User talk:Winhunter/Archive-Jun06

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I would ask that you use restraint when suggesting pages for deletion. You have marked a page that is just a few hours old, and is part of a major task by WikiProject ADF to develop RAAF pages. We're working out then up, so whilst now it contains little information, its existance is significant as we have made articles for every RAAF unit. Each one will be developed in the coming days and weeks to full sized articles.

I suggest that a tag to ask for expansion, rather than deletion, may be more appropriate. If you feel strongly against this idea, I suggest bringing the issue up on the project discussion page. Please remember this article is part of a much larger series of articles, the quality of which has improved dramatically in the past few days because of these articles.

If after a fair amount of time (say a month) it is still a very short article, then perhaps it would be appropriate to do as you have done. You must give it a chance to grow.

I have removed your tag as it already has the stub tag asking for expansion. I think that is sufficient. Justinbrett 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Re " re-did merge - You cannot just cancel a well discussed merge long after the discussion is closed, you can only propose in talk page. " [1] - Pardon. Where was the merge proposal well-discussed? — Instantnood 14:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do my eyes decieve? I have gone over the history of this article several times and I do not see any reference to ISO codes, only IOC codes. Then I added the ISO link. Instantnood has insisted three times I removed ISO information. SchmuckyTheCat 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Winhunter! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I Notice you are Userfying userboxes. I recently did a lot of Substing so All of them are coming up on my watchlist.

Why i was editing i was constantly wondering if i was doing the Right thing. I would like to tell you I support you actions and I am sorry for you delay in editing reading this message.

You do not need to respond to this message. Keep up the Good work --E-Bod 02:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I totally agree with the German solution, but regarding the template that has been moved, I had created a template at User:Djr_xi/User vote since the right back when I created the original {{user vote}}. Based on the old WP:UUB theory, shouldn't the redirect be aimed at the creator's page? Regards, DJR (Talk) 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't really care where the userboxes is located. Just somewhere in the userspace. If you want to follow WP:TGS on uesrboxes that you create, I'd suggest you to take the first intitiative. Afterall, everything in Wikipedia is collaborate efforts by all editors, it is rather hard to say who "own" something here. --Hunter 10:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I couldn't agree more. I like the TGS template you've created though - at the moment I've just redirected the old ones to my user space. DJR (Talk) 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to recreate the redirect at least for now? I just started moving the page to my userpage in an pilot test for the German solution. Currently in the migrating process (bypassing redirects). I am requesting at least a couple hours before deleting the redirect to allow the migrating process to complete. --Hunter 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Winhunter, my sincerest apologies for not having responded to your query in a timely manner; I have, at present, been extraordinarily busy. Of course, I defer to the judgement of others, and if anyone wishes to put the redirect back that's fine. I would say for the record, however, that I think the German solution lacks the necessary elements of control - in particular, standard norms on what userbox topics are acceptable - and, as I see it, the German solution "solves" nothing other than to make userboxes exempt from T1 deletion when they are inflammatory or divisive. After all, a page can still be included as a template even if it isn't in Template: namespace, and as a consequence I sincerely feel that the situation is not only as bad, but is also possibly worse, than the present status quo, since userspace has become considered by many to be sacrosanct from administrative scrutiny outside of exceptional issues. However, I will leave you to your project, as there is a good chance you may still find success with this solution regardless as I may, from my biased perspective, have missed the crux of the matter; I wish you the best of luck with the German solution implementation regardless of my somewhat embittered opinion on it. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I can see why you AWB'd the userbox out (I'd still have preferred it if you'd just notified me of the German Solution first, then asked me if I'd like to subst them or have them changed to your subpage), but I am still confused as to why you changed the symbols in my signature. My signature is present on hundreds of pages across Wikipedia, including archived voting pages - are you going to alter all those for the sake of reducing the pagelength by a few characters? Just so you know, I am 'one of that crowd' who gets very annoyed by anyone except the user him/herself editing their own userpage. I see from your contribs you also did the same thing (back to the UBXs here) to hundreds of other userpages - do you think this is enormously wise? Thanks for trying to do something to save my userboxes (I am very passionate about them), but in the future, please do it a bit more unobtrusively. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Due to the German Solution, I was about to subst all by userboxes anyway.

