User talk:Patstuart/Archive 5

User talk:164.58.7.13

Wow...he's been scribbling on Herman Melville and Ray Bradbury steadily for the past hour. I think that's about enough; I just sent him a test4 for that last edit to The Great Gatsby. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the vandalism rate right now is unbelievable from school IPs. I'm still consistently 5-7 min's behind on the Lupin filter, and I'm hardly even warning anyone, AND I have plenty of help. Normally I'd have nuked him by now, but i can't afford to warn everyone at the moment, just blatant repeaters. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're right; he just wouldn't stop. LOL; guess I was pretty far behind. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page. Much appreciated. Regards, Accurizer 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

np, anytime. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why are you trying to get me banned? SpaceGeorge 19:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:TROLL#Not_feeding_the_trolls -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Let me apologize for the way I acted and the vandalism I did to your page, it was wrong of me to do, and I'm really sorry. Bradford said he talked to you, so you probably know why I got upset. I would like to try setting up a page for him, but I want to be sure it doesn't get speedily deleted like the last one. Again, I am sorry. -ScoobyDooGuy1991

61.69.12.xx range

I know, terrible isn't it.. They occasionally were a little er 'bad' when I was there.. but gosh this is awful. I can see full revocation of editing priveliges.. — Deon555^talk_Review 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be unheard of. If I'm not mistaken, didn't that happen to the US House and Senate, where politicians' secretaries were vandalizing opponents' sites? You're not an admin; how do you have power to do any of that? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just vandalizing to give you a heads up

Now that someone listened, I'm not doing it anymore. Cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.41.192.36 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 31 October 2006

Good, because if you do it again, you'll be reported. If you have something to contribute to an article, vandalizing is not the way to do it. Edit any comments that are wrong or non-neutral, or propose a change on the talk page. But doing this helps nothing. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

not sure I understand your note you left me. You're saying 208.41.192.36 is a troll? It seems like they aim to contribute positively now, so we'll see :) Peace, delldot | talk 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I left the note, please understand that he'd made several vandalous changes to the article (which he freely admits), and had just gone on to blank my talk page. I wasn't too impressed with him, but, after giving a test4, he appears repentant, so all is good. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

These are not only unsourced; they're almost certainly made up. I googled them.

Sorry to do it like a jerk.

It's cool, no one will mind so long as you edit positively from now on. You have to understand, we see so much vandalism that it's like a reverting assembly line, we don't pay that much attention. Let me know if you need help adding the templates or whatnot. :) Peace, delldot | talk 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What delldot said above: it's no problem. There was a bit of a misunderstanding. 99.95% of the time when someone adds only one word to an article - "bullshit", it's vandalism. And strictly speaking, it was here too. But if the changes are wrong, please feel free to remove them altogether; just make sure you make a note in the edit summary as to why. Also, if you created a username for yourself, it would help you out a lot; editors, whether it's right or not, tend to frown much more on an IP user who blanks content than a registered one. I will give a welcome message and blank your warnings; please just make sure you follow Wikipedia policies for grievances. Good luck, and sorry if we bit. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

McFly

Thanks. Rklawton 04:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He made some pretty bad mistakes which made it an easy tip off; if he'd been more careful, I wouldn't have picked him off. Somehow I have a feeling Space won't be the last sock, though. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've counted about a half dozen so sock puppets so far. I'm not sure that I really care to keep track. He's obsessive, so catching him isn't all that hard. He can't help but harass a couple of us, and that's what gives him away. We don't even have to go looking for him. Rklawton 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was thinking, among other things :). But come to think of it, he does it on purpose, because otherwise it loses all the fun: it's no fun to mess with something, if someone else isn't there to laugh at (or get annoyed at) your changes. BTW, how do you find the new users? Is there a way to search? Or to search for specific phrases on wiki via the search box? Thanks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But you have to admit, that space picture was pretty funny. I wouldn't bother banning this account, I'm not going to use it again. Till next time. SpaceGeorge2 07:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you can find new users here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log Toodles, George McFly - SpaceGeorge2 18:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the article Wikipedia:Searching

