User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 22nd May 2006

CONGRATS

Congrats on your RfA!!! — Deckill e r 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*scratches head* Do you guys stalk the RfA page? :P — Ilyan e p (Talk) 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Hi, TigerShark/Talk Archive 22nd May 2006, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. Congratulations, you've just been made a sysop! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except junk like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUXX0RZ"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun!

— Ilyan e p (Talk) 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, ACK! I just realized that I'm now 5 hours behind GMT not 6, so I promoted you an hour early. Surprise! :P — Ilyan e p (Talk) 23:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the new bucket (and the mop too, if you absolutely must)! Wield it wisely!

Congratulations, but please never put milk in my tea, I beg you! :) And so long as you now consider yourself my house vandal fighter (whenever my other one can't attend to my needs in that respect) my vote was well worth it. --Mmounties (Talk)

04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I'm glad I had the chance to support such a great candiate! Use the mop well! --light darkness^(talk) 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job and congratulations! - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 06:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations TigerShark, good luck:) --Ugur Basak 07:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GDFL.

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 15:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it seems too true — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and best of luck for the future! You WILL be a good admin! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and enjoy your mop and bucket! :) - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your adminship (is that a real word?) — you've been a great help to Wikipedia. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello TigerShark: Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 77/3/0. I hope I can perform at the standards expected for administrators. If I make any mistakes, or you need anything, please let me know. Prodego ^talk 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimous vandals

Can you semi protect my talk page from anonimous editing. It appears that either User:PSYCH or someone associated with him has posted to another site to get people to vandalise my page. Xtra 07:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attack me with BASELESS allegations, you have no evidence, and what you just said constitutes a personal attack. Please don't make me go to WP:PAIN again, it's very tiresome. PSYCH 08:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor said thet they were asked to vandalise my page and there is only one person i can think of who would make such a request. Xtra 08:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would know as a supposed lawyer, that "I think you are" is not enough, it is just suspicion, not based on any reasonable grounds, and as an asside, you aren't exactly impartial, and have a personal stake in the matter anyway. Please refrain from attacks, or WP:PAIN it is.....again. PSYCH 08:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the forum PSYCH. Xtra 08:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your adminship, and good luck! Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Αθανάσιος

I can't create it, it seems that AfD pages are also a restricted function now. 132.205.44.134 22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the AfD when I found the orphaned entry. It's out there now under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Αθανάσιος - Fan1967 13:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi, try to block this guy right now, or keep his address on your list, because he is a chronic vandalizer, since Feb, he has disrupted too many articles by blatant, vulgar vandalism[1]. Zmmz 00:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When to post on WP:AIV

When is it appropriate to post someone on WP:AIV because you removed my post [2]. Why do the Templates say "This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia" if they get another chance. I didn’t' want to post on WP:AIV but I also didn't want to put a blank warning on his talk page. When is it appropriate to post on WP:AIV?--E-Bod 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do after a Final Warning if they are not Elgible for a block?--E-Bod 23:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. Generally speaking they should not be listed if they have not vandalised in the last two hours or they stopped after a warning. In this case they had not vandalised (or even edited) in 7 hours, which is why I removed them. Blocks are designed to prevent further vandalism, so if it is not continuing they are generally not used. If they begin to vandalise again after a long break, it is good practice to issue at least another warning before listing. Cheers TigerShark 01:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof

Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the safe list, and I will do my best to notify you once a download becomes available. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

swift

The code in the Swift aricle was showing through the text. There was no end to the tags so I could not figure out what it was so I deleted it. Will mark edit notes in future. Ronan

Hey dude

You deleted List of Sharp products after its 5 days on proposed deletion ran out - remember to delete the talk page, as well! ;) Proto||type 09:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the support

Hi TigerShark- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa, and congrats on the success of your own. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! --He:ah? 22:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Johnson

From the speedy tag: ...it is an article about a real person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)

If you can explain to me how that explicit criteria doesn't fit, I'd be grateful -- or how it somehow escapes "...it is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1)". --Calton | Talk 16:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the note. To delete the article on the basis of A7 it would need to meet the criteria defined here. Specifically the fact that the article claims she wrote a song for Kelly Clarkson probably doesn't meet the criteria that "only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered".

