User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2008/April

come back

Enigma, come back when you have taken your meds and recovered :P Seriously, go to your doc and change your meds until you find one that works for you. I've known people that had to do this because several meds didn't work for them or caused more problems than they solved --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Meds? What meds? You mean the crack I got from Scarian? Ummm, that never happened. I promise. :D Destroyed 22:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RyRy5/Adoption_Program

Hi, I noticed your name here. I would encourage you to not have anything to do with this adoption program. It was created by a very inexperienced editor who really shouldn't be offering to adopt others. If you need help, you can get it just by putting {{help|Whatever your question is}} on your talk page. If you want do be "adopted" by an actual experienced editor, you can also try over at Wikipedia:Adoption. Friday (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I'll send you an e-mail. Destroyed 22:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reupped

Yea, i reupped to 2 months. Its a dynamic IP that doesn't seem to change much, so its prob ok. MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Michaelm 22

You recently gave this new user three vandalism warnings, for blanking pages consisting entirely of test edits apparently made by clicking the edit-box icons at random. Please be more careful in issuing warnings, especially to WP:NEWBIES. Algebraist 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[1] - "...we aren't normally this careless." - Not such a great thing to say towards/about a fellow contributor, friend. I think it's one of those occasions where you can AGF User:Enigmaman. He, quite clearly, believed the user to be a vandal. If the user is actually a positive contributor then I'm sure Enigma would apologise, but from the evidence available to him at the time he had no choice but to warn him. Best regards, Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

1. Thanks for reminding me. I'll take it down now.
2. It seems to have been fixed. --Sharkface217 23:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember to stop by WP:ACCOTF. --Sharkface217 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: User talk:Addshore#User talk:205.170.132.51

Is there an easy way to tell if a user is an admin? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If they're an admin, it will say so on their userpage on the bottom. Check the bottom of a userpage and see it lists categories. If one is Wikipedia administrators... There's also a list of administrators. User:Enigmaman Really 23:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ta. And yes, jmcw & I both had a good laugh; thanks for your contributions. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So, testing the theory, Enigmaman is not an admin. Correct? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: MOTD

Fixed it. You can always do that yourself in the future. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried, but I couldn't see where I could edit the actual content of the MOTD. Enigmaman (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's fine. As you no doubt saw, I also make a note there whenever I mess with the mottos for some reason. Each motto is held on a template for each day - there are links to them on the schedule page at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Schedule. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey! I want to run this by you and see what u think. All I want is to know if I need anything else in the lead section. Any advise would splendid. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much (read:anything) about anime, but I fixed a few things in your paragraph. I'm afraid I won't be much help on this article. Looks ready to create, though. I'm sure others will expand it. Enigmaman (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, it's already created. But the article (Medabots) has so many things wrong with it that I thought I might as well just start over and do a complete rewrite. I just wanted some opinions about the lead, anything that needs to b added, before I started on the plot and such. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's rarely easier to rewrite an article than to simply make changes to the existing one, but hey, it's your call. :D Enigmaman (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is tho I don't feel comfortable rewriting it on a text file, and Microsoft word has those stupid suggestions, and I don't have time to rewrite the whole thing in one sitting. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Peewee

Actually it was me from your AN post. But yea, AIV is usually faster. MBisanz ^talk 06:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I win! I didn't want to report it to AIV because I wasn't sure precisely what this falls under, and there are some lurking on AIV who are sticklers for such things. By the way, what does your title refer to? Thanks for the action, Enigma ^message 06:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I got it from here User:Bluerockett, but regardless, he was up for an indef block. MBisanz ^talk 06:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone else said it was JJonz. Is that the same individual? It's all very confusing. So many possibilities... Enigma ^message 06:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a late arriver to the discussion, but User:Jjonz has a notice on his page that he is a sockpuppet of User:PWeeHurman, so taht's what I went with. No way to tell the specifics, but he's obviously a returning vandal, back from the block to seek vengeance. Or something not quite so overdramatic. Redrocket (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Teh Controversy

I notice that it's been over an hour and you haven't reverted my latest edits to tort... what gives -- are you getting soft? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Enigma ^message 13:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cbogwill on MW

Hi Enigma, why was User:Cbogwill removed from the missing wikipedians page? he's had like over 600 edits, he's reverted vandalism, and his last edit was Oct. 26, 2007. on his last edit he blanked his talk page and hasn't edited since. so should he be on there or not?12.217.42.251 (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not. Look at the guidelines at WP:MISS. Should have at least about 1,000 edits and had to have been a significant contributor. Enigma ^message 13:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?

Want to get nominated for adminship? I've seen you around a lot lately, and now would be a good time to go there :) Regards, Rudget (review) 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no matter. I should probably have read above. No worries. Rudget (review) 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me! I welcome comments on my editing and my suitability for future adminship. Your comments are helpful because they assist me in determining whether the community would want me as an administrator. Enigma ^message 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I intend to write up a review for you. I already reviewed some of your contributions, but I'm trying to formulate a good review. :) Enigma ^message 04:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are the admins?

(from WT:RFPP)
There are a lot of active admins, but I guess their attention is elsewhere. There are requests hours old that haven't been addressed. Sorry if it sounds like I'm complaining, but it does irk me because I'd be happy to address these requests if I had the tools to do so. User:Enigmaman 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Have you thought about asking for them?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hah! I started typing this over an hour ago and got called away, looks like I wasn't the only one thinking this way! :-)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wha... ok. Yeah, I see what you mean. :) Enigma ^message 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah that wasn't very clear was it? I guess you figured out that the intended antecedent of them was the tools to do so.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yep. I figured it out after looking at exactly what you were quoting. Given the amount of users thinking the way you are in this case, I do intend to ask for them within the next few months. :) Enigma ^msg 05:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACCOTF

I look forward to your contributions toUnited States-Australia relations. --Sharkface217 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Major changes tonight. Enigma ^message 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA

So as I was investigating you to offer a nom for RFA, I saw User:Enigmaman/RFAurges. I'd vote for you now, and I think you'd be a sure-fire pass in say 2 weeks if you could create some stuff from WP:Requested Articles. Good luck though when you decide to run. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. I did a lot of work tonight on United States-Australia relations and I will heed what you said about Requested Articles. I once considered going through the backlog there, but it seemed like a daunting task. I'll try and pick out one or two over the weekend. Thanks again, Enigma ^message 03:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

One more comment: I'm really humbled by all the kind comments that have been left here recently. I just hope that I can make my contributions as good as the compliments I've received. That would truly be something to strive for. Enigma ^message 04:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sports

