User talk:Xiner/Archive 5

[[Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Clifton College]]

Brookie here - I see you've fiddled with this - but note it now thinks that this Bristol school is in America and I can't see how to inform it properly! Can you advise? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIG problems with Illuminato.

The below complaint/civility request IU placed on his tlak page should sum it up. Many users have been recently stating complaints about the exccesive quotes in the article on adolescent sexuality and its many duplicates (By duplicate I mean pretty much copy and pasted text into sections of articles like the main one on US culture. It might still be there. In pornography addiction, adolescent sexuality in the united states, and sex education.)

However Illuminato has been uncooperative in discussion (at least with me. He recently used a couple of minor spelling mistakes to point out 'how young i am'. Of course he could have easily fixed these and when I replied to him on his talk page with a lengthy footnote on what the article is about etc. he promptly blanked is user page and the older discussion link is broken). My complaint is below.

This is a warning. I have noticed your 'clean up' of the Talk Page on adolescent Sexuality. However you removed mostly new and relevant discussions and left mostly old discussion.

you have a history of randomly 'cleaning up' your talk page and you use the excuse. "It was getting too long".

However the talk page for {{adolescent sexuality}} was hardly as long as many other talk pages and when you blanked your user pages It seems that all that 'cleaning up' took place right after i'd placed a concern or question or responded to you.

Also there is the question of your constant reverts and edits to the article on Adolescent Sexuality. Namely how you revert any changes made by anyone else but you still squeeze in information based on POV and ONLY POV.

I ask you to respect WP:NPV and WP:Civility If I made spelling mistakes or grammatical or formatting errors then please excuse. You have used minor spelling mistakes to point out 'how young I am' and as an excuse in the past to delete large additions to the article instead of fixing those mistak esand I wish to let you know that any mistakes are accidental and to please correct any spelling errors you might find.

If you remove this request I will place a civility 2nd warning template on your talk page as your conduct on this site (especially towards me) has been uncivil, dishonest, and is clearly POV pushing that results in unfair edits and reverts to Adolescent Sexuality and Adolescent Sexuality In The United States as well as the section on adolescence in themain article on United states Culture that has little to no supplemental value to these articles whatsoever.

Please use care, you're REALLY acting like a jerk. (I'm sorry If i offended you but you've been a problem to me and have prevented me and others from getting little to no work done on these articles or sections in question for months)

Nateland 02:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Reply on my talkpage.Skookum1 02:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Level zero language categories

Hi there. It looks like we still have five level-zero language categories:

I still need to do a little work with the MediaWiki API to figure out which templates still contain references to level zero cats that have been deleted. Mike Dillon 06:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of users I found to still be in level zero categories: User:Mike Dillon/Level zero users. I removed all the references to level zero categories that I found in templates named "User...-0", but these user pages are still hanging around. They're either in the job queue or they have a template with a level zero call that I didn't find yet. Mike Dillon 07:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed Template:User iso15924/category-intro, although it shouldn't matter much since those categories aren't supposed to exist anyways ;) Mike Dillon 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a few loose ends.

Many of the users left at User:Mike Dillon/Level zero users have subst'd versions of level-0 templates
Some of the template inclusions that had categories removed still need to get through the job queue, or may need null edits
There are still a good number of templates linking the "does not understand" text to the deleted categories
Some of the level-0 userbox templates have the base language category on them, which doesn't seem to make sense (for the same reason that identifying level-0 users with a category doesn't make sense)

I'm going to have to take a break for the time being, so hopefully this can all get sorted out later. Mike Dillon 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've found all of the templates the either put users into level-0 categories or link to the deleted categories. I've cleaned up all of the templates that I found, leaving Template:User en-0 since the discussion to delete Category:User en-0 was closed for lack of concensus. There are still a couple hundred links to deleted level-0 categories coming from subst'd templates, custom templates, and direct links. I've turned these into a new list at User:Mike Dillon/Level zero links. Because of the variations in linking and the damage done by User:Drinibot when removing the categories for many of the level-0 templates, I think it is probably best to remove the remaining links by hand. Mike Dillon 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are all done. The rest of the links are from the creators of the deleted links, talk pages, and watch/work lists. I got a little bogged down because I started fixing damaged table syntaxes in a bunch of these cases. I feel inspired to put an anti-subst userbox on my page now ;). Mike Dillon 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration

I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and ~~insanity~~ integrity. --Wafulz 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to tone it down.

For the past few months. And while i've gotten better at wikipedia Illuminato continually steps up is actions and (in my eye as well as perhaps others) is bordering and beggining to cross over into half hidden censorship.

Yes maybe I was a bit 'uncivil' in the least but give me bit of slack!. I've TRIED to reason with how many times? 1,2,4,5,26 or more?.

In cleaning up that talk page he removed DOZENS of complaints and posted concerns about his actions and the state of the article. We may need and I think probably will end up having to temporarily ban Illuminato if he keeps up this stubborness and this and that.

Sincerely, Nateland 21:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't want that to have to happen. If you can reason with Illuminato, then by all means. Go ahead!. I'll be very grateful.