With regard to deleting it on the basis of A1 - I would say that, although the article provides little content, it does provide sufficient context to provide expansion (i.e. it describes the individual and her claim to notability enough that she could be researched and the article expanded). Thanks TigerShark 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help

Hi, now that you're an admin, you assistance is required. User:Avg has been listed at WP:PAIN for something and a very large discussion thread has been going on for quite some time. Could you please see to it and either remove it or ban Avg, because I want to go to bed and I'm afraid to leave the discussion :P Edwy ^(talk) 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwy. I am a little confused, as your comments on the WP:PAIN thread seem to be supporting User:Avg and you appear to claim that you do not think that they are making personal attacks. Could you please clarify who you think should be banned and try to sum up why (with diffs if possible). Thanks TigerShark 22:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone should be banned. If I'm wrong, please feel free to ban, it's just that the atmosphere there is extremely unpleasent and I wanted to have a word with Bitola so that we could stop this bitterness between Greek and Macedonian editors and as long as that discussion is there, I don't think that it is going to happen. Bitola seems very upset (and I understand him), I tried to have a word with Avg about it and he agreed to take a step back. In my opinion, now no one is acting improperly, but I just don't like the intense dislike some of them seem to show (the same is true vice versa). Essentially, I'm asking you to decide if a ban is needed and to do it as soon as possible. If it isn't, delete (or archive) that debate. Edwy ^(talk) 22:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for raising this to me. It looks like more of a content dispute than a true personal attack, but these kinds of issues can be a gray area. Anyway, it seems to have calmed down now and User:Avg seems to have agreed not to use the term anymore, so I have removed the item. Cheers TigerShark 23:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response to the alert. The user in Wisconsin is playing a live trivia contest and is trying to sabotage the other teams by providing false information. The contest started 6 pm CDT yesterday and will run until midnight CDT 09 April Jafree 00:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TigerShark and thanks for your involving in the problem.The reasons why I'm so insisting about this on WP:PAIN is because using a terms we (Macedonians) consider insulting become a common practice here on WP. I admit that this issue is highly controversial, but if we stick to the solutions already adopted here (for example, the article about the country is under Republic of Macedonia and the article about the people under Macedonians (ethnic group), I think nobody will feel offended. My biggest concern at the moment is that Avg announced that he will stop using the term Fyromians, but now it declares that he will use another insulting term that is nothing else than variation of the same thing (FYROM nationals):[3],[4]. I'm determined to clear this to the end and I'm not certain what should I do at the moment. Anyway, I put a note at his talk page hoping that he will stop insults:[5]. If he/she is still insisting on using the second (or other) offensive term, I will contact you and report him on WP:AN). Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. Bitola 07:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYROM nationals is not a personal attack and this was fully demonstrated at the deleted WP:PAIN discussion. Don't try to pull wool over people's eyes, it'll take a lot of imagination to force what's going on here under the definition personal attacks. I find this whole affair childish and wouldn't oppose the banning of both you and Avg for WP:POINT disruption. Edwy ^(talk) 11:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW would calling the (native) users listed at Category:Wikipedians in United Arab Emirates UAE nationals (like in the list List of UAE Nationals) be insulting. It is not offensive and you are pushing this too much. Edwy ^(talk) 11:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My position is clear an firm on the matter: "FYROM nationals" it is. After all, a PA would be "Sh** nationals" or verbal abuse of the sort. I am not going to discuss with Bitola how correct it is to use a term, that has been adopted by UN, EU, EBRD, IMF, one third or so of the countries in the world and my homeland. If he is insulted it is his problem, his bias, and his POV. You are free to ban me and erase the UN article as well. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TigerShark at WP:PAIN, right below Bitola reporting me, I had reported Bitola for abusing WP:POINT and WP:NPA and today he sent me this[6], which resulted in me leaving at his page this[7]. It is obvious that he is not genuinely insulted by "Fyromians" and he fails to accept even good faith. Perhaps you could also leave him a message about what abuse means. For further insight, please have a look again at yesterday's discussion at WP:PAIN (the one you removed). I'm willing to be as amicable as possible and he's continuing to push his POV. --Avg 10:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call people "Fyromians". See it as a personal favour - for me if need be. Edwy ^(talk) 13:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped to and will desist in the future. My new adopted term is Fyrom nationals, which is neutral, descriptive and unambiguous.--Avg 13:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can notice, Avg ([8],[9],[10]) supported by two Greek editors Edwy and NikoSilver ([11],[12],[13]) continued with using insulting terms like Fyromians, FYROM nationals etc. Is there any way to stop this madness? Bitola 15:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not used any of those terms and NikoSilver and Avg have said they won't use "Fyromians" ever again. "FYROM nationals" OTOH is a legitimate term used by diplomats, so it can be used. FYROM nationals is not a personal attack. Edwy ^(talk) 15:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYROM nationals is the twisted version of same term:Fyromians (actually, I have never heard about this insulting term in my life until yesterday). If some Greek embassy have used it, it doesn't mean that it is not offensive. How do you ever have courage to tell me what is offensive for me and what not? Bitola 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you have the courage to tell people what they can or cannot say? Personal attacks are prohibited by policy, incilility is discouraged, your claims that a certain term (found on a Greek Embassy website) is a personal attack need not be believed. After all, no one has complained to the Greek Embassy... Edwy ^(talk) 15:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If some Greek embassy used it, it is a real shame if nobody complained. People here on WP can say everything they want with some limit (they should refrain from personal attacks). Bitola 15:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They will refrain from personal attacks ("Fyromians" - its dubious that even this is a personal attack). FYROM nationals is a perfectly legitimate term. What the reasonable person views as personal attacks are not allowed; if you unreasonably view diplomatic terms as personal attacks, it's not Avg's problem. BTW, TigerShark, if I call you a UK national am I making a personal attack (I was called that at the airport last year)? Edwy ^(talk) 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TigerShark, there is no need for intervention here anymore, I’m leaving... Bitola 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Download Is Now Available

