User talk:Xaosflux/Archive10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Xaosflux. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Improv, I was about to speedy restore and suggest for listing this on TFD instead, but don't want to start a wheel war: regarding Template:User flying spaghetti monster. IMHO, this is {was) a humor based user template, and not a support for either side of a religious issue. Can you please state why you feel this box is considered divisive or inflammatory? <Please respond here> xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't delete the real religion templates without also deleting the fake religion templates because that would sure as hell piss off the very religious people and make them feel persecuted. --Cyde Weys 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am concerned that evangelical Christians especially, whom this joke religion was invented to poke fun at, will consider this to be mocking them. Are you familiar with the history of the flying spaghetti monster meme? --Improv 05:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In other words, you certainly can't pick and choose which you think can stay and which should go, because for someone with a different strongly held viewpoints (and religious viewpoints are some of the most strongly held on this Earth) it might be construed as offensive. So the safest bet is to get rid of all of them ... which coincidentally happens to be what I and some others wanted all along anyway. --Cyde Weys 05:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am, and though I don't agree with you, thank you for your quick reply. As you seem to have something to go on, I'll drop the Speedy Restore suggestion, and consider dragging it through DR if I get motivated enough (probally not). Personally I don't really care if people have these userboxes, but understand the community issues related to them, and have tried to avoid the Great Userbox Wars as much as possible so far. I only came to notice this because I was using that userbox. I plan on making a personal userbox that utilizes some of it's elements (not all of them) for personal use, hopefully that is not going to trigger an immediate issue. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please reconsider against bringing it through DR. We are trying to get away from userboxes here, especially non-encyclopedic content in the template namespace. We are trying to get away from the bumper sticker mentality which gives the wrong impression about Wikipedia. This is all rather elegantly explained in Jimbo's statement to WikiEn-l. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 05:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • As I said above, probally not is most likely. I've read the statements, and they do not appear to be a definite decree of what should or should not be, to wit I've tried to avoid all of the DR or TFD debates about userboxes. I've subst'd in most of the box back to my page where I liked it, and as long as noone wants to start a userpage edit war with me over it I'll proablly never think about this again. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for all that stuff. I was frustrated with PFHLai as he came off as condesending when he was questioning me about using the attribution tag. I was confused on how to tag this photo as a copyrighted image and didnt know about the image policies until later. My regards. S0berage 23:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for speedily deleting some articles which were on AFD but met the CSD. Just to let you know, if you speedily delete an article that is on AFD you should close the deletion page as well. To do this, add {{subst:at}} at the top of the discussion, follow it with '''Speedy delete''' (reason) ~~~~, and put {{subst:ab}} at the bottom. Stifle 13:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that this was a very bad idea. Every sock problem we have had for months is from a new or anon user, usually the same one, and I will be very surprised if we can go two weeks without having to request admin intervention on it again. MSJapan 02:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

MSJapan, The semi-protection policy is not designed to quell edit wars or lock articles. I understand your concerns, as that article has suffered from much vandalism and edit conflicts, to the point of delisting it as a FA, however that is not what SPP is for. If someone starts repeatedly vandalizing the article, you should list them at WP:AIV if they have been warned, if it is getting severe you can request re-semi-protection on the approriate page, or you can leave me a Talk Message and I will look at it personally, I am usually on every day. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MSJapan's comments... while I do hope that we can all "edit nicely" as you put it... I am not holding my breath. I fully expect that this page will have to be semi-protected again very soon. Blueboar 02:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we got more than 24 hours out of it, at least. The page has been RFPPed, but it has been totally locked rather than semi-protected. Since the problem is not with the regular editors, but new socks, semi works very nicely here (as any sock-type editing by a non-new editor will be a dead giveaway as to sleeper sock status). So, how does one go about getting the protect level changed without getting it removed entirely? MSJapan 08:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked this page again, and the edits being added do not seem to meet the vandalism test. SPP is clear, in that it is only to be used in response to serious vandalism of a page, and for that it works pretty well. This article is having a content dispute, and is breaching 3RR in it's course. I'd agree with the full protection status until the dispute can be resolved on the talk page, as SPP is "not an appropriate solution to editorial disputes of any kind". The option I would pursue now would be to gain a consensus on the talk page as to the diputed section, then request unprotection. If I'm interperting you correctly, you feel that the vandalism is all hapening from socks, if so all of them will easily be able to be blocked under future 3RR vios if needed, withouth putting your selves in that situation, as there also seems to be a number of editors who disagree witht those changes that can do the reversions as needed. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 15:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Alright, I'm seriously confused... what's goin on with my test page? pm_shef 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

hi xaosflux, if you could re-semiprotect the page that would be great. it had actually only been 7 hours since it was protected; i think, however, that the template was just placed there by a non-admin, not actually protecting the page? i don't know, i'm not sure where that log can be found. Woohookitty did lift it a few days ago.

an employee of the rush corporation has been violating 3rr and adding linkspam and whatnot, please check out the history, talk page, the rfc filed against the guy, and the talk pages of his socks. He most recently violated 3rr yesterday, currently up to 5 rv's, though he has not yet been blocked; in effecting this 3rr violation he was evading a month long block from Nlu already in place against a sock of his, 209.248.254.66. As he now seems to be expanding beyond his old socks, using two new ones in the past 24 hours, semi-protection seems to make sense.

a look at his talk pages, the nitrites talk page, and the nitrites history should be a clear indication of what this guys up to. It can't be acceptable behavior . . . And i'm not sure what to do about it long term. the rfc didn't really get much feedback, and he blatantly ignores policies and sanctions taken against him for his actions.

