This is an archive of past discussions with User:Allstarecho. 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.
Allstarecho, please? Enigmaman has been willing to refactor his edits which you consider inappropriate; could you do the same for the edits that he (most probably) considers inappropriate? Thanks, Iamunknown19:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, you need to drop the issue. It doesn't concern you and you seem to be the only one now that's keeping it stirred up. And don't think I haven't read the "love-fest" between you 2 on his talk page and on your talk page. So don't come here acting like you're all neutral and impartial. You want to see what your friend is still doing, on the same article after being warned? Check out this edit from yesterday. He removed content, content that is fact per the source, and called it vandalism. You keep on supporting him and his own vandalism, that's fine. Just please don't post anything else on my talk page about him or this issue. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho20:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see that you continue with your childish attacks. That edit was definitely unnecessary, and arguably vandalism. If you want to argue it wasn't necessarily vandalism, fine, but it didn't belong there. You yourself left a message on that users page and reverted some of his edits AND IDENTIFIED THEM AS VANDALISM. So for you it's ok, but for me it's a problem. Always great to see consistency. Enigmaman (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, because the edits of his I reverted were not fact or even in the source but the edit of his that you reverted was. You seriously need to learn the definition of vandalism if you can't see that content that isn't sourced but is an attack on a living person is vandalism where as fact from a source isn't. Anyway, I'm done with you and this. Don't post on my talk page again unless you have something of substance to discuss. -- ALLSTARecho05:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I guess I should have been more precise.. I meant to block an image from being used. I've seen images before that were tagged as being block from use due to vandalizing articles with the image. Again, thank you. :) -- ALLSTARecho21:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Patent Nonsense is content that cannot be deciphered and giberish. Patent Nonsense is not poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort. The page should therefore fall under unremarkable content, test page or vandalism. PookeyMaster (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
What part of "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" do you not understand? Read WP:CSD#G1 and WP:CSD#A7 and you will see that this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under either criterion. It is not patent nonsense as Pookey explained, and it is not about "a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Joburg Art Fair
Hi, would you consider removing the speedy deletion tag from the Joburg Art Fair page. I have expanded the article somewhat and responded to some of the notability issues on the talk page. Thanks laurens (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Allstarecho ... I now see that there is a historical basis for using {{Db-bio}} as a "generic" template, and it turns out that {{Db-band}} and {{Db-inc}} were created using it (although {{Db-web}} was not) ... the problem is that having all of the "genric" language ("organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content") creates duplications in the text for instances of Db-band and Db-inc (as well as inserting mention of "web content" where it may not apply) ... given how it is used elsewhere, I think that the material that you reverted should be removed ... do you agree? ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk·contribs) 20:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your gentle reminder
Keep in mind, being straightforward is not necessarily a sin nor a violation of Wik policies. The liberal editors who try to silence conservatives in here do so by being cute by half. They game the system and make spurious charges regarding reactions they themselves provoked. Then they threaten them with expulsion. I've seen it played out a thousand times here. Now they are trying to drive out all the ID people. There's a hundred conservatives railroaded out of wikipedia for every REALLY loony leftie. And you have to be REALLY loony to get a trial here if you're a liberal.
Just keep in mind what we're up against. They DO game the system. But, not anymore... 69.244.181.184 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Gee, thank goodness your here to fight the good fight. Anyone can edit on wikipedia and anyone abusing those privileges can and often is blocked regardless of political or cultural perspectives as wikipedia is not censored and we need people with a variety of perspectives to build good articles. Instead of finding the violations of liberal or conservative editors you might find it more rewarding to focusing on simply improving your editing so that if someone wants to question your politics you can rightly state that they should focus on the content not the person editing. Benjiboi01:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Allstarecho, and thanks for contributing at the Dune article. While I strongly agree that rumors do not belong on Wikipedia, this article was created in direct response to official confirmation from the filmmakers through mainstream media outlets. I have improved the article tone and corrected the references. Please note that there is a large category for upcoming films, and I believe this article satisfies the necessary criteria for inclusion. Let me know if there's any debate; hopefully the properly cited reliable sources will convince you! Nimur (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Guess all that anon is getting for Christmas this year is a block (I sure did my best to make that happen, anyway). Jeffpw (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It just amazes me how vile people can be when hid behind a keyboard. I was literally sitting here with my mouth open thinking "WTF??" at the comments he was leaving on the James talk page. -- ALLSTARecho15:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
NORAD
Here's the telephone number to discuss the Santa situation they're tracking. I already called to say thanks for keeping the world abreast of developments. 1 (877) 446-6723. Jeffpw (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
And by the way, you don't want to forget to leave a note for Santa. He might forget you, otherwise. Merry Christmas (and do you have any idea how hard it is to bake pies with a 12 pound cat sitting on your shoulder?). Jeffpw (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I did that because it is an overpopulated category. I'm of the opinion that no template cat should go over one 200 item page unless it's absolutely necessary. If you think that "Higher education navigational boxes" or "universities and colleges navigational boxes" is better, than we can go with that. I see that we have Category:Universities and colleges as the article space cat. So universities and colleges navigational boxes would go right along with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woohookitty (talk • contribs) 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to organize the template categories so they are more in line with the general guidelines on subcategorization. I'm not talking about creating a second category. I'm talking about moving the ones I've categorized under Universities navigational boxes to a new subcat called colleges and universities navigational boxes.
