User talk:Mets501/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Penn Stuff

I curious about your bot and tagging of the Penn articles. What was the motivation or impetus? --evrik 16:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! --evrik 17:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• About Philadelphia ... I went through all these cat's. I pretty confident that all the articles in these cat's, and down though the various levels could use the WikiProject tag. Would you consider doing these as well? It would save a lot of hand-tagging.
• Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854
• Category:Geography of Philadelphia
• Category:Landmarks in Philadelphia
• Category:Hospitals in Philadelphia
• Category:Sports in Philadelphia
• Category:SEPTA

Thanks! --evrik 03:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fox News

They are there because this war is also a propaganda war and they have had many casualities a number more than the UN. 203.217.83.31 16:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert/block

Thanks for the backup. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 16:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

AWB question

I posted this question on my talk page in response to your comment and didn't get a response:

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that rule. However, those are the only edits that seem to ever come up with AWB. Do you have any suggestions that could put the program to better use, as I am so new with it? Would a bot account be more acceptable for that sort of thing?

MetsBot malfunctioning!

Hi, I recently noticed that MetsBot (t c) is planing the {{WikiProject Pennsylvania}} template to the talk pages of some New Jersey locations! Please make it stop and revert those changes. Examples include: Talk:Washington, New Jersey and Talk:Warren County, New Jersey. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's probably because they were listed under Category:Lehigh Valley. --evrik 19:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for addressing it, Mets. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

MetsBot Bot Flag

Hi, I noticed that the bot flag is not set for MetsBot. Is this a new bot? Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Sorry, I guess I don't understand what I'm supposed to do after a page move, then. Why does it advise to fix double redirects? --Elliskev 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this diff? --Elliskev 21:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened on the Moon

Could you perhaps do the latest revert on this article? And, what do you think should be the next step? I admit that the last time I asked might have been a bit early to take action, but, if you look at the talk page, things have deteriorated a bit. Brianyoumans 00:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the assistance. I'm not sure what to do either. I'm tempted to AFD the article, but I'm not sure it really qualifies for that. Brianyoumans 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have left a notice about WP:3RR on the talk page of the anonymous moon hoax believer. Could you perhaps revert the page again? Perhaps we can get him blocked for 24 hours and get some rest.  :-) --Brianyoumans 04:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

user 'Brianyoumans' logs in under different user id's and commits fraud, just like the paragraph he wants to keep. These are some of his nicknames and his actual IP: 207.67.145.234, Btball, Sarah Ewart, Antandrus. Do you wish to tolerate that? B5322

B5322, I've interacted with a couple of those users on that list, and I assure you they are not all Brianyoumans —Mets501 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Fleshy Part of the Thigh

I have moved The Fleshy Part of the Thigh back to The Fleshy Part of the Thigh (The Sopranos episode). Rather than for purposes of disambiguation the individual episode articles are titled with the show name as per guidelines from the wikiproject:television page. I just wanted to leave a quick note to explain why I moved it back.--Opark 77 07:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Hi there! I noticed you doing some vandalism reversions and thought I'd drop you a line to let you know that your work is not going unnoticed. Great job! Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

br

Just seemed a little long, i can remove it--Mango^chutney
14:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• gone--Mango^chutney 14:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Signature trouble

Thanks, I realised that and have now sorted it. I tried to edit my signature from the PDA with which I usually contribute, but the <> etc got turned into their HTML entities somehow. Cheers — Gary Kirk | ^talk! 15:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened on WP:RPP

I semi-protected What happened on the Moon rather issue a full protection, because the level and severity of vandalism has dropped off in recent hours. If the situation intensifies, let me know and I will immediately upgrade to full protection. Happy to have been of service, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

YoutubeTalk.com link on YouTube article

It is NOT my website. Furthermore, it is a noted external gathering place for users of Youtube. Therefore, it goes back onto the relevant article. Toussaint 12:44 PM, 25 August 2006 (EST)

Vandals

Hi Netsnipe! Just letting you know that your vandalism efforts are not going unnoticed: it's so great when you report to WP:AIV because when I see your report, I can trust that the user has been warned and almost always deserves a block. Happy vandal whacking! —Mets501 (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been tossing up whether to nominate myself for WP:RFA or not recently. I don't know if I'll be garner enough support seeing that I haven't contributed to a featured article yet. I'm always too busy fighting vandals and spammers, filing AFDs and tracking the more nasty long-term abuse cases instead because they worry me a lot. What do you think? Am I ready for the mop and bucket? --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  15:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's always a tough question, one which really can't be fully answered until you actually go through the process. I know that from me you'd get a support, though :-). I wouldn't worry much about writing a featured article: I never wrote one and my RfA passed with a count of 82/5/0. Bottom line is it's up to you whether you're ready to run. (You can check out the standards page if you'd like) —Mets501 (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you can finally answer it. = ) --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of terrorism by the United States