Just for clarification

Allo.
Felt like explaining this here, rather than on the article's talk page.
When I start saying things like, "You're making an assertion", I'm talking to illuminato, not you. :)
I'd never snap at someone just for trying to prevent a 3RR. :) Bladestorm 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I wasn't aware it applied to any passage on the page - I thought it was 3 times for any particular passage. Thanks for the heads up. --Illuminato 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinaman (racial term) edit war

No, I'm not getting sucked into an edit war; the edit war is already underway. I've requested another editor who's been by the page (Zeus, whose changes were overwritten early by the IP address user) to monitor it; yes, I've used up two of my reverts for this page so far, and it's clear that IP address user intends to revert again, or possibly already has. I note that his IP address is now redlinked though very similar to the bluelinked IP address of a few edits ago; sockpuppetry is clearly at play and I'll be making a query about this later this evening as while it's not Hong, or can't be proven to be Hong, it's certainly a "recruit" as this page is brand-new and you have to know where it is, and what's been going on at it, to have made the "corrections" that the IP address user has made, which are highly POV and also, um, offensive. I've since found yet another example of non-offensive use (see my post to User talk:Zeus1234, and there are more; I know admins have no part in content disputes but I do think there are POV-integrity issues going on here that transcend content; it's clear there are different POVs on this word; until that article is stable in representing all views it's going to be the subject of edit wars, whether I'm around or not (and I'm actually leaving Wikipedia soon in order to spend my considerable energies on more rewarding/profitable pursuits). A mediation or arbitration might indeed be necessary; but that still won't stop IP address vandals with no faces and no names from having their way with the page on behalf of a particular editor's POV (Hong's). The best revenge is always truth, and there's lots of truths that this page should have on it, not just the obfuscations and pretensions of the politically correct or the ethnically paranoid/oversensitive.Skookum1 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody just played a weird card - the edit comment on IP-boy's latest reversion is "(Er, I'm talking on the talk page, and you're not.)" which is really odd becaue there's no sign of User:4.236.111.67 or User:User:4.236.111.148, his other apparent alias, anywhere on the talkpage. So if "he" is talking on the talkpage, who would that seem to be? What's the proper place to take a sockpuppetry request to?Skookum1 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Also I venture that he's done enough reverts today to warrant 3RR; note my last edit was only the taking out of one phrase, not a wholesale revert as previously. But no doubt by the end of the day this page will be turned fully into a tub-thump for the Hong-POV, and it's sad that Wiki citation/behaviour rules can be used to enforce POV positions/content, if only by sheer obstinacy.Skookum1 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a crime to edit under an IP. I'm not Hong, so you have no case against me. Stop crybabying to an admin. 4.236.111.67 19:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What will stop this whole thing is an end to the revert war. Xiner (talk, email) 20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW re what I said about admins, I mis-stated something I thought I saw you said, maybe "admins take no part in content disputes" but now I see there's a rider to that, as you point out, "except in their capacity as regular o'editors". I hear from another post on my page the article has been blocked from editing; fine, but is it blocked with the POV language in place, or in the NPOV version? Never mind I'll look, and see what's up with the block (which ultimately IMO this page would have to be, once its content is properly arbitrated and represents more than the hardliner view.Skookum1 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should i add these articles

was thinking of creating articles on a fair number of books. However, these books are of the 'mass circulation 1980's pulp science fiction style' and I was wondering whether they should be included or not?. Since wikipedia aims to be a comprehenseive encyclopedia I see no problem with adding these articles.

But I was worried about server strain so I decided to contact you first.

Thanks, Nateland 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation for adolescent sexuality

I left the following message with Illuminato. I'll post my reccomendation in the talk page. give about a week for discussion. And based on the discussion. BOOM!. Feel free to participate.

Illuminato, Admit it.

Those two articles ARE simply copied text. I left the adolescent sexuality in India article stay as is because it wasn't carbon copied text.

Remember, your actions are putting undue strain on the servers. I'll put it up for vote in the talk page. And Illuminato, I'm sorry but you'll probably outnumbered. And seeing as you are about the only one objecting it WILL probably go through. I'm simply asking you to put aside your views and think rationally. DOZENS of people have complained about and critisized your actions on wikipedia. Far more than mine.

Sincerely, Nateland 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disgust with POVism cloaked in WP principle

I'm recusing myself from this out of dismay for the ongoing stonewalling; I've provided cite after cite, only to be dismissed as original research, as if his own compilation and titling of this article weren't also original research; now that you've locked the article in the "offensive" position and anything I say can be complained about as being too pointed/too colourful, you've basically let the passive-aggressive methods of my opponent stand as if they weren't what they are: a completely disingenuous appropriation of Wikipedia principles to advance a POV agenda. Hong's done it before, specializes in it. If I can't point that out without being accused of "personal attacks" while Hong pretends to be "polite" (being polite would mean giving undismissive consideration to the issues I've raised, rather than digging in his heels and getting soft-toned insulting back); the inanity of his position, always pointing to cites which do NOT disprove the cites I've provided, is just asinine and you should be able to see that. There's all kinds of Wikipedia articles I should have written up this last week (new materials) but this has taken up so much time; all to try and appease somebody who's not even part of North American culture but wants to police articles on it to make sure they conform to his own ethnopolitical agenda/prejudices (and he is very prejudiced). Again, I maintain his seeming politeness is just a tactic; Hong has repeatedly attacked me, and vicioiusly, in the past, but I never made a complaint because "I'm above that kind of thing". I guess I should have been just as much a squeaky wheel, huh? I'm pretty disgusted with the whole affair, and regard the double standard and intense POVism going on in this page, backed up by supposed application of WP guidelines (as claimed by the one POV's main contributor/editor), is a demonstration of the failings of Wikipedia. In only repeating error and bad research and being unable to incorporate experiences and citations that are "unacceptable" to one agenda or another. I've made my case just now on why a "Historical Usages" section should be de rigeur whether HQG wants it in there or not, including what should/could be in that section; at least it's on the talk page so other editors in future can review the materials and see through Hong's obfuscations. And it's obfuscation, Xiner, it's obfuscation, that's all it is - there's no other word for it. Stonewalling is a political technique, and a technique of POV agendas everywhere; that you can't see this in Hong's posts is disappointing to me.Skookum1 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on adoption

Normally, what is the period of time that an adoptee is adopted by an adopter (wow, there were a lot of "adopt"s in that sentence!)? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I wouldn't offend you or anything if I said that I'd like to end it? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He, he, he, I won't. ;) Is now the time for me to throw my graduation cap in the air and shout, "WHOOPEE!!"? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right back at ya!

