User talk:Useight/Archive13

Hi Useight, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you rember me! :D :D :D :D :D :D --Spittlespat 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... So when are you updating your sig?--Spittlespat 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Useight, Reqluce, has a long history of incivilty and his recent edits are way out of line. His edit summaries are full of swearing and aggression for a start. I recently bumped into him again when I nominated AfM for deletion (an article he created). He made some rather bad faith allegations against me on the AfD and in edit summaries or comments, has made fun of my spelling and reading. He has already been warned about his incivilty by another admin. A quick look at his recent edits will show this is a hostile individual. I withdrew the AfD for that article, partly because notability had since been established but also because of his behavior. When I withdrew he called my nomination "stupid". These are all minor things, but together it all becomes rather uncomfortable. I was going to make a post at AN, but I know it would go unanswered as uninteresting. What can be done to resolve this long standing behavioral problem? — Realist² 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Agree, lol, how has he never had a block yet I've had like three. Don't the system suck!? He definitely needs watching over. — Realist² 19:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

I've noticed that the talk page blankers last longer before their first block. I would definitely put a ban on removing talk page warnings. — Realist² 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something says he didn't take the hint. — Realist² 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it had 0 effect on our Reqluce. He also uses the word "fecal" a lot, I had to look it up, look where it redirects to Fecal. Like a fancy way of saying shit. Odd. — Realist² 10:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well he had it coming. — Realist² 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As part of an MBA assignment, I am conducting interviews with active Wikipedia contributors. Would I be able to ask you a few brief questions about your work on Wikipedia? I am available to communicate via email or on Wikipedia. Thank you! LBV13 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Thanks for the quick response! A few questions for you: 1. What articles do you contribute to? 2. Why do you contribute to Wikipedia? 3. How often do you contribute? 4. What leads to a good/bad article? 5. What do you believe are the pros and cons of Wikipedia? 6. How much time do you devote to Wikipedia?

Thanks again! LBV13 (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Thank you very much for the quick response! LBV13 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be an experienced administrator.

Everybody is talking about beeing polite and respectfull, but there are a huge amount of editors who are quite unpolite and unpleasent to discuss things with because they are far from polite and civil. Nobody cares if an editor is ironic and insulting. Is this policy just a general recomendation? (Like user Wikid77 last messages, on User talk:Wikid77, JBsupreme on the Croquette talk page, Mountolive on the Paella talk page, just to give some examples) This makes Wikipedia a rather unpleasant place to edit.

Warrington (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Sir I need to make an infobox, a city infobox to be precise, but I don't know even the basics. Can you help me create one right from the beginner's level? Marsa Lahminal (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

What you did was simply copy the Infobox settlement code and add your own fields. What I want is to make a entirely new infobox (with a base of Infobox settlement, eg change the color or border style etc). For example take a look at these: US and India. They are basically settlement infoboxes but altered according to the country. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your support in my RFA!! • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 22:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pedro/Wisdom 89 4 As I believe you wanted to nominate? If this is not the case just let me know. It's in a sandbox because I don't want any pre-translcusion votes, noms included. Pedro :  Chat  11:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to send over a very humble thank you for your co-nomination, firstly, for doing so and secondly, for your kind words. Very much appreciated. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Useight, I just wanted to say thank you once again for your co-nomination. I'm glad that I am able to inspire confidence in you. The process didn't work out, but I'm not particularly shocked. Cheers matey. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the withdrawal (or at least the straw that broke the camel's back) can be found in what I wrote here to balloonman]. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

I need a little favor. Can you please go through this article and let me know of any citations needed, references, or peacock terms/statements that should or shouldn't be there? I mean any guidance on how to further improve it? It will be real helpful, Thanks. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

These two articles Swaan River and Soan River are about the same river with different spellings of Soane (also Soan, Swan, Swaan). I think they should be merged. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Yes sir, quite sure they are the same rivers. The problem is the word Soan or Swaan is of Sansikrit dialect, with no English versions. Some people in the local area call it SwAAn or SwAn while others will pronounce it SO-Ann. So its a bit of a problem to write exact English word. I'll prefer Saon as heading and later mention in the lead other versions. And I can work on the cleanup.