I would like you to review your decision, everyone except Self-Described Seabhcán says the edit should take place and that he should have never made the edit being asked to be reverted in the first place. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Skalić (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

An Stbalbach user from believse Pavao Skalic's nationality is controversal, although many distinctive slavists, linguists, croatists and other scientists think differently! Those "authoritative sources" mentioned by Stbalbach are Britannica and Encarta- but he is missing to point that these facts are actually very outdated hence there is, at least one very serious scientific work ( of mr. Zubrinic) that corroborate that Skalic is, in fact, really Croat. Also there is confirmation of Croatian Ministry of Science and Technology of that fact. On the end, I really don't know which "number of other editors" think same as he is. As I have seen, there was many controversy about this kind of text even before, so I think that you should remove this protection hence it is really unnecessary. It is only a new contribution to the evil blood between various editors, and not to mention that it seems that this looks like a censorship! If info. provided in the text is true/objective it would survive, if not... but that's the spirit of W.

Charun (edit warring)

Quite frankly, the recent edits and protection of these edits are so off-kilter I could cry. I have no idea why you think it's sane to directly compare Etruscan mythology to Hindu religion. I have no clue why none of you can understand how important the labrys was in the ancient world. Ironically, you reference Marija Gimbutas but failed to note her own work specifically relating the labrys to more ancient goddess symbolisms either.

Now the article reads like a 5th-grade essay, completely disorganized and painfully POV. Do you honestly feel this is the best we can do? Do you honestly feel that Scott Andrew Hutchins analysis based on Jeff Rovin is accurate? Logic is logic. I can only but appeal to your reasoning at this point. The current state of this article is absolutely disgusting. --Glengordon01 07:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

A further appeal: PLEASE READ labrys CAREFULLY! You're missing something right here, for example:

"On Greek vase paintings, a labrys sometimes appears in scenes of animal sacrifice, particularly as a weapon for the slaying of bulls. On the "Perseus Vase" in Berlin (F1704; ca 570–560 BC), Hephaestus ritually flees his act of slicing open the head of Zeus to free Athena: over his shoulder is the instrument he has used, the double-headed axe. (The more usual double-headed instrument of Hephaestus is the double-headed smith's hammer.)

Please take note of the bold. It is well-known to any competent classicist that the double-hammer and the labrys are the same freakin' symbolism, for pete's sake. So when Scott Andrew Hutchins is arguing about petty semantics, claiming ad nauseum "it's a hammer, it's a hammer", he's just not cluing in to the bigger picture that this "hammer" is a labrys or labrys-derivative (call it what you will) and the labrys is a religious symbol.

As I explained to Scott to no avail, popular memes are not facts. I can see that if authors published that the world was flat often enough, Wikipedia would actually fall for it hook, line and sinker. Frightening how devolved the human species is becoming that it just can't rise above this shallowness. --Glengordon01 07:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for helping out

I want to thank you for deleting the images that I tagged for speedy deletion since they are duplicates of images in Commoms. I like to keep the site tidy and organized, and I felt thos eimages were redundant and needed to be cleaned out of the site. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 15:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The main reason why I tagged them for speedy was because the duplicate images on commons are tagged for deletion since they are duplicates too. I wanted to make sure that they were deleted before the ones on commons were, so that the request was legitimate. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 15:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected Rainbow Gathering

I have unprotected Rainbow Gathering so the current status can be evaluated for the arbitration request that has been made. We are leaning toward rejecting the request, but if the trouble is ongoing we might have to change our minds. Fred Bauder 09:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Skalić

Hi - It's still not clear why you put a total lock down on that article. There is broad consensus in the talk page that the article, in its current form, is what everyone wants. It was only one rouge anon user that was causing problems - using unreliable sources, NPOV, 3RR, uncivil, etc. etc.. that is why I put in the request for the semi-protect and didn't see any problem in violating 3RR myself, based on the 3RR rules -- which you implied agreement with by semi-protecting that article (which makes your subsequent block of me mystifying). I almost think you did a total block on that article to justify the block of me, not because there wasn't a consensus problem - there is no consensus problem, the article should not be full-protected. Look at the talk page. -- Stbalbach 14:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Charun: A desperate appeal for administrator sanity

This User:Scottandrewhutchins troll has gone far enough, and he is quite clearly a troll at this point:

User_talk:Glengordon01:

"You are a hypocrite, therefore your edits are worthless and should all be reverted."