This user has graduated from the adoption program by Xiner! Kudos!

:) See ya around! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I just saw the fish statement again! (your welcome, and thanks for all of your fish! ;) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Where'd that come from? I haven't completed your assignment yet because I'd been preparing for finals (just finished last week-yay!) and hadn't had the time. I'm perfectly happy with you as my adopter; I'm just fairly low-maintenance. I hope you didn't really think I was dissatisfied? Please don't be upset if I can't get to an assignment very quickly--between schoolwork and family, I'm often pressed for time.--H-ko (Talk) 10:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've nothing to complain about (either with my grades or with you as a mentor). Next quarter will be a lot tougher, though, so we'll see how it goes! I'll catch up on your assignments during the course of the next week. I only have a few days off, due to having to squeeze in a lot of things during my break, but it should be more than enough time to do the reviews I need to do for school, catch up on housework, and catch up here.--H-ko (Talk) 21:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A random question...

What's the difference between a merge and an upmerge? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption status

Hi Xiner,

I've been feeling bad about having not kept up with you lately. How's the life of an admin treating you? Are you busier? Having more or less fun?

I've been trying to spend less time on WP, though with mixed success. Log on once, maybe twice a day to check my watchlist, find some vandal edits, then log off. I have worked on a couple of bios to get them assessed as B-class; that felt like an accomplishment. But mostly I have been trying to lay low.

I confess that I had forgotten that you were posting assignments for your adoptees. I may be way behind; I'll have to check it out (but maybe not tonight). I wouldn't mind staying on as your adoptee, but I'd certainly understand if you wanted to let me go. What would you prefer?

You have provided great guidance. I thank you for that.--Vbd (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your willingness to keep me around! I will try to get to the assignments in the next few days.

I have to confess that, in the last couple of days, rather than checking out your homework, I was having a great WP experience. While recategorising some articles, I stumbled upon a bio that had never even been tagged as a stub. The subject caught my interest and I have spent the last couple of days doing research about her and writing the article. I have learned something new while contributing meaningfully to WP!

I hope you don't have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to that "block user" button!

Your devoted adoptee, --Vbd (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2007(UTC)

Quick follow-up. Although I never sat down and did thirty new welcomes en masse, I have been trying to consistently include a welcome message ({{subst:anon}}, usually) whenever I post vandal "warnings." For some recent examples, see here and here. In this one, using {{subst:anon-m}}, I included a message that pointed the user to WP:ATT, a policy statement I try to live by. I am very big on providing reliable sources (see my most recent editorial effort) and wish that all WP editors shared my sense of its importance.

So where does this leave me in terms of assignments? I'm not sure if I have welcomed 30 newbies yet, but I can work on it. Also, I haven't been as diligent about using the edit summary template on users' talk pages. Finally, I will check out the archive bot. I was just thinking that my talk page was getting a little long. Thanks, as always!--Vbd (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xiner. Don't worry about tailoring assignments for me; I know you have other adoptees that you are working with, too. I added the archiving bot to my talk page, but nothing has happened yet. I know it works automatically, but what triggers it to start?--Vbd (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same

Likewise, Xiner. Thanks for the note. For the moment we're all on the same page re: what we're looking for, which is refreshing. Much of the fun of wikipedia is learning, and we've all been doing that on this topic, I think. Take care.--Keefer4 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment

I believe I am done with the latest assignment you gave me (though it was a while ago *Sorry*) about the cookies. I even received a reply from a nice art student. Computernurd22 (talk)(autograph book) 03:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment #3

So I had a little free time and thought I would take a stab at the "recent changes" list. The first new user I was going to welcome has a bizarre contribution history. All but one of the edits are to nonsense pages that the user has created, which obviously don't belong in WP. What would be an appropriate course of action? I'm thinking a {{subst:uw-create1}} notice (along with a welcome message). What do you think?--Vbd (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI-I did about 20 in a row tonight. Given that I have done a bunch of others along the way, can we consider this assignment completed? Thanks.--Vbd (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked myself for a month.

For stupidity. What else. Apologies to all. Xiner (talk, email) 01:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm back, thanks to Wikipedia's policy against self-blocks. Xiner (talk, email) 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray :>)--Keefer4 | Talk 02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagrant raising of my edit count. A blockable offence? ;O)--Keefer4 | Talk 02:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice heeded ;) later.--Keefer4 | Talk 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot blocking

Yes, it's definitely a bug. I've blocked the bot; sorry. Please ensure that {{helpme}} is surrounded by an actual <nowiki></nowiki>, whose <> brackets are not converted into some ASCII(?) code. I'll unblock as soon as you let me know it's fixed. Thanks a lot. Xiner (talk, email) 23:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking the bot and stopping it, saves me the work of pressing the stop button :-). Anyway, I've stopped and unblocked the bot, and am working on fixing it. —METS501 (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move the Talk page over, too?

Can you move Talk:Chinaman (racial term) over to Talk:Chinaman? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Oooo - wiki drama! Sounds like fun! And you get more stress out of the deal, too? Cool!

