User talk:33451/2004 Archive

Welcome to the Tasty Sandwich's archives for my Talk page. Here you can find "Talk" messages that have been removed from my main talk page to promote a new sense of order. The comments on this page were all posted during 2004.

July 2004

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
• Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Don't Create POV

Please don't create joke pages like "Terrible President who deserves to burn in hell". Try to follow Wikipedia:NPOV. Thanks, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nomination of User for Deletion

Your nomination of User:Anthony DiPierro for deletion has been withdrawn as it would appear to be the action of an Internet troll. If this was not your intention then could you please explain, in full, your reasons for wanting to delete this article? Many thanks. If it was your intention then this is a formal warning: any more and you could be blocked from editing Wikipedia permanently. — Graham ☺ | Talk 00:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

GraphicConverter for Mac OS 9

LemkeSoft's excellent GraphicConverter runs on Mac OS 9 and will convert images to PNG for you. See [1]. — Gdr 23:10, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I'll check it out. — Mr. Grinch 19:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

August 2004

Hoover Dam

Not that it's of any great moment, but why did you think that Hoover Dam (Ohio) needed disambiguation? No one will ever get there by accident, given that Hoover Dam is about the big one. JamesMLane 02:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I added disambiguation in the event that someone posted a link to Hoover Dam (Ohio) with the text Hoover Dam, for example, a link [[Hover Dam (Ohio)|Hoover Dam]]. It was simply one of the minor edits that I make. — Mr. Grinch (Talk) 14:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Images on ITN

PLEASE do not add that image and text to In the News. Why would you do that? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:24, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

• I accidentally used comments wrong so that my text did not appear. In place of <!-- and -->, I used <!-- and -&gt, causing my work to be hidden. Sorry. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 20:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Why would you insert them at all? If it happens again, you will be blocked for vandalism. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:32, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
• The item in question was your insertion of the mention of Wikipedia and its article on the childlove movement. If this happens again, you will be blocked. Feel free to update In the News with things that belong there. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:50, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
  • What determines whether an item belongs there? — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 15:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Read Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page, which mentions, amongst other criteria, that it must be an important event, as well as include a link to an article that has been updated with this information, neither of which was true for your addition. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:56, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

BJAODN

Your comment was NOT funny. I quit the project once over this, and I don't intend to do it again. You may very well be breaking the law with that posting. You have your "childlove" article. Please leave it at that. — Lucky 6.9 00:15, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm stating that your actions may be illegal based on the fact that the Wikipedia servers are based in the US. Federal law tends to frown on pedophilia via the internet. I ask you again, please let it go. You may be exposing yourself and this site to serious trouble. Do the right thing. — Lucky 6.9 00:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More vandalism

Your edits to User:BigCat were seriously misleading and totally inappropriate. I note that you have already been warned twice about posting material related to pedophilia in inappropriate places. Your continued behavior after warnings strongly suggests that your actions are deliberate and intended to be disruptive. You should stop this disruptive behavior immediately. If you make any more similarly inappropriate edits anywhere on Wikipedia, I will block you from editing. —Michael Snow 23:56, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For your information, we are now requesting comments from the community regarding your behavior on these issues. You may respond at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451. — Michael Snow 05:47, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello 33451. I have removed your request from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and placed it below. This is something that you should either work out directly with Michael Snow or you can work it out through WP:RfC. Please carefully read through Wikipedia:Mediation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

User:33451 and User:Michael Snow

User:Michael Snow RfC'd me after I'd misinterpreted User:BigCat's pun “'pediophile” as “pedophile” and tried to link it to Pedophilia. I'd had a bit of a history in the past, as once when I first signed up as a user I nominated User:Anthony DiPierro for deletion. I want to put all this behind me and continue with good contributions, but I need to resolve these issues first. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 18:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee, 19:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm

Well, Mr. G., I'm sorry the mediators feel this isn't ready for them yet — my personal opinion would be that this is the perfect time for mediation. I would encourage you to contact the Wikipedia:AMA as I mentioned on the pump — perhaps an advocate there would be willing to help facilitate a conversation. Alternatively, you could try contacting members of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee privately to see if any of the would be interested in helping you in an unofficial capacity. One more piece of advice, if you like: I encourage you not to change names. Changing usernames is a rare thing, and when the original username has been associated with any controversy at all, usually a switch is seen as a person trying to "cover their tracks" and hide. It makes many editors much more suspicious — it's almost always better to simply attempt to rehabilitate the image of your original username. If you do switch, try to make that switch as public as possible — note it prominently on the user page of your new name, redirect to your new user page from your old user page, and perhaps even drop a note on your user talk page.

