User talk:Texture/Archive-2004 March

vfd vote

simplified my vote to not accuse anyone of racism. Numerao 01:18, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you - Texture 02:13, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad

Hey, I did the same thing the first time I wanted to shift a page. It's always fixable, no worries. :) When you're an admin (soon now!), it will be easy for you to delete a redirect and move the page yourself. As it stands, you need a friendly neighborhood admin to do the deletion task for you, but we are very bad at telling people how this goes, so you shouldn't get down on yourself for not knowing it. :) But if feeling bad means you get the distinctly un-fun task of changing links.....feel a little bad for the next 30 minutes or so. ;-) Thanks for being a good sport, and thanks also for your good work here: keep it up! Jwrosenzweig 20:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Texture - I learned something! Mark Richards 04:00, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Signature

I love your signature. Do you keep the same links or do you rotate them according to your current interests? - Texture 17:27, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I change the links every day or two. The links do not necessary have something to do with my interests. Note that the sig is posted on User:Optim, at the end of the page, so you can easily copy-paste it and crete your own. O p t i m^·.· 17:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I may do that. You've given me something new to play with... :) - Texture 17:35, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism in Progress

The problem with non-static IPs is because being non-static they can take any combination of numbers. That's why this particular persistent vandal is so f**king annoying, and why one has to label a section on them "Various IP's". Now I have to go and verify whether some info added by them is correct or not, because they may just have been acting seriously in a recent edit, just to catch me out... Have a cream donut on me, I'm urging one to be sent to you telekinetically as we speak... Yes I am mad. Graham :) 18:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not advanced in IP knowledge (beyond the average technie) but I thought that ISPs had a set pool of IP addresses to assign to a given user. That doesn't take into account moving from a non-static home ISP to a non-static work IP, though. If there is a relatively consistent pattern to the addresses I try to look for it from new anon content. What you are fighting is guerrilla warfare. (Which I can't spell.) My telekinetics is down for repair.. can you fax it to me? - Texture 18:45, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've tried that before but it got all squishy and it didn't work. Graham :) 18:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is that what that was? I thought it was a rorschach test... "I see a ducky!" - Texture 18:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Koopsta Knicca

It's ok with me that it's gone, though that was not my 'intent' whatever that means. I actually felt, once I saw all the "keep" votes, badly that I had even nominated it. The style, and the fact that the same anon user was posting a bunch of new pages of people all of the same group, made me think it was a nonfamous person. But I know nothing about hiphop, and apparently I was wrong. But I would have left it there, just because I feel that once something has been nominated on vfd, that nomination becomes community property. Anyway, not gonna fight it. Thanks for checking with me. moink 19:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I second. I better write an article about myself. (I am the very last recipient of the Lenin Komsomol Prize in Belarus in mathematics :-) Mikkalai 20:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You, Anthony, Harri Porten & vfd

I understand that you're frustrated. Please see what you can do to leave the Harri Porten discussion on the vfd page. If that entails leaving Anthony's argument there too, so be it. You, Anthony and I all know that moving a discussion off vfd to a talk page reduces the chance of getting a consensus that reflects the community's viewpoint. Leaving the tally helps, but leaving the discussion would be better. I think you & Anthony can compromise by leaving the whole thread there. moink 21:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the one-on-one banter he starts on another page. Go ahead and restore the discussion to VfD and I will support you. I need to walk away so this does not become an edit war. That's why I backed off on his move to the talk. - Texture 22:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am done on the issue. I'll stay away from that section. - Texture 22:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That's probably a good idea. I think things should be okay now for a while. I'm glad you backed off, it could have started to get pretty nasty. moink 22:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It irritates me to do so but it does not solve anything if I let him bait me. - Texture 22:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Customer Experience Management

Hello Harrison, We are currently trying to get the wording right and thus replaced wrong ones with hopefully more appropriate titles. In addition, we streamlined the text and added a more editorial style to the concept explanation to Customer Experience Management (CEM). Hope, that is okay with you? Bye, Karsten

Sysop

Congratulations! You are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela . 11:03, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Re:Your vandal

Why is he my vandal all of a sudden? What have I done to deserve my very own vandal???