I got your note about warnings. Have I been too harsh? I refer regularly to WP:WARN when trying to decide on an appropriate notice.--Vbd (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Hi, I'm still not sure what you were asking me about the other day. Want to clarify? Metamagician3000 10:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

How do I center a userbox? I can't figure it out. I've tried <center></center> tags and <div style="text-align: center;"></div> tags, but they haven't worked. --Theunicyclegirl 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, either. And also, what is signature code? That's one of the extra wiki things I never learned. :D -- Theunicyclegirl 21:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! Thanks! Like it? --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section Edit Links

I have no idea where they went. How do I get them back? Computernurd22 (talk)(autograph book) 14:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, someone said that I should archive my page. Do you have any suggestions Computernurd22 (talk)(autograph book) 14:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, congratulations on becoming an administrator. Computernurd22 (talk)(autograph book) 14:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players

Hi, seeing you are interested in football I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for your moral support. I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia and wait months later. Harry editing! Wooyi 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hey Xiner,

Thanks for getting back to me about the warnings. I was just being paranoid that I had done something "wrong."

I could use some advice. I recently nominated a category for merger. Now I am thinking that perhaps I should have merged them in the other direction (with a category name change). What would be the appropriate procedure for withdrawing this Cfm and re-submitting it the other way around?--Vbd (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xiner. Two things: I am a "she"; and for future reference, is there a procedure for changing a nomination like that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vbd (talk • contribs) 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

PullToOpen's RfA

Hi, I was just happening to be looking at RfAs, and I didn't know on this one if you meant to support or oppose. It's no big deal at all, and I was confused with one other. It's probroly a very commen mistake. I was just curious in knowing.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 01:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:It, he or she

You do take things very seriously bracketed :).

Thanks for noting it.--Alnokta 05:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.

- Michael Billington (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Thanks

Redirects How do I link 'blue pencil' to 'Blue pencil test'?

See WP:REDIRECT. Xiner (talk, email) 19:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Aatomic1 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I have replied to you on my talk page. This message is in case you don't have my talk page on your watchlist, or you are an IP who doesn't have a watchlist. --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@

You have another reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

One last reply :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote!

Following your contribution to the discussion on football player notability you might be interested in voting on this. Rgds, StephP 10:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeckWizBot

Just so you know, an emergency release of AWB came out today. I tested all 5 diffs given to me by you and another user, and all the problems were gone, so my bot is up and running again. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 12:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians categorising themsleves

Hey there! I came across this User page which the guy has categorised in both Category:Harvard University alumni and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Harvard. The former seems highly inappropriate. What is the best course of action for me to take (or is this an admin thing?)? He also included himself in his high school's category. Thanks,--Vbd (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. he is an admin (and should know better?).[reply]

I posted a note on his talk page, and cited WP:CAT#User namespace. We'll see how he responds. Thanks for your help.--Vbd (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Yeah, at least when it comes to the wonderful, wacky world of Wikipedia, I think rules help keep the chaos in check.--Vbd (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; just happened to notice this discussion; thought I'd ask you - please look at the most recent item on my talkpage re the "FN cat displaying here". It's quite likely because I used a Category name linked in text without the spare colon inside the square brackets, but I can't find it anywhere on the page; would it be on the archived pages. Got in there by accident, now I can't find it to take it out (and I'm not even FN myself)....Skookum1 21:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh

Leaving? Well <skeptic>goodbye</skeptic>, and I suggest you visit meta and request to be desysoped immediately. I dislike the whole Apr 1st thing.... Prodego ^talk 00:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

punk'd?

... Tvoz | talk 00:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a no-bot policy. It's so, you know, impersonal. Tvoz |talk 16:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, yeah

I'm going to ignore the announcement and leave you my question. I just read this on someone's talk page and wanted to run it by you: "The numbers in the uw- templates are not severity levels of infraction, they are counts of warnings in the last week." This runs contrary to my understanding of the system, and to this chart. Am I mistaken? If not, perhaps you can intercede and set this editor straight (as well as the person whom he misinformed). Keep smilin'!--Vbd (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would miss you if you were gone. I just didn't believe that you would leave without saying goodbye. You wouldn't, would you?

Check out User talk:SMcCandlish#My warning of 71.183.11.205. The quote above is in the first full 'graph written by this user, in response to the post by Adam McCormick.--Vbd (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't concerned about the specific "incident" involved in the exchange. It was the statement that the uw-templates aren't severity warnings, they are counts. In the end, we may be saying the same thing. I also usually start out with a level-1 or level-2. But if I see a pattern of vandalism over time, either from existing warnings on the talk page or by taking a look at the user contributions, or if the substance of the edits is particularly egregious, I'll jump to a level-3 or maybe even a level-4 (at which point I go to AIV). But a user might get a few level-1 or -2 warnings before getting a level-3 warning. I guess that's why I took issue with SMcCandlish conceptualizing the numbers in the templates as "counts of warnings in the last week." I don't see it as a linear first warning, second warning, third warning, progression.--Vbd (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The example you gave, of someone making several inappropriate edits over five days and thus meriting a level 3 warning, gets at what was bothering me about the way SMcCandlish had phrased his comment.

And thanks for the article! Interesting read. Are you angry or engaged in conflict these days?--Vbd (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:O

Hey, Xiner. I was AFK for quite a while, so I never got to congratulate you on your successful RFA. So therefore... congrats! .V. _[_Talk|Email] 16:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I wasn't watching RFA at the time either. Congratulations, and I encourage you to go rouge ASAP. — coel acan — 00:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Never gonna happen, my friend." - Paul Buchman, Mad About You Xiner (talk, a promise) 00:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: April Fools

You completely fooled me for a second until Cremepuff222 mentioned that it was April Fools UTC time! --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I know, I saw his Babel box :D --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what's wrong with my userbox boxes? They're all... wonky. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea on how to fix it? --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOOOOOOOO! Not my userboxes! –Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 18:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can remove that notice of yours now. UTC now, that is. - Anas ^talk? 21:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Watchlist an unwatched page!"