Now a final thought — I think Michael Snow is one of our best editors, but you obviously feel he's misunderstanding you. You should know that Michael does not have a reputation (as some here admittedly do) for mistrusting new people, being hot-tempered, or behaving irrationally. Because of this, I'm inclined to believe his statements...but I'm also (because I'm committed to the principle of assuming good faith) inclined to trust you that some of it was unintentional and some was simply you playing around on arrival. I suggest the following course of action — leave Michael a note apologizing (and perhaps leave a similar note to others who complain), and then ask what policy documents you should look at to avoid future trouble. I find apologizing a great tool (I do it a lot) — it lets the other person know I'm not fighting them anymore, and I recognize that, whether I meant it or not, they're upset, and so apologies help me explain that I didn't intend to upset them. Then I can ask them questions about why they were upset with them knowing I didn't intend it and I'm honestly willing to change. I don't know if you feel you can do that, but I honestly think that would be the best way to turn over a new leaf here and start from scratch. I hope you'll at least consider it. Good luck. Jwrosenzweig 21:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

About the IP Block

See the answer on My talk page. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your earlier comment on my talk page

I certainly did read your previous comment. The comment did not specifically call for a reply, and I didn't feel that I needed to make any response. The issue of whether that page should be deleted is a tangent, and one that I'm not looking to pursue right now. — Michael Snow 16:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, your question was about my failure to respond to your "last comment", and the last comment you had posted to my talk page before this exchange was this edit, so that was the basis for my reply. Regarding the even earlier comment about User:BigCat, I felt I had addressed your questions in my rebuttal on your RfC listing, which you have obviously read, so I don't understand what kind of additional response you may be looking for. — Michael Snow 20:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Responsibility

Now, to address your other questions. I think a very important part of accepting responsibility is a recognition that your initial edits to Template:In the news were completely inappropriate, and yet you continue to defend that action as if it were perfectly innocent. Anyone trying to edit that template must obviously have at least passing familiarity with the Main Page and the kind of material that appears there. Given that familiarity with the Main Page, anyone would recognize that these edits did not involve a significant news item of the kind normally shown in that section. This in addition to the fact that you ignored our policy against self-references and disregarded the prerequisites for listing an item on the template in the first place.

Basically, those edits are entirely consistent with what I'd expect from someone who's reasonably familiar with Wikipedia and wants to disrupt the site with the maximum exposure possible. They are not at all typical of new users who are just experimenting and learning the system, and may innocently fall afoul of particular rules. Your claim that these edits were not intended to be vandalism is just too implausible. — Michael Snow 20:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By all means, if you show that you take responsibility for your actions I have no interest in pursuing the matter further. I'm not seeking to punish you for vandalizing Template:In the news, but if you're not willing to admit that it was vandalism, I don't see how we can trust you not to vandalize in the future. In the meantime, nothing is stopping you from editing in good faith. It's only if you edit in bad faith that you have anything to be concerned about. — Michael Snow 16:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point about self-references is that generally we don't mention Wikipedia itself outside of contexts where it's obviously appropriate. While Wikipedia occasionally gets mentioned or cited in various news sources, this fact is not itself newsworthy, so that's how it relates to what you were doing.

With respect to your explanation, "My edits were vandalism, but I was seeing how the vandalism would be handled." - That sounds like a far more plausible explanation. Based on some of your other editing interests, I take it you were doing an experiment something similar to what Peacefire apparently does?

For future reference, please be aware that this kind of behavior is considered extremely rude at best. For a simple analogy, it's basically like deliberately dumping trash on someone else's property to see if they pick it up. It should not be too surprising if people find this offensive.

