User talk:John Reaves/Archive8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a member of the Wikimedia volunteer response team.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.
If you were looking for the football player named John Reaves, you want this article: John Reaves.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Reaves/Archive8.

Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation



Archives

One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Eleven
Twelve
Last update:
18:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing IPs

It's hard to say without knowing more about your service. If your service uses a static IP, then you'll pretty much have the same IP all the time (mine uses dynamic IPs, which I wasn't aware of until I tried it tonight). To test if your IP is static or dynamic, go to dnsstuff.com, and mark down the IP that it tells you. Then, unplug your router, and plug it back in. Once it reboots and is reconnected, hard-refresh the page (Ctrl+Shift+R in Firefox, Ctrl+F5 in Internet Explorer). See if the IP at the top has changed- if it hasn't, you probably can't do it, but if it has, you should be able to do this as needed. Ral315 » 08:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed in the newest versions, but Wikimedia projects haven't updated in a while (I believe there's going to be a major database schema change soon, so they're trying to keep it stable for a while), and so the update hasn't been applied. The moment that they apply the next update, we should be able to create unlimited accounts. Ral315 » 08:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not applicable?

I beg your pardon, but I must ask why DB author is not applicable to my two recently elected articles. I believe them to be folly, no one else has done major work upon them, so I cannot understand why this isn't applicable. Please explain your decision. Thank you. DoomsDay349 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to reference CSD 7 to further enhance my point.

"Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author in good faith, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request."

Please explain to me how these articles do not meet that context. DoomsDay349 21:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ikkyu2

Hello! I noticed you deleted the essays on User:Ikkyu2 per a discussion. Can you recover the page and send it to me? Thanks! Wooyi 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have put them in User:Wooyi/laboratory/storage for archiving purposes. Wooyi 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Any automated way to remove template from pages that should not display it?

I see that you implemented the decision to retain Template:Youth Empowerment, now that it has been refined. The template itself may have been refined, but it is still displayed on many pages where it looks pretty silly. (See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Youth_Empowerment&limit=100&from=0.) I removed it from a few articles, but I was thinking that if the person who created the template didn't do that task, it ought to be done by a 'bot. Is there a 'bot that can clean up the rest of the irrelevant links to it?--orlady 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on this. I contacted the 'bot owner at User talk:^demon. --orlady 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD

Just a heads up. When you close TfD discussions, make sure that you put the top template AFTER the subheading and not before. I know that AfD has it set up so you put it before the subheader. TfD is after the header. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know. I wish it was all uniform. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

From User:Deepak D'Souza

This is to inform you that I have sent you a mail via wikiepdia and in case you have received it please post a message on my Talk page --User:Deepak D'Souza(posted via proxy since I am blocked)

Multiple vandalism warnings given at once.

In a case where multiple intentional vandalism has transpired, a vandal4 warning could be appropriate, and a vandal3 is. I would think that giving multiple warnings for each incident would be more useful to Admins considering blocks. Maybe the problem is that all warnings given in one incident should be the same vandalism level? The lack of signature was just an oversight. Heathhunnicutt 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hate to bother you, but may I ask the reason my added links on the pages for University of Kentucky and Mickie DeMoss (for UKHoopsFans.com) were removed?

History merge needed for Miami (disambigation)

You recently closed an rfd as delete, but I think you missed part of the discussion. Miami (disambigation) and Miami (disambiguation) need a history merge, as pointed out at the rfd. --- RockMFR 19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Oh please just leave me alone. I hate that cruddy piece of junk called family guy so I have every right as an American under the Constitution to do that. Last time I checked, it's called freedom of the press. An eagle scout like you should know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copernicus II (talk • contribs)

Sock-puppetry

I listed four accounts at his Talk page, at least three of which have the same bizarrely awful English, the same style of aggressive messages to the same range of pages, including each other's Talk pages (the exception is Craxy, I think, who is connected to them, but a different person I think). I watched them pop up in turn as the last one was blocked; as I said at the page, they didn't even try to be clever about it (well, I don't know — maybe they tried) Their only purpose here seems to be disruption, accusation, etc. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just one – Sonic_the_hedgehog921 – but it was probably the same one that you got, from From: Liberty City's Miguel. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanica

I object against evaluating the result of this deletion discussion to be "no consensus", since there were two delete votes, two redirect votes and not a single vote to keep the page as a standalone article. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think it would be more than reasonable to assume that since the votes for deletion did not "win" the vote, that instead they count in favor of a redirecting, which in that case would be unanimous. I would have liked to see you acknowledge that in the deletion discussion, so that any turning of the article into a redirect would not be construed as an out-of-policy course of action, especially since an identical result was reached in a previous deletion discussion. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Deepak D'Souza

