User talk:Texture/Archive-2004 November

Help!

How would I go about reducing the table that has the wikistress picture (in my main user page) so that the width gets smaller, and the "what is Ilyanep watching" and "what is Ilyanep Reading" snap together, and the wikistress table fits snugly in with those two and the quotes table? No matter what I do the table seems to stay the same length! — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I made it work by increasing the width of the big table by 10px. Thanks for any help you would've given me (lol). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Except, it doesn't work. It works in the preview but not in the real thing! What is wrong? ARGH! — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:35, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reply is at User talk:Ilyanep#Thermometer — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could you please do the honors and do it for me? I think I simply messed it up! Thanks — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reply is at My Talk page. Thank you very much for your help. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

trombone page

FYI: I have blocked the anon IP creating all those self-link "pages" about jazz guys - I see you're reverting his google-pushing! I put only a 24-hour block, so we may need to watch out tomorrow. - DavidWBrooks 20:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for it. - Tεxτurε 20:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense

Peace (I am no longer anonymous... so perhaps now we can talk better) --Ramos 21:14, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you continue the same nonsense it will be deleted. - Tεxτurε 21:16, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok how about the compromise.

The links to the propaganda site are removed and the links for the official news report are added (The Associated Press and ABC NEWS links)

--Ramos 23:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is the compromise I proposed. You continued to attack me when I spoke of it. It is the current state of the article. I left the ABC link with no additional comment from your original. - Tεxτurε 23:29, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Texture I have already apologized for that. I took your constant deletion of my links as vandalizing. Remember you though you were supporting other user when in fact the other user was you. So even you were mistaken even thou you have not acknowledge it yet. Also I haveI kept my word not to do anything else until we come to an agreement.

Now about the compromise; you have not yet removed the israel.us.org link and replace it the Associated Press Link like we talked about.... Since I don't have the link of the Associated Press the only thing I can do is delete the link from the isreal-us.org. So I though you should be the one who made the change since you can delete propaganda link and add the News link that you know....

--Ramos 13:42, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you consider any other users' edits to be vandalism you will be very busy. Please don't start that nonsense again. I was not seeking an apololgy merely referencing my ignored compromise (at that time).

I have addressed my concerns through my edits that you now approve of. If you don't have a substitute for the israel-us.org link I suggest that you add a comment to Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks requesting a more mainstream replacement link. If you, or I, deletes the link without a replacement I expect it will be reverted. - Tεxτurε 14:00, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so if you no longer are supporting the other user, which was your original claim. And you have no issue with the link from the israel-us.org site been there without a disclaimer that they are a pro-Israeli site with an agenda then do you still have an issue with the http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html site been there. No one else is deleting the link but you, so perhaps you can tell me why you believe one link should stay over the other link? You can even add the title "a none-mainstream explanation of who they where". Is that a compromise?

Wrong. I was never "supporting the other user". I was agreeing with the other user as I am now agreeing with you that a mainstream version instead of the biased israeli-us.org is needed. (Was not aware of that one until you pointed it out.) I support no biased sites unless the intent is to point out the bias or no other source for the information exists. (Even then it has to have a good reason.) If you want that link gone find a replacement or request help on the talk page. Why are you so afraid of the talk page? - Tεxτurε 15:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What I am afraid of? What are you afraid of just leaving the link and letting the people makeup their mind? And again there never was "the other user" you were "agreeing with", both time in July and in August it was you the same person who deleted the link (on less you allow other people to use your account). You don't have to trust me, just check the history. So don't tell me that you were just "agreeing with the other user" when you deleted the link.

Check for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=4658814&oldid=4613281

Henry VIII

Henry VIII has not been deemed a religious figure by any respected or reasonable historical study. He was a monarch who, for the sake of his proclivity for numerous betrothals, defied the Pope. He did not contribute to religious doctrine, or aid in reformation of a particular system such as Protestantism, and his separation from Catholicism resulted in the looting of monastaries and churches about his kingdom. The political ramifications of a conversion made for convenience do not point to his being a religious figure, in spite of his supposed charisma and effect on religion. In this case any political figure who has a hand in politics that relate to religion is a 'religious figure.' I've included this discussion in the Talk Page of the Religion article and invite you to discuss this over there (just so we have other people's input). --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:59, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

How can the founder of a breakaway church, that still exists today, be excluded as a religious figure of historical note? I don't argue that he is not respected in that role. Merely that his story and that of his very large church is important. I will add this to the Talk:Religious discussion. I have no intention of fighting your deletion as you have valid ground but will be interested in the dicussion. - Tεxτurε 15:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

link directories

Please join in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#More_restrictive_policy_on_external_linking

