I understand you deleted the page super smash pros. Why in gods name did you do that? there was no need to. it had been there only 10 seconds!!! for gods sake get a life and let me have the group on wikipedia.
There is an ongoing battle with User: ChrisO about the legitimacy of adding certain external links to various pages. Since the discussion is not about one particular page, but is centred at ChrisO's talk page, should I put the medcab template there and link to the talk page, or what? Ryan4Talk23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template's location isn't all that important - it simply provides a blank case page for the details to be put on and serves as a big shiny - 'Hey look at me, there's a problem, so let's please address it.' sign. It may be better to put the template on one of the articles in question and clarify in the preloaded case page that the issue revolves around multiple articles, just for the sake of not cluttering his talk page with that template, though. Basically, whatever works. The Medcab is flexible ;D Cowman109Talk04:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
Hi. I'm interested in trying my hand at mediating some disputes. I'm not the most experienced Wikipedian by any means, but I'm pretty good at communicating and try to help wherever and whenever I can. In reality, should I just jump in? Do you have any suggestions? Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan08:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grateful if you could please arrange a new mediator for [Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28_Eug%C3%A8ne_Ionesco].--R613vlu12:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and reduced the protection to semi- because this article has had full protection for 6+ weeks. I've also added it to my watchlist in case vandalism restarts. Cheers. --MZMcBride20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty angering to see a page have to go under full protection because it's being held hostage by one (albeit determined) user. I want to try one more way to thwart this user before giving in to the prospect of full protection... Let's see if this works. Cheers. --MZMcBride01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary used by User:MartinBotIV "Reverting removal of template by banned user" appears innaccurate to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not a banned user, I'm a repeatedly-blocked user. I can't find any reference to Northwich Victoria F.C. or any of my sock-puppets in Wikipedia:List of banned users. Please will you correct it if it is wrong.86.143.9.6121:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that the bot is now reverting the vandalism edits. I have to say that's one of the most badass things I've seen on Wikipedia in quite a well. I hope it solves the problem for good : - ) . Cheers. --MZMcBride21:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shame that this page has been vandalised. This page is a great asset to wikipedia and I am coridally requesting the protection be removed so that it may be properly recreated.
Hello, Cowman109/Archive 7, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I promise I won't erupt all over this nice Wikipedia, and I will try very hard to live up to your expectations. Please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or drivers such as Paris Hilton.
You didn't? I had to restart my computer about halfway down the list of thank-you notes, and when I reopened my browser I didn't resume with the thank-yous right away. I must have opened your user page or your talk page in a tab sometime between restart and resume. I guess that's a problem with using browser tabs. Regardless, you deserve a cookie, so enjoy! :-) KrakatoaKatie13:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you should reassess this situation and look into what the problem is before you make a comment on the matter. I feel User:Rise Above the Vile made a good call bringing this to the administrator's attention. My solution will solve the problem. No dispute resolution is necessary because this is only a problem with one nieve user. Once he is properly informed about wikipedia policy by an admin I am sure he will stop making the edit.--SouthernTexas03:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he isn't the only user advocating his point of view, therefore blocking him would likely do little. (example of a user reverting to his version) If anything the usual procedure would be to protect the article in a situation like this, rather then going out blocking editors. But I'm still looking into it.. Cowman109Talk03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you looking into the situation and talking with Spooner. Hopefully, we can all go back to being constructive editors now and stop bothering you. Thanks again!--Rise Above The Vile04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question will not stop making the edit unless you as an admin tell him that he is being disruptive in continuing to make the edit. He says that he is alright with the edit continually being reverted and this shows that he has no intent on stopping. It is your responsibility as an admin to get it in his head that he must follow the guideline of WP:CONSENSUS. Blocking him will put this to rest. I am fine with the edit but I edit by consensus and there is an overwhelming consensus for the edit to be removed. Unless this user learns from this experience he will continue to act like this. Look what he wrote on his user page, User:Operation Spooner#Guide for Wikipedia Newbies. Please fix the problem.