There actually is such a thing as an overpopulated category. The whole purpose of categories is to articles grouped under one subject easier to find. Well if you are having to page through multiple pages to find what you need, it defeats the purpose of categorization. Now I don't believe in overdoing it. We don't need subcats on universities and colleges navboxes for every state. There just aren't enough navboxes on the subject for that. But I think we should have separate cats for universities and colleges navboxes in general along with subcats for states with more than a few templates, such as California. My main thing here is just making the categories more in-line with our general categorization guidelines. If you don't think we should break it down by state (i.e. have a separate subcat for California or New York), then I have no problem with that. We can just do United States college and universities navigational boxes (or United States college and universities templates) under United States education navigational boxes. I have no problem with that. --WoohookittyWoohoo!06:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thyatira
Sorry about not getting back to you on Thyatira; as you can see from my talk page, I've been rather busy with other issues in the last few days and forgot about Thyatira. It's done now. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Heyo
Thanks for your holiday message. I have been on forced wikibreak lately, first due to a 10-day power outage from an Oklahoma ice storm, followed shortly by moving across town. It seems that the user in question has backed off of the article for the time being and moved on to different things. Happy new year. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help
Always good to have a bit of help, they used your image of J and T FYI, I've reverted but thought you'd like to know. Benjiboi13:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Didn't read the discussion... sorry. Gueas I was being bold. There's not too much precedent for this in wikipedia... only one I found was United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 which is a relatively new artilce... even the United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2006 isn't comparable because, despite that being a special election, the other Jersey Senate class was not up for election that year... and if you go further back then that, wikipedia wasn't around so nobodies created those articles (yet). If you want to de-merge the articles I understand and I'm fine with it. My opinion is they should be merged (though it's not a particularily strong opinion). We probably need to establish a standard for this rare occurence and also apply it to United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008. Anyway... that's my 2 cents.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually went to restore like it was but for some reason the original history isn't in the article to restore so I just gave up on it, moved on to other things.. -- ALLSTARecho01:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You removed my comments when you moved the page... you needed to merge them properly! I made a very important point about the naming of the special election page in there.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Try this. Just made it, for my purposes, actually. I need the same thing. (adding to your talk page to increase the chance you'll notice it) --cuckooman (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned may be a sock as well, they certainly seem to know how to skip along the lines of policy enough to not be blatantly attacking. (As far as I know, I'm trying to just ignore them now.) Thank you for pointing it out, I had completely missed them and if they are also trolling then they've suckered me into their game. (sigh!) Be strong! Benjiboi22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. Although I was under the understanding that talk page comments could be removed if blatantly offensive. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
From what I've learned, and seems true in this case, folks are a bit more impolite in cyberland and if they are a repeat offend of civility issue on wp you should ensure they have been warned in the past and then take it to ANI if they don't change. Matt's an exceptional case and seems determined to get himself banned from the site altogether. Rarely have I seen him behave although he's certainly capable of good editing. Benjiboi11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with repeating - another editor removed it because it was in line. I'm not sure what the policy is on See Also sections. Aatombomb (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