Hi Xiner, Your user page says "Watchlist an unwatched page!", but the function is restricted to admins. Were you aware of that? I really wanted to, too. The restriction seems kind of anti-wiki: it would do much more good than harm for all registered users to have access... –Outriggr § 02:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding... I disagree though: if regular editors were given the opportunity to watchlist them all (presumably they can't all be watchlisted by a small group of admins), WP might be better covered by vandalism "around the edges" than ever before! –Outriggr § 02:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Revert stupidity"

I know it seems really implausible, but the truth is I was unaware of the "Undo" button until very recently and used this edit summary partly out of irritation of having to go through four pages to revert vandalism. I'm not going to use it anymore, that's for sure. And it's in my edit summaries a lot. ^_^ JuJube 00:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're ultimately still opposed, that's okay, too. :) JuJube 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew my acceptance of the RfA because of the concerns you and Jreferee brought up. I thank you for doing so, but I wish you wouldn't try to characterize my behavior as "lying". The truth is, I dismissed the warnings and thus forgot about them because there was no threat carried with them. In terms of behavior as a Wikipedia editor, this is probably actually worse than knowingly lying about it, but at least it isn't malicious. I'm going to work on this problem and hopefully in time I can prove to myself and others that I can be civil. Thank you again. JuJube 04:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel badly towards you, I'm actually thankful. Honestly, I'm wondering what a lot of the "support" voters were thinking calling me 'civil'. Looking back on my edit history, that's overly generous. ^_^ JuJube 04:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll take that advice to heart and stop handing out more "test1"s and less "bv"s. I just think that the "test1" template is a little too civil. ^_^ JuJube 03:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Just the same way that you did with Cremepuff, could you delete my userpage restore it as User:Steptrip/1 and place a redirect to that page on my userpage? Thanks, ~Step trip 23:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as long as it gets deleted so my userspace count will drop. ~Step trip 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I thought I had a lot more edits than that ... I guess it may have been my sandbox or monobook or something. Anyway, thanks. ~Step trip 23:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's Joke?

Xiner, are you tricking us? I understand if you really do want to leave though, thanks very, very much for being such a kind and helpful user. Have fun in the real world! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the category. Prodego ^talk 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the edit summary that I left him on my previous message. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cremepuff222 talks nonsense as always. He should go back to his dolphins. 151.202.74.135 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. 66.172.228.21 02:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that that is your IP per an IP geolocation test. Your pranks are really confusing me WhEn ArE tHeY gOiNg tO sToP ?!?! ~Step trip 02:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Steptrip, but who are you yelling at? Here, an ibuprofen? 151.202.74.135 02:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owww, my head hurts...however, I was referring (not yelling) at you (IP:151.202.74.135) ~Step trip 03:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just an IP and have this inferiority complex, so when someone uses capital letters with exclamation marks on me, I feel bad. Thanks for clearing it up. Btw, here's another ibuprofen. Hope you feel better soon. 151.202.74.135 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped in just to make sure you were still here. I went through a bit of a mental process, wondering why you would gain high position and then just ditch. I noticed someone mentioned April Fools prank and I was relieved. We don't see each other online, but we still touch each other in our online interactions. Again, just checking in to see you didn't join the cast of Lost on some deserted island! Pat 07:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

invitation to AFD

Hi; you've been out of the way re Talk:Chinaman but in case you didn't know what's going on pls see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English language names for Chinese people. Hong has "come around", but Uncle G started this article to try and end run the rest of us and apparently "start his own Wikipedia" or something. Whatever, like you I'm finding Wikipedia eating up too much of my energy/time, and this whole affair has been keeping me at my desk when I should be out enjoying the sunshine. But I'm more and more certain that 4.zip.zip is Uncle G and vice versa, not that Uncle G's conduct isn't reprehensible in its own right. I'll leave it at that as I know you're a busy guy, but given your placement of the block and your actually getting Hong and me on halfway-civil terms, I'd say your vote at this AFD is somewhat "missing" given your role on Chinaman's edit warm, which gave birth to this piece of nonsense.Skookum1 15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum, I've held the same position I've held since the beginning of our discussion... 1) My preferred version, even almost 2 weeks ago, had never said the term was always offensive, and 2) you still have not found sources that discuss whether or not the term was offensive historically. I would appreciate it if you drop the attitude. You've said about 3 or 4 times already you're bored with editing the article over the course of the last 2 weeks or so. But obviously you are actually intensely interested in it judging from the lengthy comments you always leave at the Talk page. And now, I await yet another one of your unnecessarily lengthy replies either here or on Talk:Chinaman. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "produced sources that discuss whether or not the term was offensive historically"??? What the hell is Fowler's Diciotnary or English Usage, 1956, then? Or have you some kind of problem reading things you don't want to find, Hong? And it's only one of several - but you obsessed during hte original war with stacking up FOUR or FIVE cites of its latter-day "offensive" dictiontary definitions (on a page which, being a disambiguation, you shouldn't have insisted on citabilities for anyway, as has been resolved since). In any case, Hong, this AFD isn't about you, it's about Uncle G's irresponsiblity and various deceits and misrepresentations overall.Skookum1 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we were all a bit obsessive there. Let's cool it, alright guys? Xiner (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hello. I responded yesterday to your kind invitation on my talk page. Having received no followup I thought I'd drop by.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment

I believe that I am done with assignment 3. In that case, do I go on to the next assignment or do I need to show you something. Computernurd22 (talk)(autograph book) 14:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi, thanks for commenting on my request for adminship. While it may be early days, it's looking unlikely I'll get the required 75% support I need, and should it fail, what do I do next? During the discussion, I think I've gained a better understanding of how admins operate, and I think I'd like the tools even more. The backlogs look very satisfying to empty. What length of time is typical before re-applying? Also, I've noticed (as of now), only 4 of the 16 people who voted are actually admins. Is this usual? Guidance would be very helpful, thankyou :) — Jack · talk · 16:29, Wednesday, 4 April 2007

Out of curiousity...