thanks for your time

--Heah ^talk 03:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux, moving Abrotanella to Cat:Flora of Antartica is not totally correct, since que Antartic Flora corresponds to floristic kingdom wich emconpasses Chile and Argentina territories. Abrotanella is not restrict to antartic continent, therefore I used Cat:Antartic Flora. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berton (talk • contribs)

Ready for Speedy delete everything moved to properly named +cat Category:Flora of Antarctica

Regarding Category:Online_Forum_of_Sabah specifically, yes, you're right - I did not check to make sure it had been 7 days. I had checked the bottom of the page first and just forgot to check the stuff towards the top. I did notice it though right afterwards and stopped on Category:Directory of Sabah. I realize non-admins closing delete votes is a grey area, and even brought it up to one of the regular admins on CFD previously. What would you recommend? —akghetto ^talk 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Usually when I close out a CFD that needs a category deleted I'll tag the needed category with {{db-empty}} and the edit summary "delete cat per CFD". The cat's have been getting deleted fine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKGhetto (talk • contribs)

I have never commented on that article, but I do in fact, know and attend middle school with that user, and he is quite a class clown. He also likes to state that "he pwns me". Go ahead, delete the article. Эйрон Кинни 05:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and it's okay. I also nominated another one of his inane categories for deletion. Эйрон Кинни 05:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This page was deleted by you, but the earlier content in this page was copy-pasted onto List of environment topics:F and List of environment topics:G. I wonder if this loss of edit history is allowed, as it seems to go against GFDL.

Thanks! -- Paddu 16:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

History's salveaged, see your talk. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the history!

When we split up a page, we can't really do a normal page move storing history for each of the subpages. When we merge 2 pages, we can't merge the histories (unless some enterprising admin like you uses strange procedures :)). What I have seen usually is that in the edit summary a link to the other page is mentioned, so people can go through the link to get the earlier history. Hence the copy-paste from List of environment topics to List of environment topics:F is IMHO OK.

The issue with such splits/merges are that we should think twice before deleting a redirect. [In this case the redirect was "nearly blanked", which is even more dangerous.] -- Paddu 06:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What does the word dumbass mean? If it is, why did you make this page redirect to Ass? Besides I have watched this page. adnghiem501 05:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to kill a redlink to it, but I've deleted my edit, and correspondingly, the article; anyone may recreate it as needed. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This word is already available on Wiktoinary. Previous discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dumbass. adnghiem501 06:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of this title on the Michael Jackson page is still widely disputed. I have been explaining this in the discussion section and have not violated the 3rr nevertheless I have still been threatened to be blocked by Funky Monkey who judging by his user page dislikes Michael Jackson which makes his determination to include the derogatory title more clear. Can you explain the how this is necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.167.25 (talk • contribs)

Why, you're quite welcome. --  Denelson83  06:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words! Nach0king 09:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked under "Richard Pombo" in quotes, just like that, and found no entry, before posting what I did as a free-standing stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticGadfly (talk • contribs)

Hello. Can you provide some more details about your reply? — Dzonatas 18:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the afd top tag goes above the subpage's title. Thanks. -Splash^talk 23:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're telling him to "blank it if you wish", there was only that editor who is requesting removal, he hasn't let it sit for any peorid of time and I was reverting for blanking on the page -- Tawker 00:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted the template and someone put it back, so I reposted the Speedy Deletion. Do you want to advise them that it should be deleted ? Cordially SirIsaacBrock 23:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey if you are an admin then delete the articles before you remove the delete tags. If you are not an admin do not remove the delete tags...got it ? SirIsaacBrock 00:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(To whoever it may concern) I've recently delisted the TALK page of Template talk:Mil-antarctica from CSD, as a talk page for an existing template, possibly potions of a deletion discussion. This in no way endoreses that the Template itself should or should not be included in the encyclopedia. The template is currently in use in articles, and it's deletion could be disrubtive at this time. I don't see that this template has ever gone through a deletion review, but anyone is free to list it on TFD at anytime they have a good faith reason for it's nomination. The template itself does not seem to qualify for speedy deletion either, and I would delist it as well in it's current state. Thanks, xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As for my "blank it if you wish" comment, although not popular, archive to history is an allowed talk page archiving protocol. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

- ::Thanks for the clarification, I think the user (and myself) thought you were referring to 'blank the template' over blank the talk page, hence the confusion. -- Tawker 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote and concerns in my recent RfA. It closed (22/11/8) without consensus, but I hope to have your support in the future, when I have a closer idea of the process. --Christopherlin 17:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How do i Fix it--TheRanger223 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Sports in the United States by city listing, I'm moving it to CFD/#Unresolved_after_seven_days as there seems to be some disagreement over what categories to include/exclude, but also all the individual cats are not CFR tagged. Yes the parent has a CFRU tag, but shouldn't all the childs that are going to be renamed be tagged as well? I guess the reason I'm posting this here is to get some guidence on how to handle situations such as these. Thanks for your help!! —akghetto ^talk 06:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to vote for me in my recent request for adminship It ended successfully with a final score of (40/10/5). I value all of the contributions made during the process and I will take a special note of the constructive criticism regarding interacting with users in the user talk space. If you have questions or requests, please leave a message.  (aeropagitica)  17:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and listed it on AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robey Pointer. I thought I'd let you know, in case you had an opinion on the matter. --Grocer 01:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I left you a comment on my talk page, when I probably should've left it here, though I like not fragmenting the discussion. :) - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)