Right, thanks. Glad that's all cleared up. Have a nice day! —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 09:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I originally had a box on my page declaring that I do not support recycling. Through the current userbox movement, it has been turned into a box saying that I do support recycling. Please create a page at User:Winhunter/Userboxes/no recycling for everyone who was using the "no recycling" template and was redirected to the "recycling" template. Thank you.--M@rēino 20:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks!--M@rēino 17:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my Fidesz link! I would have had no idea what to do. May I ask... Just out of curiosity... Do you personally support all the parties and causes listed on your Userbox page? Because there seem to me conflicts between some of them... for instance, Fidez and socialist/communist parties have pretty much completely opposite ideologies. Don't answer if you don't want to; I'm just curious. Thanks again!
Korossyl 22:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My name had been deleted from the list, but was not yet appearing on the checkpage and I was unable to use AWB. I thought perhaps my name had accidentally been deleted and passed over for consideration.

AWB is now working for me and my name is on the check page; I don't know if there was simply a delay between removal of my name from the requests list and inclusion on the checkpage, or if I was added after re-requesting. In any case, the point is moot now. The powers that be can safely remove me from the checkpage! --Jpbrenna 15:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[2]

OK, you changed my userbox to the new location on your pages, but now it has disappeared. What is going on here? —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 00:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was browsing through RC when I noticed that both you and NMChico24 reverted edits by an anonymous poster to the page Analogman using that program. The problem is, that was a perfectly legitimate edit he/she was making, deleting a spurious refference to some troll on a Wilco messageboard that had no place in the article. I don't know just how much info the program gives you on the nature of the post you're reverting. If you really looked at it, and think that sort of thing belongs there, than that's one thing. Otherwise you're just replacing garbage left their by a different anonymous poster in a snowballing effect. Icelight 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I myself don't know how to convert images into .svg format. If you genuinely want to replace it with .svg format, please kindly help convert the one from government website into .svg format, and upload it.

As for the "Hong Kong, China" article, there is apparently no evidence or justification to the claim that all materials are already in the "Hong Kong" article. Further, I fail to see a consensus on that. You've been the only person who has explicitly agreed with user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim. If you're serious about it, could you please kindly show the community the evidence and/or justifications, and your reasoning. Thanks. — Instantnood 12:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I've made no such claim (If I had, please cite it). Second, there's no such community consensus. — Instantnood 12:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cite if you're sure I've made such claim. Who's the third person agreeing with user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim, apart from you and user:SchmuckyTheCat himself? Could you please cite her/his relevant remarks that demonstrates she/he does. — Instantnood 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did I make that claim [3]? Please quote my words if you're sure I did. Please also quote user:CPAScott's words and your reasoning to explain why she/he supports user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim. In what way was user:Chanheigeorge's remarks demonstrating she/he agreed with the merge with the same reason(s) as you do? Last but not least, would you be able to convert the flag image from government website into .svg format? Thanks. — Instantnood 13:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered the questions. How could it be repeating? — Instantnood 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the questions first? — Instantnood 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Still you're not answering the questions. Where did I make that claim [4]? Please quote my words if you're sure I did.

As for the duplication matter, whether it's duplicated or not has to be supported by presentation of evidence (like what user:CPAScott did [5]), instead of supported by proclamation by people.

Like what I've explained at talk:Hong Kong, I invite people who're interested in and familiar with Hong Kong-related topics and/or terminology issues, based on, unavoidably, my own experience of exchanging with different people on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 13:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You accused me for having made that claim [6], and you have effectively refused to provide the quote.. May I know if that means you're admitting your accusation was an invalid one?

Based on past experience could be dangerous, but as demonstrated by the current non-binding straw poll, not every user who'd received my notification supported my position. I didn't know their points of view, and I did not attempt to influence their points of view by way of the notification on their user talk pages. There's nothing suspicious that you or anybody else has to be worried about. — Instantnood 14:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To repeat, please quote me if I really claimed that. I don't say anything based merely on my feelings (something that must be avoided with editing duties of an encyclopædia).

