User talk:Foundby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from using the {{unblock}} template to relay abusive messages to administrators or reposting it after having been denied an unblock by more than one admin. If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Welcome!

Hello, Foundby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask at the help desk, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up, probably in less than 15 minutes, to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 GABA receptor 2 The Strict Template (Reference Desk) 3 Oh no! Not the Math RefDesk! 4 You're Welcome 5 Ummm 6 Re: Subst 7 Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture 8 Ref desk 9 Alertness 10 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2003 and before 11 Folding@home 12 My RfA 13 Halloween 14 Conquer 15 Possible misunderstanding with Adolf Hitler 16 Re: Your RfA feedback 17 Help Merge 18 Power: A New Social Analysis 19 Barnstar 20 User:SuggestBot/Requests 21 Accusation 22 My Request for Adminship 23 Your RfA

GABA receptor

Sure, I'll give it a go. The article needs some serious cleanup, though — has it been rewritten recently? Fvasconcellos 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

All done. Fvasconcellos 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, what a nice surprise! If you need anything else, just drop me a line. Thanks again, Fvasconcellos 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Strict Template (Reference Desk)

You do know that the consensus is delete. I will go ahead and close this now and delete the template, but I thought you might want to know. Nishkid64 01:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The people who voted delete gave equally as well reasons for deleting the template. Also, there's like 3x as many people who voted delete than keep. Nishkid64 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, man. I think it's a useful template, but the community has spoken. I'm deleting it, and removing all transclusions of the template on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll archive, but I'm not semi-protecting. Read WP:SEMI. There are specific reasons why you need to semi-protect a page. Nishkid64 01:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! Not the Math RefDesk!

Thanks for your comment on my user page. To be honest though, I've been here at wiki for over a year now and haven't so much as clicked on the Math RefDesk icon! Needless to say that Math is DEFINTELY my weakest area and the very idea of venturing there is enough to give me the willies! Nonetheless, your kind remarks may give me just the courage I need to give it a shot. But I can't promise anything! :) Loomis 15:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You're Welcome

Oh, so you did stay, great! I don't like it when I welcome people, and then they leave; it makes me feel as if I scared them off (obviously, this isn't the reason though). Leave me a message if you have any questions. Good luck! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm

Ok... {{:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Folding%40home}} Do you see the difference? The ":" at the start is needed because your trying to use a non-template as a template. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Subst

For the templates as they are now, subst is needed in order to make the date resolve properly - the downside is that the fixes made to the templates today now need to be manually replicated across all the previous archive days, requiring a bot (probably). I should be able to get MartinBotIII to fo it at some point. Martinp23 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture is an archive -- it need not be deleted. utcursch | talk 15:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

An archived page is preserved primarily for historical interest and records. Closed polls, failed proposals, old policy pages, long talk pages etc. are archived. utcursch | talk 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ref desk

Thanks for the invite, but if it's as addictive as editing on Mainspace, I won't be able to keep away... And I'm not as smart as I may seem :) Maybe I will give it a try. Fvasconcellos 17:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Alertness

Hi there; Ok, fine, I'm not fighting. But usually one-word definitions are Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Why is this one different? You will note that I tagged for transwiki, not for deletion.--Anthony.bradbury 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is, I think, no such thing as the "emotions section" of wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not different, and hence should be in wiktionary. Alertness is not an emotion. Let us just agree to differ, and see if the admins leave it or remove it, ok?--Anthony.bradbury 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

i have no intention of doing anything else.--Anthony.bradbury 17:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2003 and before

I couldn't see a reason to delete this historical record of which pages were featured back then. If you think it should be deleted, please use WP:MFD instead of speedy deletion. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Folding@home

Hi. You might want to retract those thanks now that I've opposed the FA-nomination. :-) As I said, it is a nice article but I think much remains to be done to attain FA status. I don't know enough to help you with it more than superficially though. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind opposition, I welcome ways in which an article can be improved. --Foundby 19:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I've answered your question on my RfA. Please review my response, thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed. --Foundby 16:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Halloween

hi, thx for the msg and yr interest in the halloween articles. i think only raul654 is allowed to actually schedule the TFAs so i had to rv your changes there, still would like to see at least one halloween article on october 31st. its a long way away though, and jc's bday is coming up (jan 16) so i requested that for the first one instead. cheers. Zzzzz 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I left an appology to raul654. Sorry. --Foundby 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Conquer

I redirected the page to Conquest. NawlinWiki 23:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thnx for the redirect to conquest. --Foundby 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible misunderstanding with Adolf Hitler