Well the first team name I see is Rockdale City Suns, which is a notable team, whose players would be notable. As is the Yagoona Lions. I'd say a nice welcome is in order, with many many tags to these stubs. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that one would get me all the time. I'd see some stub of an athlete of a team I'd never heard of, tag it for CSD non-notable, and have every fan of that sport swoop in. MBisanz ^talk 06:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry then, apparently none of the usual fans were on to jump you (I can jump you with warnings if you'd like :) ). Do you have WP:NPW? It makes tagging much easier. MBisanz ^talk 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, hand tagging, thats painfully slow, GET NPW NOW! jk MBisanz ^talk 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried, but it's days later and my request is still sitting there! Enigma ^message Review 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, its the Featured Article of the Day, which means its on the Main Page, which means we really can't protect it and abide our "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." tagline. Statistically, a guy did a study and found that almost no useful info is ever added to an article when its featured on the mainpage, but its a thing we put up with. MBisanz ^talk 16:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

zx2 chispet

Now i remowed the last lines that are referencing to the HP Copyright...

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Integrity has all of his links to zx2 chipset that are referencing to a car not to a chipset..

It's possible to adjust the situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luca buratti (talk • contribs) 07:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When you said, "It's like an NRA convention. But I'm faster than fast. I once got in trouble for a revert not because it was wrong, but because I did it too quickly! But seriously, speed doesn't actually help in terms of not getting beaten to a revert. Even if you hit Q or revert + warn immediately, you can still get beaten." you weren't talking about [2], were you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Non Curat Lex (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I have a long response to this that I have to write out. I'll post it in an hour or so. Enigma ^msg 01:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot to say here. I wanted to say I learned my lesson from what I did with you, and, at the same time, I have and I haven't. You'll notice from my talk page that I haven't made that kind of mistake again. While it's true that not every person wrongfully reverted will leave you a message, I don't really think I've done that since. However, the juvenile attitude of speed you rightfully pointed out a few weeks ago, which you see on Wikipedia both with vandalism and CSD tagging, I haven't managed to lose, as you saw from the discussion you referenced. While I still maintain that what you did was incorrect (there's no doubt it went against the way we encourage people to edit), what I did was also incorrect. Revert and warn in that situation is not the correct move. The correct move would have been for me to leave a polite message on your page asking about your changes and reminding you that it's encouraged for people to discuss major changes before making them, and to use edit summaries. I admit that wanted to always want to be the first is a major problem, and I still struggle with it. However, I have learned. I am not careless with my reverts. I don't believe I was careless with you, but it was a case of speed being a drawback. More research would have pointed me to a better approach. There's still more to say, but a lot is going through my head and I have to run. Best, Enigma ^msg 02:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman: What a thoughtful reply! First, I am sorry that you characterize what followed as "trouble" - I didn't mean to create any, because you're a good editor, good enough to have my support in a RFA. There's nothing wrong with being quick to edit out vandalism or genuinely worthless faith edits, as long as you're equally quick to back off that edit, if there's a good faith dispute and a substantial possibility of worth. In our case, I you were not wrong that my edit needed to be changed, and you weren't wrong to revert initially. I would have preferred if you had given me, as a somewhat experienced editor with no record of discipline, a little more leeway to pursue my "experiment" than reverting it a second time. But also, maybe I could have done better job in requesting that leeway than to leave a message that looked like a personal attack.

I learned several things from the "dispute" myself. For one thing, 1RR is a good policy! Also, it's probably better not to start articles with examples, better to start with definitions. Also better not to approach things in a way that maximizes the amount of high-volume discussion. My normal policy for defending my edits is "pick on people your own size," but that may be too controversy-rousing. So, we could have handled ourselves a little bit better, and we could have handled it a lot worse as well. I would consider it resolved without hard feelings. When I saw the message above, I just wanted to make sure that there were no lasting negative consequences. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no hard feelings. I consider you a friend. I'm in general impressed with your contributions. I just wanted to clear things up, because at the time I didn't realize why I was wrong. After reflection, I realized that if I had come across your edit in a different way, there would not have been great difficulty about it. However, maybe we wouldn't have the relationship we have now. Who knows? Maybe there was a positive about the way it happened. Anyway, I'm becoming quite dizzy as it's 5:18 AM, so I bid you a good night and recommend you get to sleep as well. :) Oh, and yes, I will archive my page shortly. Enigma ^msg 09:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Help requested

Hello! I'm unfamiliar with your opinion of me beyond your recent disagreement with some comments that I made at User talk:Hammersoft‎, but I'm hoping that you can be of assistance. Per Hammersoft‎'s wishes, I have no intention of continuing to post there. I am, however, very disappointed in my failure to amicably resolve the dispute. I'm also uncomfortable with the last few edits (in which my repeated attempts to honor his requests and sincere expression of disappointment and optimism for productive teamwork in the future led to me being reverted as a vandal). As you appear to be on good terms with Hammersoft‎, I’d sincerely appreciate any efforts on your part to aid us in mending this rift. The easiest thing would be to simply move on, but I don't want to leave things like this. No matter how strongly Hammersoft and I disagree with one another, I realize that we're here for the same reason (to build an encyclopedia), as I'm certain that you are as well. It's through mutual respect and co-operation (not anger and resentment) that we work toward this goal. Thanks in advance for any help that you're able to provide. —David Levy 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft and me? Well, we understand each other. I'm not sure how much help I can be in this conflict, but I'll try to do what I can. Nice job archiving your talk page, by the way. I was waiting for that! Enigma ^msg 01:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The confrontation you had with Hammersoft is not unusual. Forgive me for being blunt, but it's simply a case of two very stubborn people coming into conflict, and then being unable to resolve it due to sheer stubbornness. He says that you mistreated Ryan and caused him to leave. You admit that what you said probably had something to do with Ryan leaving, but refuse to admit that you mistreated him, and thus won't apologize. Listen, I've been the same way sometimes. I hate when someone insists I apologize for something when I don't feel that I did anything wrong.

You must understand that whether you did something wrong or not is immaterial to this conflict. He's not going to bury the proverbial hatchet until you apologize. You don't want to. He isn't interested in continuing the discourse if you don't want to.

My advice to you would be to leave Ryan a message stating that you did not intend to insult him in any way or to hurt his feelings, and that your comments were meant in good faith. Additionally, express in your own words the desire that he come back to the project. Don't let a disagreement over something silly like April Fools Day turn him away from Wikipedia.

I'd love to assist in the matter, but really a third party can do absolutely nothing unless the involved parties are willing to be flexible.