Please see this. He clearly states that he deliberately broke 3RR to make a point ("As I said in my mail I violated the 3RR rule wilfully and was prepared for the consequences. You can gladly extend my block for the "sockpuppetry" I have done on your talk page.") --Ragib 05:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Undoing autoblock

I'd never even heard of an autoblock before it happened. Apparently User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me blocked a range of IP addresses because of vandalism, and mine (I use Bellsouth) was caught up in the block. I can't imagine that I was specifically a target, since 1) I have a well-established account and 2) I'm actively involved in counter-vandalism — in fact, I was attempting to revert vandalism at Two-A-Days when the block popped up. Anyway, it's apparently been undone, as I'm happily editing away — just put up speedy-delete tags on about a dozen new articles that were either blatant vandalism/graffiti or spam. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. But thanks for your attention, and sorry I wasn't much help. Realkyhick 07:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This may help clear up your confusion :) – Riana ঋ 08:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock-en-l re 143.166.226.43 unblock

I notice you unblocked 143.166.226.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) without first contacting me. The block was made for a very, very good reason as it was one IP in a range of 4 from Dell being used to spam Wikipedia. I would appreciate if you would reapply the block, and not use the unblock reason (per unblock-en-l) when you were the only person to review the unblock request. If you look at

you will see they have all contributed in the same manner and I believe they were all blocked prior to .43 being blocked. Also, I should point out there was no problem with Shadowbot, it was instructed to remove these links and warn the editor adding these links. -- Nick t 22:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect, resolution proposal

Please un-protect this image. Please see [1] for Jimbo's statement on the outcome (to summarize): The image with watermark shall be deleted. I am proposing that this image be unprotected (on commons), reverted to the unwatermarked version. If Cavic reverts it to the watermarked version, or states otherwise that he wants it deleted, then it should be immediately deleted. In addition, the caption removed completely from the article page. If Cavic restores the caption in any capacity or states otherwise, the image shall immediately be deleted. --MECU≈talk 00:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing major, just curious

I wanted to see some of the source code on your user page (not edit anything) but can't due to tags on it. Are there not tags that allow viewing of code but not editing of code? The best way I've found to learn around here is by looking at source created by users with more experience than I. Others may also wonder about this so if you could post your reply here (and on my talk page if you like), I'll check back every once in a while. Nothing serious or urgent; just curiousity. —S-Ranger 22:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint, but there's no code. It's just an elaborate (maybe simple?) method of discouraging vandals. It's just a transclusion of User:John Reaves/.....\ (the page I actually edit) surrounded by characters made to confuse. So <!--{{\\\\{{{....{{{{//{{{?{?{{-->{{/.....\}}<!--{{{//{{????/////}}...}}\\\}{{{{}}}--> is essentially {{/.....\}} with similar characters surrounding it hidden by <!-- --> to confuse. If that still doesn't make sense, let me know. John Reaves (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Thank you for the very fast response. I have no clue what any of the above means :) (patcularly in an HTML comment, as in how the wiki-parser does anything with it other than display nothing due to nothing but an HTML comment is beyond me at the moment, but perhaps another look at your user page source, the __NOEDITSECTION__ documentation will help; though I somehow doubt it) but the simple answer/fact is that there isn't a read-only flag that can be passed to the internal wiki-editor. It's all I was curious about and don't want to circumvent any anti-vandalism; 'secrets' or otherwise. Thanks again for your speedy response, User:John Reaves/.....\! :) —S-Ranger 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That's the point, the hidden characters are vestigial, i.e. they serve no purpose (except to confuse and mislead). The only thing serving a function is {{/.....\}} which works the same way as a template (e.g. {{test1}}, through transclusion. All subpages of a page can be linked by just typing /+title (e.g. /talk). The NOEDITSECTION just eliminates the [edit] links from the sections. John Reaves (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Holy cow is this AI software responding? :) Don't you have better things to do? Just kidding, I just am astounded at the amazing responses. I know C, C++ (assember, not that it matters around here) and am used to terms like inheritence and overriding public class functions/data. It's the terms and syntax around here that blow me away, but thanks for the link to inheritance and overriding, called transclusion. I still don't understand the User:Example/.....\ concept (at all) but I don't expect tutorials here. Thanks for taking the time to provide what you did. I appreciate it. —S-Ranger 23:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Portal RFD Closure

You closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 17#Portal.E2.80.93related redirects to the Portal: namespace early today. However, you didn't remove the {{rfd}} tags from the articles. Can you please complete the closure? Thanks. -- JLaTondre 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I tagged them all by hand, but I'll run AWB and remove all the tags. mattbr 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 Done. mattbr 09:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Waterloo