... what is it you find objectionable in adding a more detailed edit summary to your RfA talk page? I assumed detail on your areas of interest provides a more detailed picture than just the raw edit count. —dgies^t_c 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found Cremepuff's pages through his signature which was advertising his guest book. I then found his talk page, and the bouncing Wikipedia globe on the left side made me curious, so I checked for his subpages. I will readily concede that I did not handle the MfD as suavely as I should have, but had no ill intent in posting your edit summary, and in fact I had previously asked WT:RFA about posting detailed summaries and others were in favor of it so I don't think I was acting unilaterally. —dgies^t_c 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that I never had one of those distracting bouncing globes on my talk page or any other subpage of mine for that matter. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh!

Hey Xiner -- I was out-of-town for a couple of days and mostly not on-line, which was good. Unfortunately, I came back to find myself bogged down in one of those mind-numbing debates that sometimes happen on WP. . . . I'm basically just venting right now. . . . But I did want to ask you about Wikipedia:Deletion review and how that process tends to work. Do you have experience with it?--Vbd (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xiner. At this point, I am just laughing . . . in frustration. Someone has taken issue with a couple of things I brought to Cfd and I can't believe I am engaged in what has become a ridiculous debate. It has become one of those times when I tell myself, "Get a life. Get off of WP."--Vbd (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi!!!! Lover of the sand here!!!! just wanted to say thanks for welcoming me!!!!!!!! come visit (my page) anytime!!!!!!!!!! Lover of the sand 20:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps- how do you get pictures on there? Lover of the sand 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the picture!!!!!!!! It confused me at first, but I saw what I was doing wrong and was able to fix it. Thanks again!!!!!!!!

Lover of the sand 23:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)*[reply]

Cla68's RfA

You have a double vote on that RfA, I suppose you forgot to strike the neutral. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit

Can you point me right quick to docs on how to co-nominate him? I dunno the exact procedure. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTH? A Wikipedia process that doesn't require a complicated template and procedure? I'll have to go start a WikiProject to fix that immediately! >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xiner, the instructions are at the very bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. Everything else is not a problem except for instruction 3--any idea what is meant by changing the time of the page? Otherwise ready to go.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted. I think since most nominations are done over long timee periods, the instruction is to manually change the ending time (still not sure).--Fuhghettaboutit 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Your welcome for that "thank you" note you left on my talk page. Happy editing!--PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 04:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dgies' RfA

Hi Xiner. Dgies' RfA has two deleted opposes, an oppose by a suspected sockpuppet, and your opposition. You are a good guy and do not belong in that crowd. Dgies' RfA closes 15:51, 11 April 2007 and if you would reconsider your position before that close, I would be most happy. -- Jreferee 15:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needing support for main article on adolescence. Plus an announcement.

Due to the large volume of opposition and little support for the section on adolescent sexuality in the main article on adolescence. Which has gone unchanged for months, i've removed the section and placed a link to the article adolescent sexuality at the top of the article.

The signature part of my explanation is below.

the main article on adolescent sexuality has been updated and thus the current section should be updated. The section itself seems irrelevant to the article on adolescents worldwide as a whole and I say it should be removed and a link at the top of the article saying 'for the article on adolescent sexuality see adolescent sexuality. There is strong opposition to the current and the exact same data has been literally copy & pasted into numerous other spin-off articles.

I'm removing this section. And I hope i'll get support when doing it.

Seeing as Illuminato will likely try and revert my change I ask for your support in stopping yet another potential edit war over a triviality and to counter revert if need be. Thank you.

P.S. due to the massive amount of spin-off article that were once created by Illuminato. With adolescent sexual behavior being the newest. I'm seeking to turn these into redirects to the main article as they were simply created to try and make ineffective compromises. These spin-offs include. adolescent sexuality in Britain, adolescent sexuality in the United States, and adolescent sexuality in India and possibly other articles or as irrelevant sections in other articles that I haven't noticed yet. I think these spin-offs need to be made into redirects. And perhaps we should coordinate efforts to fix this mass of spin-offs of the same topic on a subset of a wikiproject page like wikiproject sexuality. Get more people involved. This overpour can't be good for wikipedia. Facewise or server bandwidth wise...Nateland 21:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to answer your question

About this soon. I'll be back afternoon UTC. Talk to you later, — coel acan — 02:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I archive parts of my user page?