Have you ever heard of the common law principle that one is innocent until proven guilty? And.. as a matter of fact, from what I can predict their points of view when there's no clue at all? They've never joined any discussion related to whether such an article on terminology should exist. — Instantnood 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You accused me for having made that claim [7], but as a matter of fact I never do. Please quote me if you're sure I ever did.

As I've said, there's no clue I can know or predict what they'd think. They've never taken part in any single discussion related to this matter. No one could regard an apple as an orange. — Instantnood 14:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(indention reset) Are you able to tell the differences between " nothing was moved " and " something is not already there "? I provided evidence for the former, but you've kept accusing me for having claimed the latter (which I never claimed). You've never provided any evidence that the materials were already duplicated, by the way.

You may feel that an apple is an orange, and you may call it as such, but an apple is never an orange, regardless of what you feel or what you do. — Instantnood 15:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I restore the article because nothing was moved, and because the two articles serve very different purposes, as I've said [8]. You talk about feelings [9], but evidence shall prevail, always. You've never demonstrated in what way user:CPAScott shares your and user:SchmuckyTheCat's view. User:CPAScott explained for her/himself [10]. — Instantnood 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take my words out of context. — Instantnood 15:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You simply claimed she/he does. There was no evidence presented to justified your claim, until she/he spoke for her/himself. Whether the materials were really duplicated has to be justified by evidence, not by proclamation by consensus. No referendum or act of parliament can declare a man to be a woman (or vice versa).

You quoted " Based on past experience could be dangerous ", dropping ", but as demonstrated by ... ". I hope you're not attempting to take words out of context? — Instantnood 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but then evidence has to be first presented, or else the jury would have nothing to base upon to decide. Apparently you and user:SchmuckyTheCat have never presented any evidence to justify your claim that the materials were already duplicated when Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect.

I don't think there's anything wrong with those actions of mine. — Instantnood 16:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Obvious" is hardly evidence. It's feeling, personal judgment, regardless of how many people sharing it.

I don't know and I don't care what their points of view would be, when I put up notifications on their user talk pages. The outcome is already demonstrating it didn't happen to be vote rallying. — Instantnood 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I never feel or claim so. Quote if you are sure I did express so.

Lack of evidence. As I've said, a man wouldn't become a woman (or vice versa) by referendum or act of parliament.

Already proven it wasn't. — Instantnood 18:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You've kept accusing with little (if not no) basis. Would mediation be able to help? — Instantnood 18:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think they would help you look for grounds to support what you accused? — Instantnood 09:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you not providing the quote to demonstrate that I really claimed so, before user:CPAScott spoke for her/himself? — Instantnood 12:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You accused me for claiming that " something was not already there " before user:CPAScott elaborated on the subject. But what I said was " nothing was moved " (with evidence from edit history). Can you tell the differences between the two statements? If you are sure I did claim so (the former statement) before her/his elaboration, why can't you quote me?

Could you help convert the flag images from official sources into .svg format? — Instantnood 12:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

(indention reset) Please refer to [11]. If you've got no evidence that I did claim so before user:CPAScott's elaboration, your accusation is apparently groundless. — Instantnood 12:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an actual fact you haven't, until this moment, provided any justification for your accusation that I claimed so before user:CPAScott's elaboration. You said it's your feeling and your own view [12] [13]. Would mediation help provide justifications?

Will you be able to convert the flag images? — Instantnood 12:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've no opinion regarding whether flag images should be in .svg format, as long as the .svg-format flag images are accurate. — Instantnood 12:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What else do you think would mediation be necessary, useful and helpful? — Instantnood 13:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not asking why is mediation necessary, useful and helpful. I was asking "What else". — Instantnood 13:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The first and second matter are on RfC. As I've said, I've no opinion regarding the third matter as long as the .svg flag images are accurate. For the forth matter, a non-binding straw poll is already taking place, and for the fifth matter, as I've said, a man can't be proclaimed to be a woman (or vice versa) by referendum or decision of parliament. — Instantnood 14:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The first matter has been on RfC for some time. Please do some homework before you say anything. Mediation may not be suitable and appropriate as RfC does, since the matters are not topics that only two persons or parties are interested.

