I did not edit the pages of users. I made a thread named Woodo_Is_Gay then it got removed........This IP belongs to an ISP proxy

Perhaps not; what is the correct tag for a book cover? I know that they are permitted under general distribution (similar to an album cover...)Pacian 11:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You probably mean "Fair use", but keep in mind that that will restrict its use to articles on the book or on its author, for the most part. --W(t) 11:31, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Right cheers. Eitherhand, I found the correct tag - for your future reference it is "bookcover" (bracketed obviously,) so if anyone ever makes this mistake again you can correct it for them and then alert them to the correction. Pacian 11:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the revert on my userpage. JeremyA 13:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't think about the consequences of my edit ^_^
Next time I'll be more careful.--JadziaLover 18:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like the Church of Reality - fine - but quit deleting my work.--Marcperkel 06:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heya, I noticed you were on copyvio patrol, glad to see it. Did you know about {{nothanks}}? The text isn't perfect, but it beats typing out the warnings. --W(t) 06:18, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Yes, I do, but I didn't feel that the text there was really the message I wanted to send. Besides, I type fast enough. :) Kelly Martin 06:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hate to use Google as a gauge of anything, but "Yoda D'kana" returns precisely 137 hits. Most of these also describe Yoda as a "whill", which is already debunked in the article. Furthermore, if "Yoda D'kana" were indeed Canon, I find it hard to believe it would take this long for someone to add it to the article. I'm not about to get into an edit war over the subject, however; if I'm right, the diehard SW fans will no doubt correct it in short order. -- Hadal 06:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Though I'm hesitant to use the "it would have been added already" argument for these sorts of things, the rest is a good point. I've removed it again and added a note on the talk page asking if someone could clarify. Thanks, and keep up the good work! --W(t) 06:47, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Thanks! I have blocked the spammer now. Shanes 07:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ta. And in an uncharacteristic stab at cooperativeness, (68.170.0.238 (talk · contribs)) is back too now. A slightly less obvious block, but blocking him does appear to be the popular option recently, and I do think this falls under disruption of wikipedia. --W(t) 07:14, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Yeah. done. Shanes 07:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what did specifically did you think was wrong with the page and why did you delete most of it's contents?

Michaeljosephcleary 08:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopædia; Things like cinema schedules are inappropriate. the article on Film previews should be about why film previews are held, how they effect films, what their drawbacks are etc. See Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not for more info. --W(t) 08:28, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

I believe that there are only four ongoing Film Previews available in the world, and I was just documenting them and did not include detailed schedules, just links to their respective web sites.

If I can't discuss the specific instances of Film Previews, it doesn't make sense to have a high-level, flowery page for it...

Michaeljosephcleary 08:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Film previews are a pretty common thing; most venues might not constantly have them but as an occasional event it's not unusual. Anyway, just leave it as is and we'll see if it grows into something worthwhile. Don't blank pages by the way, see {{blanking}}. --W(t) 08:43, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Your statement above that "most venues might not constantly have them" sort of justified having the list of the four ongoing Film Previews series and discussing their pros and cons.

I blanked the page out because I do not know how to delete it now that no other real wiki pages link to it.

Michaeljosephcleary 09:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you have a decent, referable source for those four being the only ones, I suppose they could be mentioned as such. But merely in a sentence of prose, I think having a table with all the logistic info is way over the top.

See Wikipedia:Deletion policy for info on how deletion works here. --W(t) 09:09, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

I have this content elsewhere on the Inet, and thought that it might be nice to put it in here and contribute to Wiki.

It is a shame that you didn't follow common sense and normal protocol. I think that this should have been handled in the discussion page, instead of you blindly deleted most of my information without talking about it.

I work with a large team of people at work, and enjoy the interaction of ideas and creativity. You have given me a sour taste of Wiki.