How do I archive the first 75% or so of my talk page?. It's getting quite long and much of the old discussion is irrelevant now except for dispute history researching purposes on the articles based around the topic of adolescence since about the start of the year 11111010111. (Which is binary for 2007. And let me tell you, that was a bitch to figure out, since I'm new to binary). Nateland 04:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan RfA

Um, the RfA isn't even transcluded yet. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to remove your support vote, Xiner, since it was there before transclusion. Sorry! And thanks! =) — coel acan — 00:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Vandalism studies' Study 2

Hi Xiner! Your name was in the volunteers' section of Study 2, and I wanted to let you know we settled on the Random Edits idea. We're beginning to work out the procedure and structure of the study - I wanted to invite you in on the collaboration! (Notice new content on both the main Study 2 page and talkpage). Thanks for your help; its nice not being a team of just 3 anymore like it was for Study 1! :-) JoeSmack ^Talk 01:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it looks like we have bot help too. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page deletion

Hello, Xiner. I have a question: can user talk pages be deleted? I have about 500 edits total from about three talk pages, and many people are saying that I've been doing most of the edits on these pages as chatting. So would it be against the rules to delete a user talk page? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

The Wiki page for Award has had two rounds of crude remarks added to it today. fyi. Pat 17:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this abuse activity is quite common. Just making sure I'm going this correctly. Someone removed the obscenities. I posted abuse warnings on the user's talk page for an occasion in March (nonsense added and removed -- maybe a test)and for this second round in April (added then amended but just as bad). The IP address traced back to a block of Australian IP addresses used by e-wire.net.au. I read the Wiki abuse page and hope I did everything according to Hoyle. Pat 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminato is at it again. BIG TIME.

Check out Illuminato's recent changes.^[1] They include, mass edits to adolescent sexuality. These are the edits everyone except Illuminato was opposed to being added in the new rewrite for POV. But I reverted it, if you look at his list he's been in a war about redirecting adolescent sexuality in the united states to adolescent sexuality despite majority against the article. I've placed the 3RR notice, and the warning, and I might very well end up placing the final 3RR violation report into the scaffolds. (I did this in the past for a violation he once made but he literally chewed me out saying I had no right to and another user counter reported me for 'incivility'.)

If he breaks the 3RR I'll report him to you most likely. But whatever, he's a real pain in the ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Illuminato

Nateland 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFP's RfA thanks

Thank you again for co-nominating and supporting me for adminship. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a way to bring this debate to an end. (Sorta)

See Talk:adolescent sexuality for information on the proposal. It would create a branch off article containing solely views on the subject and hopefully get rid of the POV currently in the articles which are supposed to say what adolescent sexuality is. Not is it good or bad. In my opinion I say let the POV wars take place in an article ABOUT POV. not elsewhere. Tell us what you think at the above link. Nateland 02:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I'm sorry you took so much flak over your comments in my RfA. I think you got unfairly criticized because you were seen as "guilty by association" with the other opposers. I agree that your criticism regarding the Cremepuff MfD were fair, and in the future I will try to be more diplomatic. I hope we can work together productively in the future. —dgies^t_c 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new learning experience?

Hi Xiner! I saw your note about being away. I hope all is well. No hurry in responding to this. I am just trying to understand something new and I thought you might be able to walk me through it. I had a couple of categories up for speedy renaming and they have since been moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. It's not clear to me who takes care of the mechanics of re-categorising all of the articles to the new category name. There are a few bots listed, but I have never used a bot before, so I am a little worried about screwing something up. Any guidance would be appreciated. Best,--Vbd (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mop thanks

I was just promoted. Thanks for noticing me, for the nomination and for the encouragement. Hope you don't suffer too much jet lag:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 03:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI

Hello i was wondering how do you become a member of the vandalism group and what is the rules on joining? Thanks --Tweetsabird 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Djmckee1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Editor review

Hello. Want to comment on my editor review? I need some outside comment :) AQu01rius (User  Talk) 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Xiner!

I don't know, maybe it just takes a lazy person not to spam all the RFA commenters' pages. =D I really considered it, but my clicker finger said nooo. Thank you for your regular prodding of me to do RFA! It gives me great delight to play whack-a-mole at the AIV carnival game. — coel acan — 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better

Didn't notice until just now:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 01:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi. I know your probaly sick of me asking questions but just one more. How do you choose from all the icons like the one you have that says you drink water and exersize and what schools you attend where do you choose and look at those icons. Thank you so much --Tweetsabird 15:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Gently

Hi Vivamancer. I just noticed your excellent synopsis of "Holistic Detective Agency". May I remind you of the Long Dark Tea-Time? *evil grin* Xiner (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment (& I know exactly what that wicked evil grin is for!) I didn't originally intend to write anything so lengthy, but it was like tugging a piece of string on a jumper & finding more & more wool appearing. Several sheepsworthy in fact. I'd forgotten just how convoluted DG was. Weird thing was that writing about Reg's use of misdirection & sleight of hand reminded me how much Douglas Adams was using the same bag of tricks. I might have a crack at Long Dark Tea Time... in the near future, if I get some Long Overdue Free Time & can get my head round Odin & heads on turntables again! In the mean time, All the Best & thanks again, Vivamancer 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Xiner. Thanks for coming off your break to support my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 23:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

There is a steady flow of vandalism issuing from the Danville School User talk:209.50.135.53. A "final warning" was issued in March, but there's been a steady flow of vandalism throughout April. The person(s) is maliciously changing text and dates throughout articles. Sounds like teenaged boys, based on the heavy metal themes they are inserting into articles. The most recent was a name and phone number placed on a screen artist's page. Volume of attacks is rather high. I recommend a block of some sort. Pat 07:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're back!