Regards, Enigma ^message Review 02:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughtful advice! I've done my best to write an appropriate message on Ryan's talk page. I truly hope that it helps. —David Levy 06:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job, by the way. Just saw your message. Enigma ^message Review 13:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New Design

I understand why you decided to leave my program. So, what do you think of my newly designed user & talk pages?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 03:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't deal with the controversy right now. I would like to graduate your program, but given what went on last week... As for the new pages, I like it. Clean and helpful. Enigma ^msg 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's your lucky day, becuase I am willing to make you graduate. Do you accept?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. :) Enigma ^msg 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabals

Hi, could you possibly clarify what you meant by "so much injustice will happen without remedy"? Thanks. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You really want my opinion? I won't ever deny people the right to hear my opinion. :)

OK, here we go:

• I found your administrative actions in this case to be completely unacceptable, and as such, I cannot sit idly by.

• I cannot tolerate the ridiculous hypocrisy here. I read through the arguments at AN/I and the hypocrisy was astounding. Two of the recurring arguments was that anything that isn't related to improving the encyclopedia should be gone, and that the "cabals" were too exclusive. Applying that criteria, I could find you many more cabals to delete. Will you Ignore All Rules and delete those? I didn't think so. There is zero consistency here, and apparently it's going to be tolerated without remedy, judging from the highly unproductive RfC.

There you have it. Not that my opinion could possibly matter, but you wanted an explanation. Good night, Enigma ^msg 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I of course respect your opinion, thank you for being open and honest. Just by the way, I would support an RfA from you in the next month-2 months, you're on the right track. :) Keep up the good work. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That was rather unexpected, but I appreciate the kind remarks, regardless of our differences. Enigma ^msg 06:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinions such as this have little bearing on your suitability to be a great admin, if you want another voice to chime in with a co-nom please do give me a poke. :) Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many strong opinions can lead to excessive WP:WHEEL-warring. :o Just kidding. I think. I appreciate the offer, and I will keep it in mind. I wasn't familiar with your work in the past, but your ability to separate rather strong opinions in certain places from the user in question is very admirable and you should be commended for this. Enigma ^msg 06:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy editing. (I just assume we all want what's best for the project, and work from there. It usually turns out OK.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as I could be sure you would not have attempted to enforce your opinion re the cabal deletions with admin powers after the original deletion, I too would also support an RfA - in general I'm quite impressed. Orderinchaos 07:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just joking about that. I can assure you that I would never wheel-war. Trying to work it out with the admin in question is always the better option. Thanks for the kind words, Enigma ^msg 09:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :) Orderinchaos 10:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rf4-1-08-B

LOL!! I prefer if you would supply this diff -- Avi (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're hurting your own cause here, you know. I couldn't possibly hope to find one showing worse judgment. *rubs hands together gleefully* Enigma ^msg 15:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

By that I meant that accounts can do extra things like administration, voting in the RFA, ect. IP's can't do that. It wasn't to be mean BTW.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, registered users can do more things, but that doesn't make them more important. Same with admins. They have the ability to do more things, but they aren't "more important" than any user in good standing. Enigma ^msg 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. For the last two years or so I work as an IP and usually see anything from bad faith assumption to open hostility. It's rare that someone acknowledges that IPs can be editors too.

(I wonder where RyRy5 would answer this if he would want to. Here? On my /Talk?) --87.189.114.149 (talk)

I rephrased it wrong. Sorry.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone would have to acknowledge that IPs can be editors too, given Wikipedia's long-standing policy on this. :) Enigma ^msg 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Try it sometimes. I think it's quite an experience. --87.189.114.149 (talk)

Coaching

Well I gave you my RfA lookover. Right now I'd probably vote for you, but I do tend to be easy going. You've got some things going for you. You've had an account for a longtime, so people will worry less about you being a sleeper sock. You've got more than 7000 contribs and no blocks, other good things. But you're a bit weak in Article talk and Wikipedia space edits. Maybe some more WP:XFD edits or a DYK/GA article would help. Sorry, I'm a bit full myself, or I'd coach you personally. I'd say 1.5-2 months before an RfA, but thats just my opinion. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Gah, you've caught me, I'm an abusive shared role account :). I probably said 2 weeks, hoping you'd start a good number of short articles and what not, which could still work. And this version of my comments focused on GA/DYKs, which are harder to write. I tend to rotate my suggestions and what to emphasize there is no single path to RfA, and well I hit you twice without rereading my comments. Also, it seems like April will be a slim month for RfAs, with rather high standards being applied. When Keeper76 and I went up, we went up when RfAs seemed to have slightly lowered standards. So its sort of a market timing thing. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I resemble that remark....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nothing. You might've seen how 'crats were approved in 2004. "Hi, I've been an admin for a few months. I'd like to be a 'crat." A few supports, and then bang, promoted. :) Enigma ^message Review 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome back

Hello, thanks for the welcome back! --Kyoko 16:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just happy you've returned. :) Enigma ^message Review 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NPW

I can only approve AWB and RFRs. And you know Huggle is such a better NPW than NPW is?

Apparently I can approve NPWs. Doing so now. But get Huggle, its awesome! MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application

Dear Enigmaman,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

MBisanz ^talk 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Enigma ^message Review 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I must learn to re-read my comments to you. Somehow each time I think something different. A real riddle I'd say. MBisanz ^talk 19:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As you pointed out, it's only fitting that this kind of thing happen on an enigma's talk page. Enigma ^message Review 19:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I would just like to say thanks for reverting the vandalism that was on my user page today. Also have you ever though of archiving your user page? :D. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been archiving it bit by bit. It was up over 160K recently! I've got nothing on User:Spellcast, though. And check this out if you want to see an oversized talk page. :o Enigma ^message Review 19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol that is one very big page. 300+ or something <.>. If you want any help archiving it like i have done on my talk page User_Talk:Addshore then just ask me on "My Talk Page". ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I should do it by month, like you. Maybe I'll try and copy what you did. Enigma ^message Review 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It keeps it very neat and tidy and you can easily find everything you archive + the archive box. Also i suggest that you use the date from the last contribution the that section to help keep it tiday also. Again if you want me to help feel free to ask. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please help. I just my two oldest archives to new names. here and here. Can you put it into the box for me? {{Archive box| [[/Archives/2007/November|November 2007]]<br /> }} I got confused. Enigma ^message Review 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There you go.. I added the archive box to your talk page and i also added an empty April archive page + archive heading. I added the same heading to your other heading pages also. If you want me to sort out the "older" archives into months then just ask :). ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Enigma ^message Review 13:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am no longer watching this talk page. If you want to talk to me again please use my talk page. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yi So-yeon and Lee So-yeon

