User:Fvw/TalkArchive/4

This page has been archived, please do not edit it. New talk and comments on this talk go on my talk page.

User:ExplorerCDT

I've opened an RfC on this user for his personal attacks: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ExplorerCDT 2. Since you're on his "nutjob" list, I thought you might be interested. --Carnildo 23:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship

Do you want me to nominate you for adminship? Dunc|☺ 23:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oooh, this is flattering, you're the second person in the past month to offer to do so. I have however already been noninated for adminship (and failed to achieve consensus) already at the beginning of this month; Waiting at least a month between nominations appears to be common practice. I'd greatly appreciate your support next month though. Thanks again for the vote of confidence! --fvw * 23:40, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Wikipedia Home to Freespeech? I think not

I've been browsing the latest edited articles and even this talk page and have noticed that you, Mr. Fvw, have a habit of deleting any and all possibly controversial posts before they even have a chance to get off the ground. I don't have a problem with you going on a personal crusade to clean up wikipedia, however if you choose to do so I humbly ask that you don't pretend to represent a service that offers shelter to freespeech. There is no such thing here. The users comment that you just deleted from this talk page was a perfectly understandable response to the wreckless and hasty deletion of a defenition of "bullshitted". The word is a REAL word found in almost any notable dictionary. Why then should it be deleted? My posts on the Bush page, while immature, were just for a laugh, and, if you bothered to notice, the first few times I placed it out of the way at the bottom of the article which I left fully intact. I was merely stating my opinion. It was promptly deleted multiple times. Vandalism? No. Personal opinions, which are supposed to be welcomed here. No harm came from the post, and I certainly wouldn't take any offence to a post such as mine placed on the page of a candadate I favored. In short, please allow my posts and the posts of others like myself. Or at the very least, please don't pretend to encourage freespeech and personal opinions, because you apparently don't.

Welcome to Wikipedia, a FREE content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit ... unless Fvw doesn't like it? Hmmm.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for testing anarchism

Sign your posts on talk pages --fvw * 23:43, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

I have NO, I repeat, NO obligation to reveal my identity to you. Second, where on earth did you get ANARCHISM out of my post? I have half mind to open a RfC on yourself, for what I consider a personal attack seeing as my post was nothing more than a polite suggestion that you might be representing a service that makes false claims to allowing freespeech. I also take offense to your biggoted, pompus, aloof, threeline, dead pan response to my suggestion, as if you are some how above and/or better than me.

Well, O sometime user of 168.143.113.125 and 24.7.14.43, that's the first time I've seen criticism of a response for being "dead pan". (Should Fvw have jollied it up with bold and italics and suchlike?) I don't know whether Fvw is "some how above and/or better than" you, but his command of spelling is better, and he's admirably succinct whereas you do go on a bit. As for your main complaint (as far as I can understand it): Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of opinions. (My own opinion on Bush is that he's an unmitigated disaster, but I don't post it, other than perhaps on talk pages.) -- Hoary 09:17, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Revert

No problem, I would expect the same from any other user here. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CSD

I a well aware of the criteria, and the things that I have marked were well with in it as I interpret them, and as I have seen it been interpreted. --Boothy443 05:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

vandal

Hi. Do you want me to protect your user page for some time? -- Chris 73 Talk 09:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 09:26, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

CSD

Sorry if I was a little hasty there - do you happen to know which page it was? I was haunting the new pages section yesterday, and I think I listed three separate ones. I did also list one on the votes for deletion page, however as well. Sorry if my judgement was wrong here. Thanks for your help. Smoddy | Talk 10:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nope, not off the top of my head, sorry. I could dig in my contributions if you really wanted to, but I've been RC patrolling the last 6 hours so it might be a tad hard to find. No harm done anyway, I'm just trying to prevent slippery slopes :-). Keep up the good work on RC patrol! --fvw * 10:47, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

VfD

Hey, not a problem. I had a good time trying to incorporate both sets of comments! Smoddy | Talk 18:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wishlist

I tell ya, I made the same mental error last night. Maybe it's because we're still in the Christmas season and "wishlist" is on the mind. :) --Golbez 23:17, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Re: MedCom vote

I didn't want to oppose you because time spent on the project isn't really a criterium for mediatiors as it is for admins. Andre (talk) 03:09, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