It's nice to see that you're back on Wiki! It's just not the same without someone as amazing as you... *Cremepuff 222* 01:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. May I ask where you went? *Cremepuff 222* 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston?, New York?, London? (Sorry, I'm not much for American History...) *Cremepuff 222* 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia. I'm so dumb. *Cremepuff 222* 01:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was my fault. Since Social Studies is first period, dozing off isn't too uncommon (though I'm proud to say I have a high A in that class...). I'll be going for now; it's a tad late where I live. *Cremepuff 222* 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't got no spreaded

Neilbeach has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The word "spreaded" has no existence in Schwartz C, ed,Official Scrabble Words: International Edition Edinburgh, Chambers Harrap Publishers, 2002. In what lexicon does it lurk? Neilbeach 00:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL

Just thought you'd like to know:

A template you participated in a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

I would just like to tell you that I am retiring from Wikipedia, I have registered a new account and I am going to start fresh and edit under that name, not because of any actions on Wikipedia or users of Wikipedia but just to start fresh. I dont want to make a big deal out of it but thought I should tell you so you know. More info See you around! Tellyaddict 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source code for bots

Hey, Xiner. I'm working on a manually assisted bot to make work at MotD easier (it takes me about forty five minutes to close and archive about ten mottoes). I thought that the source code for Werdnabot, Shodowbot, or some other archiver bot might make it easier for me to create the bot. I've looked for quite a while, but I can't seem to find it. Do you think you could point me in the right direction? *Cremepuff 222* 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I mean. I meant the actually coding for the bot. Sorry, I wasn't very clear before... *Cremepuff 222* 23:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord

So you did end up becoming an administrator after all! How unfortunate that your rash actions and self-righteousness are now vindicated by this, the fruit of your persistant RfAs. --84.65.22.233 23:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? Xiner was only in two RfA's... *Cremepuff 222* 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile, darn ya, smile

JuJube has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User:X

If it was once a vandal, then where did it's contributions go? (please reply below). --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of its edits were deleted. =P Xiner (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they have been deleted? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 23:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coz they were no good. It was a vandalism-only account. Xiner (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They used to delete vandalism edits? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see where the confusion lies. When you edit a page that is later deleted, you'd incur a deleted edit. This "fhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xiner&action=edit&section=5

Editing User talk:Xiner (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaeature" is useful when you have made 1000 edits to your user page but don't want people to know - just delete it and recreate it and your edit count will go down by 1000. People can still find the edits if they know to look (WP:VPT would be able to tell you exactly how, or one of the angels that watch over this page may?), but they're not readily apparent in Wannabe Kate and other pages. Xiner (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Should have thought of the page being deleted! I was just thinking that it was a vandal, and instead of reverting the damage, sysops just deleted the edits. And about Wannabe Kate, so that means it doesn't count deleted edits? (that's what I thought originally). --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I think we all wish to do that at one time or another (and yes on Kate). Xiner (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So yes, it doesn't count it on Kate, or yes it does? :) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R, Kate is lagging so far behind that it wouldn't matter if it did or not ... but I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't count deleted edits. However, if an admin could install the DeletedContributions extension, it would make it much easier for sysops - and possibly for the counters themselves - to count deleted edits. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Wannabe Kate. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 01:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all talking about the same thing. I was lazy and Magnus went along with it. Xiner (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment still stands about Tool1 not counting deleted edits and about the DeletedContribs extension. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with you there, too. Btw, cool handle. Xiner (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wba

from livescore ;)

FT Wolverhampton W. [2 - 3] West Bromwich A.
25' [0 - 1] K. Phillips
44' [1 - 1] J. Craddock
52' [2 - 1] S.G. Olofinjana
55' [2 - 2] K. Phillips
73' [2 - 3] D. Kamara —The preceding unsigned comment was added by West Brom 4ever (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, Xiner

I haven't heard much from you lately, so I thought I'd just stop by and say, "Hi!" :) *Cremepuff 222* 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tellyaddict - The Sunshine Man

Hi Xiner, I thought I'd better tell you that I am User:Tellyaddict, I know you may think this a hoax but I thought I'd should tell you as I said at AN/I that I was previously known as Tellyaddict, I think the people deserve to know. If you dont believe me (which I'm sure you will believe me) I will log in as Tellyaddict and make an edit but if you did want to see you would have to unblock the account after I asked for it to be indefinitely blocked. Thank you and I hope to see you around. Happy editing! The Sunshine Man 13:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may I kindly ask why? My signature is just basic now, I may d it but I'm just wondering why? Regards — The Sunshine Man 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its just the standard signature, would you mind if I kept it how it is because I like the basic one? Regards — The Sunshine Man 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it, thanks for pointing that! But RfA? Well that wont be for a long time! Regards — The Sunshine Man 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

My RfA received a little bit more attention than I expected as it passed with 53-1-0. Time to end your wiki break, let's bring some fresh air in here. Aquarius  talk 01:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sig? Hah. Back to basic. Aquarius  talk 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronzewiki Award

This is for all your work with your adoptees. You are a patient and excellent teacher. Acalamari 18:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Chicks sales

I did, in fact, read the article, and I saw no mention of them being the highest selling female band of all time. It's entirely possible that I missed something, so please highlight the relevant comment and I'll desist. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't clear up the problem at all. You haven't addressed the central claim that they are the "highest selling female band of all time" with a proper reference. You can use this claim, but you can't use the current source for it because....it doesn't say that. It mentions nothing like the accompanying statement on Wikipedia. One is still left wondering about where this assertion that they are the highest selling female band of all time comes from. Know what I mean?UberCryxic 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

Hello, Xiner. Thank you very much for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you spot me messing things up, feel free to shout at me :) I wish you all the best, PeaceNT 11:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA ...

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship and for your offer to nominate me. The RfA was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

Hi, Xiner, is longtime not see you in IRC, so i wonder you are busy or make some other things. Anyway, i come here to ask for help in copyediting, as you promise. If you busy, you can decline, i waiting your reply. Cheers! --Aleen f1 08:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Illuminato

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Illuminato

[1]