Horizons

We are currently working on our own wikipeadia dedicated to Horizons: Empires of Istaria where we will enforce more strict rules to keep vandals out (IP banning, no anonymous edits), any chance of linking to that page once we've set it up? --Marco 18:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It would be a reasonable addition to the existing article. I envy your control of anon edits... :) - Tεxτurε 18:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice, full story at 12'o clock news. --Marco 18:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Horizons Wikipeadia will be located at http://www.dragonspires.org/wiki/pmwiki.php --Marco 18:56, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

colours in sigs

As I've mentioned to a couple of other people, setting font colours in your reply is bad from a usability perspective - you're using red, which is the normal setting for "there's no page there" - and since there is, people will get confused - breaks the principle of least surprise. It would be better if you didn't do this, and found a different way to indicate where your talk page link is. Martin 18:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see you are going to watch The Thirteenth Floor...

My uncle was the costume designer for The Thirteenth Floor but I have never watched it. Let me know what you think of it once you watch it. I'd like to know if it is worth sitting through. I loved the matrix and movies of that genre are really interesting.

I actually own it. It's better than The Matrix. It is more of a thinking movie than a glitzy special effects movie. Did your uncle work on the past, present, or future clothing designs? - Tεxτurε 02:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He actually is/was the costume designer. So I am pretty sure he did all of them...but wait, now I need to open a new tab in firefox and go see what [[1]] says. Yeah, he did all the costumes. From what he has told me, he does the designs, and then there are other people that put them together. But he supervises, gets the materials, checks everything etc.

BTW, are you an admin, or just an editor? I have been checking your user page and there is quite a bit there.

Admin. That movie was great. Made me want to drive to the edges and see if I'm in a box. - Tεxτurε 17:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User

Texture, how did all those User namespace prefixes get deleted, and how are you managing to put them back? Has it been a vandalbot? JFW | T@lk 19:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They didn't get deleted. They are so old that they are from a time that userspace was not separate from article space. Redirects were temporarily implemented to connect from one to the other and in order to remove these without broken links the "user:" has to be inserted for talk pages where the signature was prior to userspace creation. (As far as I understand it. I wasn't around back then.) - Tεxτurε 20:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, there goes my illusion that I knew something about WikiHistory :-). Did you know that Wikipedia comes up second in Google when you search for TANSTAAFL? Is your signature a veiled Googlebomb? JFW | T@lk 20:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What a neat idea! No, I was playing around with my signature and decided to see how many people pay attention. My first was "Ask me about my turtles" and someone spotted that. You are number two. Now I have to think of a new hidden phrase... - Tεxτurε 20:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User

Hey, I rolled back your change to User talk:Mbecker/Archive 1. The link as it was has historical signifigance. It's an archive of my talk page, and as such, if you change the link, it not longer has any meaning. Please be a little more careful when redirecting links in the future. Thanks! — マイケル ₪ 21:53, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

The redirects from article space to user space are being deleted and the "User:" is being added so that the existing links don't break. If you roll back my changes the links will break when the redirects are removed. - Tεxτurε 21:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. Broken links never hurt anyone. The discussion refers specifically to the non-user page. At the time, I was trying to get rid of them...So, I'd rather it stay the way it was. It doesn't matter if the link is broken. — マイケル ₪ 14:42, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I'll try to avoid that. Thanks for the notice. - Tεxτurε 17:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removing DMOZ links

You're removing links to dmoz categories with the comment 'Wikipedia is not a link repository'. True, but:

1. external links are allowed (and in fact encouraged, for further reading / references)
2. dmoz IS a link repository, but does it then follow that by linking to it we're being a link repository? I think that linking TO one for further reference is different.
3. I have a recollection that whether to link to dmoz categories was argued before, and the consensus was to keep the links? I could be wrong.

Is this an issue you have with dmoz in particular, or do you disapprove of such linking in general? Is there consensus? Has this been discussed? —Morven 18:40, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I have also removed yahoo, looksmart, and google directory links where they have no relation to the article. I have added an entry to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Where DMOZ was appropriate to the article I did not remove it. In many cases it was a failed link. In other cases it only duplicated links in the article. I found no useful content in any of the links deleted. - Tεxτurε 18:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is also a draft proposed policy change to specifically allow directory links at Wikipedia:External links/temp - Tεxτurε 18:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I commented on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress I don't think it's really vandalism. Many of the ones I've noticed were added by users who've made other edits (User:Liftarn made many of the automotive ones, for example). I think simply that many dmoz contributors also edit here and think the dmoz categories useful. —Morven 21:14, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Check my response on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. I agree it isn't vandalism per se. Only appropriate place I could think of to list it for discussion or review. - Tεxτurε 21:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I note that the discussion is now at Wikipedia talk:External links#DMOZ.2FOpen Directory Project links. -- sabre23t 06:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Redirects from the pre-MediaWiki days