I was about to revert the PWND THIS PAGE!!!!!! edit myself, but when I went to warn that vandal, I found he'd already been blocked. I went back, and you fixed it. Thanks. Happy8 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome :). Unfortunately, if you look at the history, I might not have been quite as quick as you might think, though. :P Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

O-yoroi

On oct 30th, I fixed up the O-yoroi page because it insulted japanese stlye armor, when in truth it was probably among the best of all medival armor. I got home later and checked it to find out that it had been changed back to the insulting version. If its possible, I'd like to get the changes I made at least mentioned, because the current description will give people incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.161.46 (talk • contribs)

I apologize for any inconvience. Please feel free to change it back, but I advise you to find a source and add it to the edit summary, or someone else might make the same mistake. Again, sorry; please see my note on the top of the page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AJC

how bout you admit that the AJC is often called the Urinal-Constipation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.140.85.163 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but with edits like this, your credibility is lost. Once I saw your edits, however, that you were removing your own nonsense, I reverted it back, however, and the page was good. But if you have an issue, please don't take it out by vandalizing a page, as your last edits were. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Liberation is not POV

Merrian Webster defines liberation as "a movement seeking equal rights and status for a group." Citizins in Iraq now have much more civil liberties than during Hussien's reign. Granted there is insecurity, but people do have more civil liberties. I don't see how someone can disagree with that. I even say that it was a war. What more do you want me to do?68.197.220.94 06:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into if I agree about the war or not; I'm often accused by both sides of an issue of bias. In fact, to Iraq, my only major edit this month was to take away some of the authority of a very dubious report: [1]. That being said, not everyone thinks of it as "liberation" - and if you must know, 22% of Iraqis approve of our presence at the moment (a number which makes me cringe as a proud American) - compared to about 75% against it. I suggest just removing the term "US liberation" altogether: "As in all wars, the conflict brought about civilian casualties. However, the death toll among civilians in this conflict is significantly less than that of previous wars." That probably won't get reverted by anyone else, though it's unsure. Thanks for your edit! -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sam Malone

Ok some parts were inappropriate. Yet the part about Desperate house wives and The bachelor are true. And yes most of the topics he brings up are very conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by At2navypr (talk • contribs)

editing methodOFdestruction's page.

sorry bout that. he's a personal friend and we just started editing wikipedia and i thought i'd do that as a joke. I won't anymore. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Desouki (talk • contribs)

no problem. Warning removed. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

RfC

Would you please comment on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Request_for_Comment

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - perhaps later, though. Good luck Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"User" 24.60.119.106

I noticed your recent note on this "user's" talk page. They have received numerous "last" warnings. How many before this IP is permanantly blocked? The IP seems to exist solely for vandalism, with no good edits whatsoever. Thank you for reading. -- Weirdoactor 20:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

First, if you look at the contributions, almost all were made between 7AM-2PM local time, probably meaning it's a school or other public address. Second, if you notice, the notices were all months apart: WP:AIV states that an IP vandal user needs to receive the full range of warnings within a week's time to be banned (there is some flexibility, but IP's warnings needs to be incremented cautiously). Finally, IPs are usually blocked only for short periods of time, gradually (but not always) increasing; the vandalism must be extremely blatant and persistent to warrant a block of more than a week or two: see this example, one of the worst school IPs I've ever seen. Granted, we do go a little too easy sometimes on IPs, but these are the rules, and they've been carefully thought out by the community. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

He is really getting tiring, this one. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the admins are taking a nap. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:JoshuaZ says the block function isn't working right now, because they're upgrading it or something. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:209.7.171.19 indefinitely block (restored message)

I am requesting that User:209.7.171.19 be blocked indefinitely. He has completely savaged the Charles S. Lawrence article in such a way that I am not happy about this. Also, could you please have this reverted back to User:MisfitToys from earlier today if you are an administrator? I would greatly appreciate it. Chris 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User needs to be warned first; if continues vandalism after warnings, report to WP:AIV. You can also go to an admin (e.g., User:JoshuaZ), but I advise taking these steps first. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I will bear that in mind. Thank you for getting this fixed. Chris 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Hi, I'm an intern at Marvel.com and the webmaster asked to link our comic book characters entries, marvel film entires, and marvel creator entries back to the Marvel website for further resources. Can you please explain to me how I am doing this inappropriately and also what the proper course of action would be to do this? Thanks -Sean- 65.202.37.6 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

just wanted to let you know i registered an account as seanviola so you can respond through that if it makes it easier