I just wanted to let you know that a download of VandalProof has recently been made available. AmiDaniel (Talk) 09:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my rfa

About your vote on my RFA... I am totally cool with you opposing because of edit summaries, etc. Still, I hadn't yet had a chance to answer the additional questions placed there before you voted, and I would like to request that you take a look there, and then decide if your oppose vote should stand. Many of your objections have been answered (though not "explained away"--there's no excuse for most of the things you brought up.) (By the way, I really am impressed that you were able to oppose me after careful consideration (instead of rubber-stamp support) even though I supported your RFA. If this sounds sarcastic to you, it shouldn't--that's really, really cool of you to have the integrity to do that. ) In any case, thanks a bundle for your time and obvious consideration of my RFA. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thanks a bunch for your note on my talk page--that was pretty cool of you to write that. Anyways, I hope that I have as much success being a decent, solid editor as you think I will.

On an unrelated note, this is like the fourth or fifth time I've had to come to your user talk page--have you ever considered changing your signature so that there's a link to your talk page automatically in it? It'd probably make life a lot easier for everyone who needs to contact you. I'm just throwing that out. Anyways, cheers, and happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Liaugminas

Speedy tags:

nn-bio: "It is an article about a real person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)")
db-empty: "It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3)."

Perhaps instead of another chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred", you could turn it into an actual stub? And if you don't care enough about the subject to do so, leave it red-linked so someone who does care will know to write an actual stub or article? --Calton | Talk 04:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The policy on deletion of vanity articles states that "only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered". The fact that the article asserts she is a host on Relevant Radio, would seem to provide at least a "remotely plausible assertion of notability" - hence my unspeedying.