Hi Texture - you posted comments on my page about cleaning up the user pages from the pre-MediaWiki days. I'd ask you to slow down a bit - many of those links were left because there are a number of links outside of Wikipedia that link back to those pages. If people surf on in and there aren't any redirects in existence, they will be taken to a "Do you want to create this page?" dialog. This was the reason why they were not destroyed in the first place. Cheers Manning 05:01, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Your DMOZ deletions

• User:Markalexander100 is reverting all of your deletions. RickK 05:37, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Sir or madam

Dear Sir or Madam,

What is this all about:

"Please do not claim that Wikipedia is out of space and should go to your website. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to advertise your website. - Tεxτurε 18:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

Where, pray tell, might this website of mine be located and if you find it I sure would like to know who has been paying my hosting fees. I don't have a website or even a user page, and I would appreciate it if you would stop harrasing me. -Tromboner999

You say I made a single comment two weeks ago? How is this harrassment?

Your current IP does not have this note so this was made on a different IP address. Either you were directed to that page in error or it refers to actions you made while using that IP. Can you tell me what IP or article you were using at that time? I'll attempt to help you understand. - Tεxτurε 14:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Correcting your user page

Hello! I saw a mistake in you userpage (Abandonware was listed twice in Articles: Programming) and corrected it. I don't know if that was the proper thing to do, so I decided to post here as well. Also, you refer to a film called "Almighty Bruce". I assume you mean "Bruce Almighty", but didn't to correct that myself as well because I am starting to feel quite unsure about the proper etiquette here. Hope this helps. (Jerome Loisel 05:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Thanks for the help! I did mean "Bruce Almighty" and I don't mind the assistance. (I'm not sure of the etiquette either but I appreciate help and don't spurn it.) - Tεxτurε 14:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New Bush vote now under way - please vote

Here [2]

Rex071404 15:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nomination for article un-deletion

Hello. I noted your recent support for the Empire of Atlantium article on VfD, based on the multiple VfD listings the article survived since February: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Atlantium The most recent VfD resulted in 19 people (40%) voting to retain vs 29 (60%) voting to delete. Despite the fact that the count was fully 9 votes short of achieving a 2/3 consensus, the article has been deleted by a sysop. Because this appears to contravene VfD policy I have listed the article for un-deletion, which you might care to review and support, if you feel it is a valid listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion --Gene_poole 04:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Peter Weibel

Could you look in again at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Weibel? I've reversed my earlier vote & think you might want to take a look at what I've found. -- Jmabel 23:41, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

re: RickK's question

Good evening, Texture. I just read your comment on the RFA vote. Perhaps I misunderstood the norms on that page. I thought I was supposed to stay out of it unless asked specific questions. I'll certainly try to answer any concerns you have.

I did not respond to RickK's comment because I don't know the source of his concern except that he objected to my pattern of votes of VfD. I believe that my voting pattern has been consistent over time and in accordance with our policies as they are currently written. Obviously, I disagree with his characterization that I want to keep "garbage" but without understanding his specific concerns, I don't know how to clarify the point.

The only thread that's been mentioned so far (and it is only speculation that this was the source of RickK's concern) was my vote on the Vfd/Sty discussion. I stand by that vote as consistent with the plain language of our current policy and have explained my reasoning as clearly as I know how in the discussion thread itself. I know that there is a good chance that I will get overturned on any VfD vote but that's the way our community works. The nomination is posed, we all get our say (hopefully guided by policy and precedent) and the decision is carried out.

As I said above, I've not paid much attention to the RFA page and do not understand its norms. I would appreciate your suggestions on next steps. Rossami 20:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the protocol for RfA are detailed anywhere but typically people can respond in the comments section to direct questions. My issue isn't exactly the same as RickK's but I disagreed with two points you made on VfD/Sty.

You made contradictory statements (one striken at some point). You reference the deletion guide for "Can never be more than a dictionary definition" as the only reason to delete and you also said "Personally, I can't think of an obvious way to expand the article or I would have done it already". Combine these two and you seem to support deleting the item as a dic def. However, you voted to "Keep to give it a chance to grow" and seemed to vote keep primarily because it was "nominated for deletion less than 20 min after its creation".

If you can't think of a way to expand a dic def to an article, why vote keep solely based on when it is added to VfD? It qualifies for deletion per your reference to the guidelines. If you are worried it won't get a chance for review, the VfD cycle is five days and gets scrutinized by the best. (Might hopefully change to "Editorial Review".)

When you respond, keep in mind that I am not discussing the Sty article. My issue is with the contradiction between the guideline and your stated reason for voting "keep" related to a dic def's quick addition to Vfd. - Tεxτurε 21:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When I said that I couldn't "think of an obvious way to expand the article", I was trying to admit that neither pig farming nor eye injuries are areas of personal expertise and that I did not consider myself competent to expand the article the way it needed. But, by analogy to other areas where I do have competence, I could easily foresee a potential for expansion by someone with those areas of expertise. By that standard, it did not qualify for deletion because the standard is not "is it a mere dicdef now" but that that article "can never be more than a dicdef".