Inaccuracies are inaccuracies, no matter how minor they are. Please bear in mind this is an encyclopædia. (If you don't already know) Please be noted that I've already requested to fix the inaccuracies with the .svg flag images.

There are already Wikipedia official policies and guidelines regarding how community consensus should be reached, employed and applied. Who are the "they" are you talking about?

Is there any other issue that you wish to bring to mediation? — Instantnood 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot understand what did you mean by " your responses has shown exactly that we have disagreement that we haven't solved through talking " [14]. — Instantnood 14:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested and explained above how the five issues you've suggested should be handled, instead of mediation. (Please be reminded to make good use of the "Show preview" button, by the way.) — Instantnood 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements always exist, and not every can be resolved, with or without third party involvement. — Instantnood 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

(indention reset) Mediation is very often, but not always useful. Is there any other matter and/or issue you would like to bring to mediation? — Instantnood 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You've already been told that there are currently other ways in progress to resolve the first, second and forth issues or matters you've suggested. For the third and the fifth ones, I've also explained why mediation is not necessary. — Instantnood 17:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The first, second and forth issues or matters are already in the process of resolution. The third issue or matter needs no resolution, as long as the in accurate .svg flag images are replaced with accurate ones, according to official sources. The fifth issue or matter is not a matter of dispute, i.e. no resolution is necessary, since it's already a Wikipedia official policy. — Instantnood 17:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the speedy, as MARMOT created it 17 minutes (at 19:18, 6 January 2006) before he was blocked (at 19:35, 6 January 2006) and I'm not sure if Linuxbeak knew it was there. I left him a note so he can look at it first. It's been there a while and a couple more days won't hurt. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. -- Scientizzle 20:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why you reverted today's anon edits to Ron Darling? They look perfectly valid to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix a piece of code that works in Italian wiki but not in English one. I am working ona SLOW line. Please, do not revert code, otherwise I won't fix it. Thank you in advance.--Dejudicibus 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologies. Your work is a demonstration of care to protect user pages. I switched to IE to Firefox, so I did not realized I was no more logged in. I appreciate your initiative. No problem.--Dejudicibus 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to accept your nomination for adminship. ;-) — The King of Kings 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WInhunter, Bristol-Myers Squibb is spelled with 2 b's. The IP address guy left it as "Meyers", so it redlinked. I corrected the link in the article. Argyriou 21:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi would you please elaborate more Thank you

Bloger 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Range has been blocked. No need for more alerts. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Helps when one does the range block correctly. :) should be working now. And others did a range block too. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah doing it right does that. lol --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, any way to block this user permanently? I notice a lengthy list of warnings on his/her user page, the last one being from you. So thought you'd like to know that person was just at it again, vandalizing Fall for Dance Festival. Thanks. J. Van Meter 13:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

