barry Wells 20:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Excellent! This document, created by a simple shell command, is what I will show any other IRC or Wikipedia users who want to review your or my behaviour. What I found only confirmed my impression of you. I also found that you were specifically warned for the same behaviour by two other ops, asked whether you were a bot by another op, as well as being asked to stop by several users. In conversation with a different op last night he agreed that you generally had "nothing constructive at all" to say. As far as I'm concerned this topic is now closed and you've wasted enough of my time. silsor 22:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

(Since this was an IRC log I've taken it down after the need passed, for privacy reasons.) silsor 22:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see. My comments are cherrypicked out of context with the general discussion on the channel and I also notice that you've removed some of your comments on December 21 (which I was responding to) so it's been further edited. Regarding wasting time, I'd say you've brought it on yourself with your apparent fascination with being a judge of others. Case closed, indeed. Barry Wells 00:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I updated it to include 5 lines of context above and below each of your lines. Since this file is the output of a shell command, it hasn't been "edited", except the first time to insert the extra lines you requested which are now included in the context. silsor 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's good of you, silsor. I haven't perused the newer version. Perhaps I will later. I should say this, however. I'm not interested in fighting with anyone, particularly over something as semi-meaningless as this. There seems to be enough fighting around here (trolling and vandalism aside), even between people that seem committed to the project. Obviously there's addictive qualities about Wikipedia and the Internet in general, that, combined with the usual doses of ego etc., combine to overinflate the worth of this virtual world and detract from "real life." I don't want to get caught in trivial matters or empty power games. Good luck with your studies at university. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and All that Jazz. Barry Wells 01:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas, silsor 01:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Additionally a higher-ranking op told me your lines are "completely random, even in the context". silsor 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

A cop on the beat once told me that so and so's mother wore army boots. Like uh, so what? Let's put every IRC user to the test, dating back to the first time they posted on the channel (not just the past two or three weeks) and judge them according to Jeff's Code of Unbecoming Conduct. Like what's with karynn's Moo comments? Ah forget it. I thought we were done with this. Barry Wells 00:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

You're doing nothing but embarrass yourself publicly. Any objective reader will just cut through our conversation and see your behaviour and the multiple warnings you received in the channel log. We can be done with this as soon as you stop posting bizarre allegations of schoolyard bullying on my talk page. silsor 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Embarass myself publicly? Jeff, you've got to be kidding. I stand behind my contributions to the wiki. IRC is a free-flowing place where people regularly joke around and blow off a little steam as the record clearly shows and everybody knows it. I notice you've changed the headline above. Why is that? Regarding your comment, "We can be done with this as soon as you stop posting bizarre allegations of schoolyard bullying on my talk page", that allegation was made on December 22. You've continued to post information after, if memory serves, we both agreed to put an end to it and move on. Happy New Year's Jeff. All the best to you and yours in 2006! Barry Wells 03:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

contributions

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You judge too quickly my contributions. Instead of looking deaper you just judge too quickly. I had made many new articles. Of course they are related to Romania, European Union and so on. I think you didn't see what mess did Node at Moldovan language. You should see to the Serbian language as well, when he tried to invent the Zlatiborian language. Facts before judgement. You should reconsider your opinion since it contradics with reality. Bonaparte talk 08:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you be so kind to answer on my request on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism_on_other_user.27s_personal_page._Case_of_node_ue_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_page_moves_.E2.80.A2_block_.E2.80.A2_block_log.29_on_Sysop_user:Theresa_knott ? Thank you. Bonaparte talk 08:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Replied there. silsor 16:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please come back

You're unbanned from the channel you were banned from. We thought you were an imposter.

mediation on nambla

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, silsor. Just thought you might be interested in checking in at Talk:NAMBLA. Mediation has been requested and accepted over the issue of whether NAMBLA is an LGBT organization. Perhaps you want to leave some input. Corax 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's been a while. I'll try to catch up on the current state of affairs. silsor 05:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

RfA thanks from rogerd

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Baseball (ball) closeup.jpg

Hi Silsor- Thanks for your support on my RfA. I appreciate the kind words that you used in your comments. If I can be of any service please leave me a message --rogerd 01:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

question about editing dispute

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

I've picked you to ask a Q about Holocaust denial, because I found a link to your neo-Nazi watchlist.