--SouthernTexas04:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yeah I just noticed his userpage. Another administrator just gave him a sterner warning, though, so we'll see where this goes from here. Cowman109Talk04:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually posted to the RfC on the subject before reading what you wrote here. I'd point out that Mytwocents noted that the continual additons were not conducive to stabilty. We all seem to want the article to be improved. Aside from an edit incorrectly changing a tense, reintroducing the same edit is all the contributor has added in weeks. That doesn't seem like someone trying to iomprove the article as much as someone trying to force an edit her wrote into the article. As was noted, he doesn't care if it stays in - so long as he sees it for a bit. That's an ego thing, to my reckoning. He's the sort who makes working and collaborating in Wikipedia suck. Meanwhile I actually like the other folk in tha article, who I share political disagrteement yet respect with. - Arcayne(cast a spell)07:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to bring this to your attention again, but Operation Spooner is doing the same thing all over again to the Reagan article. Even though we all felt he was at fault, we all had a lengthy lengthy discussion on how to compromise with him on the lead of the article, and actually arrived at consensus, taking his edit into account and integrating it into the article. However, he promptly dismissed the compromise and went ahead and edited - more than once - the way he wanted, adding things to the lead that had been considered and rejected. He's been warned by countless editors and more than one admin, been given more than a few second chances - we even compromised and relented on an edit none of us wanted - and he still insists on having it his way and no other, and continues to add the new edit even after being reverted. Even if it is temporary, as a means of instruction for him, I urge you to block this user. Info99904:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching over the situation. He stopped after the second attempt and seems to be taking it to discussion now, but if he continues I will consider blocking him. Cowman109Talk14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. It's just that Spooner has expressed on his Talk page and on the Reagan talk page his specific plan to revert fewer than 3x each day until we accept his edit. An admin - I think it was you - already informed him that even if he doesn't break 3rr he can still be blocked. Thanks again. Info99902:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A user asked in the Football WikiProject to unprotect this article. I am contacting you since you left a protection summary requesting to advice you before unprotecting it. Jon McCarthy, whose nationality was apparingly the main reason behind the decision to protect the article, no longer plays for this club, so it seems to be no longer a reason to keep it fully protected. What are your thoughts about the issue? Thanks in advance. --Angelo16:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user involved doesn't care for just Jon McCarthy. They are some sort of nationalist who has been changing the player status of every player to reflect that they are English, even since Jon McCarthy has left the team. I had a bot owner automatically revert these edits a while ago, but the bot ended up dying and I haven't had the time to organize another person to operate such a task, so until some sort of measure like that is completed, this insane user won't stop. He came back after months of protection time and time again. Cowman109Talk03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already reverted myself. Note that these additions to his user page essay occured every single time his edits were countered by any one of a number of editors. Note that Viriditas is wikistalking me across articles, and is not a neutral party in the matter. - Arcayne(cast a spell)01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the original admin s who counseled User:Operation_Spooner as to his edits and using his user page as an attack page, perhaps you could pop over and help address the situation? I am not going there again, as I consider it a lost cause - he won't be taking any lesson to heart until he gets blocked or banned. - Arcayne(cast a spell)23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please will you delete the history of this page because it contains comments that may be libellous. Some old versions of the page are obscene, and it is all garbage. It has already been blanked by another user, but I believe it should be removed altogether. Here is the link to one old version of the page:
I went ahead and deleted it. There was nothing but garbage on the page as you say, and there was a bit of sensitive personal information inside there as well. Generally if you wish to contact a large number of administrators you could use WP:ANI for a quick response, but if there's sensitive personal information that should be quietly deleted you should see WP:OVERSIGHT. This wasn't really as serious a case as requiring oversight, but it could have been an option as well. Cowman109Talk15:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at the batesmethod article.
See the discussion page also. The latest edits are a bit strange in my opinion.
I like to hear your opininon about dhe disapperance of normal user names and constantly new IP adress edits. Famousdog ?
Seeyou (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are now no players at the club whose nationality could feasibly be disputed.
I have left a message at Talk:Northwich Victoria F.C. with more detail, including a change in the home strip (with source) that needs to be made. Can you advise as to how to change this / change it yourself / tell me where to find out how to change it please?
I will also leave a message at Requests for unprotection because your User Page states that you are "On an indefinite semi-wikibreak of minimum activity levels"
Thank you kindly for understanding that those ridiculous, asinine edits were made with malicious intent, and not for the overall quality of Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user always make changes to pages targeted by ColourWolf after they were vandalized. He attempts to make his edits legitimate, but I have much doubt. Do you think he should be banned for life? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments here. His latest string of reverts was entirely justified, and non-disruptive. I would request that you undo his block.Kww (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per your statement "I'll have no issue if another administrator wishes to unblock him", I have decided to do so. Both you and I have different good faith interpretations of the same set of facts and the same behaviour, and it seems discussion had been taking place for quite a while on the talk page (although not in the immediate recent past). Orderinchaos23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is very effective in removing a problem user out of the way of the 99% of readers who never edit articles. Plus, since sockpuppets are not needed on an unprotected page, you have a better chance of grabbing and blocking a vandal's IP. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