I think you better wait before merging them, let me do some research. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe this article, about Soan culture should be merged with this article about Soan Valley. Not much is written about them and Soan culture is a part of the valley so it should be added in that article under "Culture" heading. No need for a separate article. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When are you putting on your new sig? and alos would you consider me as your friend?--Spittlespat 21:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

so is it ok if I delete the sig I made for you?--Spittlespat 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Hi, Useight! I'm asking this question from you because you are the first admin that I came across after this question occurred to me. According to the page Science, it is indefinitely semi-protected. But as the page history shows, there have been edits by IPs since 9th Novemeber. The logs also show that it is still protected. Can you tell me what's going on? Chamal ^talk 12:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Thanks :) Chamal ^talk 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for contributing to my "greatest" poll on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have a few questions about images.

1. Can we upload wallpapers?
2. Certain images are present in many different sites on internet. Some of them have copyrights, some don't. Can we upload such images. We don't know what or who the original source is.
3. Can we upload images from certain blogs that don't have copyrights?
4. Can we use all old images under fair use clause, especially if they are historic and don't have any free equivalent?

P.S: The Swaan/Soan River article, I found out that they are the same river, I have given the source on the article's talk page. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

An administer needed here. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. My reply here

Doesn't this look like pure advertisement of the company? There are no references whatsoever. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsa Lahminal (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I know its been a while but I just wanted to say thanks for your feedback on my RfA. I took a little break from editing but I am going to take all the comments on board and hopefully come back a stronger and better contributor. Thanks again! Londonfella (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

I have a question about wikipolicy. I didn't make a comment on ANI or RFCU because I'm more interested in the policy rather than the individual case.

As you may know, almost 2 years ago, a very bad editor made a quasi-legal threat and was being considered for a ban. I thought the editor was very bad but the ban discussion was getting off track with discussion about other things other than the threat. I wasn't defending the user but I suggested evaluation of the edit and see if it was very threatening. The response was that anyone defending a bad person (even though I wasn't defending him) is automatically a sock. That other person was in a different part of the country as me. I was banned for months until two of the administrators dealing with the case agreed that I wasn't that person, had a totally different syntax, and editing interests. I've been editing nicely for well over a year showing that they were right.

Recently on ANI, another user was thought to be defending a blocked user. That user was automatically indefinitely blocked as a sock even though the originally blocked user is in Chicago and this person claimed to be in Atlanta. Even though others questioned the block of the Atlanta editor, nothing was done. A few days later, a RFCU was filed on that user. The checkuser said that it wasn't necessary to do a checkuser because the person was already blocked. A checkuser would be useful to see if the Atlanta editor is lying and is really in Chicago, not Atlanta.

If this is policy, then it's perplexing. Block someone as a sock then a checkuser request doesn't have to be run because the person is already blocked? If that's the case, then block Jimbo Wales as a sock of Useight and since the block is done, no checkuser is needed.

Again, I'm not so much interested in the particular person as the wikipolicy. In fact, due to my previous block for so called "defending" another user, I refuse to defend this user for fear of being accused of being a sock (even though I am no where near Chicago or Atlanta). This is sad that fear of being accused makes one not want to even inquire about a case. Chergles (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

I just saw that the checkuser, originally refused, has been run. It's currently on the "completed request" section of WP:RFCU. Again, I am more interested about wikipedia policy than the specific case. (in case you are interested, it's user ImNotObama)

I see that the editor was accused of being a sock for defending another user and was immediately banned. Others disagreed with the block both on ANI and on that editor's talk page. That editor protested saying that he is in a different city. The checkuser is now back. That editor was in a different city from his accused sockpuppetmaster (and wasn't really defending him but rather advocated a different duration of block).