I'm removing a variety of {{dubious}} and {{disputed}} type tags from the articles on Zyklon B and (to a lesser extent) Hydrogen cyanide. The user adding them is not actually denying the Holocaust, but adding as many as 6 tags to an article 1 screen long. On the talk page he is just saying 'cite sources' without saying what he is disputing. Am I OK to remove these tags? I don't particularly want to engage in a debate with a denier (if that's waht he is - he may just be misguided/naive), but I don't want to violate policy such as WP:AGF. I'm aware that sources should be cited (and I've mentioned some history books on the Zyklon talk page), but I don't feel that every well-known fact on the Zyklon page should be sourced since it makes it look as if there is controversy on the subject (which, among proper historians, there isn't). This is along the lines that if someone added dubious-tags to the part of the Earth article saying it is a sphere, and demanded sources, they'd be laughed at. This isn't a laughing matter though.

My question is simply, am I OK to continue just removing the tags, or is there something else I should (also) do?

Thanks, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Squiddy, verifiability is a bit of a hot topic right now (see Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp for a proposed policy that would affect this). Basically, some are trying to find a balance between being able to challenge information stated in an article, and being able to wipe out an article for not being thoroughly cited.

Generally, dispute templates added to articles must be backed up by a reason on the talk page, but User:Kenny56 is giving his reason in the edit summary. My advice to you is to ask Kenny56 to post on the talk page what specific facts he wants backed up. Most of the facts in the articles should be easily backed up via online sources. If he wants to dispute particular facts in the article, he can also use the {{citation needed}} template at points in the article. Even if the facts on the Zyklon page are well-known, the article should have a reference to a clear and reliable source so that people can verify it for themselves - this does not need to make it look like the facts are in dispute among historians. You may also want to check out Wikipedia:Citing sources for more words about this. Hope this helps. silsor 19:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will follow your advice. I wasn't aware that this subject was hot at the moment. I have strong reservations about the proposed policy, though. Obviously, verifiability is a Good Thing, but I'm concerned that on this particular topic, deniers may be able to game the system.

Thanks for your help, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

RE: The Neokid's Contributions

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are correct. This is because I have recently changed by username from Theneokid to The Neokid. I am however currently pondering what articles I could improve.

The Neokid Talk 13:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Copyright / Wikipedia Fair Use

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you very much for the links and information regarding copyright and Wikipedia fair use. It is much more clear to me now and I'll keep referencing those documents in the future. -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

my comment

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

do you know that all of the other things wtasfj will do nothing withe allal all of the other things that you do all of the ohe oht oh other things that the world will tell you to do.

That's deep. silsor 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ease of citing

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your comments on IRC - it's good to be able to get an independent viewpoint on this sort of thing. You're very welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Clarification about ease of checking. -- ChrisO 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Stem Cell

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please refrain from personalising your edit summaries and portraying me to be ignorant of Wikipedia etiquette. I will assume that you mean no harm, but I am being as objective as possible in my comments, I am sufficiently aware of how this website works, and I have been nothing but civil to you. --Nicholas 00:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Carbon nanotube naming scheme

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Silsor! Thank you for your comments! The image is currently a Featured Picture Candidate, if you like it enough to make it a featured picture, you could head over to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and vote for it :-) Cheers! Mstroeck 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Canada

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 04:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your message

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Silsor,

Thanks for your message. Yeah, there are some truly 'interesting' people out there. ;) I'd be very interested to read the mailing list message that you refer to. I have no problem with any of your edits - certainly not on NPOV grounds. I'm inclined to disagree with your removal of that particular section, but I will give myself time to mull over your reasons, and will consider them carefully. Best wishes, Jakew 19:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately the email is confidential. But I can tell you that it was someone who was concerned with the criticism in the article, which is why I wanted to go over it. silsor 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not entirely surprised that these people would be concerned about criticism. Activist organisations and NPOV policy are not the most compatible companions. I've altered the paragraph now, keeping the quote, but with a better source. Jakew 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

To be fair Jake, you should disclose the fact that you are a member of a pro-circumcision activist organization Circlist. -- DanBlackham 16:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Howdy

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just came around to give a kind "hello" to you. :O) I would like to respect remorse for the disconvenience that the trolling group GNAA has had upon Wikipedia (be it minor of critical, I don't know) and yourself. I can only guess, but I can't tell what you think or believe without knowing. On a further note, even with any affiliation before and now with the GNAA, I do not plan on trolling Wikipedia. I don't blame you if you do not believe me.

Also, I have read a few of your subpages and noticed a few quotes, many of which I enjoyed was:

"Wikipedia may never define, only describe." - I find this very intrigueing, and thinking this often helps "opens my mind" when thinking about an article.

One that I semi-agree with is this:

"Wikipedia would function much better if all the administrators were women."