Michaeljosephcleary 09:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the medal. (Kind of embarassing, really.) But I really appreciate the, er, appreciation! You brought a smile to my face. Oh, and now I'll have to work harder, to prove I actually deserve it. :) Thanks again. --Dmcdevit 08:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, that wasn't me removing that section on my user page. Thanks for the revert! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:16, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Weyes, in return for your dedicated and level-headed RC patrolling I have nominated you for adminship. Please leave a note on that page whether you accept the nomination, and answer the standard questions on how you will use your adminship. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've declined it, but the vote of confidence means a lot to me. Thanks. --W(t) 14:27, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

I can hardly believe it, but of course I respect your decision. Should you feel ready to handle the magic [rollback] button for your good RC patrolling work, please do drop me a line and I'll renominate you instantly. JFW | T@lk 15:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised, W, the rollback helps a lot. I see the amount of vandalism you revert, it really makes that sort of work significantly easier. El_C 12:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Weyes, I see you're deleting lots of external links from articles. While you're right that articles shouldn't consist of lists of links, the ones you're deleting seem quite useful, and the lists aren't that long. Also, please note that Wikipedia:External links is just a guideline, not policy. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think some more community input might help here, I've taken it to The village pump; hope you'll join in the discussion there. --W(t) 15:04, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Hi Weyes, whilst I generally support pruning external links on articles (as per comment on the Pump), my first impression is to agree with SlimVirgin that you may be going too far and deleting acceptable links on a number of recent edits.

On the other hand, looking at for example the Whois case [1] - it looks pretty severe to prune 15 links down to 1. However, I would have to agree that most of those links are low value, duplicate each other or are spam. It would seem like a good idea to link to at least a couple of whois search engines, such as http://www.internic.net/whois.html and http://www.whois.net/. The trouble is AFIK there is no one official Whois server and I can't see a good basis for favouring one over another. Pretty soon there is no reason to exclude any Whois search engine and the whole list is back.

I suspect pruning the ex-links on these internet related articles is more challenging than average. One solution might be to say there are many Whois search engines and point to an external search which would give a list of the current favourites... but then we might be favouring one search engine over another. -- Solipsist 11:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 14:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hey. If you cheched the history, JPS wanted this article to be merged in the main article: which it was. Therefore, it was a candidate for deletion. I already got slammed that this article was too short. Check my talk section. Paraphrasing JPS, "unless I can add some more information the about MichaelD. then the article should be removed". Brux 15:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion are only those which satisfy one of the criteria listed on WP:CSD; In this case, the best option is probably redirecting the articles to wherever they've been merged. --W(t) 15:40, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

what did i do? HolyWarrior

Edits like this one are not helpful. --W(t) 15:52, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

where do i write if i wanna show people that i like therr article? -HolyWarrior 15:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can contact people via their user talk pages (like this one); To find which people worked on an article, use the history link at the top of the page. --W(t) 15:56, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Hey, I guess we are going to get into a battle over On2! Why did you put the copyright violation back on and not the original content? I acknowledge it was a copyright violation and want it changed back but you are hanging some stupid sign on the article for what? Please change it back to the original content and stop this discussion-article-war. What is the purpose of hanging a copyright violation on it after the fact: because you have some rule about it that has to be followed? Brux 16:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article's a copyright violation. That means it'll have to be rewritten on the /temp page, which will be moved to the article page when the copyvio is removed, as described in the template. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more information. --W(t) 16:12, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Where is the original material? Why can't it just be copied to /temp and everything moved back to the original form? Brux 16:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The edit history can be found by clicking the history link at the top of the page, but all of that was a copyright violation. --W(t) 16:21, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

I understand the history link. My original question still remains. Where did the original material go? As you said I need to copy this text to the /temp article, so the move can occur, etc? If the original text can't be found, what then? Is the article marked for deletion since all the material is in violation according to the history log. Let me know my next step so I can get this article restored. Brux 16:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What makes you say there is "original material" beyond what is in the edit history? I can't find any evidence of there having been older versions. --W(t) 16:29, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

There was. I remember it but didn't copy it anywhere - not realizing its importance. How I remember it was it mentioned the President and CEO Douglas McIntyre which I thought was cool and that I had not included. The name McIntyre rang a bell because he was a name of publishing company in Vancouver BC where I lived back in the 80's. It described On2 as a firm working with media-compression. Its first sentence was that its stock is traded on Amex under ONT. So I am not crazy. The only time I saw it was when NatursRoma flagged me with the copyright violation in the middle of an edit and the system came back with a message saying the article had been modified while I was making modifications. When I did some refreshes I got the original content but never saw it again. Possible system problems?? Brux 16:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be this version, which is a copyright violation. --W(t) 16:44, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Nope. That is my version that I was working on. This origianl content was in wiki format. This article version is not. And I said how it started (i.e. traded on Amex) and what it included (President and CEO...). There was original content and it is gone so I can move it to the /temp. Why don't I rewrite it? Because I can only remember what I remember. There was more which I don't remember. What happens now? Brux 16:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now it sits at WP:CP for at least 7 days, and then it gets deleted (unless it turns out not to be a copyvio, which seems unlikely). If anybody rewrites it on /temp that will get moved to the main article. --W(t) 16:57, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

It takes more than two minutes to add a talk section! Joe Merkel 16:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, I just got carried away with my instincts of changing something existing into something else. It won't happen again. Btw great idea with this site, it looks excellent!

what did you change on the france article???