-Sean- 18:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sean, now that I see that the links all lead back to the marvel.com site, then it's probably not as bad as I thought. A marvel.com link is relevant; most times when people add their company links to lots of websites, then it's an issue, because it becomes spam. So I guess it's not too bad, though it officially fails WP:EL, in that linking to your company is off limits. Just to let you know, though, someone else might take up issue with the links; but as for now, I don't have a problem with them personally anymore. Thanks for getting back. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just figured it would be okay since anybody who is looking, say Bendis, up can link to Marvel and find out what comics it is that he wrote. Also, how would I have replied to your reply to me rather than coming to your page and starting another discussion thing. Sorry, I'm new to the interactive part of the wikipedia experience -- usually just scour for odd info. -Sean- 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You can click the edit button at the top of your talk page, or the top of my talk page, and you can edit the whole page. Also, there's at the heading for each individual subject, you will notice an edit button; that usually makes things easier so you don't have to scour the whole page. Cheers. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, since you are listed as an involved party here, just letting you know that mediation has begun at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am Antarcticwik , not Chileeuropide

Chileeuropide is an invention of Al Andalus, it investigates better, Al Andalus is to professional Vandal.- Antarcticwik 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• sigh*. Sir, I don't want to report you. I want to have peace and harmony. But the connections are obvious. 1) You and Chile are making the same edits 2) You are Chile are both conservative and like Pinochet, 3) You and Chile are both "proud" of your whiteness and European history, 4) Chile has edited your user page, 5) you both frequently talk in all caps, 6) You and Chile are both Chileans, whereas Al Andalus is not, 7) Al Andalus is a native English speaker, whereas you are not. Like I said, I don't want to have to push this. Thanks :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I guess people can't listen. ;-) Khoikhoi 02:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, you're an admin, why don't you do the honor and block him, so I don't have to go through the long process? I wouldn't have such a problem with the man, either, but he's such a blatant racist (see contribs, and this nice statement if you read Spanish). -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Antarcticwik or Chileuropride? Are you 100% that CP is him? If so, I guess I could indef. block the sockpuppet, unless you want to go to WP:RFCU... Khoikhoi 02:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Chile is the new one, I think. You can look at the contribution history. Yes, I'm completely sure; you saw the evidence I provided. I even have other evidence, if you're interested. I'm not out to get the guy; he even has people that support his cause (just not his method). But he's a sockpuppet, and he's using it to evade 3RR. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've blocked him. Do you think I should block Antarcticwik as well (for a few days or so) for the sockpuppetry? Khoikhoi 02:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's up to you, I would say. He's broken 3RR; maybe just a warning? I dunno, that's just IMHO. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

On what page? On Chile he's only made 3 (with both accounts). Khoikhoi 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but he's also made 3 with his sock. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me the diffs please? (I'm a bit out of it tonight) :-p Khoikhoi 04:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at contribs, you will see they edited the same articles, making the same changes; and when they were different changes, they had a similar theme. But they were usually more than 24 hours apart; I think the sock was more designed to make it look like consensus. Like I said, not too severe; I'm not even sure it was intentional (Eastern Standard Time):

[2] Chileuro - 17:51, 1 November 2006

[3] Chileuro - 22:56, 1 November 2006

[4] Chileuro - 23:25, 1 November 2006

[5] Antarctic - 13:59 2 November 2006

[6] Chileuro - 15:48, 2 November 2006

HOLD ON; fixing these diffs... Fixed -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked him for 24 hours. Khoikhoi 04:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

BarnStar #6

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your work in your assistance on the Charles S. Lawrence. I am forever in your debt. Thanks for your assistance on this. Chris 16:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome~ -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for the revert on my usetalk. I appreciate it. Alphachimp 19:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How do I make that talk page come up in a tab?