I find woman in alot of cases alot more focused then alot of men out there, from a real sociological aspect. But through common sense, I must call you a FEMINIST!

Keep it cool, you seem like a real devoted person. --Depakote 22:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Spoken articles

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! I am seeking assistance in getting involved in the spoken articles project. I noticed your name on the project page and was hoping you might be able to help. Other than downloading Audacity, I have yet to get into the project; I need some guidance on equipment and how to use the software. Any help you could provide is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Paul 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

OPC

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

hey man, im the guy who wrote the article on OPC, ive been goin there for about the last eight years as a camper and im doin lit this summer, are you a counsellor or what? if so, whats your camp name we prolly know each other- Benji64

My came name is "Shortly". Hope you enjoy LIT. You can sign your name on Wikipedia by typing ~~~~. silsor 18:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

course i know you, you prolly dont know me, my names ben fregeau ive had fender, raggus, stills, kilo, bungi, junior and carlos and prolly a few more as counsellors and i just did woodland. anyways peace out maybe ill see you this summer. Benji64 20:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I do remember you, I definitely remember your name. See you this summer. silsor 23:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Katelyn Faber

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 18:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

meta:User:Psychonaut account

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I assume you're the same Silsor as meta:User:Silsor; if so, could you please send me the password to the meta:User:Psychonaut account, as per your offer at meta:User talk:Psychonaut? Thanks! —Psychonaut 01:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings, saw you in the rule-room, and just dropped in to say a big hello. --Bhadani 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Help

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hey silsor, i was wondering if you could help me. ive drawn a picture for the article phototransduction which ive scanned into my computer. however, it was saved as a .pdf, and i dont know how to change it so that it can be displayed on a wikipedia page. thanks, Benji64 02:50 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You should scan it as a JPG instead of a PDF. silsor 04:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Germar Rudolf

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are you still watching his article? --tickle me 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't use that watchlist much. silsor 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey silsor, thanks for responding so promptly on IRC today. NitishP 23:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Marine barracks

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In response to your comments: what you posted was correct, but your changes made it seem like the air strikes were in response to the barracks bombing. In fact, they were in response to Syrian SAM attacks on American aircraft. This is also covered in the Multinational Force in Lebanon article. PBP 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

“Word quotation marks” on Cocaine

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Those aren't Word's quotation marks (which are in the invalid zone of Unicode), they are ones which I inserted using the "insert" box underneath the textarea. Please do not remove them again! I spent a long time putting them in :/ —porges_(talk) 00:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ummm...

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

... Silsor, could I get your permission to speedy delete Image:Comedy.png? I'm sure you don't mean this, but it looks like a personal attack against Everyking. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, since you think so, go ahead. silsor 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Indulge. :)

Dear Astronautics~enwiki/archive,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Welcome back to the world of adminship; you know what you're doing, so I wont leave the usual stuff. My sincerest congratulations on your re-promotion. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! etc. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would also like to (re-)congratulate you. —

nathanrd o tcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Congrats.--MONGO 11:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Condolences, and you should see a pshrink ;-) Sad to see you leave the world of retired admins, what made you change your mind? (Also, congrats on passing though! :-) ) Kim Bruning 13:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi guys, and thanks for the support. I'm not too visible right now because I just moved twice and started my new job on spring crew at Ontario Pioneer Camps. Hope to tackle some jobs on the weekend if I can get the wlan card working again. silsor 22:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well done and have fun on camp. :) - Mark 00:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting!

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nice talking to you. And, the above is really interesting stuff. You are right. --Bhadani 13:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your entry in Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Silsor. I was browsing the backlinks of my userpage and I found that page on the list. I can't believe Knucmo2 actually used one of my comments against your RFA or whatever you wikipedians call that thing. I don't remember the reason why I wrote that comment but knowing myself I probably exagerated the issue and so I'm sorry that my comment ended up there. -- Femmina 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Name or nickname

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

I saw your user page and wanted to ask something on adding pictures to commons. What is the intended use of the author field? I use the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license (seemed the best option to me) but do not know if I should add my loginname or my real name as the author?

What does the wikipedia etiquette say about this? Or what is your idea about this?

