User talk:Olorin28/Archive1

Archive 1

Please review the criteria for speedy deletion

I removed an invalid speedy deletion tag you added. Please review the WP:CSD, and mention which specific case you are referring to in the future. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

putting subst: into templates

Hi! Good work warning users about tests and vandalism. Just a quick note regarding templates on user talk pages: if you use {{subst:test}} rather than just {{test}} it's less confusing for new users and it frees up space on Wikipedia's servers. Keep up the good work! -- Francs 2000 02:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Hey, thanks for catching that. I've blocked the IP. If you ever need to request an admin block after you've reached the Test4 template, you can post notes at WP:AIV. Cheers, — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 02:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandal

User:Andjam and User:Olorin28 -- thank you for keeping an eye on vandalism recently on CAIR; much appriciated. All the best, Sdedeo 05:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Vandalism"

I'm new to Wikipedia, and added to Charles Darwin that he was a blashpemer, and the definition of blasphemy is as follows "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God" - Webster Dictionary.

Still believes it's "vandalism"

Let me explain his beliefs a little, since apparently, some people don't understand them. He believes that billions of years ago, a singularity exploded, and created the planets. Then we eventually evolved from scum, and it goes on from there. I'm quite sure that this doesn't involve Creation in 7 days(Christian, and Jewish beliefs). Also, according the the Muslim beliefs, god created man. All that there god must say for something to be, is "be". there god created man, not scum growing on rocks. According to Hinduism, Brahma, The *god* of creation, awoke from a sleep and created everything. Just those 4 religions alone make up over 65% of the entire population. and let me repeat the definition of blasphemy is.

"the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God" I'm not sure, but what Charles Darwin was talking about and believed sounds like blasphemy to me, and at LEAST %65 of the population, which doesn't include; Tribal religions, Sikh, Confucianism, plus a few more.

I would also like to add, that athiests only make up about 4% of the population.

doesn't understand.

Olorin28 replied with: ".... but your labeling of him as a "blasphemer" is purely your OWN opinion...." I just got through explaining what blasphemy is, and that at LEAST 65% of the planets population agrees with me. And even to the definition, he talked about subjects that do not agree with the 3 main religions of the world. He talks about how we just came to be, which does NOT include a creator. and the definition of blasphemy is "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God." which is exactly what he did, and exactly what the definition is.

"No, you are making that number up. There is no proof that God creates this world, yet Darwin's theory has garnered massive evidences. You seem to not get the fact that only fundamental Christians are arguing for "intelligent design", and there is no evidences that Muslims hate Darwin."

Main Religions of the world - http://www.planet101.com/religions.htm

Christianity - 33.6% Islam - 18.3% Hinduism - 13.5% Judaism - .2% =65.6% - That is over 65%, isn't it?

"There is no proof that God creates this world, yet Darwin's theory has garnered massive evidences."

This isn't what I'm explaining. There's no proof god exists, so if he didn't does the definition make sense?" its the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for GOD.

"You seem to not get the fact that only fundamental Christians are arguing for "intelligent design""

Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Kind of hard to take that as the planets exploded from a singularity, and over billions of years, we evolved. Genesis 1 explains pretty well that God made the earth in 7 days.

"and there is no evidences that Muslims hate Darwin.""

Yes there is.

"In the time before time, God was. And when God wants to create something, all he needs to say is "Be", and it becomes. So it was that God created the world and the heavens. He made all the creatures, which walk, swim. Crawl and fly on the face of the earth." - http://www.innovationslearning.co.uk/subjects/re/information/creation/muslim_creation.htm

grumpy..

someone needs to go outside and get some fresh air, no? --65.98.21.69 03:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is with you, this religious discussion is because you deleted a true statement I put in Charles Darwin's definition, and then you attempted to justify deleting it, and I am justifying that fact that it not only can be there, but SHOULD be there.

..."that is NOT a true statement. It is your personal point of view and as such, do not belong in an encylopedia."

As I explained before, it is the view of over 65% of the globe, and by definition it IS correct.

LEEEVE ME AL0NE

Olorin28 - leave me alone

Then you shouldn't vandalize. Otherwise i won't put up vandalism warnings on your talk page. Olorin28 03:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm NOT vandalizing!

I am NOT vandalizing! I am not going to leave you alone, because it is NOT vandalizing, and is acceptable to be there.