Anyway, if you are willing to change your response to the RfC once more, in line with what you wrote to me, I think that would be an appropriate place. If you're committed to not repeating this behavior, I would be quite happy to put the matter behind us. — Michael Snow 19:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed. I just got the word from Michael Snow. If you're committed to good-faith contributions, you have my full support. I couldn't be more pleased to welcome you to the club. — Lucky 6.9 20:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for coming clean about your behavior. I have now put an explanation on the RfC listing, moved it to the archive, and notified everyone who participated in the discussion that I consider the matter resolved. — Michael Snow 21:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 2004

Your WP:RFA self-nom

Please don't feel too let down. I don't know much about you, but good users will get nominated, and depending on the scope of your contributions and behaviour, you might want to renominate yourself in a few months time if nobody else has. It's just that roughly 400 edits indicate you haven't been here long enough to fully grasp our policies and Wikiquette, nor had enough practical experience in dealing with messy matters like edit wars. — Johnleemk | Talk 16:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It says under self-nomination that you should be prepared to exceed expectations that are set for admin candidates nominated by someone else. IMO, you would have been rejected had you gotten a nomination. You're just not there yet. In November, maybe. — Mike H 16:45, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I do, because I feel that if one is to be as bold as to nominate themselves for a position, they should be more than able to back their nomination up with experience and edits and all that. I feel that usually people should be here longer than three months and have at least 1000 good edits to their name. I don't just buy the fact that their edits are automatically good; I go and actually research their histories. — Mike H 17:15, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there are any formal requirements. There are requirements that have been universally understood as acceptable. You can see votes for formal requirements on the RFA talk page. — Mike H 17:20, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I was going to do it beforehand, but I think now is a good a time as any. Thank you very much for supporting my adminship even though I rejected yours. I'm very grateful and I do believe that, in time, I will support your next run, as well. :-) Mike H 19:17, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of George Woshingtin and Queen/Band

I'm sorry for not noticing the discussions, but my reasoning was as follows:

• (Woshingtin) — redirects based on misspellings may make sense for a common misspelling, but "Woshingtin" is a highly implausible one; ie. the chances of somebody actually typing that in the search box are so low as to be virtually nonexistent. Unless you're proposing to add a redirect for every remotely conceivable misspelling of every single article on Wikipedia, there's just no legitimate reason for it.
• (Queen/Band) — simply isn't standard Wikipedia format for a disambiguation page. In addition, the redirect was created when the article was moved to the correct title format (and deleting such things after a set amount of time is pretty standard procedure — it just didn't get noticed until now.)

Considering that in both cases, the only keep votes on RfD were your own, I don't feel particularly obligated to reverse my actions on these. If you want to list them for undeletion, go right ahead, but they ain't gonna be undeleted by me. — Bearcat 22:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Opposition of Kate

Why did you oppose User:Kate on Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship? It is considered good style to at least leave a comment if you oppose a candidate, and in this case when sie has 100 % support before your vote, I think it is even more important.

— David Remahl 07:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it a problem that I didn't explain my actions? I see several in the "support" list that don't have any comments, just a name. Why isn't it appropriate for me to do the same thing with an opposition? — i386 | Talk 21:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but when support otherwise is so strong, it is odd not to elaborate on one's opposition. I think it is especially important to provide some kind of comment for opposition votes, considering that most think that adminship shouldn't be that much of a deal...Furthermore, I talked to Kate, and sie said that sie had never, to hir knowledge, interacted with you on Wikipedia, so I'm also questioning what basis you have to vote on hir adminship. But it is up to you. — David Remahl 21:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My modifications make sense, see gender-neutral pronoun (which is, oddly, how Kate prefers to refer to hir-self). — David Remahl 21:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What basis do I need' to vote on her adminship? Several of the people who voted against my adminship are people with whom I had never interacted. I think Kate would make a good admin, but I'm afraid that there's no change of vote. Also, please don't use gender-neutral pronouns on my talk page. — i386 | Talk 14:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At least now I can say that I have interacted with you, and with good conscience vote against you next time you stand for admin election... — David Remahl 17:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tasty Sandwich?