TNX a 1.0E6 greetings from Belgium

--Wintermute314 20:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wintermute, the Author field tells users of your image how to attribute the image. If you are comfortable using your real name and having it copied elsewhere then I would recommend using your real name. However, I don't think there is any reason you can't use your login name. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. silsor 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Request For Mediation or Intervention

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Silsor,

I apologize, but I am a newbie to Wikipedia (which is probably blatantly obvious in my post) but was wondering if you could help me. Would you be interested in moderating or intervening a dispute over whether the posts by user FebrileCortex in the article on Todd Russell Platts is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV rules. I won't go into my argument here, but you can view it on the discussion page of this article. I have requested on both FebrileCortex's user talk page as well as the discussion page for the Platts article that he/she discuss this issue with me and offer their opinion as to why the posts are not a NPOV violation. FebrileCortex has not responded to me but continues to change the page in a way which blatantly violates the NPOV rules in my opinion.

Whatever action you could take to resolve this dispute would be much appreciated. Thanks,--Nsb2119 03:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I deleted something you uploaded

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

22:38, 17 June 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Image:Wikipedia-lackeys.svg" (Oy vay, it dies)

I'm sorry but I thought that was in such poor taste that, even though you uploaded it in good faith, it had to die. Images can now be undeleted, however. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Political correctness strikes again! silsor 16:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hurry up

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A WikiCookie for you

Hurry up and get that full-time work out of the way :) Wikipedia's not the same without you around. - Mark 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back, Silsor. Raul654 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yay! :D - Mark 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Today's featured article

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Der Giftpilz - Gott des Juden - Nazi propaganda.jpg)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:Der Giftpilz - Gott des Juden - Nazi propaganda.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 02:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

OPC 2

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey!,

This is Gator from OPC. I just started to get into Wikipedia and I created an article call Ontario Pioneer Camp I read on your talk page that you may have already created an OPC article?

Hey Gator, good to see you on Wikipedia. There was an older article on Ontario Pioneer Camps written by Ben Fregeau but it was deleted (the notability was challenged and nobody contested it.) But I think Pioneer has a good shot at being considered notable considering how established and reputable it is in the camping business. silsor 17:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can add something about Boys' Camp if you are so inclinced. I'm loving wikipedia but learning how to be a user has been slow going. Anyway, good to see some people know what they're doing. DarthGator 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Klingon Wikia

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi!

I would like to inform you that the former Klingon section of Wikipedia (tlh) has moved to wikicities and will now be continued as Klingon Encyclopedia.
I would be glad to hear/read from you there again.

Please acceppt my apologies if this might be spam to you, I just saw your name on the users list of that wiki.

Greetings, Lieven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.177.10.16 (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

Image:Snowman-and-me.jpg listed for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Snowman-and-me.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apical ancestor

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Silsor, Apical ancestor, the article you created, has been transwikied to wiktionary. I am thinking about prodding it because of wiki:not. Are you going to expand it? Let me know, thanks--Cronholm144 09:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey silsor

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Long time no see. You once knew me as "danish". Now, as it turns out, I have a blossoming Wikipedia addiction. How've you been? Iknowyourider (t c) 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Nambla-logo.png)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:Nambla-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Template:Dyn

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A template you created, Template:Dyn, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 17:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chuck Mangione - Feels So Good.jpg)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:Chuck Mangione - Feels So Good.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot 06:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Image:Canadian Coptic Center.jpg & Image:St Mark's CopticChurch--TO.jpg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, there.

I just wanted to know if you're able to take a picture of the Coptic Orthodox Church Center in Mississauga OR St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church in Toronto. You can find out the street address online (the links to those websites are on the image pages). The current images are, unfortunately, copyrighted, as I was the one who uploaded them.

The current (copyrighted) images may get deleted, so if they do, then I'll need to replace them.

I need you or somebody else to take a picture, release its copyright, and upload it onto Wikipedia. I HAVE contacted others to notify them also, so if there are more than one pictures, that's OK (I can still make an article on them). I want these images to be used for, specifically, the article "Coptic Orthodox Church in Canada". The image pages are, again:

Toronto: Image:St Mark's CopticChurch--TO.jpg
Mississauga: Image:Canadian Coptic Center.jpg

~ Troy 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Joyce Meyer / Paula White / T. D. Jakes

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I wanted to involve a third party in a possible edit war over a few articles. The articles are Paula White, Joyce Meyer, and T. D. Jakes, which was recently deleted and had to be started over for copyright violation. User Cats77 repeatedly inserts criticism about education. They use sources that do not confirm the criticism. An Administrator came by one article and reverted my revert due to a source being cited for the criticism, but I don’t think they checked the source! For Joyce Meyers he uses Joyce Meyer’s own website which, of course, doesn’t reference any criticism of herself.

According to wiki policy, “controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately”. I posted a note on Cats77 discussion page but they didn’t respond. They just keep re-inserting their edit.