Hello, I have some edits I would like to do on this article. There are alot of missing wikilinks. Perhaps you could ask the warring editors to stop editing the article until their content dispute is resolved? It does not seem to be a really controversial subject, and I should think the editors would comply (or you could always block them). Thanks, Jerry 00:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page still protected? This is preventing me from improving the article. Jerry 05:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

I was on vacation during your RfA. Congratulations, -- The Hybrid 05:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when that happens. I would like to ask you a favor, actually. TNA Impact! was recently the but of an edit war that left the page fully protected for 20 days over, you won't believe this, capitalization. Consensus has been established to follow the MoS and spell it Impact! in the article. TJ Spyke is not happy about this, and has already edited against consensus. Could you add that article to your watchlist, and look at the edits that he makes when you see them, please? He will use false edit summaries, just so you know. It would make me feel better if an admin were to watch the page and him for policy violations. Peace, -- The Hybrid 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, -- The Hybrid 04:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

Hi, you're shown as the blocking admin for an autoblock on user:210.49.218.202. The IP address is used solely by bradles 01 who is a sock puppeteer with a lengthy history and what seems to be an obsession with one article, Sports trainer. For some reason he is currently able to edit articles using that IP address - I suppose someone lifted the autoblock but I don't know why.

His recent edits include this strange one[2], and removing the blocking notices from his old user talk page (I reverted). He left a message on my talk page[3] which shows he's still determined to get that sports article back under his control!

IMHO this IP address should be permanently blocked.

andy 11:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon[omg plz] 20:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Just a reminder, plase don't substitute {{RFPP}} on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, because it upsets the bot. Thanks. – Steel 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks, I was thinking twice on this one but I came to the conclusion it was a vio. Again, thanks! Tellyaddict 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Mencia

Thanks for the protect, this page has long been a target for vandals or people engaging in edit wars, lately the problem had been vandalism and people posting copyright violating youtube videos as sources. But if its not that, its people just trying to vandalize the page. I know your protect isn't indicative of support for one version of the article or another, but this will at least cut down on vandalism until things cool down. KimboSlice 19:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Lacrosse semi-protect

Thanks for the semi-protection for lacrosse. Is it possible to extend the protection until the end of the season (approx. June1)? Sammyj 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done John Reaves (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's great. Thank you very much! Sammyj 19:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

When you remove reports on AIV without blocking, could you be a little more specific than "invalid" in your edit summary? That'll help those of us reviewing users/IPs when we see them suddenly disappear from the list. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 07:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Userpage.

Thank you! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ROT26 Decoder Ring (talk • contribs) 08:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

RainingmySoul

Can you block this guy? Seems to, somehow, avoid the sock blocks imposed by the RFCU case. Thanks for the block of the sockpuppeteer. --KZ Talk • Contrib 06:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Jessica Liao/Raining Sockpuppets

As KZ mentioned the case directly above this post... I want to thank you for helping block the sock puppets that Jessica was using.. I have tried really hard to follow proper procedure and I'm glad it looks like I can finally put her vandalism and rash string of edits behind me. Thank you for your quick action this case. MrMacMan 07:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisting RFD Nominations

Please don't relist RFD nominations. If you feel there is not enough discussion to close, just leave that day's page transcluded on the WP:RFD page. The page is not long enough to justify the disconnect copying causes in the history. People shouldn't have to go through multiple days history to validate the discussion if needed. Also, the default answer to RFD is delete (see guiding principle #3). If no one comments on the nomination, it should be deleted, not relisted. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 11:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Seaned

Hi John, I know I jumped the gun last time on reporting this guy to AIV, that's my bad and I'm sorry, but he is continuing to blank his talk page leaving messages such as "screw you" and edit summaries calling people stalkers and threatening to create a new account. Bmg916Speak to MeLeave Your Mark 16:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My User page

Cheers for the semi-protection. I can get on with doing something productive now! TheOne00 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

JD

Thanks for the protect, but he's now applied for unprotect.HarvardOxon 01:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RFPP - Heroes

John, I just edit conflicted with you at WP:RFPP on the Heroes request. Are you sure that's wise- I was going to decline it. The issues haven't gone away and unless a consensus determines that this redirect page should point elsewhere, I don't think its a great idea to unprotect it at the request of one editor... WjBscribe 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll watchlist it and reprotect if the revert warring continues. It just seems to me that the only reason to unprotect a redirect is to change its target- and changing the target of that redirect will probably start an edit war... WjBscribe 01:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support.

Dear John Reaves/Archive8,

Thank you very much for your kind words and supportive comments on my recent RfA. I've been shot down again, so it won't be happening this time. I hope, though, that I can hear from you again next time around - and there definitely will be a next time.