Look, I really didn't want to discourage you from editing, even less so offend you in any way. You are of course welcomed to edit whatever you want but especialy on established articles it's better to discuss radical changes on talk page or improving upon work that has been already done. It is also necessary to follow certain rules included in WP:Manual of style and other guidelines (you'll find many more links on MoS page). I hope you understand and wish you luck.--Pethr 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to see comments on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Please take the criticism mildly and consider it an advice on what things you are not supposed to do here. Thank you.--Pethr 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, Thank you very much!:) Really unexpected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pethr (talk • contribs) 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I was so excited about the barnstar that I forgot to sign.:-D Thank you once more.--Pethr 01:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry for another message, but friend asked me whether your barnstar comment means [Apparantly you have none...] "barnstar" or "humor". So how did you mean that?:)--Pethr 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're going to have to fix up the grammar and sentence structure of your text before adding it to Adolf Hitler. Nobody can have "the whole article to work on" for 24 hours when it's such a high-traffic page. I suggest you work on your text in a text editor on your own computer, and only add it when you've got it grammatical (and after checking carefully that you don't revert any improvements to it that may have happened in the meantime). At any rate, don't revert me again or I'm afraid I'll have to block you from editing for violating the WP:3RR rule. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 08:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Could you explain on the talk page why you keep changing the text to bullet-point form. This is contrary to established style. Paul B 11:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's comments repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Pethr 16:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It was my last edit. read the edit history of talk page. sigh! --Foundby 16:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read your edit summary. However, it doesn't justify that you repeatedly removed other user' comments despite beeing politely said not to do so at least two times. Please try to understand this. I really thought we had resolved this yesterday. Thank you.--Pethr 16:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well since I couldnt edit the main page cuase you reverted it, it is my right to remove inflamatory comments regarding me on the talk page. --Foundby 16:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There were no "inflamatory comments", other users have said you so already too.

And no, I'm not "purposely trying to start a scuffle, so it will look good when [I] apply for adminship." You really don't realize that you did something you were not supposed to do and repeated it many times on article and its talk page as well? If other users really wanted to pursue you and didn't look at your contributions, you'd be banned from editing by now. I think that we are all trying to resolve this dispute as peacefully as possible. Please try to understand. Thank you.--Pethr 16:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And then you can say I resolved it peacfully in the request of adminship, so I must become Admin? --Foundby 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thing we better end this conversation now. I strongly recommend you read and reread No personal attacks, Civility and Etiquette. Thank you.--Pethr 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA feedback

Hello Foundby! No obligation, of course, but if by any chance if you had time I'd appreciate it very much if you could, as feedback for my benefit, clarify slightly the comments you made regarding my RfA. In making my answer, I had assumed that I had evidence, possibly strong evidence, but another admin disagreed on grounds of reputation. If you believe this didn't actually respond to the intended question, or if you are interested in how I might respond to a somewhat different situation, perhaps I could clarify for you further. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Retracted my vote. --Foundby 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Help Merge

When we merge a page, we redirect the old page to the new one, via cut and paste. However we can just type #REDIRECT [[Insert text]] on that page. However I want to delete the page first and then redirect. --Foundby 16:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should delete a page before redirecting, for the edit history should not be blanked for such instances. Xiner (talk, email) 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason for this? We can save space = save money. --Foundby 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The page history is helpful to improving articles using prior revisions and to referring to its history in whatever conversation. In addition, it is legally necessary to preserve a record of the authors of the page. Regarding saving space: "deleting" an article on Wikipedia does not in fact remove it from the Wikimedia servers, it only makes it inaccessible to anyone who is not an administrator; though, it does reduce the size of the full database dump. —Centrx→talk • 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Power: A New Social Analysis

Yes, I've read it. I'm the main editor who made the wiki for Power, as well. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only do I have a copy, but it's on my table right now! { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't post requests for pirated material on the reference desk. Try a library -- they will likely have it or can order it. It is likely available used for very cheap on Amazon, as well. --Fastfission 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to help you out if I had the means to do so. Sadly, my scanner is busted. I'd follow Fastfission's advice -- no doubt your local library has a copy. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		You have added "special flavor" to the community by acting, well as a sort of wildcard. Jones2 06:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:SuggestBot/Requests

I'd like to know why you think it's a good idea to add people to that list? (Regarding these edits: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusation

Yes, the talk page spamming is bringing back memories ([9], [10], [11]). AZ _t 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. Whilst your question(s) arrived very late in the process, I did my best to answer - hopefully that helped to clarify how things work for you (whilst many anon test edits are in good faith, several will end up escalating). I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Please do not take this the wrong way, but I think you might want to withdraw your RfA. It's unlikely to pass with you having under 600 edits and only being with Wikipedia for a month. I recommend that you reapply after gaining more experience here. -- Gogo Dodo 07:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to concede defeat. --Foundby 08:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have closed your RfA. You have made a mockery of the process. - crz crztalk 17:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time. Your RFA has not a WP:SNOWball's chance in hell of passing, there is no need to wait for a bureaucrat to see this. Please do not post your RfA again, it looks like disruptive trolling. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Foundby. You're taking a very confrontational approach. I've no idea how old you are, but you're coming across like a stroppy teenager. Whether you're a teenager or not (we have some excellent admins who are teenagers), chill! You clearly have lots to offer Wikipedia and you're going to get some nasty messages if you provoke people with a bad attitude at a doomed RfA. Worse, if you're a capable candidate in 6 months time, a bad RfA now will significantly reduce your chances of success then. Please consider this well-meaning advice: have a cuppa, take half a day away from WP and then come back and reconsider whether you really want your RfA to continue. --Dweller 17:49, 10 January 2007 (U