Ok, so now that I told Firefox to allow popup windows from wikipedia.org, I get the vandal's talk page in a popup. You said it's possible to make it go to a tab instead of a popup; how do you do that? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how you revert. If you are on the diffs page, and click the "rollback (vandal)" button, you're out of luck. I was referring more to the "Filter Recent Changes" box, which opens stuff in a new window, but if you tell Firefox to do new windows in a tab, it will obey. The reason it doesn't for the first is that Lupin specifies values (like no menu). Capiche? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's hilarious....

You were reverting Hobo at the same instant that I was posting {{needsource}} to his talk page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 08:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User creation log

Special:Log/newusers -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know about it, but what I've noticed is that if the username ever contains the word "fuck", they are banned usually within a minute or two. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There probably is an IRC feed that gives it to you in realtime. OTOH, I see this username created several minutes ago and apparently not blocked. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Whacking Stick

What's the subst command for that? I want to give you one for driving so many vandals to self-pwning on your user and talk pages. :) E. Sn0 =31337= 22:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Actually, the subst command means that it puts the template onto the page itself; that is, it substitutes the content. You'll notice that if you edit a vandal's page who's been warned, the page won't say {test1}, but it will actually have the content of the warning. Got that :).

I know what the subst command does for a warning such as a [test1] or such, I meant to ask what goes in after the subst: bit to activate the VWS template. :) E. Sn0 =31337= 04:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I always thought it was pretty funy that vandals a) thought it worth getting mad that I would dare revert their nonsense (how their rights have been trampled!), or b)thought it was funny to act like complete bozos, when really they're the only ones laughing. :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought that funny too. I love the smell of self-pwnage in the morning! E. Sn0 =31337= 04:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK; did a bit of searching: found the Vandalwhacker template; you type {{subst:vandalwhacker|~~~}}, because the first (and only) argument is supposed to be your username. Thanks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks!

I hereby award thee, upon grounds of driving vandals to perdition through Jujitsuesque manipulation of their own shortsighted self-destructive malice and anger:

I, E. Sn0 =31337=, hereby award you this vandal whacking stick to help you in fighting the hordes of vandals.

Twelve-year-old boys

User:67.81.whatever.whatever is not indefinitely blocked. He is blocked for 67 days 81 hours whatever minutes whatever seconds (because I was feeling whimsical).

The reason for his block is that he had previously been blocked for 48 hours for adding references to Kate McAuliffe into dozens of articles - and, within minutes of that block expiring, he resumed doing so.

So I blocked him, because he clearly hadn't learned.