I later struck out my comment because the article nagged at me until I found at least a little of the expertise necessary to expand the article.

I do have a great deal of philosophical difficulty with RickK's decision to nominate the article so soon after its creation and that fact did figure prominently in my decision to defend the article. First, if my supposition was correct that the article was expandable by someone with expertise in pig farming or optometry, I was concerned that those are somewhat uncommon areas of competence. The necessary experts might not happen along during the five day discussion period. Since the current content was stubbish but not false, misleading or otherwise harmful to the encyclopedia, it met none of the other criteria for deletion.

Second and more serious, I believe that the overly-rapid nomination of articles sends a contradictory message to new users - a message that we do not want to encourage. I do not mean that we should keep vandalism or test pages but I do believe that we should assume good faith on the part of our users.

As you said, the question is not the defense of this specific decision but a discussion about the policy. "Sty" does make a reasonably good case to test the policy against, though. In this case, I strongly suspect that a new user, probably a young person, was reading the Charlotte's Web article and saw the red link to "sty". Clicking through it, this person found a blank page and an invitation to create an article. If he/she read through the header, they would find warnings not to create vanity articles, etc, but nothing about minimum word length or minimum depth of content. Being a new user, they haven't even found all our policy pages, much less read or remember them. So they wrote what they knew. Being a new user, they might have erred on the side of conservatism and written the minimum that they were absolutely sure was true. And since it was fact-based and started to answer the implied question of the red link, probably felt pretty proud of him/herself. I tend to assume that this new user will do the same things I did and come back to their contribution over the next few days to see what's happened to it. If the article's expanded, they feel validated and will contribute more assertively in the future. If the article's still in the same shape, they may expand it themselves. But when they come back and find the VfD header, well, that's a very discouraging message.

When evaluating the potential costs and benefits of rapid nomination, I have come to the conclusion that we should stick to a fairly strict interpretation of the existing policy which I read to say that dicdefs are not deletable unless there is no potential for expansion. If RickK had discovered the article a year after its creation and it was still a mere dicdef, I would evaluate the nomination and the article differently.

I opened a new discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Dictionary Definitions raising some of these specific concerns about our general policy. So far, only a few people have chosen to comment. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

If you're curious how I reconcile that with other votes where I've argued to transwiki much larger articles, I do not think that a discussion about the word's origins, usage or history count as encyclopedic content. That's still a discussion about the word, not a discussion about the topic of the article. A really good dictionary will cover origins and usage.

I have been following the discussion thread about changing the VfD name to "Editorial Review" with great interest. That might also help mitigate the contradictory messages. I've not yet entered that discussion because I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been better said. I hope this clarified a few of the principles that I try to follow when contributing to discussions. Please let me know if there is anything else I can answer. Rossami 13:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with RickK nor do I fully agree with you on this issue. Let me ask this: If VfD is changed to "Editorial Review" with all associated meanings and procedures that would entail would you object to a new article that is, on face value, nothing more than a dictionary definition being placed immediately on "ER" for review and discussion? - Tεxτurε 15:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. I am hoping that would answer my primary concern about the contradictory message. The suggestion that recently showed up about "soft redirects" as a way of linking across wikiprojects is also intriguing. Transwiki and a soft redirect would leave a paper trail for the new user and give them the opportunity to learn about the community's expectations of the best home for a particular contribution. With a soft redirect, a dicdef article would not even need to be nominated for deletion. (Hmmm... The more I try to explain what Benc said about that process, the more I see it's benefits. I'll have to keep thinking about that. Thank you.) Rossami 15:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to avoid the contradictory message response. I understood it and your intent but continue to disagree. I felt no need to go further but I'll add this so you will understand my view. If one user nominates a dic def because he/she does not feel it can ever be a real article and you come along and can also not turn it into a real article I see that as support that it should be considered for deletion. There is no assurance that anyone will happen along this untagged article that can expand it.

With two reviewers unable to expand the dic def, it seems appropriate to me to offer it for deletion. This is not speedy deletion where it goes away and only one or two people made a review of the subject. No. It is offered as a deletion candidate and the largest group of reviewers get to look at it and determine if it indeed should be deleted. If it fails to pass that test then I see no reason why it should remain. Any statement that argues that wide review of obvious non-articles (as it would be in a dic def state) is bad causes me concern.

If the issue is the new user who's feelings may be hurt, I argue that rather than a B-movie type contributor who's well intended dic defs could quickly flood the encyclopedia we should catch that dic def creator early and let them know what level of contribution passes muster. Then they go "oh" and the next article has substance and we don't rely on random passers by to fix each and every dic def a new user creates.