New VfD nominations

Hi, could you put the name(s) of the article(s) you're nominating in the edit summary when you update Wikipedia:Votes for deletion? So if you're nominating Foo for deletion, put [[Foo]] in as summary. That way, people who have VfD on their watchlist can jump to nominated articles without having to (re)load the gargantuan VfD page. I added this suggestion to the procedure, so I'm more or less playing ambassador to it :-) TIA. JRM 13:53, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

It is optional, that's what the "as a courtesy" is supposed to mean. Nobody's going to haul you in for an RfA if you don't do it. :-) Re missing a lot: not really, as I do refresh my watchlist a lot. To me it's preferable to loading VfD a lot — my browser is unusable for several seconds while it's just rendering the page. (Loading RC a lot is only when I'm on patrol.) Re not worth the effort: OK, if it's too much typing, then don't. As I said, nobody's forcing you. Perhaps I should have amended it to "as a completely optional courtesy to JRM, if you really want to because nobody else finds it useful..." Something like that. :-) JRM 14:08, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

WP:RfA. Damn, I was wondering why the other side always won, and then blocked me! Damn shortcuts. :-D
And poll all you want; if nobody can be bothered with this I'll switch to Lynx for VfD editing. This is uncomfortable, but it wouldn't slow me down as much. JRM 14:24, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Half a second? You lucky, lucky person. A config problem? I wouldn't know what that would be. VfD just happens to be huge. No, I really need to wait. A lot. And while I'm waiting, none of my other browser windows respond, so no working in the background. I've briefly tested Lynx; it doesn't seem the UI would be a big slowdown. (I'm a big keyboard person, anyway.) Of course, keeping Lynx open just for VfD is a nuisance. And basically, if I see in my watchlist that VfD is updated, I can go there and reload all of the 200K+ VfD page, wait for it to render, then click on a link to take me to an article, but if I can do that without reloading, it would be better. JRM 14:38, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

RC patrol

Thanks for the hint. I'll probably be less active when I have to return to work, but hopefully so will the vandals. :) Cmprince 18:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

shit list

Thanks for your suggestion, but seeing as I use mulitple computers to access the pedia, it's a little more useful for me to have it on wikipedia itself. I'll leave it there for now, it's really just there to remind me of who has been uncivil to me, because I'd just forget otherwise. — マイケル ₪ 19:42, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing, had almost forgotten about that link I made :). — マイケル ₪ 20:27, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Rob McRae

Hi. Could you block that Rob McRae vandal? He keeps deleting the vfd header and won't discuss it. 172.172.35.229 23:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks. 172.172.35.229 23:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Silver Koopa and Friends

As a respected fellow (and far more experienced) patroller, could you have a look at this for me? The first line is making me a little nervous - being relatively inexperienced at this game, I am hesitant to get into any situation that could end up with an argument. Thanks for your help. Smoddy | Talk 00:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ha, I'd hardly call myself far more experienced, I'm pretty much still a newbie here too; I've merely managed to stretch my newbieism out over a longer period of time. Assuming you're referring to "poorly drawn", I think that's ok. Just like saying Rembrandt was quite handy with the brush. It's a value judgement, but seeing as everybody agrees on it there's no problem. I'd generally try to replace it with something more descriptive like "shakily drawn" or "disproportionately drawn", but I'd be ok with "poorly drawn" as long as this is something everybody who knows it agrees on (which, with this comic doesn't appear to be that many people). Which brings us to the next point, I doubt this has sufficient notability to justify an entry, personally I'd VfD it. What do you think?

There's also Wikipedia:RC patrol for these kinds of things by the way, but feel free to ask me instead; I love seeing that orange box when I log in… --fvw * 10:58, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

User: redirects

Yeah, I know, it can be a pain. Try looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:WikiProject_proposal - I had to fix all of those pages! So I'm well aware of how much a pain it can be. If fixing the links is not something that you're into, please pass on it, without feeling bad about it - I'll get to it eventually, when I go to delete the pages. FWIW, I discovered that someone (forget who now) was deleting the redirects without even saving the ones with history! Sigh... Noel (talk) 14:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yowch, poor you. Couldn't we coerce someone into rewriting their bot to do this?