It's not because he's a twelve-year-old boy. It's because he's a stupid twelve-year-old boy. DS 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See followup on User talk:Jim Douglas#A fan of Kate -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've read the history. IMHO a 2 week block might have been better. But I think you really got to his head, Dragonfly. He actually thinks you know her! Scaring little kids... -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I dunno; did you see the response to my question "Do you understand...that this is vandalism?" No sign of any understanding, just a complete fixation on a 13-year-old girl. The postings to the date pages went on for weeks, and there's every indication that it will continue the minute the block is lifted. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think the description adequately describes the conflict. What do you think of my description? --BostonMA ^talk 03:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going off line now, so I won't see your response until tomorrow. --BostonMA ^talk 03:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it described it pretty well in theory, though, like I said, not in practice. That's why I said that if you agreed, I would too. But you didn't, so the matter is moot. Anyway, I'm not sure I exactly follow your statement, but from what I see, you want to characterize people into categories according to what their actions have been. That doesn't help, because we need to speak in theory if we're going to come up with a consensus. What I mean to say is, talking about a future proposal requires us to work more in the theoretical realm than in defining the past. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your point about speaking in theory has a lot of merit. However, I think the theories presented and the actions taken are not unconnected. One of the theories presented has been that removal of an image constitutes censorship and thus violates WP:NOT. Those who have advanced this theory have been very intransigent, and in my opinion have not been willing to discuss the merits of the informativeness issue in a serious way. (I am not placing you in any category here, just pointing out that there is a solid block of intransigent "adders" with this characteristic.) I would be surprised if this group would actually agree to the first bullet in practice (as understood by Aguerriero as including informativeness). From what they have said, they don't want to examine individual images on the basis of informativeness. At least that is my impression. If everyone could agree to "Encyclopedic and informative depictions of Muhammad can be included in the article. Removal on the basis of relevance or notability and informativeness may be discussed on a per-image basis." I think that would be a significant step forward. (But again, I think it is a section of the "adding" editors who would have difficulty actually agreeing to this, rather than the "removing" editors, with at least one obvious possible exception). --BostonMA ^talk 11:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're up at this gross hour of the day, too, eh? I take it you're in my time zone because of your username. Anyway, I would ask you to rephrase your, um, rephrasing of the situation; I had trouble understanding what you meant; that is, the wording was unclear. Also, I agree that perhaps a few editors don't care about the relevancy, but none of them would admit it, so the statement may fly, and they will be willing to place themselves in the "only if it's relevant" group, which is what matters for this discussion. Capiche? :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I haven't been clear. In order for me to write write clearly, it usually takes some time and effort. I have been hurrying lately, and also it is not the best hour for my brain function. I may not get a chance to look at this again until later today. Sorry. --BostonMA ^talk 12:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, where were we. You may wish to take a look at this remark that I left on Aguerriero's talk page. Also look at DocEss's reply]. Let me know what you think. --BostonMA ^talk 03:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think I flat out disagree with those comments. There might be disagreements as to what notable is, but I don't think anybody wants to include non-notable images. Thanks. BTW, the only reason I haven't voted "yes" is because I thought you (and possibly Irishpunktom?) might fit in a different group. However, I'm fairly sure everyone else fits into one of the two. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure if you meant "non-informative" instead of "non-notable". I don't think I said anything about non-notable, and if I did, it was a mistake. The first point I was trying to make was "I don't believe those who are opposed to the Muhammad images are averse to considering them one by one" Do you think that is incorrect? The second point that I was trying to make is "On the other hand, it is my impression based upon my experience that the most vocal "pro-image" editors, have not been willing to discuss informativeness on a per-image basis." Do you think that is incorrect? Why is it that when questions are asked about what exactly the maome image informs us about that is relevant to Muhammad, instead of getting a direct answer to the question, we get arguments for why the question is irrelevant? --BostonMA ^talk 03:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, non-informative is correct. I believe your first assumption is correct. The second question, I have no observed. Perhaps that's what happens in a conflict; you don't notice when your own side fails to answer a question. Either that, or I haven't paid close enough attention. That being said, if in the past they've not been willing to speak about the image, I don't think they'll have a problem with it in the future. It may have been more of a communication problem than an obstinance problem. So I'm leaning toward disagreeing with your second statement. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops...you're right.

Should've looked at the user page. Thanks for pointing that out. She kept on reposting something basically incomprehensible; I'll remove the notice. - Lucky 6.9 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Owenpuma.jpg

Would you be so kind to explain me your last edit?--Panarjedde 12:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in this dispute, but as you now know, the administrator put a notice on WP:AN; I reviewed the case, and it appeared to me that it was fair-use. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

WikiThanks

I felt another anti-vandalism barnstar would be a bit silly, so I thought I'd say thanks from all the rest of us for being such a good vandal-fighter. Good work! :) riana_dzasta 18:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much! :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Booo

It struck me that you, a fine editor, would write something like: "Boston, if you move over to agree, then I will as well." Are you now just a pillar of salt?DocEss 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comic Links

Hey, sorry to have caused a problem. I didn't realize that I was bothering that other guy by asking questions (which I had meant to ask you). I will certainly remove any offending links, if I could just find out which links were specifically offensive. Thanks for your time.-Sean- 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem; to be honest, everything Tenebrae said was right, but his last statement seemed to be a little harsh. It's more just a common sense thing. Like I said, officially, none of the links should be there because you work for Marvel, but I personally don't have a problem with some of them, because I think they're relevant (Tenebrae may disagree). It's more just a common sense thing. If we're talking Marvel characters or well-known Marvel authors, it's one thing, but authors outside that field are something else. Thanks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AltUser