The concept of the new user creating dic def after dic def and waiting patiently for a random person to stumble on it and fix it does not match current policy. Nor does it teach the new user how to contribute effectively. Instead it lulls them into thinking they are doing this great service and they follow red link after red link creating unuseful dic defs when it would serve better to leave them red and allow a knowledgeable user to create a full article rather than pass it by thinking it is already done.

I attempted to add a line under "requests" on the recent changes page to explain that requested articles should have more than a dictionary defintion so that new users would understand how to contribute. Sadly, it was removed so they have no guidance and dic defs occur by well meaning new users. - Tεxτurε 15:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Texture, stop sending me stuff on how you deleted "Tech Support Humor"

Stop sending me stuff on how you deleted "Tech Support Humor". I understand your reasoning. (But by the way, it's not my website, it's just a website I go to, and since there is alot of Tech Support Humor sites on YAHOO's directory, I just figured it was worth a mention of the all encompassing wikipedia. Sorry, maybe I'll do it again, only not make it look like a advertisement. But please don't send me the message saying why you deleted, I've gotten a new one every time I delete the message. I understand and will do better next time.

The guy who created the "Tech Support Humor" page 66.67.139.44 15:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not sending you more than one message. Others and myself have restored my comment after you deleted it. - Tεxτurε 15:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You always make errors!

QUOTE:Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to advertise your PhoenixMediawatch media monitoring agency. Please do not create articles for this topic and ask people to create content for it. Thanks. (Diablo SV)

The vandalism warning you referred to was given to User talk:203.26.24.219 for adding runescape.com to History of Afghanistan since 1992. The user's IP can be found in the page history and the exact change diff can be found here and here. - Tεxτurε 00:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anon IP

That is not from me. Wikipedia always makes errors.

Vandalize? What have I "vandalized"? I've gotten weird PM's from Rick.K as well telling me some bullcrap about not putting Hitler was born at sunset and I've got no idea what he's talking about. Screw Hitler. I am a Jew. My Comcast IP lease was just up so I think you may have the wrong person. (67.176.87.85)

Your IP has no messages from me or anyone else so you may have been misdirected to someone else's talk page. - Tεxτurε 14:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. I appreciated it very much. E-mail me sometime. Mike H 04:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I m vandal?

Why'd you revert my edits to the page on request for comments? did I go request for comments too early or something? It was obvious me and the other guy were never going to agree on that discussion page

My mistake. I apologize. I had you confused with another anon IP. - Tεxτurε 15:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protecting John Kerry

I was just about to do it myself, but you beat me to it. Thanks! --Diberri | Talk 18:18, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why did you protect the page, instead of only blocking the vandal?--Eloquence*

Blocked the vandal several times. Always came back with a new IP. Is there a way to block anons from a single article? - Tεxτurε 19:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Afraid not. Delaying edits to protected pages instead of locking them out entirely is probably the way to go. In the meantime, please be persistent in re-blocking IPs or entire subnets if necessary.--Eloquence*

Will do. - Tεxτurε 19:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kucinich

The content for that Anti-Kucinich site has changed since it was submitted.

Here is a archive of the original "Anti-Kucinich" site. http://web.archive.org/web/20030610015131/http://kucinich.com/

The link you just re-added is offtopic.

It is now a site promoting another congressional candidate.

Quotes from new site:

"Paid for by Ed Herman for Congress" "All contributions made to Ed Herman for Congress are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes."

You're right. The content has changed and is no longer relevent. We could add the archive you reference but it probably isn't relevent either. I'll take it back out. Next time you remove a link for that reason describe your reason in the edit summary. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 19:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kizilbash

I think the correct spelling is Kızılbash i.e. the i's are without the point above them (in Turkish these are two different letters, the i with the point and without it). Gadykozma 02:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hate Group

I hope you can give your opinion on Hate group See also talk:Hate group. I may be very mistaken with my edits. Thanks Andries 20:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

texture, please the hate group dispute is unresolved. Please give your opinion. Thanks 19:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven't been following the checklist discussion and I don't see it summarized anywhere. What is the current dispute? - Tεxτurε 19:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The checklist had been unreferenced from the start, which I only realized when somebody changed it.