I ran into quite a few redirects with history that were marking for only linkfixing and deletion yeah. Oh well, all the history moving has been done now, so I'm happy. I'll probably take a few more minor stabs at linkfixing when I'm avoiding responsibilities, but don't expect much from me in that area. --fvw * 14:05, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

No problem at all - you've already done far more than your share of janitor work. (And speaking of which, make sure to let me know next time you're up for admin, so I can put in a vote!) I occasionaly do a few too (just finished off the P's - neither had too many links). If you do some and need them deleted, drop me a line, and that'll jog me to come by and fix a few links myself!

Actually, I quite like fixing the links. It takes me through a lot of oddball corners, and also introduces me to Wikipedians who aren't here any more. Fun. Also, when I do a page, I try and fix all the old User: links on it, so I don't have to come back and fiddle with it again when I get to someone else. That makes things go faster, I find... Noel (talk) 15:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocking threats

It is inadequate of you to threaten me with blocking. Have you even read the article in question? I have an evident nationalist trying to sabotage a page which has existed for several years. He has not bothered to sign in and he has not explained why he has deleted four-fifths of the article. And he has started his version by claiming that an ethnic group is "a fabrication of history". If you continue with the threats of blocking, I am going to talk to other users as to how you can be prosecuted for aiding sabotage actions and vandalism and attempts at intimdation. You are evidently trying to aid a vandal. VMORO

It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the point of the 3RR is to avoid edit warring, which you are quite obviously doing. Also, threatening to "prosecute" me for warning you you're violating the rules isn't exactly constructive, but should you wish to do so the procedure for that can also be found in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, perhaps that will inspire you to read it. --fvw * 14:09, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

I have been monitoring this set of articles for half a year. They become frequently the object of vandalism by anonymous users, who do not want to use the Discussion pages and do not care that their opinions are not shared by science, or by other users. Such vandals have been stopped many times and only seldom has that been done by me.

But to see that, one has to actually check what is going on in the article. Barging in and quoting rules which may sound "beatiful" but cannot be applied in the particular case is inadequate. By the way, how did you "warn" the vandal himself that he can be "blocked"? Did you use his talk page that does not exist? And how did you threaten him you'd block him when he does not have a user name? And again, have you - at all - read the article in question? VMORO

Anonymous users have talk pages, they're just shared by everyone using that IP. This anon's is at User Talk:212.251.109.95. And even though the edit was a deletion, this is nonetheless very clearly a content dispute, so the 3RR does apply. If you feel this hampers your ability to deal with disputes, work to change the policy. Until then you are still bound by it. --fvw * 14:32, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

You just admitted that the vandalist edit WAS a deletion, so what actually is your point? And secondly, what is important is not the letter of a rule, but its spirit. You cannot deliver an opinion about an edit without getting familiar with the content. VMORO

I said the edit was a deletion yes. There is nothing wrong with deletions, they can often improve articles, we even have a barnstar for them. And the spirit of the 3RR is to prevent edit warring, which is what you two were doing. --fvw * 14:47, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

You could have taken a look at how "improved" the article was before throwing around wild accusations and trying to act like a policeman. Neither the article in question, nor the integrity of Wikipedia benefits too much if one quotes rules without paying attention to the situation on the ground.VMORO

I've protected Macedonian Slavs, now what's the problem? Dunc|☺ 15:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, I suspect it's just POV pushing. I'm not really involved, I just happened to seem some major 3RR violation going on in RecentChanges and warned both editors involved. Protection probably isn't a bad idea though, they do both seem to be willing to discuss the matter, so with any luck this will all be solved in a little while. --fvw * 15:18, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

VFD

I just noticed I forgot to sign and I got an edit conflict when I wanted to sign. You beat me to the punch. Nevertheless, feel free to add my sig if I forget. :) Mgm|^(talk) 14:21, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Mazur

1. There is no need to put external links about the Treaty Versailles in a article about a ethnic group.
2. I dont belive that 97,5% Mazurs vote for Germany in the plebiscite.
3. Pls. ask the user User:62.226.87.158 why he put that infos (about the plebiscite) without any sources.