The worrying thing that I see is that being neutral is potentially very dangerous in wikipedia. If one administrator thinks you are "defending" a blocked user, you could be banned as a sock. This may be happening in the above case. It certainly did happen to me almost 2 years ago and was nearly impossible to get unblocked. I don't know what the solution is. Chergles (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

A final question or two. I see the difference between a block and a ban. However, in practical terms, what is the difference between indefinite block and ban? No difference?

Also, ImNotObama's claim of editing from Atlanta has been checkuser proven and he is the accused sock of Kossack4Truth, checkuser proven to be in Chicago. Both of their edits overlap. All of the other BryanfromPalestine edits are checkuser proven to be in Chicago which means that they are not some sort of computer wizard that knows how to hijack computers in Russia, Israel, US, etc. at the same time. If they were, they would not all be editing from Chicago. Why isn't anyone considering unblock of ImNotObama?

I'm not particularly interested in ImNotObama, but the situation worries me because the person may have been wrongly blocked and won't ever be able to edit Wikipedia for life. I was in that situation and was only unblocked because one of the main administrators advocating the ban of the sockpuppetmaster did not believe I was a sock.

Thoughts on the matter? Chergles (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

This is my first time to be running for administrator... Sorry if I got wrong,,, I am just doing my best to succeed... If you want to help can you tell me all that i need to know? Thanks comment added by Rajalberini (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 November 2008

My reply here

Useight, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community. I would also like to thank my nominator Realist2 and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel (talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I routinely read some of the noticeboards, particularly ANI but also others. Today, I see a reference to ImNotObama in RFCU. It's veiled and mentioned only as a passing comment in the Fossett&Elvis request.

I'm not interested in Fossett&Elvis but the reason given by LunaSantin is very suspicious. In essence, the user requesting the RFCU is doubting that the 3 people are socks because there are telltale signs that they are not. One user left a sign that they are editing from Maryland, which is 3000 miles away from Washington state. Their edits overlap. They don't edit the same articles according to the request.

I know from personal experience of being blocked that administrators sometimes block people because of personal anger, even if the blocked user has done nothing wrong. This might be the case for Fossett&Elvis.

The checkuser declined to run it. I think that is a telltale sign that the 3 people are innocent. If they were guilty, then the checkuser would explain why. I think Luna doesn't want to reveal that there are significant flaws in the checkuser, including banning or blocking innocent people. (My area of interest was that I was blocked as a sock of a user in California even though I am not near California. I was blocked because I merely said "the proposed ban is for a legal threat, let's identify the exact sentence that people deem is a threat"; hardly defending the other user).

Why am I asking you these things? One is that I see that some innocent people may be harmed; make that IS, not may, as I was one of those people. The second reason is that being wrongly indefinitely blocked is quite traumatic. Even now, I question whether I should edit for Wikipedia. Others with not so nice a personality might degenerate into vandalism.

Thank you for being my adopter. Sorting through these issues with an understanding person like you helps.

Chergles (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Again, those users on RFCU are not a specific concern of mine. I am only concerned about the larger issue of blocking people on the sock excuse and, worse yet, when there is actually checkuser data points to innocence, yet the people are blocked. I don't encourage or discourage you from looking into those specific cases. The original reason for concern is that I was blocked last year after being falsely accused of being a sock. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Chergles (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

If you have an opinion on those specific cases, please let me know. If you have no opinion, that's ok even though I'd find that very unusual. If you prefer to let me know your opinion in private, I receive e-mail. Chergles (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you remember, I was a bit interested in the ImNotObama case. The Fossett&Elvis case mentions the other case in passing. The F&E case was reported by a user. The checkuser calls it "likely", not "confirmed" that the reporter of the F&E case is the same as two other users and East718 has indefinitely blocked that user. So if we suspect another user is "likely" to be a sock but don't have enough information to be "confirmed", then it is ok to block them? This is very confusing to me. Is it that administrator can block on a whim as long as they can think of some excuse? You explained the ban and block difference very well.