I emailed the white house asking if by definition Darwin could be called a blasphemer. Hopefully they will reply :)

I am not talking to you, I was talking to an IP which was vandalizing some other article. Olorin28 01:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

me neither

what?! i reverted due to vandalism, not i vandalized......... theres a bug in the difference feature here, thats my reverted version from some IP before: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Nigeria&oldid=29647365

spare me those messages for stupid vandals.... --Fairychild 01:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted all the links and external sources, along with the cultural part from Nigeria. I don't know what is vandalism if that isn't. Olorin28 01:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

article for Luck had numerous copies of same text

i dont see how deleting extra copies is vandalism

sorry, my bad. It is a consequence of going too fast warning and reverting... ;p Olorin28 00:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gallian

Gallian, under a number of identities, has been using the Bush article to post edit summaries accusing named individuals of among other things child sex abuse. He now has created an identity and resumed the quest. In the past because of his behaviour using IPs he was instantly banned when he did so, and requests had to be made to have the offending comment deleted from the records of the page (a torturous process). Given his history of this behaviour and the defamatory nature of some of the claims, I have imposed an indefinite ban on him. He no doubt will return using IPs or a new identity and try to continue. If he does, I'd advise you ban IPs the moment he does it. If he uses an account, post an indefinite ban and put in the sockpuppet proven command linking back to the Gallian account. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

71.132.208.3

Your warning message to this user was pretty harsh, please use the test templates.

Prodego^talk 18:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not when he vandalize an article twice in a row. Olorin28 18:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the edits? I think that the user might have been testing.

Prodego^talk 18:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought someone reverted the article before the second blanking, which wasn't the case. So the warning was harsh. My bad Olorin28 18:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome

... and that one is blocked for now. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

darwin/vandalism

Olorin,

Calling Darwin a blasphemer is not wikipedia vandalism. If you object to it, it would have to be on grounds of POV.

-Justforasecond 03:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the term is encompassing, and because the editor who wish to call Darwin a blasphemer did not cite his sources, I reverted his edits. The editor also made an objectionable edit in which he said that Reverend Henslow called Darwin a blasphemer, yet no sources or evidences can support that claim.

The first editing made by the user was using his IP address. An IP starting such a controversial topic , coupled with the intelligent design movement in the United States, makes it suspicious. The user also did not use edit summary for this edit, and protested when I reverted his edits.

I agree with you that it is not vandalism, but it was not clear from the beginning. The argument has now moved into a religious side that I have absolutely no intention in dealing with. Olorin28 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Gang"

Olorin28, your talk page was blanked in its previous edit, and replaced with the following message. I reverted the blanking, and am now appending this message to the end. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 07:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Olorin,

I do hope I am doing this correctly, if not please accept my most sincere apologies. I am a member of the Guild "The Gang" which recently you deleted a page on. Having been in this Guild for 5 years I hope that you will understand my concern about the article about us. Originally the article was started by some anonymous enemy of our as an attempt to insult us. A several members of ours then responded in as neutral a way as possible with at least accurate information (who we are, where we can be found, how long we've been around). For 5 years we've worked hard to build a reputation for honesty and skill but without the associated ego. Had I known that our corrections to the flame would have fallen under the guidelines of "Vanity" I would have instructed our members to merely wipe the article and petition it for deletion instead of doing as they did. I apologize on behalf of The Gang's command staff and all our members for breaking your rules.

Yours,

Desdicado

(aka BlkPrince of The Gang) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desdicado (talk • contribs) 07:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks for your continued diligence in reverting vandalism and dishing out warnings! Keep up the good work! —Bmdavll _talk 02:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My failed RFA :)

Dear Olorin28,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NSLE's RFA

Hi Olorin,

Thanks for your support vote on my RfA. I don't think I expected 70 supports, nor get just a single oppose. I notice your message on my RFA was that I'm a "good editor", and I hope I can live up to your standards of being a "good admin" too. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Thank you once again! – NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 09:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandal

169.139.180.100 is already on the admin intervention list

Prodego ^talk 13:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see him, i guess... Olorin28 13:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

Why do you post a link to Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages on the talk pages of vandals? Is this part of some clever scheme whereby you lure vandals to well-watched pages so you can block them sooner? JRM · Talk 15:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Thats how I warn vandals. I provide the specific page that they vandalize. I fail to see your point. Olorin28 15:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. I didn't see you were warning for actual vandalism to the most vandalized pages page. That is some recursive trip. JRM · Talk 15:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hazelwood Central High School

Sorry to have opened a can of worms, I started the Hazelwood School District article with a good start, and redirected all the (3)high school articles to the district page. Now some people have a beef with HCH have changed the rd to a real page... None of the statements that the editor is making are true, I was a student there, and although there may be a smidgen of truth in what he/she is saying, its not enough to belong in WP. Just my 2 cents... J\/\/estbrook 15:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duck

I was going to warn the same person. Are you an admin, or do you know any good admins who can (possibly) block in situations like this? "Vandalism in progress" is a waste of time, generally.

Just out of curiosity, do blocks include a reason which blocked users can see? It might be useful if (in the event of someone else not being able to edit due to a school blocking), the blockee could see why they've been blocked, and the school (or whoever) could deal with whoever the heck was messing around at the specified time. I'm against long-term blocking of such accounts, except in chronic cases, but if it gets the school's attention, short blocking might not be too bad.

Fourohfour 15:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. Visit Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to put vandals as alerts for admins. Usually admins put a reason for blocking. Bad user names have pernament ban, and sometimes chronic vandals have long-term bans. Olorin28 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have used that page instead of 'Vandalism in Progress'... Fourohfour 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting other users talk pages...