--Emax 15:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think there's some misunderstanding here, I merely moved the comment to your talk page from your userpage, I'm not involved with the Mazur article or the anonymous editor. I merely saw an anonymous userpage edit while RC patrolling and moved it. --fvw * 15:53, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :)--Emax 15:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

question

What is the difference between my old namespace and my new namespace? Thanks, Happy New Year, Slrubenstein 19:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what you mean, but if this is about the user page moves: In the old days, wikipedians used to have userpages that where just like article pages, which caused namespace conflicts (what if someone had the same username as an encyclopaedic topic?) and made it hard to separate articles from the rest. Nowadays user pages live in the User: namespace which means all userpages start with User: (and all user talk pages start with user talk:). A bunch of us are currently cleaning up the remnants of the old userpages, moving them to subpages of the users new User: page. (A subpage is a page "under" the main page, just like on a filesystem). Does that clarify things? Have a wonderful new year yourself too! --fvw * 19:45, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

VFD/Today

Hey, here's something neat: WP:VFD/Today. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cute, but not useful for my purposes, as it merely transcludes the actual VfD page, so it isn't the page I'd want to edit. But don't worry, despite the drawbacks I think the new VfD system is a significant improvement. Happy (UTC) new year! --fvw * 03:53, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

CSD

Thanks for looking at my speedy deletion request for Grey court school so quickly. I did read the CSD beforehand and it was not clear to me that the page in question did not qualify for speedy deletion. I notice that the redirect page is still there. Its name is just a duplicate of the main article Grey Court School and the redirect clutters things up. I am fairly new to WP and would appreciate your guidance on how to go about requesting its deletion. --Etimbo 14:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just realised case changes should probably fall under the misspelling CSD rules for redirects, so it was in fact a speedy deletion candidate. My apologies for that. I'm not sure it should be deleted however, generally the obvious differently-cased redirects are kept to avoid article duplication. If I link to Grey court school in an article, without the redirect the link would be red and someone might click it and create a new article, duplicating that one that already exists. We've got lots of casing-redirects laying around, I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. In the general case redirects that aren't speedies go on Redirects for Deletion. --Fvw

You're quite right the redirect should stay. Take, for example, the entry for Buckingham Palace. Correctly capitalised the link is fine: Buckingham Palace, but with a lower case 'p' the link breaks: Buckingham palace. Redirects are in place for all sorts of other examples: Star trek goes to Star Trek and Blakes seven redirects to Blakes Seven. It is odd that Wikipedia doesn't treat internal links as case insensitive. It would allow the deletion of an awful lot of redirects. But until that happens I'm quite happy for Grey court school to stay. --Etimbo 23:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Njyoder

Your removal of a personal attack by this person on 14:37, 23 Dec 2004 in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce refers. I would request you follow up by reviewing his attack at [1]. I thank you for your kind attention. - Robert the Bruce 16:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User redirects

The difficulty with breaking the redirects is that the pages quickly flood Special:Shortpages. - SimonP 17:46, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ken Jennings as a polymath

Then where should I put it?

It depends. If this is out of personal interest, use your user page or somewhere other than wikipedia. If it's an article content dispute, the talk page of the article in question would seem to be an appropriate location. --fvw * 00:15, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

I put the question both on the polymath talk page and the list of polymaths talk page. But I wanted a place where more people can see... the wikipedia talk page. Where else should I?

See Requests for Comment. --fvw * 00:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Fvw. Thanks for the heads up. Happy new year, Wile E. Heresiarch 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the advice on redirects. --Centauri 01:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK I think I've done it right - please let me know if I haven't. Also, do you know how to edit the bit right at the bottom of the Sealand article that shows up as {{sealand}} in the code?--Centauri 01:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine. To edit the footer, you have to go to Template:Sealand and edit that. Under the edit box there's a list of links to the templates in use on the page you're editing. --fvw * 01:42, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

wikihawk

Why is wikihawk considered nonsense? It's a perfectly valid description of something that happens with great frequency around here.

See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.-gadfium 04:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

subsubsubstubs

I was thinking about deleting Machop too. Changed it to cleanup based mainly on Gut-feeling, which of course is a pretty weak argument. It also seems to be under construction and linked to. But again, I would not object a deletion. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

metagross - pokemon

Fvw, It looked like 67.84.138.44 was adding in a whole bunch of pokemon. It's weird, I know, that a pokemon would be named "metagross". But ya gotta keep in mind, all pokemon have similarly stupid names.--Sp00n17 03:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I quite believed that the article was factually correct, I just don't think "foo is a pokemon" is a worthwhile article and it definately falls under the "very short articles with little or no context" CSD criterion. You can sign your name on talk pages by typing ~~~~ by the way. --fvw * 03:54, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Yes, besides the fact it lets the world know that pokemon is carving out strange names for their beasts, it has little content. To promote its future completion, I added it to the following list Wikipedia:Pokémon Stubs --Sp00n17 04:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Avenger

Why do you seek to stop the message of the LORD?