The checklist now says

"Four main elements are present in hate group literature and tactics:

1. Dehumanizing or demonizing the target

2. Conspiracy theories, possibly not well backed up or referenced;

3. Claiming to be a minority that speaks for a silent majority;

4. Proclamattion of pseudo-scientific support for their theories."

Because it is unreferenced, I propose removing the last two items, which I find doubtful. The two remaining items of the checklist will remain unreferenced but I can not seriously doubt them. I think the first two items are common sense, (not really original research). Andries 20:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see it go back to the three elements. I don't have anything useful to add to the discussion, though. Is there going to be a vote? - Tεxτurε 20:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth Alan

Yeah, I try to do my civic bit! Took a while, there were a number of pages that referred to the non-User: page. Noel 21:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I ask Tim some weeks ago if I could tackle that very list, and then I forgot to check for an answer (he answered on his own talk page, not mine)! So yeah, I'll lend a hand. I'll start from the bottom, to prevent conflicts... Noel 22:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check out this page; there's no way I feel like fixing all those links to the two User: redirects in the main name-space, so I'm going to punt on those... Noel 23:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sleeveless shirt

If I were to be a homosexual person, and I donned a pink, sleeveless shirt, with a rainbow swastika on it, would it be less offensive? Would it be less wrong? Would my mother be displeased? --Lysol 21:20, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Why do I care? - Tεxτurε 21:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Eric

I noticed that you reverted my edit on Eric and redirected it back to Eric (Discworld). I've since created a full disambig page on Eric, I think it is fairest this way, as Faust Eric is no more well known than many of the Swedish monarchs.
SimonMayer 12:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks for your support of my adminship. –Andre (talk) 17:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Burchett

I actually voted to keep.  :) RickK

The list of names if appropriate for a disambig page. RickK 00:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

User:172.151.108.42

This is Mr Treason Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 20:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template:PD-USgov

Hi Texture,

Can you temporarily unprotect Template:PD-USGov? I'd like to turn it into a pretty box as I've done with Template:PD.

Thanks, Cow

Re: I'll need only about 10 minutes. --Cow

OK, I think I'm done with it. --Cow

Willy vandal

I know dealing with vandals can be hectic, but did you really mean to delete my user talk page? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's ok, it actually made me chuckle. Plus I noticed it was 524 edits history: I might delete then recreate it in a sec. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Engrish

It's nice to have ONE other person agree with me. Vincent 23:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Betcha Five Bucks

60.25.127.199 is Mr. Treason -- I mean, who else would vandalise my talk page (which hasn't been vandalised the whole year I've been here). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who is this 172.161 character? Evercat 19:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Treason. Using AOL to use a rotating IP for every edit. - Tεxτurε 19:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm - his IP was actually static for a while - I blocked it; should I have done, or is he able to go to something more annoying, like one that actually does change...? Evercat 19:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't bother blocking. You won't see him use the same IP for more than one edit. I read that as long as he opens a new window for each edit it will use a new IP. The history seems to support this. - Tεxτurε 19:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What to do with these trolls

I noticed that we're getting flooded with these trolls/vandalbots from multiple IPs. How difficult is it to ban these IPs? --G3pro 20:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nearly impossible. Mr. Treason is using AOL with rotating IPs. Each IP only does one edit. - Tεxτurε 20:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am new to this and I am need of help: please!

My interests include "Pirate Radio" and broadcasting history and I have contributed a major listing of stations as well as other information. Unfortunately some seem to be assuming that I am either a vandal or something worse. Such is not the case. I don't fully understand how this system works but I do feel that I have several items of information worth contributing, either as stubs or adding information. I can see that on some of the additions that I made to the Pirate Radio topic that some changes have been reverted to previous and incorrect original copy. It took me some time to put that information together and it does not encourage my further participation if some are going to interpret my contributions as vandalism. I do not wish to infringe on others but merely to contribute information. So if I could get some feedback as to what it is that Wikipedia likes and what it does not like and how I can contribute corrections and additions, I would appreciate hearing from whoever it is that is out there. Thanks.

Hi. There was a large vandal attack on the 22nd that included many articles including Pirate radio. Some of them were attributed to the same vandal IPs that were attacking other unrelated articles. I think your changes may have occurred during this large vandal attack and with the same originating ISP (or similar IP address - starting with 64.x.x.x). Please accept my apology for any reverts of your work made by myself or others who were fighting the vandal at that time. - Tεxτurε 15:25, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

sorry

Interpretation as vandalism

My edit was simply to fix the location of "This is a dis-ambiguation page". Dis-ambiguation messages are supposed to be footers, not headers, but you reverted as if a header dis-ambiguation message is a fine thing. Why?? 66.245.27.105 21:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you only wanted to move the location of the message please use the {{disambig}} tag when you make your change. Do not create your own disambiguation messages. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 21:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Grunt?