Whether or not the article is expanded now, it does not meet the speedy criteria. Thanks TigerShark 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird: I never used the word "vanity" in my note. I did note how the article failed to transcend the standards for CSD A3 and CSD A7 -- and why leaving an essentially empty page discourages the creation of actual stubs, none of which is addressed in your reply. --Calton | Talk 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on deletion of vanity articles is an expansion of the criteria for A7. With regard to A3 the article 1) has content 2) does not consist only if links elsewhere and 3) is not a rephrasing of the title. You also mentioned A1 in your first post, but the article seems to provide sufficient context for expansion (i.e. it describes why she may be notable).

Whether leaving any empty page discourage the creation of an actual stub, is perhaps arguable on the basis that the article is not linked from anywhere else. Having it as a stub probably makes it more likely to be picked up. Either way, it does not match the criteria for speedy deletion - so please follow the proposed deletion or AfD route instead. Thanks TigerShark 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to A3 the article 1) has content.... That's really weird: I highlighted the relevant portions of the template text so you wouldn't be confused, yet you still cite the irrelevent sections as if they had some sort of connection with what I wrote. Maybe this confusion is related to your irrelevant application of vanity-bio standards to something which was not and has never been claimed by myself to be a vanity bio. It also casts doubt on your ability to recognize whether something "clearly" is not a speedy candidate, no?

For some object lessons, see:

the article is not linked from anywhere else.' A sure sign of the subject's importance, eh?

Time for a sing-along!:

Every sperm is sacred,

Every sperm is great!

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite irate!

--Calton | Talk 05:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did highlight A1 in you initial post, but then you raised A3 in you post at 4:57am without specifying which sub criteria of A3 you meant. I therefore addressed all three criteria to be on the safe side. Although you haven't directly used the word vanity, the policy on deletion of vanity articles is an expansion of the criteria for A7 - and is therefore relevant to a discussion on A7. Do you have an objection to pursuing the "proposed deletion" route, which seems suitable as the question of notability may be controversial? Thanks TigerShark 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Greetings TigerShark, please in the future when a user does repetitive and extremely evident vandalizing and breaks WP:3RR as was done on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, just block straight away. Netscott 12:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netscott. Thanks for the note. I prefer to try convincing a vandal to stop, using warnings, rather than block them outright. We should really start with a {{test1}} or {{test2}} as described in Wikipedia:Vandalism. As happened in this case, the user was given three warnings and still blocked very quickly - so little further damage was done. Going straight to a {{test4}} can stop the vandalism slightly faster but, in my opinion, it can also lead to bad feeling, increasing the chance of future vandalism and reducing the chance of turning a vandal into a useful contributor (this does happen). Cheers TigerShark 12:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TigerShark, thank you for writing me on my talk page. I appreciate your point but in this case by the time you "arrived on the scene" User:216.165.12.101 had already violated 3RR and had blatantly vandalized and been reverted by several editors. I would sooner advise that you block first (a short block if you must) and then council the user on their talk page. Netscott 12:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but in future I'd still take the same course of action as I did this time. In this case it is just a shame that the other users who reverted didn't take the extra step of placing a warning, as you did. Cheers TigerShark 13:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true about the other editors failing to warn. I too came upon the reverting a bit after it had begun (which is why I went straight to {{test4}}), but when I will find myself in a future similar position I will {[test3}} and then {{test4}} in view of your advice. Netscott 13:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not content dispute

If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/04 you will see that i posted this on the Wikipedia:Requests for investigation and was told that if it contiunes I should report it. Also this person has done this same thing so many times and on such a scale that it could be confused bym content despute. But almos all his edits are always reverted in the high trafic pages but it is the small ones that are the problems, where people dont travle so often there his acts of sneaky vandalism are untuched. I will post 10 times in 10 diffrent articles to prove that he is a sneaky vandal if that is no enough I can post 100 links to show that he is a sneaky vandal and if there is still doubt I can post 200 links. The removal of sourced figures without one self stateing a source is sneaky vandalism. The spreading of missinformation and removal of key paragraphs is sneaky vandalism.