I have reverted your edits to these pages. Please have a read of Lee (Korean name). Lee and Yi are one and the same, i.e. alternate transliterations of same Korean name (이). Disambiguation between the two spellings is necessary. PC78 (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where it says it's the same name. It says Lee is sometimes transliterated as Yi, but her name is not Lee, regardless. Your edits are not appropriate. Enigma ^message Review 14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't agree, but this link is more helpful than the Wikipedia article. Enigma ^message Review 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you "agree" is besides the point. The Korean character "이" is romanized as either Lee or Yi (or other variants). It's the exact same thing; the different spellings are used interchangeably and somewhat inconsistantly. Various sources give the astronaut's name as "Lee So-yeon" ([3], [4], [5], [6]), or use other variants such as "Lee So-yun" ([7]). Conversely, the name of the acress or judoka can be romanized as "Yi So-yeon". Confusing and unhelpful? Yes. But that's the way it is. PC78 (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether I agree is entirely the point, as this is my talk page and I choose to agree or disagree with the things posted here. Enigma ^message Review 16:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree or disagree then. Fact is fact. PC78 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, what makes it confusing is that the article never mentions that she is sometimes referred to as Lee. Thus, any reasonable person not familiar with Korean looking at the page would find it strange that there's a disambig to a different name. Enigma ^message Review 16:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's easily fixed, and probably a good idea. I'll try and slip it into the lead section somewhere. PC78 (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you no shame?

You are a spineless government censor.

Opinions on my work are always welcome. Thank you for your opinion and have a wonderful day. Enigma ^message Review 19:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think even if you really are a spineless government censor, it's okay because you'd obviously have some kind of exoskeleton. You're still able to walk around and stuff, so its not really notable. Redrocket (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Spineless government censor" And I thought I was the only one who got called that. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit count

You don't believe me? I think you'll find I am telling the truth ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the instructions on the page, please. There are people with well over 100,000 edits, but we don't make separate groups for that. I didn't say you weren't telling the truth. Enigma ^message Review 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But you removed my name entirely. From the 20,000 too ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not. It was not in the 20,000. I was removing the new category. I added you to the 20,000 group. Enigma ^message Review 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between 20,000 and 140,000 this is all I am saying ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that. Please look at the 20,000+ category. You'll see you're not the only one with way more than 20,000 edits. There's a good reason for capping the categories at 20k. If you still wish to discuss it, go here. Thank you, Enigma ^message Review 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, not reading the instructions and then reverting me was not good judgment at all. If you don't like the way the list is compiled, feel free to complain on the talk page. Enigma ^message Review 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

random message

its not vandalism. its facts. i am sorry if you are unaware of them thus you cannot consequentially delete a fact, like another deleted two paragraphs of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.253.139 (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I really wish I knew what you were talking about. Your IP only has edits to Puyi, an article I've never edited. I guess you're the sock of a Truther? Please, tell me more. Enigma ^message Review 01:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of editsd

I was talking about this page Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that it hasn't been updated in over a month. Many users who should be on it are not. Please check someone's edit count before removing them. Thanks, Enigma ^message Review 04:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Speedy Deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Lynn_Best

Misunderstanding, I think.

Originally the prod did have a reason for deletion: "blantant advertising."

Could you please delete this article?

A template that was uncontested for five days has been on this wiki page. The Mike Watt writer page was also deleted, which was recently deleted for similar reasons. This other page also is used by the same author to blantantly advertise his amateur acting/writing career. Thanx for helping to make Wiki a better place and thanx for your time spent on wiki page maintenance.Poyoyloar (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I was wrong. I'm sure this will be resolved shortly. Enigma ^message Review 06:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sry. I thought I was supposed to report to several admins to prevent non-biased deletion, etc. Still new to these here parts. Again, I misunderstood. Please forgive. Poyoyloar (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Amy Lynn Best / Mike Watt

This is Archie Hall. I've been a minor user of Wikipedia for only a year now. I make minor grammatical changes here and there, but mostly use Wikipedia for entertainment and information. A few months ago, I created entries for Amy Lynn Best and Mike Watt because I noticed they were absent. They run in the same circles as Debbie Rochon, Lloyd Kaufman, Brinke Stevens, Jim O'Rear, etc and felt they could use similar entries. They were the first I'd attempted to write and I may not have created them in Wiki style, but was attempting to fine tune them before I went on to creating other entries. User Poyoyloar is, I believe, someone that has a particular grudge against these two individuals. The fact that he has continued to delete these entries, without having much input in any other aspects of Wikipedia, leads me to believe he is a vandal. If there is a particular way I can create these entries to Wikipedia standards, please advise. Otherwise, I felt I was writing as strong a bio of these individuals as the one for Jon Keeyes, Linnea Quigley, etc. If this message should be directed to someone else, please advise. ArchieHall (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, both articles are still up. I agree with you that the other user seems to have a grudge. I'll monitor the situation. Enigma ^message Review 16:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 20:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Dean Mumm

On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dean Mumm, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bencherlite^Talk 22:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This was one you created through WP:AFC, so extra points for that! Bencherlite^Talk 22:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I seem to have left this message in the wrong place earlier, but it made its way here anyway, so all is well....Bencherlite^Talk 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're a dangnabbit thief, Enigma. Pat sulks... Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Congratulations Enigma - I will also begin work on your GA shortly - watch that space and chip in so that you get enough credits to claim the badge. (PS don't tell Scarian or he will try and pinch it of you as a payback :) )--VS ^talk 03:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?

I think it's good-faith editing, personally. Just a user who is new and not familiar with the rules. I do not think it's vandalism (but I could be wrong). --Sharkface^T/_C 03:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that page is the user trying to create some sort of template for general editing. I'd run it by a mod if I were you. --Sharkface^T/_C 03:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I only noticed this today. Thanks! FusionMix 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. Enigma ^message Review 01:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey, I noticed you had commented on my RFA standards page. I the found out that you're not an admin and have, in fact, been "almost nominated" about a million times, as indicated at User:Enigmaman/RFAurges. If you ever want to run, I can nominate you, or at least !vote support. Let me know. Useight (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and your offer. Eventually I'm going to have to listen to the people, huh? I expect to go up for RfA within the month. As for nomination, there seem to be a lot of people interested in nominating me for some reason! :) If you have any other comments, be sure to let me know. Thanks again, Enigma ^message Review 01:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic park

Thank you for reverting the page, it is something I probally should have done instead of what I did do.