Best wishes,

-- Earle Martin [t/c] 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

I respect your decision to not unblock me, but everyone is overlooking the 2,000 pound elephant in the room....Calton. He violated the same 3 revert rule, no block. I do, trying to reach consensus on a page, trying to do the right thing. He brates people left and right and has an RfC about it, no one notices. I use a word that might be in the slightest bit rude, I get snapped at. 2,000 pound elephant in the room...and it ain't me!

Please, take a look at this rouge editor, who has had 3 blocks on him already, more than one RfC (one still open) and numerous complaints and yet he continues to be here with on consequence. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

  • Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Thank you very much for protecting my page. --Meaneager

WikiProjects

Thanks for unprotecting my userpage. By the way, what WikiProjects are you working on?? If there's any disputes or articles that need work, I'll gladly help you if you want.... --SunStar Net talk 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage and blocking the user who vandalized my user page. Amos Han Talk 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi John Reaves/Archive8, could you also fully protect the User talk page, cheers! Tellyaddict 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Sdfne

This page appears to be an odd honey trap for a curious vandal. He randomly changes verb tenses in articles and templates. He appears to be User:chrisaldous and a variety of IPs, see [4]. I recommend blocking Chris Aldous indef and tracking this user. He may also be a sock of User:Jj0909jj, see [5] (more random tense changing) and [6] (same ip being identified as Jj0909jj) by User:Warrens. I don't know who the original puppeteer might be though. Nardman1 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates

True, but I don't really care about them. And anyone noticing them is more likely to look askance at him. Michael Sanders 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive revert editor / will not respond to discussion page / I have reverted three times so can do no more

Would you please review Panties in which the editor User:Robotman1974 has repeatedly reverted my edits, calling them "unsourced" and "OR?" I have moved the objectionably material to the discussion page until it can be sourced, but Robotman continues to revert my other changes to the page regardless. Robotman will not respond to posts I made on his talk page. He refuses to discuss or reach consensus. 67.101.243.74 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • User:Robotman1974 has now posted three different warnings. We both warned the other initially, and after he removed his, I removed mine. Now, however, he has reverted all my edits to the article in question and added these three different warnings to my talk page. ---- I apologize if this is not the usual way to report such activity. Please let me know how I should do so better in the future if that is the case. 67.101.243.74 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The reverts in question are here, here and here. Each time I removed content that was entirely unsourced and to my view constituted original research. As far as I understand the policies at WP:ATT, WP:CITE and WP:OR, I was right to remove this content. As for the claims of edit warring, I hardly think these three reverts on this article can be called that. I need to ask John, do you really think my actions on this article amount to an edit war? If you don't, then please remove or strike out the statement you left on my talk page saying that I am edit warring. On to the issue of discussion with the user. The claim that I "will not respond to discussion page" is false. For the first revert, I left no message. For the second, I left the standard level 1 unsourced message. The user at 67.101.243.74 then left a level 1 deletion message on my talk page. I removed this warning as bogus because it is. To remove unsourced material and original research from an article is not a violation of policy, and is not a mistake or an action taken in bad faith. If you believe I shouldn't have removed this warning John, you're welcome to restore it to my talk page. The second message I left the IP user can be seen here, along with a restoration of the previous warning and a message not to remove legitimate warnings from talk pages. That was after I had removed the unsourced information (which now contained less text) for the third time. I don't believe any of this can be seriously called edit warring or refusal to communicate. If you think otherwise John, please let me know. I would also very much like to know if I have made any violations of Wikipedia policy in my actions. If so, and upon your request I can restore the bogus warning to my talk page, restore the unsourced material to the article or remove the warnings I left at User talk:67.101.243.74. Please let me know. Thanks. Robotman1974 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi John, thanks for the quick reply. Point taken on that. What about the other questions I asked though? Was I wrong to remove that content? I ask because I frequently remove unsourced statements and original research from articles while I go through my watchlist. Is this the wrong thing to do? Should I stop? Robotman1974 03:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RE

I meant to bring it up yesterday, but it slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder. I'll do it now. Peace, -- The Hybrid 23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

DFTT. ;) —210physicq (c) 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

hi who r u?

editprotected

Note for you at MediaWiki talk:Newuserlogpagetext. — coelacan — 07:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi there

I understand you've deleted my article on HAVOCA where I used some of the organisations own publicity to inform the article. I have their permission to do this.

Any chance you can reinstate the article?

All the very best

--HAVOCA 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi. What were you talking about in my user page? --212.51.117.25 11:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

hmm...Just ignore that notice. I think John made a mistake... --KZ Talk • Contribs 11:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Reaves/Archive8&oldid=1144122509"