Have you included his latest details to the portfolio of evidence on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress? -- Graham :) 16:05, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The link-loaded Signature

Hi. You learnt about the "link-loaded" signatures from me. Some hours ago I was asked by two persons to stop using my signature. I just thought I should let you know. Optim 18:28, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I haven't done it yet and I am considering only doing it on the portion of my signature that isn't my name. You had it on each letter. I would add a symbol and only do it on that. That way, if they click on my name it still goes to my page. - Texture 22:13, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AIDS kills fags dead

Why are you opposed to allowing this to be a redirect? Is it because the phrase is offensive (using the term fag, for example)? I mean, there is an article titled fag, and I don't see you wanting to delete that... This isn't a huge deal to me or anything, but I followed the story at the time, I like Skid Row, and I went to school in a time and place when "fag" was the insult used, something I always found curious. Why is/was this insult so acceptable and common, wheras others (racial, political, disability based insults) were less so? Anyways, I'd like to know what you think, and why. I'm not a nut, or a bigot (IMO anyhow), I just want some random expletive like me to be able to type this into the search, tap go (like I did...), and find the content I wrote. Sam Spade 03:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IMHO this is not ecyclopedic content - Texture 03:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I understand, but why not? It was a slogan, and while some feel it does not merit its own article, it is the subject of a section of anti-gay slogan [1]. I simply can't see the utility in reducing avenues of access to info. Sam Spade 04:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

California Plan

I am the author of the "California Plan" and "Hell-Bent for Election."

Thanks. I have reverted back to your original article. Sorry for the inconvenience. -Texture 04:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Original works

I am not sure I understand correctly what you asked me about. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain original works, because everything in Wikipedia has to be verifiable. Original works, should go in Wikisource. Here are some links: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Let me know if this is not what you meant. Dori | Talk 04:51, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

If the article was put here by the person who wrote the original source, and the thing being discussed is an actual thing (I have no idea if California Plan is real or not), then there's no problem with keeping it. If it was put here by someone who did not write it originally, or it it's just somebody's pet project with no supporting proof of its existence, then it should be deleted. RickK 04:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, both - Texture 04:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VfD

Hi, I replied at User talk:Angela#vfd belonging on vfd. Angela . 11:57, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

vader/anakin thanks

Dear Texture -- thanks a bundle for taking up the vader/anakin splitting. I put that on cleanup hoping against hope that someone would actually do it... and was thrilled to see such a fast response. +sj + 13:54, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

Davide Mana

I understand your concern but I disagree. Any partial extraction of wikipedia contents is bound to have broken links anyway, so i don't see how breaking a link here and there will make a difference. I'll bring it up on the mailing list however to see what other people think. theresa knott 09:21, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jean Nicolet

Oops, sorry I accidentally recreated Jean Nicolet... I didn't understand that the edit conflict meant that the page had been deleted. Isomorphic 17:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Np. Happens alot. Thanks for watching. - Texture 17:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talk pages

I also always thought it would be kind of cool if, when a page goes through VfD, the VfD discussion be put on the article's talk page before it's deleted (if it is deleted); that way we wouldn't have to re-hash if it's re-created later. - Hephaestos|§ 17:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like that idea. Might want to recommend it on the VfD talk page. Really only an impact on Admins so I can't expect anyone else would object. - Texture 17:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

user account

I was trying to change my user name from Nhamblen to Nathan Hamblen but couldn't figure out how. If you could do that for me (and delete the new acct) that would be great. Other

Am replying to your talk page - Texture 22:32, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Supremacism

I just wanted to point out that you handled discussing a controvercial topic particularly well, something I've found shockingly rare on the wiki ;). Also, I want to apologise for suggesting you hadn't read the article, but considering the time span, I hope you can understand why I considered that a possibility. Anyhow that would have been yet another reason for flaming or being unhelpful, which you not only avoided, but prevented completely by being as helpful as possible :) Great work! Cheers, Sam Spade 03:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm still having heartache over the recent sentence but you created a fair representation of the religions problems. (With, hopefully, a reduction in the intensity of the narrative.) - Texture 03:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

457 B.C.

already added in 457 B.C.

And I have redirected it to 457 BC which already has an article. -- Graham :) 18:20, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Communication is not vandalism

Vandalism has a specific legal meaning. You have accused other editors of vandalizing user pages, but the actions which you cite do not cross the legal threshold of vandalism. Your attempt to describe communicative effort as vandalism is innappropriate and your threats to interfere with the access of other users ring hollow. I suggest you spend your time improving the accuracy of Wikipedia content, and allow others to communicate freely.