Cheap thrills. --fvw * 05:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Do you like to mock JESUS? -The Avenger

No, it gets old after a while. Dbenbenn 06:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speak for yourself! I could mock 'til I drop. Of course, there is the smiting risk which means you could drop pretty soon, but hey, it's the new extreme sport. --fvw * 06:09, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Actually, I just like to say mock. Mock mock mock mock mock. --fvw *

Smock smock smock smock smock. ZAP! Dbenbenn

Knock if Off

Not until you accept Jesus in your heart

[[Image:Christ_pantocrator_daphne1090-1100.jpg|frame|left|JESUS THE CHRIST]]

Feeding Trolls at VfD

Hi fvw, I was referring to what appeared to be a very heated debate with lots of anons and vandals trying to sway the discussion. The article was deleted, so I'm happy. I've found that entering arguments generally provokes them; also, the Sollog crowd appeared to be getting involved. Happy editing and a Happy New Year. Alphax (talk) 13:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sup, b?

Why you clean the sandbox?

WP:3RR

Just a warning, you've broken the Three Revert Rule on Norway Scholarship, you might want to be careful with that. --fvw * 19:36, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

I thought you'd fall for that one. I edited the article; I did not revert. Check the history. Dan100 19:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Flew

You put up the pages needing attention notice. Do you think it's better now? - Omegatron 01:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that looks wonderful. Thanks! --fvw * 13:41, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Marco of Alexandria

I dont understand why you are trying to delete Marco's page and his links on the Egypt List of Artists!?!?!? He is An Artist in Egypt, better known that Fanous! and he is also a Poet in Egypt!! and he should be included on the list. I dont see why including someone's name on a list that he belongs to is considered Vanity by you?? Abrahams

Opinions differ on his notability. As of yet nobody has presented any evidence of his notability, so unless the article on him survives VfD I don't think he's an appropriate addition to the list. Let's wait and see if the article survives VfD first. --fvw * 13:37, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

It just seems personal

It seem real personal what you are doing with Marco's page and links

That's all

And I think that coming from Holland, you should not be a person who tried to stop the progress of art, but rather support it.

Dina

Comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/667 Dark Avenue

Ah, tnx, that goes enormously toward restoring my opinion of you as a colleague. And perhaps i should have looked at the history before considering exactly what interim remedy to apply.

On the other hand, i assume you've learned the lesson of not assuming the context will be stable. And at the risk of preaching (and maybe even preaching to the choir), i'm deputizing myself to make the points to you that

WP, tho a volunteer activity, sets a standard of collegiality comparable to professional and academic ones.
WP is firmly committed to a very high level of inclusiveness, precluding behavior that invites any inference of dispensing with respectful communication.
Emotive language is not "just words", i.e., its purpose and effect are only secondarily the explicit conveying of information.
In practice (whatever the proper status of theories of "oppressed groups" may be), to the degree that calling a group "oppressed" escapes universal derision ("Oppressed American millionaire"? Liberate this, fat-cat!), many of the group's members react involuntarily, to what appears to them to be disrespect based on membership in that group, as they would to organized oppression, and they are done real harm by that appearance.
Thus "gayyy" and, say, "niggerish", are words that should (occasionally be discussed but) never be applied at WP, however satirical the intent.

Of course in the long term you are much more able than i to express your real intent. I saw quick amelioration as mandatory, and the intent of my edit was that, not contributing to the discussion at hand or making any point of independent importance. Thus i would welcome your rewrite of your original vote (eliminating my contribution completely if that is acceptable to you). (In such situations, my preferred documentation measure is modifying the sig-line into one dated like

16:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC) & 20:04, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

(taking advantage of 5 tildes rendering as just a time stamp w/o any user link), tho i don't claim there's any clear policy calling for the double timestamp.)