Where do you get off? You've got some serious control issues. Enjoy trying to keep the world sanitised, you may win some small battles but the war is ours...

How about you stop inserting vulgar words in other users' talk pages? That would be nice, wouldn't it. Olorin28 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you really enjoy telling people what to do don't you? Ahh well, you carry on enjoying your 'small victories'. Whatever it takes to improve your quality of life... ;]

I guess your quality of life can be improved through cussing out other people. Olorin28 20:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was a one off outburst, not a pathological crusade Mr Lord of the Universe, 'political leader' playing megalomaniac fantasist. =D

IT IS YOUR GUILT!!!

THANKS A LOT OLORIN28. WITH YOUR ASIAN RADIO STATIONS YOU JUST DESTROYED MY LIFE. BECAUSE OF YOU I AM GOIN TO COMMIT SUICIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? GO AND LISTEN T YOUR STATIO RADION!!

Stop posting random messages on my talk page. "Statio Radion"? What are you talking about, sockpuppet? Go bother someone else. Please. Olorin28 03:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE ONE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS!!!!!!!!! bECAUSE OF YOU I WILL NOW COMMIT SUICIDE AND GO TO HELL!!!!!!! SHAME ON YOU!!! GOODBUYE FOREVER!

You are commiting suicide because the page you have been vandalizing is protected now?... Olorin28 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay; I just recently woke up. The article has been protected, and I'm going through the history and indefinitely blocking sockpuppets. // Pathoschild 02:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I HATE YOU, OLORIN28. BECAUSE UF YOU, I WOLULD BE NOW DEAD BY SUICIDE BUT THEY IN THE HOSPITAL SAVED ME... YOU WILL PAY FOR THIS ALL. STATIO RADION.

Wow...you are quite persistent...I am just wondering when you will grow up. Olorin28 02:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OBVIOUSLY NEVER.

deeceevoice arbitration

As a party to her RfC, you might be interested to know a request for arbitration has been filed towards deeceevoice Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice.

-Justforasecond 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi there Olorin28, it's SWD316. I contacted you over my RFA. Im sorry if you took anything personally in what I said. I was just mad. As I posted on my RFA, I am Bipolar and most of the time I can't control the rage I feel. I wasnt trying to hurt anyone's feelings or even Mcfly85's, if you can believe that, at all. I was also not calling you a "screw-up" in particular, I was calling the system in which Wikipedia works a "screw-up". Sorry if you thought that was directed towards you. I also provided evidence I did indeed roll back vandalism 1 minute, more or less, after you nomination was filled last time. SWD316 01:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there would be a point in pursuing an RFC against the above user? He has acted quite inappropriately in this matter and I think unless action is taken we could have a very bad administrator in a few months. freestylefrappe 19:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temuga

Just so you're aware, there doesn't currently exist a universally used or accepted transliteration of Mongolian into English, so both spellings (Temuga and Temuge) are common. This is similar to "Jamuka" being alternately spelled "Jamuqa" and "Temujin" sometimes appearing as "Temuchin". I don't really care, so I'm not about to change it back, but I just thought I should mention it. siafu 04:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my RfA

Thank you!

Olorin28, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. The final tally was a psychedelic 22/4/1. Deltabeignet 23:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey Olorin28/Archive1! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are recieving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries, and consider noting it on the main list of members on WP:AMA. If you are, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) (please direct any responses to my talk page) --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howch e ng {chat} 06:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks from Deathphoenix

Hi Olorin28,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. --D e ath phoenix 14:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello Olorin28/Archive1,

I wish to thank you for your vote on my RfA. It has passed with a final tally of 59/0/0. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! KnowledgeOf Self | talk 03:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf ^melmac 09:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Pgk's RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk^(talk) 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mediation": Tony Attwood

Crossposted from that talk page:

Yes, dammit, *comments*. I've seen similar-but-non-identical quotations from Dr. Attwood on other web pages, going back to 2000. I tried to find them, but I could not: I conjecture that they have been removed from the web or, being newspaper articles, simply aged off as not all newspapers keep permanent archives.

The quotation used was not taken out of context, it's exactly what he said, and it's my opinion, based on the frequency of times I saw it and variations of it (four, in total, including this one), that it's a valid statement of what he believes.

However, given that I can't show them to you, a rephrasing of "Dr. Attwood has commented" would be acceptable to me.

What is not acceptable is a supposed encyclopedia deliberately leaving out the valid citation of a prejudice on the part of a promenent mental health professional which could affect the accuracy of his diagnoses. It is a fact which should be included, if "encycopedic", in the larger meaning of the word, is to be achieved.

And by the way, I don't regard as "mediation" any such which doesn't consult both parties before censoring one of them. Where is the neutrality there?

Davidkevin 13:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the article talk page. Olorin28 13:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm just letting you know that I replied to your response, in case that page is not on your Watchlist. I look forward to your reply in turn.

Davidkevin 15:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mediating, Olorin28. Just a note to say that I have updated the RfC description in order to hopefully attract some neutral editors. I hope you can agree with the wording. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 11:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]