User talk:Editorofthewiki/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hey, thanks for all the contributions!

Welcome!

Hello, Editorofthewiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Melchoir (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops

I saw a comment you added at BRFA and reverted it - leaving "you idiot" in there didn't seem fair to those following. However it looks like I also nuked your request for approval. I've tried to restore it, maybe you can check. Sorry for any inconvenience! Franamax (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Though it looks like you're getting pushed away in any case :) Franamax (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in a "twisted mind" competition with you, I'm very much afraid I would end up winning :) I totally support the concept of humour, especially hidden humour, in that case it seemed like it might be a little daunting to the next incoming possibly-unsure editor to be confronted with that comment. I've certainly had my share of hilarious-when-I-typed-it / scramble-to-undo-when-I-read-it-again episodes. No harm done. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 1944 D-Day : Operation Overlord, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. _Jame§^ugrono 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I seem to have mis-read the history. My sincerest apologies, I'm sorry about that - I guess that's just what happens when you patrol new users for too long. Time to take a short break! _Jame§^ugrono 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: DRV of Zaydra Pena

I see you have reverted my closure on your own. I have reversed this edit. Please don't continue to disrupt Wikipedia by reverting administrative closures or you will be blocked from editing. If you have further concerns with my closure they should be raised on my talk page first, and WP:ANI second since this has been repeatedly raised on WP:DRV. The discussion was closed and I will not reverse it. If you could clarify, however, what you didn't understand about my closure, I will attempt to clarify. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Let me know when you create the article on the band. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stig Claesson

My question to you is why did you click the "save page" button when there was no assertion of notability? The "save page" button should never be clicked until there is an assertion of notability, so I don't really buy the "I had a few other real-world thing to attend to" excuse. Whether they came up suddenly or were known in advance, there was no reason to click the save button until notability had been asserted. So the answer is no, I will not undelete a page that makes no assertion of notability. If you wish to recreate the page with an assertion of notability, I have no objection to that. I'll even be nice and provide you with the content on your page (I've commented it out). If it returns in its previous form, however, it will be deleted. Cheers, CP 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Zayda Y Los Culpables

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Zayda Y Los Culpables, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Georgette2 (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Just don't. I don't care how justified you feel. Just don't.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and if you continue to pursue this "deletion," you'll probably find yourself blocked for disruption. Metros (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been blocked for repeated disruption and harassment of Misza13. east.718 at 20:40, January 12, 2008

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Editorofthewiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for supposedly harassing User:Misza13. I guess that "harassing" was making a point and nominating her page for MfD. Now that page is unfairly deleted and the page with the point I was making, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist, I will no longer be able to make any more points. Admins, help! Please know I am assuming good faith here.

Decline reason:

That is not a reason why your block is in violation of our blocking policy and should be lifted. — Sandstein (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Editorofthewiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

yes it is, Sandstein. I made no personal attacks on Misza13. Please look into my conribs for evidence.

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for making personal attacks; you're blocked for disruption and harassment. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Editorofthewiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How was I being disruptive?

Decline reason:

We wasting admins time wiuth frivolous unblock request is one. Secondly making pointy nominations at MFD is another. Persisting when told to stop is a third. If you misuse the unblock template again your talk page will be protected for the duration of your block. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Editorofthewiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sorry for any disruption caused, I didn't mean any. I just want to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Can I have a second chance? I'm still kinda new here, at least as a registered user. Lets get over this stupid incident and start contributing. Please read this before you protect this page. I really am sorry.

Decline reason:

Sure you have a second chance; it will commence at 08:43 January 13 2008 (UTC) when this block expires. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Editorofthewiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can I be unblocked before then? I promise never to be disruptive again. I sure didn't think I was disruptive in the first place; in fact I feel the same way now. I acknowledge that some may disagree, but I think that I can contribute constructively to Wikipedia before my block expires. At least can I have a shorter block likea 12 hour one?

Decline reason:

no. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Editorofthewiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can I be unblocked before then? I promise never to be disruptive again. I sure didn't think I was disruptive in the first place; in fact I feel the same way now. I acknowledge that some may disagree, but I think that I can contribute constructively to Wikipedia before my block expires. At least can I have a shorter block likea 12 hour one?

Decline reason:

you have a 12 hour block and your userpage is now protected — Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your bot may be malfunctioning

Hello Carnildo. I noticed that your bot may be malfunctioning. Why? It placed the nocopyrightholder tag on Image:Traditional korean mask 1.jpg when it was given the GFDL licence. Going a bit further back in OrphanBot's contribs, I noticed that it tagged Image:The fortress of Shumen in 1981.jpg as well, even though it explicitly stated that the user created the image. This is a serious problem as many admins would delete the article without looking at the evidence and I think that a block of your bot may be in hand. Please relpy on my talk page. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:The fortress of Shumen in 1981.jpg was marked as unsourced by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and OrphanBot trusts humans to know what they're talking about. Image:Traditional korean mask 1.jpg is tagged with the {{GFDL}} copyright tag, which does not specify who the copyright holder is, so ImageTaggingBot was correct in marking it as unsourced. --Carnildo (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi - regarding Judie Brown, I don't know that a desire to show up Conservapedia should really motivate us ([1]). They do their thing, we do ours. Certainly their notability criteria are different. It seems to me that Judie Brown's biography, as written, fails WP:BIO. I thought I'd bring it here before nominating it for deletion, since it was just created. Are there non-trivial references to her in independent, reliable secondary sources that we can use to more clearly establish notability? MastCell ^Talk 07:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck?

What the heck is a good machine parseable datasets? I reaaly don't know about how to program bots and the like. Could you please reply on my talk page? Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It basically means that you should have a good source that a spreadsheet, database, or pages building from a template. You need to find all the information that you want, then construct a template where the values are suppose to go (really just a less fancy version of Mail merge). But you need to make sure that you have all your data from the start as its very hard to add info after the article been created. —Dispenser (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I really just want to know whether you can create a bot from the Insee info and the info from the French Wikipedia. Is that possible? Editorofthewiki (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how the french wiki does things. Looking at Banyuls-dels-Aspres, you have several options:

1. Contact the french bot owners and ask them if they could provide you with the source code and data they used to create those pages. If they're nice they will preform all the bot operations and you'll just need to put it through approval.
2. Find data to construct Wikipedia article
3. Build a template which would convert the french Wikipedia pages into spreadsheets of values. And create another template that would convert the spreadsheets back into pages (in the English language of course). If you want to get a head start on this then create subpages in your userspace, one in french the other in english and use UPPERCASE VARIABLES for where the values should be taken from. This method is the hardest since the values not exist in very version or are wrong.

Those are your realistic options. I would try option 1 and contact fr:user:Paternel 1 (sections) and User:Phe owner of fr:user:Badmood (infoboxes bot) to see I could get their help and data. —Dispenser (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

GFDL

When you create a page by copying and pasting section of another article, you should always attribute this in the edit summaries. This is required through the GFDL license and is indicated in Wikipedia:Summary style. Fram (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed for Del

While I appreciate that your doing this in the spirit of the page, nominating Jimbo will attract those that think we are only building a serious encyclopedia and that such community building frivolity isnt conducive to that end. Gnangarra 02:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Gnangarra is absolutely correct. I also did not appreciate you edit warring with me on my own subpage. In the future, discuss reversions on the talk page before edit warring. GlassCobra 04:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Amin Jensen

A tag has been placed on Amin Jensen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LeSnail (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)