I've banned the user user:BAN NORM AND TEXTURE. Hopefully that works for a while. Is there any cleanup I can help with? -- user:zanimum

I'm looking over that as well. It's been a bad week. - Tεxτurε 14:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

translation

Please, if you mark a page as needing translation, make a note at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. If you don't, I eventually will, but it's not exactly my favorite task to search through these and note them. -- Jmabel 06:11, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Normally I do. I guess I missed one in the excitement this week. Sorry. - Tεxτurε 14:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Texture

I notice that you speedy deleted a large number of new articles, including Otway Cuffe, 1st Earl of Desart. While I agree with you that these were almost certainly cut and pasted from somewhere, I think you may have been a bit hasty in speedy deleting them. They were not patent nonsense, they were in fact reasonably well written. They were signed by a well-know Irish historian; however the signature could have been removed, and while it's unlikely that they author had given permission it is possible and I think it should have been checked. A short period on suspected copyright violations or even VFD would not have hurt. (Hopefully in the future Early Deletion can be used to take care of these.).

DJ Clayworth 16:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I deleted them as user tests (copied from another site or from their own class submission). I left a note on the users talk page hoping for a response. I got no response and the user has stopped creating the articles. If I see any more I'll move them to copyvio instead of tagging them as user tests. - Tεxτurε 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

stop reverting!

i just remove links to paysite...

Hi. Do not remove links to the official website of stars in Wikipedia. Even if those sites are pay only. They still remain the official site for that individual. Thanks - Tεxτurε 18:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

this is a commercial. (some of the website are NOT the offical website and they are not paying to the girls). instead of posting links to paysites it will be better to have a free links for non paysites. --80.230.11.226 18:17, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to mention what sites pay the celebrity but they are still notable sites about that celebrity and should be included. Do not remove them but a short description of the site would be appropriate. - Tεxτurε 18:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some Anon wants you to see this:

This edit. Hmm... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:50, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good for him. I asked that he not replace the standard disambig message with a home-made version. I think he'll make a good editer. Just needs guidance. - Tεxτurε 03:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LOOK vs. Look magazine

Could you take a look (pardon the pun) at the discussion page for Look magazine with a view to a possible conflict in subject entry? Also take a peek at LOOK. Thanks MPLX 23:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect Look might be a good candidate or disambig. - Tεxτurε 03:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A couple of further observations for further comment about this topic: MPLX/MH 21:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In general, all-caps should be avoided even if the company involved liked to spell it that way because it leads to confusion with acronyms (which legitimately ARE spelled with all caps). Lots of companies always spell their name ALL CAPS in publicity releases, but there's no legal obligation to follow suit. Keep it Look even though the cover had all capitals. - DavidWBrooks 03:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I asked Tεxτurε for advice on this one and this was the response: "Redirect Look might be a good candidate or disambig. - Tεxτurε 03:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)" I undestand what you are saying David, my only problem with it is that when I originally typed "LOOK" in search it directed me to a totally different listing for something else. So there are listing for "Look" and "LOOK" and they are not cross referenced as of this moment in time. I will post your obvervations and this notation over on Tεxτurε's page for additional comment. MH 20:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Look_magazine"

First Battle of Kharkov

The Second Battle of Kharkov has erroneously been named as the First Battle of Kharkov here, I've moved the article to its proper name, you could have seen that if you just took a look at my editorial history. I thought it was pretty obvious so I didn't elaborate on why. GeneralPatton 12:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

World tomorrow = a total mistake

Please remove the page World tomorrow which was created by mistake. I intended to create and I have created The World Tomorrow. Thanks MPLX/MH 05:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

HI. I didnt have text to go with the picture so i just put the picture there for now. I thought it would be ok to upload that first. I can put some text there also soon but its' not ready yet. (re Queen battleship) SpookyMulder 07:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 11:55, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 03:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Treason?

I'm not vandalizing anything. I'm copying the tutorial so I can use this service.

I have left no messages on your talk page (User talk:152.163.100.11) regarding Mr. Treason. Perhaps you were misdirected to the wrong talk page for your anonymous IP? - Tεxτurε 20:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oi

I just got back from dinner, actually. Is he still at it? Mike H 22:30, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm back and he's clearly creating multiple logins to continue the attack. - Tεxτurε 02:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another oi

Hi! Got your message regarding that old B-Movie Bandit stub. Goplat found an IP that just bombarded the site at the end of May and I went through the contribs to see what had been done. Most were expanded or redirected but that one wasn't more than wikified and it was first on the list. I'd rather see a redirect than a pathetic single sentence any day of the week. Best, Lucky 6.9 22:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Texture.

I'm up for adminship [3]. I'd be honored to have your support. Warmest regards, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:34, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:55, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Shaivism

Dear Texture:

As for your comment on Shaivism, I am not advertising web pages. I am giving external links on Shaivism sources for those who want to learn more.

My apologies if I am misunderstood.