"You're unashamed because you refuse to recognize that you are incompetent"

Meanwhile the layman has mistaken a "krater" jug for a physical "crater", Basic Classic Studies 101. Forgive me if this only reemphasizes the politic feel of Wikipedia. I thought everyone was equal and WP:Civility applied to everyone. You're an administrator, are you not? Why does he not receive warning for these openly hostile ad hominem attacks towards me? --Glengordon01 15:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, asking to have him "warned" after all this hijacking is a bit of a "euphemism". --Glengordon01 15:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardware Store (song) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hardware Store (song). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Pagania

Hello! You fulfilled my page protect request and enforced the biased version. The side that refused to discuss and edit-war-POV-pushed its version is now victorious. Any solution to this problem? (please respond at my talk page). --HolyRomanEmperor 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

RFPP

Thanks for letting me know; the bots are getting more and more sophisticated these days. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 152.12.4.15 on 'Binaca Geetmala' releated pages.

Hi,

Kindly check the link below and you will find the user using this IP is consistently engaged in vandalism, would request to facilitate in blocking this IP (below list suggest it is used by the user in question only)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=152.12.4.15

Thanks,

Vjdchauhan 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 35	28 August 2006	About the Signpost

A note from the editor
Interviews with Board of Trustees candidates	Wikimedia Foundation CFO resigns
Wikimania recap	Report from the Spanish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

SPEWS

The article Spam Prevention Early Warning System, which you semi-protected in response to my request on WP:RPP, had its semi-protection notice removed by User:Braloj. I restored it, along with reverting the same old, same old fake citations there.

It's worth noting that someone (not I) wrote on this user's talk page that he "appears to be a sock-puppet of the infamous Brad Jesness" back in December 2005. (Brad Jesness is apparently an Internet stalker of some history, according to what you can find by Googling the name.) --FOo 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 15:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

RfC

I've decided not to pursue an RfC over the blocking incident, I don't think it would be constructive for either of us. However I think you made a poor judgment call in blocking me. Since you agreed that the semi-protection was required to stop the anon user from violating multiple rules, I was exempt from 3RR myself, according to 3RR rules. Of course technically you had a right to block me for violating 3RR since the *timing* of things were such that I violated 3RR *before* you made the semi-protection, but you implicitly acknowledged that the anon was in the wrong and should be blocked, therefore making me exempt from 3RR in spirit if not technically. There was no content dispute, I was simply defending a page that had been in place and static for months based on many users consensus - it was one rouge anon user pushing an un-sourced, POV nationalistic agenda against many honest legit wikipedia users. I think you should have known this if not by reading the talk page, but looking at the edit history, or by the anons behavior (ie. his lies that I was from Germany, read my user page, it says where I am from, etc..). Anyway I hope in the future when dealing with legit and long-term Wikipedia users versus anon fly by night users that you will give legit editors some benefit of the doubt - anon users who get into conflicts remain anon for a reason, they have no reputation and could care less about Wikipedia rules. -- Stbalbach 15:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Pagania

Well, there is nothing I can do except ask you to unprotect the page. Currently, there is no need for it to be protected. What's more, there is a need to have it unprotected. You must understand why I feel a little overprotective for that I article - I wrote it. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right - but tell me trully: Is it better to have a potentially biased controversal article then an edit war? And I don't want to seem negative - but see it like this - isn't wikipedia against edit warriors, original research, personal attacks and internet trolls? --HolyRomanEmperor 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Try not to look at the contents - but at the manner of which version is how being pushed. Skim the talk page please (Talk:Pagania) and also please most definately take a look at User_talk:Afrika papripa. It's not endorsing a version - it's making wikipedia what it is. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Leading zeros on runway designations