Actually, it was a page I {{db-talk}}ed. Maybe Talk:Silver monkey wolf—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just incredulous that an admin would create a sockpuppet, abuse WP:POINT to a sickening degree, type things like "ZOMG FUCK SEX", then try to play the "oh poor me, look at those awful Wikipedians" card when he gets banned for trolling (BTW, it's not like we're against "new" users, he was an admitted sockpuppet). -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear lord. Maybe I should not drop this issue and just leave after all. You can easily check my logs, I did not delete that page using my normal account, nor did I go around being "vocal" about it and screaming out "oh poor me, look at those awful Wikipedians" either. In fact I only mentioned this quietly on my user page not even bringing up the issue with you people, nor mentioning it anywhere else. I was hoping to go quitely, but it seems even deleting my user page with all the details won't stop the matter.--User:Konstable

To User:AlternativeAccountK: OK, I've learned my lesson, I won't report right away, but please be nice. :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jurkovac18864

I hate you. You suck. let me have my fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurkovac18864 (talk • contribs)

I think that you need to leave people alone. While we're at it, I'll point out what a low blow it is to go after a young lady who's deleted your nonsense. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dss971

made unwanted changes to talk page without asking —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dss971 (talk • contribs)

Due to this edit: [7]. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I see now that it was under the commented part of the page. I will remove the warning from your page; in the future, please pay attention to the message on the top of my page about making errors (instead of defacing it). -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Dissappearance of the Universe

More 3RR violations [8]. I don't want to revert since I'd be violating myself.... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You, there! Yes, you!

Luna Santin 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. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I swear, RC patrol needs a secret handshake, or something. I don't say this too much, and in general I'm awkward at this sort of thing, but you're an excellent asset to the wiki. Keep it up! Luna Santin 07:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks, Luna, I appreciate that. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz

Pat, I don't know if your post on my Talk page was meant as "Hey friend, here's some information that you'll be grateful to have" or as "Hey outsider, please think twice before speaking up again." Since I try to follow the golden rule, I'll take it as the former and say Thanks. From my perspective, I'd been tag-teamed on Talk:Christianity pretty hard. Even you had said something that seemed pretty unfair. When I saw that someone deleted one of Aminz's referenced statements without comment, I saw him as a fellow sufferer. I don't like it when people delete my referenced edits without comment. I think you can understand why, in that situation, I reached out to him even though I didn't know his history. Jonathan Tweet 14:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Actually it was a little of both; but it really was some of the former. I wasn't just trying to be cruel.I really was trying to help out, as I think that the whole issue of creating an encyclopedia is the most important thing. Anyway, about the comments, many many have been made to Aminz about why his stuff was being removed in the past. That being said, I don't know who removed it, and there probably should have been notice; it might have been an IP. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld

Argh, where's an admin? That article desperately needs to be semiprotected. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Normally I would say "too bad" to protection, but the flurry of activity on the article is so intense, that we can't handle the vandalism. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

-Breathing again- OK, article has stablized, and I've managed to get in additions that say "don't add resignation date as it's not official yet!" Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I guess next time I'll try WP:RFPP first, then save my "hunt down an admin" strategy as a backup plan if that doesn't work. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Magequest

Dear Patstuart:

I am the creator of the Magequest page and I have no problem with its deletion. Sorry if it was seen as spam (which wasn't intended). The article's intent was to inform the online community that there was a game called Magequest for the calculator. Once again, it wasn't intended to be spam.

~~Nugetsnfries

It wasn't that it was considered spam, it was that it was "non-notable". Don't worry, I see hundreds of articles a day that fail to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines; the difference with your addition is that it wasn't vandalism, like most, but an honest lack of knowledge as per Wikipedia guidelines. I'm sorry if the deletion notice sounded a little too harsh. Good luck, and I hope you continue with us on Wikipedia. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting google search

http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+vandalize+wikipedia

• Best way to Vandalize Wikipedia
• Defacing Wikipedia

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've often thought that about the Japanese terms. If I knew Japanese, I would have done a search a long time ago. But I only know spanish, and most of those are easy to pick out. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen anons come along and make random uncommented changes to the Hangul characters in Korea, then I've seen the changes reverted later by a regular contributor. No idea what sort of insult and/or nonsense was intended, though.