Would you double check this to confirm I am not in the wrong in how I am interpreting wiki policy? Thank you. Bwalker5435 (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It seems your questions have been answered by some of the other editors you asked for help from. silsor (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Christian worship

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Christian worship, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

AfD nomination of Orphanage (band)

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Orphanage (band), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orphanage (band). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Al.locke (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free media (Image:John.patrick.ennis-mugshot-20050303.jpg)

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:John.patrick.ennis-mugshot-20050303.jpg. 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) 12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

NAMBLA Logo

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You are the one who uploaded the image claimed to be NAMBLA's logo, unless I'm mistaken. Do you have anything to back that up? Cause I can't find a thing. --MQDuck 03:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I cited the source on both the image page and the article but it looks like the link on the image page has changed while the one in the article is still valid. Fixed. silsor (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

GRASS GIS

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sir

I am a new learner of GRASS GIS.I have just installed the software grass6.3.0 but I am not getting suitable tutorial.

I would be very regretful if give me some proper directions and suggestions.

Sincerely yours

Zahid parvez

Mail: zpraj09@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.216.34 (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Elledi

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Elledi, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable conpany

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Icon for KWuZ-bereits vorhanden.png

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Silsor, one of your SVG graphics was reused in combination with an unfree Commons logo. This combination constitutes a tricky license problem as your diagram was licensed under a share-alike license which conflicts with the restricted license of the logo. If you like, you could resolve this case by adding a reuse permission for your diagram for this special case to this image which no longer insists on the share-alike condition. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to grant extra permissions based on urine-coloured copies of my graphic with clip art poorly edited in. silsor (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, the damage was already done through this derived work of your clip art which is not in conflict with your original license. Anyway, thanks for your quick response. I've meanwhile deleted the combined work. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Silsor!

I noticed that you are one of a few wiki users who have revised the wiki page for David X. Li and I'm curious to know if you read WIRED's March 2009 issue, and if so, whether you picked it up at a newsstand or if you are a WIRED subscriber? If you are a subscriber, how long have you been subscribing and what do you do for a living? What are your thoughts on WIRED's March issue and Felix Salmon's article? I hope I'm not being bothersome, I'm just curious because I am a longtime loyal WIRED reader and I also work for the magazine, too.

Anyway, I just wanted to send you a message because the number of page views for David X. Li's wiki page have soared since it was first revised on 2/24/09, which also happens to be the day that WIRED's March 2009 issue went on sale. I think it's great that you felt compelled to contribute to Li's page because, clearly, a lot of people wanted to find out more about Li and this obscure copula function that Wall Street misused. I would love to hear about yourself and any thoughts you have about the story, WIRED, or the financial system. Cheers!

Camelot Crown 1984 (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free media (File:Nambla-logo.png)

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:Nambla-logo.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) 05:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

AfD nomination of Elledi

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Elledi, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elledi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – iride scent 22:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

User talk:Astronautics~enwiki/archive

Anon statistics

Credit repair

Alexandros

Mother Teresa

Alexandros vote

Test

VfD tomfoolery

Image:Optical.greysquares.arp.350pix.jpg

I therefore humbly request that you re-consider your vote

Admin nomination

Protection policy

Shen Gong Wu

re:somebody done it

DNA

Re: AfghanistaN

Removing spaces after headings

Thanks...

Yet more Alexandros

sorry

Sant Cassia

Menchi's proxy

Druidry

Plautus Satire

Sant Cassia

168

Request for Comments on Plautus satire

Jimbo & Plautus?

Silsor's Autotection

One Trick Rocking Horse

Delete thumbnails

Spider

Accidental rollbacks

VfD

Barnstar

See also

You are interfering with operation of Wikipedia

Angela

larouche article

Message

Reddi

Congratulations on becoming a MediaWiki developer

Jolly good show

Do your work

In the News

Erika Steinbach, Nico & Tannin

And the problem is?

Meta sysop

User:Reddi

Wikipedia:Quickpolls#Reddi

User:Reddi Quickpoll

hello

YorubaMan

Augusto Pinochet

deleting categories

FA format

Anon

IRC

List of fictional curse words

Why did you reverse the edit I did with Islam topic?

troll/vandal

Sorry about not listing copyvios

RfA

Piła

protection of United_States_Libertarian_Party

School grades

North American Man-Boy Love Association

Reminder

unprotection

Copyright on images

UNBAN ME AT ONCE

Vernon Corea

United States Libertarian Party & United States

GNAA Popeye

Harry Anuszewski

Redirecting

Page Protections

Forbidden City Photo

RFC

192.197.71.189