When did you change from Mr. Grinch to Tasty Sandwich? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, that's who i386 is ... okay. Thanks for telling me. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What you should and should not do to get my support for admin

Since you asked me on my talk page, I'll tell you:

• Explain your reasoning unless it is quite clear already, when voting on polls.
• Use the preview button, to avoid wasting people's time.
• Stop trying desperately to please, if the only reason is to gain support.

— David Remahl 19:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

My apologies, I didn't read the small print at the top. — Graham ☺ | Talk 12:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Silver Proxy

With regard to this user who was blocked earlier today by myself, I have reason to believe that this was not a new user but a returning troll. In my note on this user's behaviour on Vandalism in progress I compare the edit history of this user to one User:Callixtus who was blocked earlier this week. The vandalism of Callixtus and this user's edits contain certain similarities; also this user's edits are not the normal edits of a new user who doesn't know what they are doing, but of someone who knows the system very, very well. The normal treatment for returning trolls is to place an instant block on their behaviour. If this was incorrect then I would like to know where to bring this up in open forum so that this individual case may be reviewed.

Also this user uploaded an image that was not only a suspected copyright violation it was also extremely offensive, because it promoted sex with 3 year old children. If this was not a speedy deletion candidate then I must apologise profusely, however as I am sure you are aware images cannot be undeleted so I am unable to follow your instructions with regard to this image. — Graham ☺ | Talk 16:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Totally nude" first chose an inappropriate user name, then uploaded a vulgar image on his user page, and finally nominated himself for admin. It's clear that this user isn't here to write an encyclopedia but rather to amuse himself at our expense. — 172 10:13, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blow your cover?

Did you post as the wrong user on Theresa's talk page? That's how I interpret your comments in the "WikiWatch" thread. :-/. — David Remahl 14:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Me too. Did you forget to log out and log in again? It's easily done i suppose. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please change signing pseudo-policy

The policy of requiring posters on your talk page to include their Wikipedia style of choice is confusing and I would prefer if you removed it completely. No other wikipedians regard "~~~~" signatures as "incomplete" or "anonymous" as you seem to do. The pseudo-policy appears designed to trip people up, to give you a reason to censor your talk page. (For discussion leading up to this request, see User talk:Chmod007) — David Remahl 18:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. — David Remahl 18:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed vote

33451, you removed my vote on a RfA nomination, here: [2]. Please be more careful in the future. -- orthogonal 19:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WikiWatch Foundation

Thanks for the number; I'll be contacting the foundation shortly. I'm sure they'll be able to tell me on what legal grounds they can threaten action against Wikipedia. —No-One Jones ^(m) 23:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

personal information

33451,

Revealing detailed personal information about oneself online is often a bad idea—doubly so for you, since you're a minor, and triply so since you did it on Wikipedia, which is a highly visible site with a long memory. I've removed your phone number and address (they were yours, not a neighbor's? the phone number was yours) from the history of my talk page, and it's lucky for you that the page on which you revealed your real name is obscure; AFAIK only Theresa Knott and I know which page it is.

However I have preserved the information offline, and I will be trying to contact your parents about this. —No-One Jones ^(m) 16:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Foundation

(moved from user page by No-One&nbspJones)

Hello, Tyler. I am interested in learning more about your Foundation. Does it really exist? Are Theresa Knott and others here harassing you? What is this about your having posted your name and address and Knott "hacking" into your computer, or something, in order to find out your parents' names? Please let me know what has happened, Tyler. I am an attorney in New Jersey and if you have been legally wronged by any of these people it would be my honor to defend you in court.205.188.116.141 01:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is this about your having posted your name and address and Knott "hacking" into your computer, or something, in order to find out your parents' names?

If I may: 33451 posted his home phone number and mailing address; through a simple telephone directory search, I was able to turn up what may or may not be his father's name. There was nothing illegal about it, though 33451 was foolish to post that level of personal information here on Wikipedia—neither I nor Theresa Knott mean him any harm, but one never knows who's going to read what one posts on a public forum. —No-One Jones ^(m) 03:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)