See also should be treated as a waiting room for wikilinks, once they are in the article then remove from See also; likewise if you remove wikilinks from the article they could go back there. Benjiboi15:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm extremely, extremely sorry you guys (collectively, you specifically, and all) had to put up with that kind of nonsense for so long. It's completely unacceptable. Lawrence Cohen17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Sanchez / prostitution
And after the Colmes interview he's denied it. Sorry - it's one of those issues that Wikipedia is *very* strict on. If he's denied it, we can't put it on. There's a blog that details quite a lot of info about the situation at [1]. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)18:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt Sanchez
I have declined the request to unprotect the Matt Sanchez page - the page was protected per an OTRS ticket, which is the system used to track officially inquiries or letters to the project or the Foundation. There's an OTRS reference number on there - that's how you can know. :-) - Philippe | Talk19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe so but that's the spirit of Wikipedia.. to write factual and honest articles. There wouldn't be a Wikipedia if it weren't for users who fought for the truth. -- ALLSTARecho20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but in this case the BLP policies and fear of legal action have trumped the truth. I know this guy and his legal threats are completely empty. He knows he couldn't win in a court case, but the administrators can't count on it. Aatombomb (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I am currently tapping out a note in response to that. I had hoped to tackle it earlier today but my work day was rather busy. Thanks for notifying me rather than trying to respond, which would only inflame things further. Hopefully if nobody responds, the user can focus on working with the other parties and arbcom to conclude this matter. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I haven't replied to any of his attacks, that I can recall. My only involvement with this whole thing is that I added alleged BLP violating content to the article. I just don't feel that Matt cares about Arbcom one way or the other, as long as the content he doesn't want in the article, is not in the article. He's played everyone to the hilt and still acts "confused" about what he can and can't do even though it's been spelled out to him. I'm just ready for this mess to be done and over. -- ALLSTARecho09:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Category: Queer Wikipedians
A discussion is going on that concerns you.
Recently, the category Queer Wikipedians was deleted, and all pages were removed from the category. I see that you have added yourself back into the now-deleted category, thus re-creating it.
Not at all. It's come down to no matter what you - as in anyone that's arguing for the cat - say, they just slap back with something else that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. -- ALLSTARecho01:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(fold)
I'm tossing in my hand on the RFAr. The block on Sanchez was it. I've expended a great deal of effort on that article, but to have him do something as manifestly stupid as to violate his clearly and narrowly tailored unblock to wade into the waterboarding debate during an arbitration case cannot be justified, defended, or excused. I will continue to watch the RFAr, and will respond if appropriate, but I will not be adding any more to it. Horologium(talk)14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that your blocks were just over a month ago, while bstone's were three months ago. I don't feel comfortable supporting you (or almost any user) who has had issues like that so recently. Bstone, however, I feel has had enough time to learn from his mistakes, and I'm confidant that he won't make them again. Another issue is that you were recently blocked by Doc glasgow for civility issues; while I'm not familiar with your individual case, I think that the combination of these issues made other users uneasy toward giving you rollback. Ral315 (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see how civility is relevant to rollback. Even the most uncivil users on the project should be givenrollback as long as they don't misuse it. John Reaves06:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice Ryan didn't feel confident enough to grant rollback to you due to my recent blocking of you. Whilst I respect his decision, I'm willing to give you a chance here. I have granted your rollback request - I am doing so on trust. I'm trusting you ONLY to use this to revert obvious vandalism, and NEVER on any edit that is even just possibly good faith, no matter how awful. Also don't ever use this on the edits of any regular editor. It can be removed just as easily as granted. Thanks.--Docg20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you send me a message about the "Der Echte Gangster speedy deletion thingy"?
I am a Wiki n00b so please reply why it will be deleted more SPECIFICLY.