As my adopter, could you kindly explain 1) if my assessment of the necessary standard to block is correct, and 2) if you have an opinion on ImNotObama (which can be made privately, if desired). I seek a better understanding of Wikipedia workings and you can help me. I got a little jaded before because I was wrongly indefinitely blocked last year. I am trying to understand it more while I decide if I want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Chergles (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Hi can you please speak to and keep an eye on IP about his disruption to the Clint Eastwood article. I've had to revert him three times in quick succession. Basically he is vandalising the article by adding red links for images and removing fre eimages that exist. Here is his latest adding "CLint Eastwood POW REALLY COOL". Thanks Count Blofeld 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I'll keep an eye on him, too. Thanks for the heads up. Useight (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that'll be a good idea!. Thanks for your help Count Blofeld 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hes done it again

My reply here

Thanks for your help Count Blofeld 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly our IP pal is located in Tokyo, Japan. Count Blofeld 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Useight. Earlier today I ran across this and this. To my eye, both of these seem to violate WP:NOT#STATS, go against several provisions described in WP:LISTCRUFT, and — perhaps of greatest concern — appear to be nothing more or less than a wholesale grab-and-partially-formatted-dump of the information at www.fueleconomy.gov (without the nicety of alphabetic listing or vehicle categorisation sections). Both of these articles have been deleted, both deletions have been contested, both articles have been restored, and one of the articles has been re-nommed for deletion with a result of keep. It looks to me as if most of the arguments put forth by pro-keep !voters boil down to "I like it", and many of the !vote justifications evince little or no understanding of Wikipedia protocol and policy (e.g. "it's not "listcruft", whatever that means").

What is the appropriate action to take, if any? I don't believe these articles belong, I don't think they can be brought into line with policy and protocol; I think they ought to be deleted. But I don't know if there's much good to be done by reopening a closed debate, even if the standing conclusion seems to have been based on very shaky ground. I would appreciate your thoughts; I'm asking one or two other admins, as well. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

He's getting impatient, man :-) Tan | 39 18:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useight (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The RfA Barnstar
		Useight, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Is there any specific requirements to become a Recent Changes Patrol (particular of contributions, voting etc). Nothing as such is mentioned here. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

I'm guessing you watch Iridescent's page, because the possibility that you independently decided to review me minutes after your name was suggested is one that I'd rather not contemplate. However you made the decision, though, thank you for taking the time.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 18:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Thank you for the extremely thorough and stunningly fast review. I think my biggest mistake was trying Huggle before I did Twinkle, which was pretty much because I found Huggle first. I don't expect vandal-fighting to be a large percentage of my contributions over the long haul, but I'm going to improve the quality of those edits even as I reduce their quantity.

Luckily for me, my mainspace and AfD work are much more satisfying. I find them both intellectually challenging in very different ways.

Thanks again for your time.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 01:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen WALL-E yet? And also I think kirby is a better than link...--Spittlespat 18:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

so... I'm seing Bolt today at the theaters! I can't wait!--Spittlespat 18:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think a permanent semi protection on his article would be unreasonable. As soon as the semi lock was removed the IPs started messing with it again leaving it tedious work to keep reverting them. Count Blofeld 22:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Hello fellow Wikipedian! I just wanted to let you know that WikiProject San Francisco 49ers is looking for participants who are interested in improving the quality of the articles on the San Francisco 49ers! If you want to help, you can add your name to our list of participants, check out our to-do list, and most importantly, improve the articles!

--pbroks13^talk? 23:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a weak beer on me. Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion. This is an acknowledgment of your participation in the RfA of: SilkTork *YES! 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I'm sorry about David's initial mistake in reviewing my early editing record and I'm glad it was resolved so quickly. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

You can delete my request for adminship... thanks. rajlberini (talk) 4:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I have deleted it for you. Useight (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Very much... I had learned a lot.

