User talk:Azer Red/Archive 2

AN thread on Troll organization

Just an alert in case you missed my reply: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Troll_organization. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism

Hello! No edit warring please, Please discuss with John254 on the vandalism talk page. Thanks :-) You can also come discuss on my talk page. --Kim Bruning 05:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About John254

While I agree that John254 shouldn't be acting like he owns that policy page, I suggest you not use the {{vandal}} template for him, as this is a content dispute, not vandalism. And yes, I know he acccused you of vandalism first and shouldn't have. Heimstern Läufer 05:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always use that template when listing a user so that the block link will appear if they need to be blocked, but I won't in the future if this seems accusatory. Thanks.--Azer Red Si? 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper23's userpage

Hi Azer Red. I noticed your comment at User talk:Jasper23 and wanted to drop a note saying that it's my impression that Jasper is not claiming the userboxes on his page as his own, but placed them there because he does not (yet) want to reveal the name of the user that is claiming those boxes. In other words, I believe he's merely using them to illustrate boxes used by the problem user. Based on what I know about Jasper's political beliefs, I would be surprised indeed if he claimed them as his own. Obviously, it would be best if he just gave us the user's name, but I understand his reticence about wanting to start a shouting match. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit seems pretty clear. I don't see any signs of this Macchiavellian business of placing them on his User page in order... actually, I can't bring myself to write it, as it's so silly. How on Earth could placing the boxes on his page without explanation do anything of the sort?

Now, the edit summary indicates that he did it because he thought that they were funny — but that's not a good excuse (perilously close to WP:POINT). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your revert of my revision to Wikipedia talk:Vandalism

Well, one problem. There is no forum for general vandalism reports. The best we can do is recommend they read the main project page. AIV is for blocking. And trust me, they're not going to block willy nilly. The last thing we should recommend a "newbie"—your word, not mine.—do is waste their time. Noticeboard is too general. AN/Incidents is the place to go, but even that isn't a great idea. LTA isn't even meant to take action. It's more of a "most wanted" list. Seriously, I'm trying to Wikipedia:assume good faith here, but your actions haven't been seemingly helping. In this case, for example, you're basically making a problem worse. It's bad enough when people think they should come to us with this stuff. Trying to shlep it off to mediums even less suited is almost distruptive. It's like...we're 911, certain people are calling us with non-emergencies—"this restaurant has shitty service!"—and you're redirecting them to hospital, fire and police. So, in comclusion, there is not forum for vandalism, these people need to learn how to deal with it themselves, and shouldn't make the worst out of a bad situation. Hate to seem like a dick, but maybe you should start trusting other peoples' judgment. I can't say whether John's right or not. I can't even say whether the policy needs fixing, but a bad solution can do a lot more damage than you might think. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I won't persist in this since you took the time to explain your point of view instead of just reverting and labeling me as a vandal like John did.--Azer Red Si? 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia? This article has already been on AFD, and it was decided (not that long ago) that it should be definitely kept but moved to the Wikipedia namespace. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't originally aware that it was in the Wikipedia namespace, and, no, I wasn't aware of the original nom either, but I'm still concerned about Wikipedia hosting it: it could give people who are fans of the celebs a prompt to imitate them by vandalizing and it could also be seen by the celebrities themselves as intentionally defamatory.--Azer Red Si? 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. However, as the community already decided to keep and move to the Wikipedia namespace, don't you think it would be a good idea to recognise this? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. There isn't any rule that says that a page cannot be re-nominated for deletion. What you're basically doing is asking me to close the nom. I'm just going to let it run its course and see what happens.--Azer Red Si? 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AmeriCan

Not a believer in free speech, are you? Fine. -- AmeriCan 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert my userpage

It pretty much speaks for itself. Who do you think you are? --Oreo Priest 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was reverting vandalism.--Azer Red Si? 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should try to be more careful. There is a clear indication that it is not vandalism, both in my talk page and the edit history. Surely it must have struck you as odd that I not notice for over six months. --Oreo Priest 20:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that big a deal.--Azer Red Si? 20:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWN Wiki

You do realize that because you posted info on the Neverwinter Nights Wiki, it was subject to large scale vandalism by ED. You are responsible for what happened there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.0.240 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes I saw what happened and I apologize. Those trolls vandalized there because I am in favor of having their site shut down due to its personal attacks and privacy violations on various people. If your site had had basic vandalism-prevention measures, however (the main page wasn't even protected, for instance), none of that would have happened.--Azer Red Si? 13:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random smiley

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward2 Jerry lavoie 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Please specify an email address under your account preferences. --Cyde Weys 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Azer Red Si? 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Emailuser/Azer Red still isn't working. --Cyde Weys 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be because it is a Hushmail account. I'm not sure if it's valid on Wikipedia.--Azer Red Si? 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor

I took the liberty to refactor some of your comments as they were distracting some editors from the real goals of the encyclopedia and driving them to react negatively to something they should embrace. If you agree, please complete the refactor by removing the words that I struck out. Thanks! --Tbeatty 06:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a comment here from Sceptre's talk page

Hi, Azer Red. You made a post at Sceptre's talk page, where you were talking to him, and Sixty Six replied to your post by talking about Sceptre, in a rather negative way. Since it must be really unpleasant when people are upset and leave, and others start turning up at their talk pages and talking about them and about their real or perceived failures (I have no opinion on whether the criticism about Sceptre is just or unjust), I took the liberty of moving the comment here. Since it's addressed to you, it's more appropriate on your page than on Sceptres. The kid is fifteen, and he's upset. I'm going to leave a message for Sixty Six, asking him to be generous enough not to replace it. Cheers. Musical L inguist 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is all well and good, but there's a catch: it only applies is the person being persecuted is in fact being persecuted for bogus reasons. Remove much of the sniping and the slander and the pedophilia accusatories, and you find that Will's tenure as an admin was more exemplified by his rash decisions followed by abuse of admin powers to back up his decisions. Having personally been on the receiving end of his "don't argue with me or I'll ban you" style of administration, it's clear that he simply wasn't mature enough to be given such responsibilities, period.

But who knows? Maybe when he matures he'll use the experience properly and return to help out Wikipedia one day in a far more constructive capacity. I won't hold my breath, but again, who knows? He might surprise all of us.Sixty Six 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I'd like to send you an email but your Wikipedia email is not enabled. JoshuaZ 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]