Hi. The objection isn't about your work on Shaivism but rather the new article you created with only a web link and no content. Another user tagged it for deletion under Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion and I followed our process and deleted it. Since the user did not follow up with you I left you a message indicating the need to only create articles after sufficient content exists to justify one. Let me know if there is anything I can help you with. - Tεxτurε 21:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User page deletion

If you would have checked page history you'd have seen that the IP was mine. — Jor (Talk) 09:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't keep track of your IPs. - Tεxτurε 13:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for a beginning of a solution to the Sealand mess

Texture: There is already a Principality of Sealand page which for some illogical reason is redirected to the Sealand page which looks as if it is/was a disambiguation page. I suggest that the contents of the Sealand page are moved to Principality of Sealand page and that this Sealand page is redirected to Sealand (disambiguation) because there is already a Sealand in Wales that is recognized as a part of the United Kingdom and it is also the location of both a famous RAF Sealand and a USAF base. Then there is the are the areas of Holland known and recognized in the English language as Sealand and the hotel in Hong Kong, China known as Sealand, and of course the world famous shipping company known as Sealand. It is therefore logical that the redirect from the existing "Principality of Sealand" should be removed and that a redirect placed on the Sealand page to Sealand (disambiguation). At least that would be a logical and sensible start to clearing up this mess and it can be done with little effort. MPLX/MH 18:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sealand"

Your comments please. That existing "Sealand" page makes Wiki look really silly and totally unreliable as a source of reference. At least this would get it off hogging the one and only link to the word "Sealand". MPLX/MH 18:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since posting my suggestion on the Sealand discussion page it seems to have been removed from the discussion page and more illogical reverts have been undertaken on the Principality of Sealand article page. There is ample evidence to show that this so-called principality is in fact a hoax and a fraud which even Ryan Lackey who started the Havenco saga has acknowledged on his web page. The Wiki page really does make Wiki look stupid because Wiki is unable to resolve this issue from a NPOV standpoint which can be achieved by following the law and the statements of bone fide nation states about this matter. The fans are coming at this issue from a world of fantasy and that is why it makes Wiki look really silly. MPLX/MH 22:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sean Hayes (fencing instructor)

Normally, I'd agree with you on removing the speedy notice since vanity articles are usually VfD candidates and not speedies. I can dig that. Trouble with this one is...no content whatsoever. It's just a placeholder for three weblinks and nothing more. May I ask you to reconsider and to speedy this one? Thanks and have a terrific weekend. - Lucky 6.9 23:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that you need to remove links from fencing for this person if it is really a vanity or it will get recreated. Then speedy delete the person. (Someone has deleted it, however.) To finish it you really need to follow up and get rid of all the "links here" - Tεxτurε 16:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I guess the reason I'm not eager to remove a fencing master is because I am a fencer and there are respected masters who are not well known outside of fencing circles. Especially in America were fencing is not a mainstream sport. I would like to see the discussion on fencer to determine what qualifies as a notable fencing master. - Tεxτurε 16:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mouldy Sandwich

I hearby award you this Moldy Sandwich in recognition of your tireless efforts to improve Wikipedia. [maestro] 01:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Images.

I am transfering my pictures to the Wikimedia commons, which makes them easier to share on different Wikis by not having to separately upload each file. I am requesting deletion of my files on Wikipedia they are no longer needed here. Once the images are deleted the Wikipedia software will fetch the image from the commons instead. Thats why there is no need to remove the tags. Norman Rogers 15:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandal on the same IP as I am

Hello, I don't know where else to ask this so I'm asking it here as you have dealt with User:Bobberton recently and my problem pertains to him. See, the problem is this. He and I live in the same house and so use one of the same IP addresses. We each have more than one, however, which I hope can be construed as proof that neither of us is a sockpuppet of the other. His other IP is his school, and my others are my school and the public library where we live. As you know, he recently posted a junk nonsense article (Nerd Blacklist), which you speedied. He has expressed to me IRL a desire to continue vandalizing the wiki until he is eventually permabanned. I would like to express my distance from his attitude and request that if and when he is banned only his school IP is banned - I think I can deal with anything he would do on the home computer simply by forcing him into line, and I don't want to have to go through a proxy or something to access Wikipedia. So what I am asking is, is there any way to conclusively distance myself from him and make sure none of his idiocy will impact me or my username? Thanks! Suntiger 18:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would recommend that you place a note at the top of the IP's talk page explaining (in the shortest terms possible) that you share this IP with the vandal. I know of no way to conclusively distance yourself or prove yourself not to be the same person if you continue to use the same IP. Who controls the IP you both use? If it is you, perhaps you can look into controls (parental?) over his access to this site. I am not a developer so you might consider listing your problem on Wikipedia:Village pump or Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress for some expert views on your problem. - Tεxτurε 21:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks so much for deleting my call for speedy deletion. I ought not to post while tired. [[PaulinSaudi 15:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)]]

Astrochicken

Hi, Texture. :) I'm letting everyone who voted on the VfD for Astrochicken know that I have placed it on Wikipedia:Votes for Undeletion. I would appreciate any comments there that you may have. func(talk) 17:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)