Good luck in your RfB sequel - You are more than suited for the position. Afterall, it's not all that complicated compared to administrative duties, which you are exemplary at. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you for the very kind words. I also liked how you called me "the Useight", the one and only, in your comment at my RFB. You probably meant "that" instead of "the". But thanks again. Useight (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, yes that's what I meant but, "The Useight" has a nice ring to it. Maybe you should head on over to WP:CHU. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could get me the text from the deleted pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masters_%28Group%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Plan. I made them as a joke to my friend a while back and we were talking about them and wondering what I had written. Thanks -SaigonTheDon (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useight (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for your RFB , I have supported you last time and I havent changed my mind since then :D -- Tinu Cherian - 10:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes, see my notes therein. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I am sorry to see your RfB withdrawn. Bot, shmot -- I think you are great! Keep doing what you are doing! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoleetage (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the kind words. It is clear to me that I need to at least learn about bots. Useight (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you do it I may participate, but I've never even weighed in on an RfA so I didn't feel like I have enough knowledge to contribute on an RfB as yet. I would want my opinion to be as thoughtful as your editor reviews!--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 16:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I appreciate your taking the time to follow up in detail. It's probably not much consolation, but I'm really not keen on bureaucrats at all at the moment. I can't think of anyone I'd be inclined to support in the current climate for the role. --JayHenry (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two users who are constantly deleting a large part of the Croquette‎ article. First user RFerreira, than user RFerreira and JBsupreme. They were constantly removing the entire Croquettes in various countries section, [1] and we tried to save it,[2], [3] because it is more than half of the article [4]. They did this because they claimed the Croquettes in various countries did not have enough citations. There was a lot of trouble with this a while ago, (see the discussion page). and we managed to find some citations to some countries Croquettes.

Now they start deleting the Croquette‎ again, [5]. The information left there is wrong to, they call the Hungarian Croquette‎ for Czech. (the Hungarian Croquette‎ content is labeled now Czech Croquette) This is really missleading information, and H and B they were deleting the section before claiming that it was false information. But now the new version today really is. I also think that it has to be the same user, doing this.

But than a tag is appropriate, by user RFerreira or JBsupreme or many [citation needed] in the article.

All this is very unconstructive.

If they are right about this than this should be done for the same reasomn to the McDonald's products (international) and many many other articles too.

Warrington (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Sure I can try, even if I do not know how to find for Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Poland, Portugal and especially Russia because I do not speak the language.

But does this make sense, deleting like this?

Than McDonald's products (international) also should be deleted for the same reason. (And a lot more...)

Warrington (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

And I don't know anything about Croquet. Thanks for trying to find a source for the Philippines, this is a much nicer approach . But it is not easy to find sources for something which is not there.

And if I revert the change than it will be an edit war again.

PS (And than technically half of Wikipedia should be removed. I find it much more constructive when people will tag it as "citation needed". The other day I was hunting for sources for the Pretzel article, (somebody sprinkled it with "citation needed" and I found them all, I mean all the needed citations, there was not one fault in teh material, people do not add false information about food generally. But it was a whole days work.)

Ok, I did what I could.

Found everything exept for the Polish (nothing there) and Philippines.

It complecated a bit that (I suspect, not sure) Croquette‎ are callgirls in Brazilian and Mexican.

Warrington (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My replies here and here

Yes, I can see that, but I think that is the other way around, they were taking it from the Wikipedia, since wikipedia is free.

It is not the first time I have found articles taken from us.

(Like List of soups, for example), a copied soup list [6] and Wikipedia soup list here Revision as of 19:27, 16 August [7]. Easy to identify by this silly - Not organised yet _ section at the end. I removed that when I added more soups.