~jûtien

Nothing, I haven't edited the France article since may, and that was just to revert vandalism. --W(t) 01:50, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Wal-Mart; I was in the process of sending you a message asking if you'd do that. I've reported the user for a 3RR violation (I don't want to block them myself as I've been reverting them) but I'm out of reverts myself and this isn't simple vandalism. Thanks again, JYolkowski // talk 01:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I came across it. Glad to help, though I fear my three reverts aren't going to last long either. Still, there's bound to be an admin who wanders across WP:AN/3RR soo enough. --W(t) 01:52, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours after he vandalised WP:VIP and WP:AN/3RR, so that should solve the problem for tonight. Thanks again, JYolkowski // talk 02:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its the same thing only written the long way.

And more confusing to new users. There's a reason the sandbox is set up the way it is, if you want to change it, discuss it on the appropriate talk pages. --W(t) 02:55, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Hi Weyes, I see you're deleting more external links from articles -- Yet again I see. To quote SlimVirgin -- "While you're right that articles shouldn't consist of lists of links, the ones you're deleting seem quite useful, and the lists aren't that long."

You can't use the excuse that it is advertising since the links you are deleting are free information sources.

Actually, what I meant to say is that there are plenty of Yahoo Groups on other articles - not other sites. And that group really is the main discussion site for that topic, so while I respect the deletion of the other links, that one I think deserves to be reinstated. List of articles including Yahoo Groups--newsjunkie 16:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think you mean this, there's nothing wrong with articles discussing yahoo groups if they're relevant. But yes, there is still a lot of work to be done cleaning up external links, any help would be appreciated. --W(t) 16:49, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Just a follow up: " but this prohibition usually includes links to fansites and discussion forums as well unless the site is a notable one in the field. This is what I believe is the case here, it is the most notable discussion forum/group online on on this character's most important relationship on the show. Don't know if this helps, but it is also the first on a google search for both the keywords "josh donna discussion" and "josh donna group".--newsjunkie 15:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To me, it does not matter who the user is when it comes to deleting articles tagged as speedy because I have seen articles similar to this one that has been debated on VFD. All I ask is a second opinion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• And I've also seen vandals create pages that I have completely re-written. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is this RFC, where you said i should put my request for others to help me? I really want this problem to end. No matter is it vandalism or content dispute, it is an edit war. With Respect Tuohirulla 19:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Request for comment ScapegoatVandal 19:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So that the Gdansk/Vote horror never repeats itself :) Please see the proposal at my userspace, it is an updated version of Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. After I hear (or not) and incorporate comments from you and several other users I know are interested in fixing this, I will officialy move this to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and I would like you to be one of the co-signatures of the proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the comments, I tried to incorporate them into the final version. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fixing_giant_loopholes_in_Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The intent wasnt to vandalise but to show an example. Apologies if this was out of place.

Oh, right. You probably meant to edit Wikipedia:Vandalism, though I don't think it's appropriate there either as it all depends on context, which you can't show in an "example" section. --W(t) 20:19, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Uh, what're you talking about? I'm only here to research the middle ages...

There have been some disruptive edits from the IP address you're using. It could be that you're using a proxy server which is causing you to share your IP address with other users. If the IP gets blocked it will only be from editing though, so it shouldn't hinder your research. If the messages are annoying to you, you can prevent receiving messages not directed at you by registering an account (click the create account link at the top-right of the page). --W(t) 00:12, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

What is the Wikipedia policy on an organized, communicative "Revert Team"?

Thanks.

Could you please sign the petition to get 211.28.*.* banned from editing Time Cube? Thanks —Sean κ. + 00:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello, in response to your message to stop linking to articles on Helpguide.org, I see that you've been involved in a debate over whether users can link to their own site (see External links. It seems to be the consensus, that if the external link adds resourceful information to the wikipedia page, than it should be permitted. I would ask that you take a look at the Helpguide.org articles that I have linked to. You might agree that they contain resourceful information relevant to the topics in question and do not contain advertising or some other commercial work and therefore should not be removed. --Hlarson 01:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, the general opinion is that you shouldn't link your own sites, that's why it's in the guideline. --W(t) 01:28, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Do you not agree that the information is valuable for wikipedia users? Guideline is not policy as some of your other complainants have noted.