I did not think it was nessecery to repeat the information on the page again as I was the user who had originally expanded the "diffrences" section to include specific major plot diffrences, including this one.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliric (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It suffered from several bad edits, and your edit didn't really help. ;) No worries. Happy editing. Enigma ^message Review 06:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Your the Devil. And you have incurred the wrath of eternal hellfire. --216.229.226.59 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. Enigma ^message Review 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial request for comment

Hey wikifriend, I see you're on a wikibreak. I haven't had much time for substantive edits in a while but I have been patrolling my watchlist daily for new changes (it's up to 80 articles). It came to my attention that an editor was adding links about subpoenas to the see-alsos on the antitrust law articles (Robinson-Patman_Act, Clayton Antitrust Act, Federal Trade Commission). It also seems that this editor worked contributed heavily to those articles. It's understandable that he would want to attract attention to them, but this isn't the way. Whether that was his goal or not, I thought they cluttered the articles, so I went ahead and removed the new wikilinks from those articles and left the editor a message explaing why. Do you think I made the right call? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. You made the right call in removing them and also the right call in leaving the editor a note so he knows where you're coming from. Also you did well with the edit summaries. :) Enigma ^message Review 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but I just noticed an interesting coincidence. The Motto of the Day regards wikibreaks. I just got back from one. :P Enigma ^message Review 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I misread the editor's intentions. He wasn't just publicizing his articles. He had a rational reason for wanting to include those links. We're discussing whether or not it's best for wikipedia. Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. Let me know if there's anything I can do. Good luck! Enigma ^message Review 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dormant admins

Great minds think alike, what can I say.:-)--Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my User page. With all of the vandalism I've been reverting (and all of the vandalism-reporting I've been doing, thanks to your suggestion) lately, I'm shocked that my Talk and User pages aren't being spitefully vandalized constantly. But I usually only look for vandalism in articles, so thanks again for keeping an eye on some of the other stuff too.  ‑ MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM  (talk)  01:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, such is the burden we vandalism-fighters carry. Enigma ^message Review 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking

Just seeing how your doing. Looks like your doing great. Remember, you can always keep in touch with me.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

yep. Did you see my message about redirects? Enigma ^message Review 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

re:[1]

I was just interested in what they would say. In case, in the future, they come up for another Rfa. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt we'll see another RfA from this individual. If we do, the questions can always be asked then. :) Enigma ^message Review 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Maldivian companies

Feel free to add {{prod2}} MBisanz ^talk 06:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject Matter Expert

I created a page in my sandbox to show an idea I have for creating a Page or project to identify wikipedians as Subject Matter experts or near experts on a given subject. Right now its just one big page but if it takes off it could be multiple pages and or projects. The basic concept is that if I am knowledgable about Math, Science, Wikipedia policy, speaking greek or whatever I can put my name under the category or categories I am interested in participating in and if someone has a question or needs help relating to that subject they can go to that page and contact one of them on their talk page. Obviously its more useful for popular or obsure subjects but in general I think that it would help to improve the public perception that Wikipedia content can't be trusted. Plus it will give new users or users who jsut need help. Its still a very rough idea and right now I based the page on the Logistics page of the Military history project but I see this changing into somethin much bigger. If you don't mind take a look and let me know what you think. I know that there were a couple of things similar for designating an expert but I believe that last thing that WP needs is another voting pool. I am going to leave this message on a few other talk pages of editors that I work with frequently to get some general opinions or ideas before I try and sell it to the WP as a whole. Please let me know what you think.--Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't help you much there, but I like Keeper's ideas. Enigma ^message 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Help

I seem to be a glutton for punishment, as I can't figure out my archving code, I have created a new archive (#3) but can't seem to get the bot to automatically archive them. I want all threads older than 2 days to archive as well, but that doesn't seem to be working either. Can you help? Dusti^{complain/compliment} 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You read the How to? I wish I could be of more help. Enigma ^message 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial request for comment

Hey wikifriend, I see you're on a wikibreak. I haven't had much time for substantive edits in a while but I have been patrolling my watchlist daily for new changes (it's up to 80 articles). It came to my attention that an editor was adding links about subpoenas to the see-alsos on the antitrust law articles (Robinson-Patman_Act, Clayton Antitrust Act, Federal Trade Commission). It also seems that this editor worked contributed heavily to those articles. It's understandable that he would want to attract attention to them, but this isn't the way. Whether that was his goal or not, I thought they cluttered the articles, so I went ahead and removed the new wikilinks from those articles and left the editor a message explaing why. Do you think I made the right call? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. You made the right call in removing them and also the right call in leaving the editor a note so he knows where you're coming from. Also you did well with the edit summaries. :) Enigma ^message Review 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but I just noticed an interesting coincidence. The Motto of the Day regards wikibreaks. I just got back from one. :P Enigma ^message Review 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I misread the editor's intentions. He wasn't just publicizing his articles. He had a rational reason for wanting to include those links. We're discussing whether or not it's best for wikipedia. Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. Let me know if there's anything I can do. Good luck! Enigma ^message Review 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dormant admins

Great minds think alike, what can I say.:-)--Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my User page. With all of the vandalism I've been reverting (and all of the vandalism-reporting I've been doing, thanks to your suggestion) lately, I'm shocked that my Talk and User pages aren't being spitefully vandalized constantly. But I usually only look for vandalism in articles, so thanks again for keeping an eye on some of the other stuff too.  ‑ MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM  (talk)  01:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, such is the burden we vandalism-fighters carry. Enigma ^message Review 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking

Just seeing how your doing. Looks like your doing great. Remember, you can always keep in touch with me.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

yep. Did you see my message about redirects? Enigma ^message Review 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean our last conversation on my talkpage?--RyRy5 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. I replied on this talk page and on Burner's talk page. Remember when I asked whether I can view redirects I've created? Enigma ^message Review 04:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes I do.--RyRy5 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted

I've reverted you. That AfD is not protected and you shouldn't make it appear that it is. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favor and next time check before reverting me. It is semi-protected and I don't appreciate being reverted when you haven't even looked. Enigma ^message Review 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey now, thats a simple mistake. Take it easy and don't get all worked up. Nothing a revert can't fix. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is intended for obvious vandalism. You treated me like a vandal without even looking whether the page was semi-protected or not. Whether the notice should be there or not can be discussed, but using rollback on my edit without even asking me first and then telling me I was misrepresenting the article was rather rude. I'm not worked up. I'm simply informing you that what you did wasn't the proper way to handle the situation. Enigma ^message Review 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can use it any way I wish actually. But for your information, I hit it on accident (which is why I was surprised when I was not allowed an edit summary). I'm not concerned with whether the template remains, it was a mistake the lend me to assume it was not protected. You're tone came off being upset. Any way, no worries. See you around. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is not to be used any way you wish. It has a narrow application. Please see WP:rollback. Also, everyone makes mistakes, but I'm still confused how you thought the AfD was unprotected. When you edit it, there's a notice there. There's also an ongoing discussion on the talk page about the semi-protection. Enigma ^message Review 04:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you really wish to go further with this? The rollback feature is available to administrators and users with the rollbacker permission on Wikipedia as a fast method of undoing nonproductive edits, usually vandalism. I ignore the vandalism (note the word usually) part of the sentence since I assume good faith when reverting. To make it more clear, I have never edited the AfD in quesiton, and I've had a long day at work and while looking over the history I hadn't noticed that it was semied since you a) weren't an admin and b) there was no sysop-protect in any edit summary close to the template inclusion. Like I said though, simple mistake. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You stated that you can use rollback any way you wish. I'm trying to correct a mistaken impression. If you don't believe me, ask someone who you respect more. I often add semi-protection templates even though I'm not an admin, because some admins don't bother with them. Sometimes I go to WP:RFPP and check that the protected articles received templates. The last instance of semi-protection on the AfD in question was here. As for whether I wish to go further with this, I'm willing to go as far as is necessary. No more and no less. Enigma ^message Review 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm sorry, I don't feel I have it wrong with respect to using rollback, as I've copied the first sentence and I'm sticking by my reasons. I'm going to opt out of the conversation now. Until next time. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, feel free to request an outside opinion on whether rollback was warranted in this instance. But beyond this instance, I'm a little surprised by your attitude regarding rollback in general. "I can use [rollback] any way I wish actually." I bear no ill will towards you, but you may wish to investigate that further. Enigma ^message Review 05:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are aware of the events after this conversation, but this was all miscommunication. I only meant that I'll use it for either vandalism or unproductive edits, whereas I was under the impression that you meant it was only for vandalism. My statement was taken the wrong way, and rollback was removed. I also bear no ill will towards you. I may have gotten a little heated and I never wished to give that impression. See you around. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. I was a little surprised to see this conversation back again, but unexpected things happen all the time. Good luck. Might've been a misunderstanding, but I simply don't interpret "any way I wish" as "either vandalism or unproductive edits." Enigma ^message 05:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is clear now that SM used a turn of phrase that gave the impression that rollback was a carte blanche to rollback any edit he liked but that he either didn't mean that or doesn't mean that now. Interestingly I get the impression that he would have been quite annoyed if someone had used rollback on his edits they way he did BUT I respect his clarification at this point, even though it has taken some time to come out. He did get a little heated in his first exchange with you but perhaps that was also as a result of tiredness (and that confronts us all at times). For the information of both of you I have returned SM's Rollback Rights and I post that information here because both of you are obviously watching this space. Best wishes to both of you. --VS ^talk 07:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

di Stefano

Regarding [8] edit summaries like that aren't very helpful for defusing a serious, tense situation. I've certainly made similar edit summaries in the past so I'm not claiming I'm perfect but in general please don't do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke, replying to the !!!IMPORTANT MESSAGE!!! that implied that anyone who edited the article is exposing themselves to a lawsuit. I realize that it's a serious situation, but I find the ridiculous legal threats by Giovanni and his alleged son to be somewhat humorous. Enigma ^message Review 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you probably should archive your talk page. It's a little foreboding. Enigma ^message Review 05:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that makes more sense. The edit summry looked almost like you were challenging him to sue the foundation which isn't good. Anyways, thanks for the heads up about my talk page. Archived now. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sig fix

Thanks for fixing my sig on the AfD, I've been forgetting to sign recently for some reason, thanks. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I had to add sigs for several editors tonight. Must be contagious. :) Enigma ^message Review 05:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins

Is there an easy way to tell if a user is an admin? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If they're an admin, it will say so on their userpage on the bottom. Check the bottom of a userpage and see it lists categories. If one is Wikipedia administrators... There's also a list of administrators. Enigma ^message 23:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ta. So, testing the theory, Enigmaman is not an admin. Correct? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Anyone who becomes an admin has to be included in the category and they are as soon as they pass their WP:RfA. Enigma ^message 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that some admins refuse to add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators. Thus, the only sure way to know if someone is an admin is to check WP:list of admins. Enigma ^message Review 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sure that will save me some confusion. Good of you to follow up on it - most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship?

Revision as of 21:53, 22 April 2008 A. Exeunt (Talk | contribs)(→Warning: Blanked section; personal attack.)

I'm a little bemused by Exeunt's action. Clearly, from your response to it, the original post didn't bother you. To me it seems inappropriate for a third party to remove both it AND your response. Had you not responded, perhaps it fits into the class of reverting vandalism, but reversion of both seems like censorship to me, perhaps even vandalism.

In any case, I found your response entertaining and revealing of your attitudes, and hence important data for an edit review.

Your thoughts?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I considered undoing his edit, but I decided not to bother. It's in my archives anyway. I don't even get how he came to this page in the first place. Enigma ^message Review 13:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re recently blocked vandal

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I've now extended the block to 6 months and protected the user talk page as requested. Waggers (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal warnings

Hey there. Could you please ensure that you warn vandals before reporting them to AIV? This guy, for example, had made only one edit before your report, and hadn't been warned, and I noted a couple others before that with no warnings. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It was an account created explicitly to vandalize Colorado Avalanche. Please see article history. Enigma ^message Review 17:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just posted a note at WP:ANI. I believe my reports to AIV were rightful. Enigma ^message Review 18:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to ensure we follow the formalities. Apparently I'm wrong, judging from the quick blocks by other admins. My bad, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't normally report without warning, obviously. I happen to be familiar with Wikipedia's vandalism policy. This was a unique situation. Enigma ^message Review 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense meant here. My error in judgment all the way. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Tangbot Failed

Hi there,

I'm not quite sure what the problem is with the bot, I looked and it appears that it has been inactive for over and hour. Tangotango might be doing some type of update on it, but I haven't found any information regarding this anywhere so far. I'll see if I can find out more information and I'm sorry that I don't know what's wrong!