That silly section definitely ours, see earliest (when created) [8]

Warrington (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you had managed to take a look at my question below? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonfella (talk • contribs)

Could you please clarify as to which question you are referring? Useight (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just a quick question, i was looking at this profile and saw the section titled "controversy", it explains the prostitute allegations made against him and it is referenced. However, I have a query, in the Wikipedia guidlines for Biographies of living people it reads: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." What are your feelings about this and the content within the controversy section? I am of the opinion that the section although sourced is against is privacy. Should this remain in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonfella (talk • contribs)

My reply here

User:Useight/Archive13 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Useight/Archive13's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Useight/Archive13! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. :) And sorry about your RfB. :| Maybe next time? – RyanCross (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, sorry about your RfB Useight. — Realist² 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I am thrilled and flattered to receive such an honor. I thank you deeply, Rlevse. Useight (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your thing shows you're online, so I have a favor to ask since I have to run to class and don't have time to deal with it. Can you look into this:User_talk:L'Aquatique#Request_for_removal_of_attack? Thanks so much- l'aquatique || talk 02:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was away from my computer doing laundry, but I'll take a look at it now. Useight (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

I replied to you on L'Aquatique's talk page. Cheers! 65.31.103.28 (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Cookies!
		Thanks so much for dealing with that! Finally back from class and glad to see it was handled.

l'aquatique || talk 09:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if there is any way to prevent Huggle from having Sandbox changes pop up? Alansohn (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. I don't believe that can be filtered out. What I do know, though, that Gurch may be able to implement that (or tell you how to use that feature if it already exists). Useight (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the referral. Alansohn (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to butt in, but I inadvertently reverted the sandbox myself, so I looked and found this: [9] Apparently it is supposed to ignore the sandbox but that part is broken. --Kbdank71 14:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , Why do they call this [10] linkspamming? Have I made a mistake?

Warrington (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that link you added was linkspam. See WP:LINKSPAM. That site of Christmas recipes didn't appear to be selling anything. Useight (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thanks. ~Hope you don't mind asking you questions, like your adminship. Warrington (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask all the questions you want. Useight (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please, I an confused, confused, confused!

Somebody just removed your message and put a warning [11]

on my talk page when I added the link I mentioned to the article again.

??

Warrington (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead and bring it up on the article's talk page. Useight (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to take a look at these two articles, Loni Tribe is about a tribe in Pakistan, and though I haven't heard of it, I don't think it should be deleted, since its about a tribe (famous or infamous). However, when you see the article, there are so many issues that you just can't help tagging it for deletion.

The second article about a village Faridkot is somewhat related to the recent Mumbai attacks. First of all after some googling, there is no village named Faridkot in or near Khanewal or in Punjab, Pakistan. However, there is a village with the same name in India. Please refer here. Moreover, ever since the article's creation, it has been continuously vandalized. Again I am not sure whether it should be speedily deleted. Need your expertise here. Thankyou. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: I did find a few articles about the village. But the articles/links are all created after the Mumbai attacks and it cannot be proved whether the village actually exists. If you think the article should be kept than I guess it should be linked to the mumbai attack's article, since the sources cannot be proved to be authenticated. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at each article, I don't think either can be speedy deleted. According to this, there is a Pakistani village by the name of Faridkot. Loni Tribe needs a ton of work to get up to par, and if there is nothing salvageable, it could go throug WP:AFD. Useight (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your time. I have done some work on the Loni Tribe article. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also plan to do some work cleaning it up, but I can't get to something that requires that much writing at the moment, as I am working on a huge project for my Business 475 course. Graduation in five days! Useight (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sorry for templating you, but I've been templated before. If you prefer one format to the other, that doesn't mean you should change everything to your format. It says that both styles are acceptable. It's like spelling or dates, multiple styles are acceptable, but don't change everything to your style of choice. Thanks Samuell Lift me up or put me down 19:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection desperately needs attention. The two articles on boxers are being repeatedly hit with IP vandalism. Enigma ^message 06:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, Risker took care of it. Enigma ^message 06:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I was too slow. I was playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Useight (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just warning you in advance that I'll be here again tomorrow night if it picks up again. ;) Enigma ^message 07:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I should be here at my computer most of the night, I've got two major projects due in a couple of my classes and I want to get them done by Wednesday. And even when I'm in the mist of that, I can't prevent myself from checking my watchlist every five minutes. Useight (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are busy but I hope you can answer me. When we use the ref name="xyz"/ template, all the places where the reference is used is listed in the reflist as a,b,c. I need to add the page number with all of these references. For example in the education part of the Islamabad article, I have a source [12], which has around 250 pages and I need to add the page number with all the references. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best way I know to insert page numbers into a citation is to write it out like this:

<ref>[www.website.com WebsiteName PageNumber]</ref>

Hope that helps. If you need the citation to actually link directly to that particular page, I'm afraid I don't know how to do that. Useight (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that means I don't need to use the ref name="xyz" syntax. I can simply add <ref>[www.website.com WebsiteName PageNumber]</ref> for every fact. But that will make at least 10-15 references in the reference list of the same website. Anyways, thanks. Now finish your graduation project. Cheers.Marsa Lahminal (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Useight/Archive13 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Hi878 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry for editing your user page... I was just experimenting. Hope you can forgive me... And when I edit it i thought it was my user page. So, I am sorry rajalberini (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

...regarding a potential RfA candidate is solicited at my talk page. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  08:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here

There are certain users, such as User:Jamespiecowye, who create articles about themselves, such as James Piecowye and tag it with underconstruction template. Now we cannot tag it for deletion unless the user stops editing it for days. So should I tag it anyways, or wait? Marsa Lahminal (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would give him a couple of days to assert notability. We don't need to wait for a lull in his editing to delete it, even though I'm going to bet that he doesn't come back to improve it, we just need to give him a bit of time. I see no problem with deleting it on the 10th if he cannot give evidence that he is notable. The article should also be tagged with {{coi}}, as it is a conflict of interest. Useight (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the winter; Alex and Jayden loved to have snowball fights. Some of the other neighborhood kids, Nathan and Joseph, also loved to play with the two. It was always an equal team and everybody was good sports. The adults would walk by laughing as Nathan creamed Alex on the face with a big snowball or when Jayden would throw snowballs at Joseph and Nathan’s fort until it fell down. Every week the four would play and laugh as the snowballs whizzed here and there. Every week the adults would walk by chortling, and every week a kid called Tom would sit on a bench watching and enjoy the snowball fight, as if he was watching TV. Then one week Alex got very sick. He could not come to the big snowball fight. The group was very sad and began walking home, when Nathan spotted Tom. Nathan asked eagerly if he wanted to play, maybe if he did they could continue there snowball fun. Tom looked at Nathan and shyly said, “Yes!” The group cheered and as Tom joined Jayden’s team they had one of the best snowball fights ever. Boy, if only Alex was there, but wait when Alex recovers from his sickness and the teams are unequal, and then what will they do? The next week the group of five sat down and talked about the teams. Then a young teenager walked by, hearing there conversation, and then answering, “I’d love to play, may I join?!” Without another word the group said, “Yes!”--Spittlespat 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this guy. If I report him to AIV, I'll get the usual, but it's clearly the same vandal as two days ago, as evidenced by the editing pattern. Enigma ^message 04:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useight (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I now present for your consideration, a troll. Enigma ^message 06:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have stopped editing. I'll keep watching to see what else, if anything, he does. I don't think it's blockable quite yet. Useight (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. Just comes off as a registered editor trolling using an IP address. Enigma ^message 06:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd be stunned if this individual had not previously edited with some other account(s) or IP(s). Useight (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got blocked for vandalizing an RfA. That was a new twist. He was begging for it. Enigma ^message 08:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are busy so I won't bug you alot. What are the criterias to become a rollbacker. I have read Wikipedia:Rollback feature and nothing particular is mentioned there. I have recently started patrolling pages and sometimes it becomes a pain in the back when a user continuously keeps on vandalizing or has done many edits together. I kindly request you to grant me the Rollback rights and if you are unable to (i.e I do not meet the criteria) then kindly inform me of any bad/wrong/improper moves I need to stop. Thankyou. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted you rollback. Normally I would want to see more vandalism reversion before granting it, but you've been around for a few months and have 1200 edits, I think you'll be careful with it. Remember to only use it to revert blatant vandalism, otherwise it could be taken away. If there is any question in your mind whether you should rollback or not, don't. Useight (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou sir. In case of any problems or help, I'll contact you. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :) Matt (Talk) 22:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've got your back. Useight (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to change my username?