Perhaps you could sign your claim and provide proof. I can't respond when I don't know what it is I am being accused of. Where I have accused users of vandalism I have defined it. - Texture 20:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He's talking about this [2]. To the anon user - You are of course permitted to communicate freely. However you must be polite and respectful of other users, and you must not delete stuff from peoples user or talk pages. theresa knott 20:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I apologized to Jwrosenzweig. I wasn't sure if I had done any damage and was trying to revert what was clearly vandalism IMHO (the Jwrosenzweig's own page was blanked by that IP). I can't recall being impolite, however. - Texture 20:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You were not impolite, and it's not Jwrosensweig who is not logged in, it's User:Bird. I know nothing about this user except that he appears to be in conflict with several users over the past day, See User:David Newton/Bird Dispute My advice is just ignore him. If he posts anymore abusive messages on your talk page I'll block him. theresa knott 20:41, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No need to apologize! I appreciate the help. It's a situation where I stepped in to prevent vandalism and am now a target. So I've protected my user page now, and am reverting and blocking (along with several others) until the vandal gets tired. No impoliteness has occurred on your part at all -- I first got involved when I thought the anon was blanking someone else's talk page. It turned out he was blanking his own, and he called me an "asshole" for having reverted it. Things have degenerated from there. Just another lovely afternoon at the Wikipedia. :-) Have a good one, Jwrosenzweig 20:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi - what did User:67.74.103.79 do? I can only see two contributions - and neither are threats. Secretlondon 21:17, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Secret, so you know, that user's second edit was "Yeah maybe I'll go try to strangle myself with a belt...wait thats you!" aimed at Francs2000. I don't know if it's a threat per se, but it seems very threatening to me. I think Texture has done the right thing, as this appears to be one of today's magical returning vandals with a dynamic IP. Jwrosenzweig 21:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This user has blanked pages, vandalised pages, threatened people, called them names and has been involved in revert wars with more than one sysop. Once they get blocked they log off the internet, re-log on and then start again. -- Graham :) 21:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay fine. I didn't realise there was history under other IP addresses. Secretlondon 21:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It all started (as far as I can tell) with Daniel Wright. Read the talk page, have a look at the vandalism page for edits by users starting 67.74, and you'll be in the know. -- Graham :) 21:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Image deletion

That's an interesting bug I've not seen before. You can't delete Image:Image:PyreneanShepSmooth wb.jpg because it doesn't exist, but for some reason, when you go to that page, it shows an image and pretends that nothing links to it. You're really seeing Image:PyreneanShepSmooth wb.jpg, but with a double "image:" in the filename. This happens on all images by the looks of it. Image:Image:Aster.jpg, for example, does the same thing, as did a few others I tried. Angela . 22:01, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Shortcut box

Acutally, I stole the idea from User:Angela/useful_stuff. But thanks! -- Seth Ilys

Possible Copyright Infringements

Are you saying that possible copyright infringements which don't cover the entire page aren't supposed to be listed on possible copyright infringments? Anthony DiPierro 01:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. I may have taken your statement wrong. What is the process for partial copyright issues? (This is something I can't locate.) Is it resolved? Have you removed it from the article? - Texture 01:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've removed it, but Chris keeps adding it back. Anthony DiPierro 02:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gore page

What are you going to do about the Gore page and the 2000 website? That is confusing whether or not one can use it after a company is gone. Also, how can the issues section be copyvio?

Chris

I only know what I've read from the exchange. If it came from the Gore campaign website it remains their copyright unless they release it, just as a bankrupt company retains copyright even after Chapter 13. (Although copyright is often sold at that point, not released to public domain.) If Gore runs for any office ever again, his new campaign retains the copyright established by the old web site. (Lots of legal holding companies/non-profits are used to create these placeholders in a candidate's multiple campaigns.)