I'm sorry I am very bad at english because im Japanese —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Jelly Man (talk • contribs) 09:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
G4
Hey Allstarecho. Regarding MLight, I was just about to delete under it CSD A7 when another admin beat me to it deleting it on that basis and not under CSD G4 as you tagged it. Please note that it could not be deleted under G4 as that criterion only applies to articles deleted after debate at an XfD process such as AfD; it does not apply to articles previously speedily deleted. Keep up the great tagging work. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that heads up. So what do I do about recreation of a CSD article? Just re-tag it CSD? and warn the user for <what>? ALLSTARecho17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
After the first recreation you can use the template series {{uw-create}} ({{uw-create2}}, {{uw-create3}}, {{uw-create4}}). If a user reposts after the last, you can report at WP:AIV. Actually, I've been meaning for a long time to create a template series specific to this; create works, but doesn't strike quite the right tone. If I ever do I'll try to remember to drop you a message. However, you usually don't need to go too far. Most recreations are forestalled by a subseqent deleting admin by salting the nonesistent page after it becomes apparent the user is not stopping.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Allstarecho. Cool userpage. I feel like I'm walking into someone's house with all the decorations! I was checking the page logs for Multi-Function Polis, and noticed your comment, "marked Multi-Function Polis patrolled". Just wondering what that means? thanks, Lester12:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I totally smelled what I thought was a baiting sock of a certain porn start so that's why I took that route rather than belabor the process as no article changes are to happen for another month so why spin drama of content we can't do anything with for at least a month. Benjiboi20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for creating that page. While it was not actually a test, I should have used template creator instead of creating a new page. Polarbear97 (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Your removals
Do not remove my comments left on other users talk-pages. You have no standing and no policy reason for so doing. Removing the comments of others is looked upon as an extremely aggressive action and not favored by the project participants except in a few very rare situations. Wjhonson (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't seen the discussion about you running around posting that link. I'd advise you to seriously stop doing that before you find yourself site banned as well. I'm not threatening that but others, including some admins, are. I was doing it in your best interest to keep you here but you're really pushing it with that link and spamming it all over Wikipedia. ALLSTARecho00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have seen a mention of a BLP issue, which is false. There is no *discussion* about me posting link's to my site. I don't need your advice thank you very much. No admin has threatened me with site banning contrary to your statement. I don't need anyone to look out for my best interest thank you for your concern. My posting a link, to other editors, on their user-talk pages, to assist them in coming up-to-speed on the Sanchez issue is not Spamming. And me posting it to three spots is not "all over Wikipedia". Have a nice day. Wjhonson (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A link to a web site you created and maintain about the controversial subject Matt Sanchez, which is currently the subject of an Arbcom case and you don't see the foul in that? Whatever then, carry on.. ALLSTARecho12:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
I have been combating the writer of ==The Dark Silence (2010 Film) == I already placed a speedy delete tag on the page and apparently he thought he could go ahead and write the article again. Grrrr lol. Dustihowe Talk 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Admins
How did you become an admin and how do people, like me, become one..
Also how comes your like super fast at messaging people and doing alerts etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlxxyy2 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
When you warn someone, start with at least the Caution warning. Otherwise there will be insufficient warnings for a block. ALLSTARecho02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Allstarecho, that's what I always used to do before I reread the template messages page, where it says:
Level 1 – Assumes good faith. Generally includes "Welcome to Wikipedia" or some variant.
Level 2 – No faith assumption
Level 3 – Assumes bad faith; cease and desist
So I started skipping to Level 3 in cases where I could see there wasn't a chance it was a good faith edit. Is that wrong? Sometimes it seems silly to say "at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive" when it's obvious it's the exact opposite of constructive! Perhaps I'm being too harsh though. I think I should take a break and eat some lunch. :) Somno (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That was off my request. We don't have any need for the article or AFD to exist; it just is extra embarresment for the poor kid. Lawrence Cohen07:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I just had to nuke an edit of yours where you made a completely unsupported allegation against a named minor. If you do this again, you will be blocked. Orderinchaos08:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The news report doesn't name who it is. Furthermore, the newspaper cites that two teenagers have been charged, and the link-up between the individuals and the charges is restricted due to the defendant being a minor. There is no evidence it is Delaney charged with the "more serious offence". Daniel (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I myself have linked to a news report (ABC) on the DRV, and there's an Age report out there as well to the same extent. However, your abstraction from it (which in addition implied the person was guilty of said second offence) was the particular edit I removed. Orderinchaos09:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to you both, I realize that now. I think it was a fair assumption if for nothing else than the fact that all mentions of him are being blanket banned on Wikipedia now. I shouldn't have assumed it was him. ALLSTARecho09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding - I appreciate this is very tricky, hence why I'm trying to involve high-level Foundation people and Australian Wikipedians with legal backgrounds. It's probably better to bite ones tongue in such situations until everything is clarified, especially for people who are Australian :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Whose courtesy? Let's see, how about the minor who has now been charged with a crime. I coould not care less about the link from news.com.au.; in fact all the more reason to courtesy blank. If you disagree raise it at WP:AN/I. -- Mattinbgn\talk07:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I didn't change all the tags but the originals don't actually not work, they just link to a spot where there is another link to the correct spot. Thanks for fixing them anyway. Avruchtalk17:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Allstarecho. 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.
