This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nousernamesleft. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archives
Archive 1 (December 2006 - January 2008) Archive 2 (First half of February 2008) Archive 3 (Second half of February 2008) Archive 4 (March 2008) Note: This box is out of date; see current talk page for all archives.
It seems a bit ridiculous to even have considered as GA an article with such obvious flaws:
Wiki Text:
A recent survey discovered that 94 percent of all consumers prefer to do business with companies that demonstrate that they care about the environment. Almost 80 percent said they would pay more for environmentally friendly products.[8]
Supporting Reference text:
A recent Gallup survey discovered that 94 percent of all consumers prefer to do business with companies that demonstrate that they care about the environment. Almost 80 percent said they would pay more for environmentally friendly products. In other words it would appear that going Green, and promoting this commitment, can be a profitable marketing strategy.
Supporting Reference Author: Ed Newman Marketing & Advertising Manager, AMSOIL INC.
Where does one start? Plagiarism, Copyright Violation, Advertising, Empty Reference, Hearsay ....
Was it granted GA because it looked nice? Did anybody even bother to read it? If read, did anyone consider and think about the content?
I wanted to personally thank you, Nouser, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth | Talk16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
On 13 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Keewassee, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Dear Nousernamesleft, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂12:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Maths competitions
All the best and enjoy yourself. I won't be doing the GA review, since I have a policy of not doing re-reviews - since GA only has one reviewer, I think it's better to have a fresh set of eyes. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Rollback is generally only for vandalism. Using it for good-faith edits isn't really within the boudaries of policy. I'm not criticizing you, just informing you that you should usually use the [Twinkle (AGF] button in the future. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I considered it as vandalism since those links were to unknown airlines, like poodleair (returned no google results: here). I believed that these were false airlines, google search did not return a result, and there is no article named Poodleair. Therefore I considered it vandalism. Thanks for keeping users in check and notifying me of these edits. Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding that particular edit. :-) Have a great day! - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
blocked editor requesting deleted article copies.
I would not. Who is the blocked user? What are the articles? Who blocked him? I would ask the blocking admin and/or run it by WP:AN/I]]. Might be OK. I be a big mistake. Sorry I'm not more helpful. Cheers, Dlohcierekim03:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand
Content is released under the GFDL. That probably does not terminate with deletion of the article. Still, I'd run it by AN/I. Cheers, Dlohcierekim03:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold(t/a/c)20:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll look at Émile Lemoine bit by bit, if that's OK. I'm a little busy. :-) I did see something that looked a little listy, which some would argue against (i'm not saying it's bad though). I also saw several other things that might need tweaking.. but it's time to prepare for class now... I'll drop comments here and there on the PR. later! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
They call them croissantsI would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, I've made you this French pastry. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ad Fair use of pictures
Yes I do know the use of copyrighted images on userpages is prohibited by WP:FAIR USE and I chose to abide by it. However, the Opera Software ASA would definitely NOT consider it an unfair use, which is IMO more important than WP guidelines. Jancikotuc (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No need to be sorry. I've read the article you provided, and I'm not a lawyer, but I can bet my money on the fact that lawyers of Opera SW ASA would agree with me and call it a "fair use" and a "fair use rationale", technically speaking. WP Guidelines would of course disagree with me and I respect them. To sum up, you can teach me what WP says on this matter (no need to, I already know!!), but you can't make me think WP Guidelines are right while I'm wrong. It's simply not a Bible for me. Jancikotuc (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious if you can fill me in why The Elephant in the Room has been steadily upped in protection over time. I asked on the discussion page and never got an answer and it's only become more protected since my original inquiry; so I finally gave in and searched through the history to see which op fully locked down this album - your name came up. I'm hard-pressed to imagine why a single album merited this high level of attention to the point even registered editors (which I freely admit I'm not) would not be able to fix typos on their own. PS: If possible you should add this review as it's from a professional site that's an authoritative source on both the artist and genre. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it's not, but I'd like to hear from the editor in question on why and how long it will last. It also appears they edited in a professional review by request once already from reading this whole page, so I'd greatly appreciate the same courtesy per my request. :) 68.229.184.37 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, that's why I stopped the conversation. Also, thanks for supporting me on minor edits, even if it is just a comma.--RyRy5talk00:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
When I said, "I'm not a teenager", I meant I'm not a teenager yet. I'm only X years of age. Please don't underestimate me. I'm a good editer, trying to become an admin. BTW, do you think it is OK to keep making minor edits like only adding commas, few words, ect? Of course I'll make many major edits, but I'm just asking.--RyRy5talk00:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
(hijacking header) Hi there! Just dropped a comment at RyRy5's talk page, and since you were involved in that discussion I thought you may be interested. Oh, and by the way, the comment I made on age isn't related to yours, just so you know. :) Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :)02:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It's OK. I was almost going to tell another admin, but I felt that I shouldn't. I will erase my age because I don't want people finding out.RyRy5talk03:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It's OK, your forgiven. Also, as you know Mop sent you a message to look at something. I accidentally archived it so find it in archive 3.RyRy5talk16:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Dates
You've probably got an automated date set up in your preferences. It does like nicer when you do that, but I turn it off, because as you say, otherwise you don't see the full changes. Peanut4 (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If you can find one person who got confused and/or offended because of a changed link that was up for 11 minutes, feel free to block me. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. While I don't find April Fools jokes to be amusing or constructive, your blocks were completely out of line. A simple friendly note asking them not to do so, not a canned template and then an against-policy block would be fine. Your blocks were are completely unacceptable behavior. Are you open for recall? If so, I would start one. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