Hi Mets501 -- just wanted to let you know to please check my post in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#No_leading_zeros_on_US_runways before proceeding with any mass change of airport infoboxes to eliminate leading zeros in runway headings -- remember that the U.S. Air Force does use leading zeros, and any bot program should be sure to take this into account. Possibly Naval Air Stations too; I'm not sure. Thanks, --MCB 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I will (try) not get to involved with the article, but I think unprotecting will lead to a bitter edit war. I appreciate you attempting to mediate this difficult topic. Travb (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your hard work. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

YoutubeTalk link, part 2

I've already responded with the assertion that the link is NOT spam, and I stand by that assertion. It's even cited on the Emmalina article, if you'd so kindly look. I request an explanation for your second deletion of the link from Youtube#External Links, or at least a suitable rebuttal to my assertion of the necessity for that link. Thank You. --Toussaint 13:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WHUFC

I'm still a recent editor (to that article) and know very little about the team (just got into football recently and decided to cheer for WHUFC because my mom was born in West Ham--I'm actually in Canada and haven't seen a single game yet), so I probably wouldn't be a good person to ask to do that. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion

Thank you for your nice comment at my talk page! ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

You have blocked the POV version of the article. Please return the neutral article and block it until the resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardanv (talk • contribs)

Lancashire

Do you actually know what consenus means? You do not seem qualifies to offer an opinion on Lancashire , so what do you think you are doing removing requests for external moderation. It looks like your another admin who let power go to their head.--84.9.210.84 18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

removed

Why did you remove the willy on wheels reference

This page-Wikipedia:Vandalism

But then how can i get to the wow long term abuse page i need to get there ::sword dagger 500 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

Re:Carlos Tévez

Hey, thanks for your msg. The move has been made, so I will unprotect the pages and make the needed changes to both him and Mascherano. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 07:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record...

...I did not think your TfDs of the various vandalism userboxes was done to prove a point. I disagreed with them, but didn't think your mentality was anything other than that differed from my own. EVula 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Budgiekiller 10:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Pants1992

Im most cases, I agree with the decisions concerning vandals. However, I must ask for a reconsideration of Pants1992. Looking over the history and picture uploads, it's pretty obvious that the account is for nothing more than harrasement. Would like to discuss this with you. Have a great weekend. Rsm99833 02:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: your answer on my page-

Fair enough. I've added him to my watch list. It should be noted that he does have a sock-puppet that he's using on the same page, under the name Randomguy111. I've marked that one as well.

Looks like someone else already got him. Newyorkbrad 15:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Thanks for the protection. WikieZach| talk 20:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360 protection

Have you had a look at the history or talk page before your protection of this page? One section was debated, with 3 users supports one thing, and those 3 constanly reverting to prove their point. Now those of us without accounts can't edit the page, even with accounts we won't be able to four days. And since protection half the page has already been removed with us(accountless) being unable to fix it.

just conpare the preprotection page[1] with this one. It's terrible81.169.180.248 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I did look at the history and talk page before protection. There was an edit war going on, and that must be stopped; the page was protected in whichever version I found it in: protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page. No one can edit the article now, it is fully protected, not semi-protected, so no changes can be made to the article until all disputes are worked out on the talk page of the article. —Mets501 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ripple Guy block

Contributions look valid... RN 21:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK - that is too bad. Thanks for informing me :) RN 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Saw III

Thanks for protecting the page. I really appreciate it.--CyberGhostface 21:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A reminder

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. I would like to make a humble request. In the future, if you delete any of my images which I have created, please inform me about the deletion and the reasons behind it. For example, the deletion regarding File:Image-Youth-soccer-indiana.jpg. If I know the reason for this deletion, I would become a better editor and an uploader in the future. Thank you for your kind understanding regarding this. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for informing me about this. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Babel changes

I'm doing it "by hand" with AWB because I also have an extensive set of regular expressions to fix userboxes while I'm at it. Admittedly now I'm down to {{Babel-4}} and below, there are fewer of these, but they still crop up now and again. When I'm finished with this, I shall take the settings which I have accumulated and fiddle with them so that they will recognise the GUS UBs inside {{Babel}} and outside. Then I'll be ready to sally forth and fix all of those. So basically I'm doing it slowly so as to accumulate information for the next stage. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oscar nomination

I've taken your comment onboard, have replied on the nom page, and also removed it from my sig. --Oscarthecat 15:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Complementary Angle image

I saw where you went back to the original GIF image on complementary angles. I replaced it with my own because I felt that illustrations of basic geometry are better represented with a vector image. In this case, I thought the image quality wasn't quite as good as some of the other images on other geometry pages. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)