The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nothing444 2

I don't think this close within eight minutes of it being transcluded was particularly appropriate; WP:SNOW should be saved for newbies, not established contributors. -- Naerii 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially as you yourself opposed. -- Naerii 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, that was my mistake, but I'm not sure if you're familiar with the history here. I think it was entirely appropriate for a SNOW closure, whether by myself or by someone else. Enigma ^message Review 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't agree that WP:SNOW closures are only for newbie applications. I think they can be applied in other extreme cases, and this is an example. I guess I shouldn't have opposed if I was going to close it, but that can't be helped. I could strike my oppose if you'd like. Enigma ^message Review 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not 'only', no, but it had been eight minutes and there have been RfAs which have turned around even with such a poor start - my point is that Nothing is an editor in (reasonably) good standing and should at least have been given a chance to respond. He's been around for long enough that he's aware of how the process works, I'm sure he would have withdrawn if he felt it necessary. -- Naerii 00:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I am familiar with the candidate and he's not aware of how the process works. There's not really much more I can say to you here. I suggest you speak to User:Friday or a few others I could recommend. Enigma ^message Review 00:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This might have been a good reason to leave the RfA open. Now the editor might think that he has a chance in a few months; leaving it open would have been (probably) a pile on of editors telling him to edit and not try again for at least 6 months. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• If he tries another one soon, it will also be SNOW-closed. I really don't think leaving that kind of thing open is productive. Enigma ^message 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm not going to argue the point at length (it's not worth it). Can you at least please make a note on his talk page? Thanks. -- Naerii 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that immediately. It was my mistake not to add it to the category and leave a note, as procedure dictates. Thanks, Enigma ^message Review 00:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for being brusque (it's 2:30am here :P) -- Naerii 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In case you forgot, I have added the RfA to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/N. Please remember to do this, and also notify the candidate that you have withdrawn the RfA. For what it's worth, I don't believe there was any chance of the RfA passing, and therefore was a good closure. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. If I close any RfAs in the future, I'll be sure to do that. Thanks for cleaning up after me! Enigma ^message Review 00:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to drop a comment. I've known Nothing444 for a while now, and I agree that Nothing444 is not even close for adminship. 1.) He has been blocked many times 2.) He edits in his userspace too often. 3.) He has not shown any or much good contributions to wikipedia. 4.) I noticed that since he lost rollback, he has (almost) never reverted vandalism 5.) He is too enthusiastic and thinks that Wikipedia is just a play place and a social place. 6.) He has wanted t be an admin ever since he joined wikipedia and concentrates to much on that. He was almost forgot why we are all here.

I know some of these are details, but if he continous this, there will be no way he will pass an RFA. Comments?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My Edit

I was looking at the article's name. I read through and didn't seen any other instances of the di being spelled with an uppercase. So I just lowered it. Forgot to mark as minor so sorry for that. Well I am not complaining you do as you please. I was just running through. Rgoodermote  00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm it appears that it is lowered and raised at random. Not counting beginning sentences. Well..before this makes part of my head explode I better stay away from there. By the way..no...not a chance will I bring that type of discussion to a talk page. It just has the potential to become a huge problem that could potentially worsen the situation with that article. Rgoodermote  01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How many did you get? I tried..and failed (Openoffice doesn't seem to be working today). Rgoodermote  01:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Openoffice (long story), I count 14-15 lowercase not counting references and article name. Rgoodermote  01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. I will be there in a little bit. I just need to finish with some thing offline. Rgoodermote  01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you

for the feedback. i appreciate it. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. If I can be of further assistance, let me know. By the way, I went back and reverted numerous edit-warring attempts by John celona. It's clear that his sole purpose here is to add articles to a category, and then edit-war endlessly over them. Enigma ^message Review 01:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have not "added" a single article to the category while it has been on a RFC. I have reverted others repeated attempts to remove LONG STANDING articles from the category. You have falsely filed a 3RR complaint against me and been shot down in an appropriate summary manner. Please stop harrrasing me, stalking me and filing false complaints against me. John celona (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You have edit warred on numerous articles. It is irrelevant whether you think you're re-adding information or not. See WP:edit war. You are in violation of Wikipedia's policies. Enigma ^message 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:

That's not a veiled threat. You need to read WP:Rollback. If you continue to use it in such a way, it will be removed. Also, WP:AN/3 is not for general block-shopping, it's for reports of violation of WP:3RR. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you wanna look it in that way, then I guess it was. I have a duty to remove rollback from those who misuse either purposely or through non-comprehension of WP:Vandalism. Also edits like this look like block-shopping. It wasn't a 3rr violation, plain and simple. What else were you after? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to chill, seriously. WP:AN3 is for violations of WP:3RR, and it wasn't a 3RR violation. Simple as that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen, you filed a bad 3rr report, then complained that I issued no block even though you knew (by that stage) there was no 3rr vio. You reverted his edits, misusing rollback in the process. I've pointed these things out to you, and you're demanding an apology for it? It doesn't make any sense to me honestly. You need to take some chill-out time here I think. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This constant posting of hysterical language is getting a wee bittie tiresome. Mischaracterization? Let's talk about that. Suffice to say, here you've got the chronology all muddled. I posted no vio, you posted [this, i said out of goodness I'd review it, noticed his reverts were actually quite limited over the past week, read the RfC, saw your misuse of rollback, and then (not earlier as you stated) responded pointing out your own reverts ("both at it", which you've interpreted as an accusation of revert warring), and warned you about misuse of rollback. Your response was the series of hysterical messages starting with this, where you choose to characterize to my doing of my duty regarding rollback use as a "threat". Please gimme a break. This convo is finished as far as I'm concerned. You want the said editor's behaviour to be checked, then take User:Irpen's advice and bring it up at the appropriate channel. Take to WP:AN/3 only that which AN/3 deals with, namely 3rr violations. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had simply reviewed his contributions instead of trying to escalate this, there would've been a much more amenable conclusion. Enigma ^message Review 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

additionally, I don't intend to take this to another noticeboard. I took it to AN3 because it was blatant edit-warring, unaware (this was my first report) that it didn't fit the requirements. I wasn't expecting such theatrics. Enigma ^message Review 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This does not bode well. If done by Giano would get him blocked, btw. You have shown an extreme lack of comprehension of wiki policies regarding the proper forum for reporting and regarding rolback. Your own response is nothing but an escalation. You persist in misunderstanding policies, misrepresenting the events and went one step further turning to use unhelpful language. That this takes place during your editor's review (which suggests where you are heading) worries me more rather than less. I suggest you step back and write a page or two. Regards, --Irpen 04:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not headed anywhere, and I'm not Giano. I would appreciate if you'd stop harassing me, because you clearly don't understand the sequence of events. Regards, Enigma ^message Review 04:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR vs general disruptive edit warring vs blockshopping

I saw the thread at Deacon's talk and figured I should address it. The 3RR board is for reporting 3RR violations. You post a report with the first revert on the 20th and the fourth one on 23rd. This is either a mistake or an outright misuse of the board for general blockshopping.