I noted on Talk:Relative density that someone who understands the subject needs to sanity-check the figures. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if an anon make a change to a character, you could run it through a translation engine, to figure out if it was vandalism, or if they were the ones fixing it. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming to a newbie's defense

I do. And you're right: I'm guilty of one count of uncivility against his dozens of counts of linkspam. The way you stood up for a newcomer demonstrates exactly the noble spirit I spoke of, of Wikipedia at its best.

I'd only ask you to ponder: Is he really a newbie? Yes, he's new to Wikipedia — but not as an editor. He's only here as a spammer.

And he's implicity telling us all to f--- outselves by spewing his spam, disregarding multiple requests to read the policy, and then happily leaving it all up until other people take it down. I appreciate your're concerned enough to speak with me about my behavior. Will you, equally, help me undo his? --Tenebrae 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a violation because he admits he works for Marvel. However, he offered to revert his changes; but I don't think we ever explicitly said, "please go back and clean it up, because we will have to do so." I actually didn't find all of his links to be so offensive - they did have commercial links, but they also had valuable information there. I hope that clears it up. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did ask him, and very nicely: On 7 November 2006 I posted: "The best thing you could do is to voluntarily remove the disallowed commercial edits and to please understand that this is an encyclopedia." As I also noted on the Notice Board, I was speaking only of his creator links, not his character links. The creator links to the Marvel catalog are not of use, and is only advertising.

I'd appreciate any help. It's a big, big job to remove this linkspam, and that person doesn't appear to have any interest in doing it. What do you say?--Tenebrae 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it; I found some of the links to be reasonable; but I'll remove the ones that look pointless (e.g., Orson Scott Card). -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK; I see he started up again. I didn't realize that. That does change some things. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All's well, then. I saw you've helped out tremendously in reverting the linkspam, and that means a lot. Any editor who doesn't just complain but who rolls up his or her sleeves and pitches in has my complete respect. Thank you sincerely. --Tenebrae 15:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen a lot of this sort of sneaky vandalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.53.238.35 -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse me for butting in. I have seen a bit of that sort of thing on RC patrol. It is often very difficult to figure out which version, such as date, is correct. It is perhaps obvious with that user, because of the user's edit history, but often it hardly so obvious. Provides a very strong argument for having citations for every sentence, especially sentences with dates. That way an editor unfamiliar with the facts can check the change against the citation. --BostonMA ^talk 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I see it less often these days. But yeah, I see it occasionally, especially with pop-stars like Ashanti or Justin Timberlake. At first I try to make them cite it, but usually anon's are too lazy, and they put it back in anyway, and I can't 3RR, and then there are like 6 of them anyway (and, like Boston said, to top it off, I'm never sure which is right), so I give up. But if it's one person, that looks pretty sneaky. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That particular one was a quick drive-by a few hours ago; nothing much I can do about it. I found someone repeatedly changing Jamie-Lynn Spears' birthday by exactly one year a few days ago...I had to go check her official site and IMDB to confirm that she was in fact 15 and not 14. That's what I did with that batch -- spot check a couple on IMDB to confirm that they were vandalism, then revert the whole lot of 'em. Frustrating; if you don't catch it right away, it can stay in there for months. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Notices

I'm sorry, you're being far too subtle. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

your sarcasm has a bit of subtlety to it too. :) Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Akaneon

Look at the edit immediately above yours on that page. Any idea what he's on about? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reported him to AIV. If they won't take him up, then AN/I will. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now...this is his problem. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for listing WP:3RR violations

There's a page created especially for reporting such violations: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Please use that page, as it makes maintenance a lot more efficient. Thanks, and happy editing! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I usually do go through 3RR, however, for BLP violation and repeat offenders (i.e., the Larry Craig article), sometimes I report to AIV because the severity is worse, and probably should not remain up for so long. Sorry to cause a problem. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)