Thank you for your quick and responsible reply to my action, and thank you in advance for your attention to this as well.
Jerzy (t) 20:04, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

I disagree, I think as long as terms like gayyy are used they're valid targets for parody, and I think the context, even with the comment removed from the subject page, were sufficient to indicate it was intended as that. But if the current version makes you happy, that's fine by me. I'll just leave the comment as it is now. --fvw * 20:28, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

User:Alkivar/sig

Yeah I read that but it said its not official policy as of yet. So I figured this might spur someone to finally get that decision made; Its meant to be slightly annoying yet not too obtrusive. That and the radioactive unicode symbol isnt as pretty ;) ALKIVAR™ 20:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to force people to make a strict policy? What are you hoping for, to have it explicity allowed or explicitly disallowed? If the latter, see Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; If the former: It is allowed now. Making it allowed explicitly in policy isn't going to change the fact that it annoys a lot of people. --fvw * 20:40, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Its part of my protest over the whole "if you dont like pictures turn them off" argument regarding so called "censorship" at wikipedia (see the VfD on Abu Ghraib (no pictures)). Yes it is illustrative, but its not disrupting wikipedia as it is not explicitly denied. Frankly I dont care one way or the other about images in sigs, I am not really trying to get THAT policy set in stone (although that is a possible sort of a byproduct). I put a lot of care into making sure the image was sized to the point where it would not distort line height (which the sig policy mentions) so its detrimental effect should be minimized. But I guess if enough people bitch about it i'll remove it. ALKIVAR™

20:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yopu

To be honest, I killed that article stone dead early. I don't mind him appending a note to the bottom of the VfD page. That will help for future reference. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! I was afraid of seeming callous--sad case, poor language skills, etc--but couldn't resist. I feel for Gtabary, beleaguered by that infuriated nutjob on his talk page, I think he could use some support on the RfC (hint, hint).--Bishonen | Talk 23:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't actually involved so I doubt I have much of interest to say on the matter, but I'll have a look and see if there's not some worthwhile opinion I can agree with. --fvw * 23:28, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Just look for my sig.;-) (I haven't been involved either, I just came across it.)--Bishonen | Talk 00:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My usser page

stop putting that faggity yellow shit on my user page, it's fucking annoying 172.149.118.186 02:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What the hell!

I vandalised nothing! I assume that you refer to the the revert I did to my least favorite person. I stay away from that moron as much as possible. I never edited that page before and hope to never edit it again. unfortunately, I needed some information today. I found the article vandalized. I considered just pulling the information out of the history and leaving the article vandalized, but I figured that I better fix it. I reverted to the last version before the vandalism. Terrible lag occurred and an edit conflict occurred. I gave up trying to fix it because it kept timing out. I gave up and just returned to WikiPedia a few minutes ago.

285 No good deed ever goes unpunished. (Ferengi Rules of Acquisition) Ŭalabio 04:24, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

This looks like vandalism to me. If you've been here long enough to know how to revert, you've been here long enough to know that these kinds of comments are not appropriate. --fvw * 04:39, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

I reconstructed the incident from the history:

? (cur) (last) 01:03, 2005 Jan 4 Walabio (Reverted vandalism -- I hate the fascist ( literally mean fascist) and am tempted to leave the article vandalized, but I have a civic obligation to repair vandalism.)
? (cur) (last) 00:21, 2005 Jan 4 Wikibancroft64
? (cur) (last) 20:33, 2005 Jan 3 Violetriga m (Reverted edits by 139.142.154.105 to last version by Violetriga)
? (cur) (last) 20:31, 2005 Jan 3 139.142.154.105
? (cur) (last) 19:48, 2005 Jan 3 Violetriga m (Reverted edits by 194.46.92.155 to last version by Hadal)
? (cur) (last) 19:46, 2005 Jan 3 194.46.92.155

I found the edit of Wikibancroft64. After considering leaving the edit, I tried to open the edit by Violetriga. I got frustrated by the latency and pounded the mousebutton like a chimpanzee. A page came up. I hit edit and save. My edit conflict was probably with myself because I got frustrated and hit save repeatedly. I gave up. When I pounded the mousebutton, I must have hit the edit by 194.46.92.155. Ŭalabio 05:05, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Oh, right. I was assuming bad faith, always a mistake. Sorry about that. --fvw * 05:13, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)