1. In case you didn't realize, none of the above applies to Merovingian.
2. Please explain how my blocks of Viridae and Omegatron (both of whom vandalised millions of articles) were "against-policy" and "unacceptable." —David Levy01:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I only know about the Viridae case, and one out-of-line block is quite enough, so that addresses your first point. I can't really tell you anything about the other two blocks.
About your second point: Your cited claim was disruption. According to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption, the policy for vandalism disruption was "persistent vandalism," which was clearly not, at least in the case of Viridae, the case. As I said, a friendly note asking for them to stop would have been enough. Additionally, the edits were clearly meant as good-faith humor. About your point on vandalising millions of articles, so now if a new user vandalizes a single mainspace article, (s)he should be warned lightly, but if (s)he vandalizes a template, (s)he should be indef blocked immediately for vandalizing the probably large number of articles that the template is transcluded onto? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood02:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
1. I blocked a total of two users (Viridae and Omegatron), not three. My point was that you responded to Merovingian (whose message was unrelated to the situation in question).
2. Both Viridae and Omegatron repeatedly committed vandalism and were politely warned long before they were blocked.
In the case of Viridae, he vandalised MediaWiki:Watchdetails to falsely inform users that they'd been blocked from editing. Next (after being politely warned, though it's ludicrous to suggest that a sysop even needed to be), he vandalised MediaWiki:Tagline (with an edit summary that misleadingly implied that he was reverting vandalism) to read "From Britannica, the encyclopaedia that is slightly more accurate than Wikipedia according to a paper in the eminent journal Nature...". After this was reverted, he once again vandalised MediaWiki:Tagline (this time with the message "From Whippetpedia, the free encyclopedia for dogs"). After this was reverted by a different administrator, he retaliated by immediately vanalising MediaWiki:Tagline yet again, this time to personally attack the reverting administrators with the vulgar message "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia administer by people with a stick up their lavender passageway". (Both of the two latter edits were falsely labeled "minor.") After the previous reverting administrator did so again, he retaliated by placing Template:Indefblocked on that editor's user page.
That's when I blocked him for the remainder of the day (which amounted to twelve hours, half the usual duration for a first-time offense along these lines). Do you honestly believe that this was an inappropriate means of dealing with someone who edit-warred to reinsert a joke in the MediaWiki space and added a vulgar personal attack (in which he indicated that certain administrators had sticks up their rectums) to every page? —David Levy04:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the timeline of events, so there was no need for that. Please tell me where this polite warning you mentioned was. All I saw was a template intended for new users that was not likely to be taken seriously. Merovingian, it's not that I don't appreciated David's work, it's just that I think he showed exceptionally poor judgment on this case. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the template, the wording of which is quite polite. Responding to vandalism consumes a great deal of time, and I see no reason to waste additional time by typing personalized messages that convey exactly the same sentiment. Note, however, that I deliberately avoided using any templates that "welcomed" the users to Wikipedia.
You might believe that it's inappropriate to "template the regulars," but I disagree. I don't regard it as discourteous, nor do I believe that someone is entitled to preferential treatment simply because of how long he/she has been here. Vandalism leads to vandalism warnings, and the best way to avoid receiving one is to refrain from vandalising. You perceive it as insulting to extend the same treatment to a veteran as one would to a newbie, while I perceive it as disappointing that the former is behaving like the latter. That's an example of "exceptionally poor judgment," especially when the sysop bit (which enables far more damage to occur) is used. Frankly, I'm taken aback at the notions that an administrator needs to be warned not to add a vulgar personal attack to every page on the site and that a twelve-hour block (intended only to prevent further disruption, not to be punitive) is out of line.
Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