As you can see this is not a matter of content dispute but a clear act of sneaky vandalism. He changes sourced numbers, he removes key paragraphs and he alters sometimes the whole content of an article. And if this is not enough I can give an even more detailed account of his action. One should also take note that his edits almost always get reverted but he contiunes for such a long time that sooner or later people just leave that article.(Deng 14:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Genesis 1:1–3

Greetings TigerShark,

I created the article because it was linked to in John 3:16 and didn't know of the existence of the information in separate, more detailed articles. Now that I do, I see no reason to keep the article that I started.

Thank you for your concern,

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

By chance I noticed that you had jumped on vandalism by User:GeniusMaster on a talk page. Good work! Cje 15:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HENFREE

Nice work on the HENFREE page, thanks. Vint 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia graham

I put this article up for deletion after your speedy was removed. You can see the vote at the link above. Thanks. --Strothra 02:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master Jay's RfA

Well TigerShark, where have I bumped into you before ;)? Thanks for your support at my recent RfA. As usual, if you have any questions or comments, I can be contacted here. Cheers, Jay(Reply) 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

WP:OP

You don't really need to do too much except post a note when you can connect using an open proxy (or my test script shows it to be true) - if you have any huge lists of open proxies you find just post 'em on the mass proxy scan list and my proxycheck bot will take a look and if they're open block em on mass. Welcome to the project BTW -- Tawker 06:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, its my server, my username, my password, I'll email you one. -- Tawker 07:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, re-sent, let me know if you get it -- Tawker 02:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:TheFreak.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheFreak.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK!

OK, i listen your advice to remove it. Thanks. BUT i blur of how to remove it, of course you can be my assistance. Aleenf1 11:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message From User

Hey you gave me a message on my talk page User talk:86.2.28.16 im sorry but i forgot to log in first before i lefted that warning, please get back to me on my discussion page User:Becky-RE-fan Thanks 01:06, 23 April 2006

64.231.173.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

TigerShark, I wanted to inform you as a courtesy that I unblocked the above user to apply a longer block. You had blocked them for 24 hours, and as their edits show they are likely a sockpuppet account of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I wanted to close down their possible avenues of vandalism. :) --Syrthiss 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0waldo

I see you blocked this editor for a month; I protected his talk page due to abuse, when do you think it can be unprotected? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK to me. I'm not familiar with his case; I just trusted the people who blocked him, and his talk edits got him listed at AIV. And yeah, he sent me a couple e-mails too. One calling me a coward (or rather asking if I could call myself a coward, but on his behalf) and the other asking if he could log in as me and unprotect his talk page (which I presume to be a request for my password, as opposed to a hack threat.) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 12:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Ann Emerson Article

I noticed that you recently reverted an anonymous user's deletion of information from the Jo Ann Emerson article. Following your reversion, another incident of the same occured, which I reverted. I logged on today to find out that the same info was deleted by the same anonymous user, who also deleted the relevant discussion from the Talk page, which I reverted. How do we deal with this problem, without violating any Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to the three revert rule? --TommyBoy 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you

I never even look at the edit history of my userpage, but I just noticed that some prick had been vandalizing and that you reverted it several times. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Ryu Kaze 18:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, Ryu Kaze, present this barnstar to TigerShark in recognition of their courtesy toward other Wikipedians and efforts to help them out and maintain a pleasant atmosphere. It's very appreciated. Ryu Kaze 18:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken^Talk

Advocate Team Re: RfC Woggly

I am presently coordinating a team of advocates re: my RfC for harassment by user:woggly. I welcome you to be one. Simply read the RFC lodged against me by user:woggly and the RFC which I have filed against her. It's really simple stuff when all of her harassment and my (and others) various attempts to resolve any issues are in black and white. Please also view the talks pages where Woggly admits to harassment and infers that she will not cease. Thank you for your consideration. Best wishes, IsraelBeach 19:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking me

Thank you. :)

Moe Epsilon is saying on the RfA page that I was blocked for "POV violations". First for vandalism, then for POV violations...It would be very good if you could set him straight...