--Hlarson 01:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears you recently did a re-write on Bayeux Tapestry. Maybe you didn't know, but using a word process is OK, but turn off "fancy/smart quotes and apostrophes". It will add UNICODE (looks like &#8221; [2]) to the finished page, which WP reguards (currently) as not in good style. This may change in the future. …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 02:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not much of a content-wikipedian, I merely reverted vandalism to it. The unicode was already there, but on reverting my browser changed it from UTF-8 literals to html character entities, which isn't much of an improvement but at least made it valid Latin-1. --W(t) 03:25, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

please explain the rational behind the comment you've made on my user talk--172.130.163.53 03:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove other people's comments like you did here. It is considered vandalism and will get you blocked if you continue. --W(t) 03:47, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

message on my user page: I am trying to change my user name and also reverting all edits by me. I was not knowing all these things. I thank you for your guidance.--Legal Notice 16:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You warned User:62.171.194.44; but he's back at it in spades. If I knew exactly what to do, I'd do it myself.... Best, Bill 23:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone seems to have already handled this case, but for future reference: You can find a user's contributions by going to their user or user talk page and clicking the User contributions link. There you can view all their edits, and if there's ones you think are wrong you can Wikipedia:Revert them (Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version). Remember to make it clear on the talk page or in the edit summary why you're reverting if it's not simple vandalism.

If vandalism from a single source really becomes annoying and they ignore warnings, you can add them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress in order to get an admin to look into blocking them. --W(t) 10:43, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Contribs and reverting, I knew (all too much!), but this was the part I didn't know about, thanx: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Bill 11:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How can you say that moving my comments on possible sockpuppets to other votes on WP:TFD is not vandalism? This is most certainly vandalism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's bad faith editing, disruptive, and an excellent basis for an RFC, but I'm not quite comfortable calling it vandalism. --W(t) 12:50, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

I stand by my decision on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quantum sort. When the only evidence presented was that it was BJAODN worthy original research everyone felt it should be deleted, but after Josh Lee presented some new evidence the vote was 100% in favour of it being kept. If you feel strongly that the page should be deleted the best option would be to relist it on VfD. - SimonP 13:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

...is now on TFD, and temporarily blanked to prevent it from cluttering VFD. I've asked the author to stop it; we have two earlier discussions strongly discouraging colored boxen on VFD. FYI. Yours, Radiant_>|< 16:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I took quick look on links added by User:BerneyBoy and they do not look like spam or nonsense (there are hand drawn pictures with description). While his method of putting links on many pages w/o explanation is spam perhaps he is just bit confused. Pavel Vozenilek 18:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weyes,

Did you mean to nominate Comparison of web browsers or Comparison of web browsers (security)? From your comments and the placement of the article's VfD tag, I'm guessing it's the latter, but the former is the one pointed to in the VfD discussion.

--Xcali 21:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for the alert. --W(t) 22:02, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Hello, You've nominated Comparison of web browsers (security) for deletion. While it's an interesting compilation of information, You're not sure it belongs in an encyclopædia.

I think that there is another interesting comparison, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_operating_systems_%28security%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_operating_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_%28CSS%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_%28HTML%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_%28XML%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_%28XHTML%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_%28graphics%29

So I think this type of comparison should stay on Wikipedia, becouse they are interesting and important for many users. They also have relation with topic such as web browsers, security. They are based on facts and reports from renowned and highly regarded security firm - Secunia.

But I respect your opinion and I wait for result. I won't have been too disappointed and stick around though. --Ptomes 05:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you removed the link to http://pcking.ca/wikilyrics/index.php/Category:Interpol that someone added as "spam", but it's just another wiki, except it's full of lyrics. Why did you do so? -- claviola (talk to me) 07:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikilyrics. --W(t) 07:24, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Right, that does it, I'm stopping RC-patrolling until I've seen the Dr. Who season finale, there's just too many spoilers floating around in edit summaries :-). Don't expect any responses to talk until at least tomorrow… --W(t) 08:29, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

"Hi, Marmot here; are we still on for Thursday?"

-- Yours, Marmot