The Gore page need (regardless of copyright) some compromise on the paragraphs disputed. Can we rewrite the information to make it useful but original? I made an attempt that include quoting the Gore campaign's text. (Or it could be paraphrased but attributed to the campaign.) Please take a try at altering my attempt to fit your needs. Thanks - Texture 03:36, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you writing looks good. I just didn't know about the copyrighting of non existing orgs. Also, we do need to leave the views section on the Gore page. Chris

What is the views section? I am not familiar with the other issues. - Texture 03:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

image deletion

Without giving me any chance to respond, you deleted one of the images I uploaded for Lukla. I don't think this deletion was a candidate for speedy deletion and possibly required it to be put on vfd. At least it would have given me a chance to correct the terms I posted. Or can you provide a prior discussion/policy that allows this sort of unilateral deletion on your part? RedWolf 03:52, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Reply on User Talk:RedWolf - Texture 03:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

friendly reminder

Hi Texture, I see that you protected Al Gore. Al Gore rhymes with edit war, after all. Since you've edited the article twice the same day you protected it, some users might interpret that as a conflict of interest. I realize your intentions were not to be coy, but such action can lead others to misinterpret your actions. In the future, consider asking another admin (who is not involved) to protect the article. Keep up the good work, Kingturtle 04:15, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I felt my edit was administrative (cleaning out the copyright page images) and was not related to the edits. I hope it isn't misinterpreted since I am having some success at resolving the conflict. Chris has ok'd a change to the disputed text and if Anthony will respond I can at least get them past that one item. - Texture 04:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Whooa boy

Slooooooooooow down with your newfound powers. Deleting stuff is serious business! I've undeleted Liver transplantation. The article may only have headings at the moment, but it was only created today. IMO it is highly likely that the anon user set up the structure of the page first and is planning to add content over the next few days. Now what will he think if he comes back tomorrow to find his page deleted:-( Let's watch the article for a week first.There is no hurry. theresa knott 17:36, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It was put on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. I reviewed his only other edits (they were reverted) and agreed with the nominator that it appeared to be a test by a new user. I have no objection to waiting and watching as you propose. I will restore the nomination to speedy deletion. - Texture 17:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just becouse someone puts something on speedy dels doesn't mean we have to delete. Admins need to be very careful. His other edits were not reverted. He is a newbie, so we need to be espcially nice. theresa knott 17:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will try to be more attentive and nice. I do not delete merely what is listed but after seeing that the user added Image:Example.jpg to Liver I had the impression that this was a new user who was creating a test frame of a article and not a real article. The article has since been filled out and I will remove it from Speedy Deletions. - Texture 17:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copyvios

Dear Texture, we do not delete pages to erase the copyvio from their history. I dont know where Anthony got that idea, maybe you can tell me if i am wrong. I removed the copyvio because it was substituted by a stub. Please exercise caution in listening to Anthony's advices. He is a bit confused. Cheers, Muriel 18:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Al Gore? I never agreed to do that for him since I am still awaiting an answer on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringement regarding two entries where the copyvio notice was removed and, instead of creating a new stub on /temp, it was created with the original article. The reason the copyvio message asks users to create a new article on the Talk:Article/temp is so that when the copyvio is deleted the new article, with all history, can be moved to replace the copyvio. There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Possible copyright infringements regarding what to do with copyvios in history (since they still violate copyright and need to be removed). I think until the developers come up with a way to delete a single entry from page history we will retain this problem. - Texture 18:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I meant the Al sistani soap opera. When the discussion reaches an agreement i will be happy to oblige the decision. Meanwhile i do not delete an article, just to play around with page moves just to erase copyvios from history. Thats not such a big deal. Cheers, Muriel 18:33, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, in Ali al-Sistani there was a /temp already created and being updated after the copyvio notice was added. If you look at the history, you'll see that Dissident created the /temp version without any of the copyvio and I moved it to the main article after deleting the copyvio version. (Almost doubted that it worked until I realized that the article had a redirect that made things seem weird.) - Texture 18:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lemon Party needs to be deleted?

dude, why are you deleting the lemon party wiki? it's an internet icon just like goatse.

It already exists on Shock Site with goatse. It does not need a separate article. - Texture 19:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The "Columbia" deletes

I just felt the urge to thank you on behalf of the community for deleting those 20-odd (or more) pages. Boring job well done=great job! :) (I guess you did it one by one? otherwise, if it was in a batch, forget this compliment and go on working :( Pfortuny 20:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Brought up the pre-copyvio notice index page and opened them one by one from the list. That lingering fester is no more. Thanks for the support. When I saw that I had a message I thought.. "uh, oh... here it starts... " ;) - Texture 20:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)