HRE RfA

--VKokielov 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uh huh.. well, like I said, I wasn't bothered by you're edits until you started readding text after I started to explain it to you. Moe ε 23:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this all happened more than a day ago. Can I please appeal to both of you to let it drop and move on. Cheers TigerShark 23:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, till he put on the RfA page that I was blocked for POV violations. :) --VKokielov 23:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand that you both are unhappy with what has happened, but would you possibly be prepared to draw a line under it now? I think that pursuing it is just going to get into a ongoing argument with little chance of a clear resolution - which will be a waste of everyone's time and just lead to more bad feeling. What do you think? TigerShark 23:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to stop arguing, if Moe Epsilon removes the attack on the RfA. I wasn't planning on attacking him back until he put it up, as you can see clearly by the timestamps on each edit. --VKokielov 23:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: [14] --VKokielov 23:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is only an attack in your opinion. In mine, it was describing to the 'crat closing the RFA what a users motives for voting was. Moe ε 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have laid the cards on the table. Now I will push them forward. Moe Epsilon has twenty four hours to remove that line, or I will ask the relevant admins to intervene. With full evidence. --VKokielov 23:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right... I don't think I'll be removing it. Moe ε 23:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have my answer. Let's leave TigerShark alone. there's nothing else he can do. --VKokielov 23:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ...

I beg to differ. I think TigerShark has just opened up a new door for me. I will remove the comment. (If VKokielov hasn't already removed it). And in addition to my coment being removed I am going to remove myself from Wikipedia. You can all thank VKokielov for his contribution in making me leave. -- Moe ε 00:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching that vandalism on my user page. An old fashioned blanking, eh? I do prefer a rude comment from my vandals, I must say. Flower party☀ 14:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the arrogance

Thanks for the note during the Scottish stereotypes revert war. What you really meant was i'd like my version here, not yours, and don't even think of adding to it.--87.82.26.178 23:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. What I meant was please do not make edits such as this. Thanks TigerShark 23:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my userpage.--Isotope23 00:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peat

Hi, you reverted my edit on "Peat", where I changed the description of the picture from "Netherland" to "Germany". If you click at the image you'll see that it is namend "Torfabbau" which is German for "peat exploitation". The description from the author of the picture says: "Description: Peat exploitation in the nature conservation area (!) of "Ewiges Meer" ("Eternal lake"), a big moor lake in East Frisia, NW Germany." "Ewiges Meer" is a German term. East Frisia is a region in north west Germany and it even says that it is in Germany. The author is named "Fischer" which is a German name. I think therefore that my edit was correct and your's wasn't.

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Dear TigerShark/Talk Archive 22nd May 2006,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History Purges

I have requested an received a History Purge involving the removal of some edits made during an edits you made to my talk page The result in the page history is [15]. Just letting you know why a random out of place message is attached to your message in the edit history. User_talk:Yskyflyer#History_Purges.--E-Bod 04:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ptmccain

TigerShark, nice to meet you. You wrote to User_talk:Ptmccain "Please do not remove notices", therefore, you may be interested in the following response:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ptmccain&diff=49673739&oldid=49669078 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ptmccain&oldid=51612804 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ptmccain&action=history

Regards,Doright 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thanks

TigerShark/Talk Archive 22nd May 2006, thank you you so much for validating my RfA! I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken both the positive and constructive on board. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please let me know, ditto if you see me stumble! Thanks again for your much appreciated support. Deizio talk 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you, TigerShark, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]