-thanks for the explanation. at least there are lots of good people around doing lots of reverts.J. Van Meter 18:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I know support your RFA. Anonymous__Anonymous 18:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw some edits that struck me as POV, but I could be wrong and I didn't write down the differences. in my opinion an editor who has strong POV's might be unfair as an admin. I hope you don't take it personally as everyone is entitled to POV, but in my own opinion only totally neutral individuals should be admins. Just my opinion and my vote is mainly based on that, it doesn't mean I think you are a bad editor because I am under the impression that everyone here is on their own choice and no one should be treated wrongly unless they cause problems, but I didn't see any of your edits as someone causing problems. Hope you understand and if not, I can try to ask your questions. --HResearcher 05:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha! You must be mind reader. It is those edits about Taiwan that made me think perhaps you had a strong POV. Like I said I could be wrong about you. I'll take a closer look at those edits to make sure I am not opposing you from my own biased view. Please give me some time. --HResearcher 05:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Winhunter, after reviewing those edits that struck me wrong, I realized I was the one who was wrong. And I looked at your other edits and you have been fair and civil ever since joining Wikipedia. Good luck! --HResearcher 05:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not too long, but too short of edit summaries in some cases. Even the vandalism reverts I mark. Also, I had made a rather foolish mistake in linking a category. This is fixed now. I had just recently helped someone fix category links they'd made too. Sorry about making the comment confusing because of that. Kevin_b_er 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No no, there's a ton of people tagging images, but there's a huge admin backlog on it. So you see, there's more than just mopping up the vandals, you have to clean the image toilets sometimes too! Kevin_b_er 02:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a contib link. All the helpdek edits have 0 edit summaries. [15] A page or two older there's edits to user's talk pages, edits to AfD discussions(though you later("newer") started putting 'del' and 'k'). Here's a big tip: There's an option in your prefs, Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary under Editing, which reloads the edit page with a warning to you if you don't put an edit summary the first time. The media-wiki software is even good enough to know if a section edit has a summary, as /* RfA */ is not an edit summary. This has helped me a good few times when I ment to put an edit summary, but managed to hit the save page insted of preview. I'll find more when I get a way to hide minor edits from contribs. Kevin_b_er 03:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Drat, ok. That's two errors at once. Concise is the completely wrong word for this. Completely wrong word. Kevin_b_er 04:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged that your RfA had no consensus. Keep up your prolific editing, and the mop will be yours in 3 months. I look forward to having another HKer join our corps of sysops! Kimchi.sg 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course you can. =DKimchi.sg 07:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I had erased part of the section on Britney Spears because someone had written she was a pole dancing slut, who had a sex change, 1000 std's, etc etc, which is vandelism in itself - so I don't think me erasing that was vandelism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.34.215 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 June 2006.

Hi WinHunter, thanks for your message. Regarding edit summary use, I like to see a reasonably high usage because it makes it so much easier for monitoring the watchlist. And I think it needs to be particularly high for admin candidates. 51% is still too low for me. I could see no other reasons to object to your admin candidacy, though, and would be happy to support you later if this RfA does not succeed. Thanks for your message and good luck with your RfA. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

my changes for South Korean national football team was right, and I don't think you have the right to accuse me of vadalling any stuff, man—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 26 June 2006.

Pim Verbeek signed a contract to coach the team today, but his reign begins on August 1st, and Dick Advocaat has already stepped down to coach a team in Russia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 26 June 2006.

If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me - So I will. You removed my comment from User:IronChris claiming that it was nonsense and vandalism. I can agree with you there, however, it states on his user page If you want to modify/customise/vandalise my user page, please feel free to do so by clicking here. & Modify/customise/vandalise here!. Therefore, it shouldn't really be classed as vandalism. --124.184.176.56 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Winhunter, thanks for keeping your eye on IronChris' userpage. The anon who vandalized it is a repeat offender; at least he's not adding profanity anymore, like he used to. I don't know what it is, but for some reason he really likes that "vandalize here" spot... IronChris showed him some compassion in the past, trying to help him out of his vandalizing ways, and this is how he repays him each time he comes back with a new user acount (he's been blocked indefinitely 3 times, that I know of anyway) or IP address. So, don't worry about your revert, seriously. But, keep an eye out, if you can. :) Thanks, romarin [talk ] 16:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your decision to revert my changes to the Jabberwocky page. I changed the word 'boring' to 'worry' in the Glossary section to match the actual quotation from "The Hunting of the Snark," as cited in the Pronunciation section of the same article. Carroll wrote:

the first "o" in "borogoves" is pronounced like the "o" in "borrow." I have heard people try to give it the sound of the "o" in "worry." Such is Human Perversity.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.79.145.220 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

I have now created an official user account and made the same change to the Jabberwocky page.

E James 00:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Though I see you're a recycler, I've gotta thank you for your anti-recycling userbox. I highly recommend you check out the "Recycling" episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! --Raoul Duke 09:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)