Now, no one denies that blocks for general edit warring are sometimes in order even if 3rr is not actually broken. But those are discretion blocks and to call for that you go to general admin-boards, not to 3RR which has a specific goal stated on top. This project suffers from the misuse of dedicated boards, both intentional or not, at the wrongful report simply does not belong there.

The rollback issue is a separate one. I, for one, don't see the point of rollback at all but those who want to use it, should, per policy, restrict it to vandalism edits. Edits you reverted were not vandalism clearly.

I think you should accept that the report was outright wrong, the use of rollback was a mistake, draw some conclusions and move on. --Irpen 02:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I already accepted that the report was wrong. I didn't read the instructions carefully enough. I'm just waiting for the other party to admit he was wrong. I was not block-shopping and I was not edit-warring. I really wish someone would actually review the situation without throwing around various accusations. Enigma ^message Review 02:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe the use of rollback was a mistake. The user continuously edit-wars, and at a certain point, you realize that the user is vandalizing the articles and not attempting to constructively contribute. Enigma ^message Review 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: The evidence you requested

LOL. Well, I'm not one of those fans. If I were, I wouldn't have done this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're fighting against your own fanbase! For shame! :) Enigma ^message Review 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to leave my POV at the login screen... - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation with User:A E Francis

Enigma, he's still added it. Not counting ones I've reverted, he's added links to these articles to 18 articles. I don't think this is wrong, but it's highly unusual, and I'm concerned it have a disruptive edit, but I'm not sure. I want someone uninvolved but educated to weigh in before the proliferation continues, without alienating a brilliant editor who could have much to contribute. Any advice? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Requests for Editor Assistance? I don't want to edit war with the guy, and he seems to be disregarding the notes you leave him. Enigma ^message 14:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

passing by on something else entirely, I left some detailed comments on this user page. DGG (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it. Not sure what you mean. Enigma ^message 00:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you later commented on Lex's talk page. Thanks for the help! Enigma ^message 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

....for this. Prashanthns (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, could you tell me how to get the latest version of Huggle? I have a 0.6 and would like to upgrade, but I am not on the email list as I got it from another user. I have emailed Gurch about it, but I guess he is busy. Any ideas? Prashanthns (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll e-mail you. Enigma ^message 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you tried e-mailing Gurch? Enigma ^message 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And today, I got Gurch's version too, which probably means, that from now onwards, I am on the list of people that he sends his updates to. Prashanthns (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. You're on his list now. :) Enigma ^message 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this and the RfA removal! I had completely forgotten! Prashanthns (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this conversation with you. No problem! :) Enigma ^message 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

vicious personal attack

updating counter after vicious personal attack

Go and see all the vicious personal attacks this user made against me before you start branding! TheProf07 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the user has attacked you or not. Even if he has, that's not an excuse to vandalize his userpage. Enigma ^message 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was just a parting gift, i assure you. This is my last hour on wikipedia. The "vandalising" is over, so relax bro! TheProf07 (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sad to hear that you're leaving. However, if you wish to express frustration with another editor, vandalizing their userpages is not an appropriate response. Enigma ^message 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

re:Blank e-mail

That's OK. I have to go in a minute though... RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, and thanks. :) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano

I sort-of-kind-of did - the main reason for keeping the article is that editors shouldn't have their editing affected by legal threats, and I feel as though that needs to be reflected in the article. If someone feels like adding it back in, I don't care enough to stop them, but I'm not going to add it back in myself either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

SOCK RFA

Do the whole normal close thing, update the logs and what not. If he is socking, we'll just delete, but if SimpsonsFan08 stays around, we'll need this as a record for RFA_3. MBisanz ^talk 20:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the process of closing it. Thanks. Enigma ^message 20:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, everything is right. And now the fun begins, the SSP against the candidate Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SimpsonsFan08. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

SNOW template

Yeah, I saw that you signed for me, thanks. :) The template actually comes from EVula; it's User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA. You're more than welcome to use it. GlassCobra 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling

Yes, as long as its been dealt with, either reviewed or tagged for deletion, then it should be marked patrolled. MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your work with the last Award Center Collaboration of the Fortnight, I hereby award you this barnstar. Thank you for your improvements to the article on United States-Australia Relations. --SharkfaceT/C 18:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Award Center Newsletter

Issue 2 • April 28, 2008

New sponsored challenges New challenges include: List building drive: Pick a list and improve it 12-Hour Clock to GA Create 40 new pages Add citations for Foghorn Leghorn and The Barnyard Dawg Add an infobox to 25 articles Expand 1974 NBA Playoffs News The newsletter has been redesigned. Thank you to WBOSITG, MFC, and IMatthew for your design contributions. This shiny new newsletter is a result of their combined efforts. Thank you to Enigmaman for participating in the previous Award Center Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please note that if you wish to be given credit for work completed, you must sign up for the collaboration first. This week's collaboration is Luc Besson. Apologies for the late newsletter. The editor has been swamped lately due to school and vacation. If in the future a fortnightly delivery schedule cannot be kept, this newsletter will be delivered monthly. A lively discussion about the future of the Award Center is currently being being hosted on the Award Center talk page. Input is always welcome.

Useful Links In case you ever get lost: Award Center AWC Collaboration of the Fortnight Collaboration of the Fortnight Luc Besson More Links Archives Random Challenge About the Newsletter

- Newsletter Bot Talk 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC) This newsletter was delivered by Newsletterbot (talk · contribs · count) If you would not like to receive this newsletter, please add your name here.

Rohingya

203.81.72.200 user is repeatedly vendilize the rohingya article . please take care it .. thanks--Nykoko (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism emanating from the IP is very sporadic, but it's almost certainly the same user due to the repeated targeting of the same page. I gave it another warning and will keep an eye on its contributions. Enigma ^message 01:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend and remember :"All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them." Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

That IP managed to hit me right as my professor decided to give us a quiz. Thanks for keeping an eye on things. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Likewise. · AndonicO ^Engage. 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Murder, Madness, and Mayhem

(copied over from my talk page:) And thanks to you! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA

About that. May I nominate you too?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 03:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you passed on the offer. But if you do run. I'll be more than happy to nominate you. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind. :) Thanks for visiting. Enigma ^message 04:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. I've been watching your page ever since I adopted you.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 04:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the AfD fix

Huh, how weird. I'll go check twinkle's bug reports. Thanks for the fix. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks

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

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

Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)