rajalberini (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can request a new username at WP:CHU, assuming the name you want has not already been taken. If the name you want has already been taken by someone else, you can still get that name at WP:USURP if the username you want does not have any edits accredited to it. Useight (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam and Steve. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to abstain because this feels like canvassing. Thanks, though, for the note. Useight (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 WikiCup will begin on January 1, 2009. The first round will run through March 31, 2009. For more information on this tournament, read the "about" section on the main WikiCup page.

This year, we have a different system in calculating points. At User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions, you will find information about submitting your article (and other) work to earn points. Each contestant will have their own individual subpage for submitting completed work to us.

This year, User:ST47 will also be running one of his bots to calculate mainspace edits and read your submission subpages to calculate the point values you receive based on our scoring chart.

Questions or comment? Ask at the talk page or go directly to Garden or IMatthew's talk page. Good luck and Happy Holidays! -- ayematthew ✡ and Garden. 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useight,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Begins tomorrow! at 0:00 (UTC) Some quick reminders and amendments This year a bot will be tallying the scores for the tournament. This bot will be run by ST47 and will count edits–at 0.1 points each (major edits only, see below)–and submissions at the scores listed in the tables. You must submit any work that you manage to promote in each period on your submissions page. Your page is located here. Rules and instructions are here for submitting. Due to the massive influx of Huggle users, and because this is a content contest rather than an editcountitis extravaganza, minor edits will be scored at only 0.01 points. If you are a Huggle user your edits must be marked as minor or you will be disqualified. If you are unsure, check your contributions. If you wish to drop out before the tournament begins, please do so as soon as possible, but not later than January 5. Most importantly, good luck! Happy New Years, Garden. and ayematthew 20 52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Delivered by neuro^(talk) for Garden and ayematthew at 20:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the discussion there about a dearth of nominations. I finally decided that I'm willing to go through the pain again. What say you? Please reply here if you can. Enigma ^message 02:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. I would support you if I saw you at RFA. Or did you want me to go more specifically through your contributions and make an assessment of what I thought the community would say? But you would have my support. Useight (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not being clear. I meant to ask if you'd be interested in nominating or co-nominating. Enigma msg 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts? Enigma msg 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I could take either role if you would like. Just so you know, though, while I am well-known around RFA and have a good track record of vetting candidates, I also have a poor track record of nominations - my last four have withdrawn. Useight (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I don't mind. :) I'm ready whenever you're ready. Enigma msg 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get started writing a nomination. If you don't think it's good enough, feel free to make it into a co-nomination or scratch it altogether. I'll get working on that later this afternoon at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2. Useight (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm ready to start tonight. Enigma msg 22:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Anyway, I added my answers to the questions. Enigma^msg 01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went live with it. Apologies for not consulting you first, but it seemed you were done, and I wanted to have it up for a few hours before I retire for the night. Feel free to add/remove stuff or make any changes. Enigma^msg 03:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go on, then! Always finish what you start. :D Enigma^msg 04:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useight (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you enjoy a happy new year, as well as the year of administratorship that I forgot to congratulate you on. bibliomaniac15 03:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both. Useight (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Useight,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the well-wishes, and, for the record, I do believe us to have been friends. Useight (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can i delete images that i uploaded? sorry if i always ask you,,, you are my favorite admin...

rajalberini talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

My reply here

I heard you joined the wikicup, exactly what is it about? I was thinking about joining for the april wikicup. Anyway is it too late fore me to join the January wikicup?--Spittlespat 23:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here