Stop trolling. —Centrx→talk • 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason only Bureaucrats can close the Rfa is because people like you who are admins may commit prejudice, to try and divert the outcome. Please stop vandalising Wikipedia:Requests for adminship & Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foundby. --Foundby 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your adminship has already failed, that's why it was removed. --Wizardman 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not FAILED until a Bureaucrat says so. --Foundby 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This bureaucrat says so. Raul654 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. Nobody did anything wrong by closing the RFA, which very clearly cannot succeed. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for an explanation of vandalism. Friday (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You are on the verge of being blocked for disruption. There are well established precedents for non-b'crats closing obviously failing RfAs. Accusing editors in good standing like crz and Centrx of vandalism is highly inappropriate and demonstrates that you are not yet ready to become an admin. You are seriously damaging your chances of becoming an admin in the future by this behavior. Again, please stop or you will be blocked. Thanks, Gwernol 18:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, Foundby, you're exhausting even my patience. If you're going to behave childishly, someone will eventually give you a punishment. Please don't bring it on yourself. --Dweller 18:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The RfA is already decided. It is simply impossible that 60 users would show up and support you, with no further opposes, especially given that no one supported you at all, and your continued behavior. If you continue in this manner you will be blocked from editing. Go improve the encyclopedia. Also, read at Wikipedia:Vandalism what is and is not vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats MAY de-list a nomination, but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved. They did not decide whether consensus was achieved because is was already long clear. If there's 0 support votes after that many oppose than non-bureaucrats have that right to delist it. Plus, there's WP:IAR which means he's allowed to do that. --Wizardman 18:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Dweller, I really appreciated your kind comments. :) . And thank your telling me in advance I would get nasty comments. I am 20 years old, so I guess I am Stupid, eh? I will just take a week off. From now 0+ edits for 7 days. Then after 7 days I will make a decision whether to take it to the Arbitration Court. lol. As I said in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Folding@home : "*WP:POINT My Wikistress levels are rising, an issue important to me has been handled unfairly in my view." --Foundby 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a most impressive reply. Enjoy your break and come back refreshed. We need your enthusiasm... tempered by a bit (lot?!?!) more experience here, you'll be a valuable contributor. --Dweller 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am the Sock Puppet of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Endgame1.

• I believed that the block duration Indefinite on my original account was unsjustified therefore I created sock puppets.

• It was done by Cabal Admins.

• Their Reason = [12]

• Why I put: I though to save space, and since it was no longer required I put it up for deletion, I did not delete it per se, it has to be reviewed by an admin before being deleted.

• 01:03, 22 October 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs) blocked "Endgame1 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalsim)

• 04:46, 22 October 2006 Tawker (Talk | contribs) unblocked Endgame1 (contribs) (umm, I'll msg pschemp re this, I think it's a mistake block)

• 04:51, 22 October 2006 Tawker (Talk | contribs) blocked "Endgame1 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (actually, vandalblock)

• My Talk page is also protected & I don't want to email Tawker or Pschemp because they are very mean.

---

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Foundby&site=en.wikipedia.org

Total Edit Count 676. --Foundby 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---

"The fact that you attempted an RfA with a sockpuppet account makes it clear you have no respect for Wikipedia. Add to that the accusations below of "cabal admins" and I'm afraid there is no way this account will be unblocked. If you had seriously wanted to challenge the original block you could have done so. The way you have gone about it is extremely disruptive, highly incivil and displays completely the wrong attitude."

I tried but the Cabal Admins made my original talk page User_talk:Endgame1 protected, so I was not able to do it. So I used a sock puppet. --Foundby 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

First, the phrase "cabal admins" is offensive and unjustified and is winning you no friends here. Second, you could have emailed the blocking admins or any other admin instead of creating a sockpuppet account. Finally and most importantly the real issue here is you created a sockpuppet account and used it in a highly abusive manner. If you been open about the nature of the account had used it to challenge your block in a calm and civil manner that would have been one thing. Instead you chose to launch a very ill-advised RfA and consistently abuse those who sought to help you, while never revealing that you were a blocked user. The block is valid and remains. Gwernol 21:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)