User talk:Lantoka/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I archived these messages, my talk page looked like this.

Contents 1 Thanks 2 War 3 Who can get to the vandals first? 4 User talk:203.113.237.89 5 Hey buddy 6 Re:Hey buddy 7 Updates on Brassiere 8 Wigan 9 Regardining me 10 Yay for SC! 11 Block User talk:194.83.245.141 12 You win some and you lose some... 13 HTML help :( 14 My RfA 15 Thanks! 16 Thanks 17 re: vandalism on User:Mgoodyear's page 18 interrogations continue 19 Smile! 20 Re: Double Vote... 21 Re: Keeping your admin status on the down low? 22 USC photo 23 Opposing 24 John Reid's ArbCom questions 25 RE:Feminism vandal 26 Wikistalking 27 Thanks 28 4chan and SA 29 Quick question for people who watch this page 30 Rick Kelly

[edit] Thanks

...for reverting vandalism to my user page. amitch 10:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. =) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War

Would you forgive me if I said that I wish I had never heard of Wikipedia. Why some people set out on a vendetta to turn collaborative writing into a warzone I have no idea. I am sure you know what I am referring to. Mgoodyear 15:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I often wonder the same thing myself. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who can get to the vandals first?

Thanks. Some of it is just chasing down repeat offenders and the rest comes through VP. I am a fan of your work too... amitch 23:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:203.113.237.89

Please look a little closer at this "persons" edit history and the article's history. This is a long term troll bouncing between ip addresses and their "revert" was out of order. Jonathan Williams 17:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the head's up. I'm not perfect and do make mistakes, although as you can see I try to correct them! —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey buddy

That's fine for now, but beware that it might be tagged again by someone else. The best thing to do would be to allow it to be deleted (or tag it with {{db-author}} yourself, then when the article it would be used in is ready to be moved into the mainspace, then re-upload the image, so Wikipedia doesn't keep an unused copyrighted images on the servers for all the time in between. You don't have to, but it would probably save a few people, including you, some trouble. --Rory096 02:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Hey buddy

Thanks for directing me to that. It seems to make a useful vandal-fighting tool, nevertheless. --Gray Porpoise 03:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How convenient! I almost took advantage of the summaries to revert some vandalism, but AntiVandalBot beat me to it. --Gray Porpoise 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ya, AntiVandalBot is useful, but it frustrates me when it and I are both on patrol. --Gray Porpoise 03:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updates on Brassiere

OK - two things if you look at Brassiere in the near future

2 recent deletions -
1. Honeymane deleted Germaine Greer - I will post a justification under discussion

It was easier in the long run to just outsource (see talk)

Mgoodyear 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Someone deleted references and diagrams, referring to them as 'self reference' - why, they aren't, but they are central to understanding a concept. Lets discuss.
Mgoodyear 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored the Wiki links, illustrations is another battle for another day (see talk)

Mgoodyear 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

'cleaning up': I made some fairly major changes today to some sections. As long as we keep each other up to date. US spelling drives my spell check crazy too! Incidentally, if you want to talk, quite happy to call you! Mgoodyear 02:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

'style': I was really concentrating on content and structure, hoping to revisit things like citations later!
Mgoodyear 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

'tags': It seems easy to put them on, but who takes them off!
I notice that once material gets outsourced to subarticles, it gets left alone! Mgoodyear 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

'communication': I have Google/gmail (+with voice). Which reminds me - I have had a lot of problems with edit clashes, where you loose what you have just done because 2 people are editing simultaneously, how does one avoid that? I have just cleaned up the other person's recent changes. Mgoodyear 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

mdegoodyear - pity they never included IM in Wiki! Mgoodyear 03:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

'vandalism': I reverted both the mess our favourite poster made and a more conventional vandal. Also found some eye witnes accounts of Miss America, so corrected text Mgoodyear 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is depressing spending the whole morning cleaning up a series of vandal acts. I have left thank you notes everywhere for this latest intervention on my part. We have to call vandals, but Eowbt is a new experience. Mgoodyear 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

'absence': I was`getting depressed over editing wars. The butterfly was much appreciated. In fact I went off and worked on some other articles rather than be harassed. What made me think that feminism would be any easier! Sometimes continuing to reply just attracts more attention Mgoodyear 23:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

'band and cup': I wish people would justify changes! I am out of town and can't check refs - but my version was correct - perhaps I had better add citation - but thought I had originally Mgoodyear 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

'soapbox': Replied. Meanwhile an old friend tracked me down to history of feminism and started attacking me in the usual way, till Mighty Quill stepped in.--Mgoodyear 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wigan

Hi, you sent me a message, accusing me of vandalising the article on Wigan. What I put on the Wigan article is FACT. I happen to know a lot more about the Wigan area than you do, seeing as I have lived here for my forty eight years. I know very little about the history, or geography, of Southern California, so I will not comment on there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Regardining me

I am a public computer at a school. Anyone can use this computer.

142.150.33.87 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yay for SC!

I saw your comment on my talk page! I'm currently sending in the applications for SC. I really am passionate about movie making and hope I can make it into their school of cinema.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block User talk:194.83.245.141

This User you spoke to for vandalism User talk:194.83.245.141. You should have blocked him/her, the address has had 3 FINAL warnings, and is not blocked. I suggest you do it as after the last warning a block should occur. I' am a new user on Wikipedia and am very busy sorting out vandalism. I find being a wikipedian very creative and helpful to the world. Star of the north 21:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You win some and you lose some...

That's about all that can be said, lol :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HTML help :(

Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} Where Am I going wrong?--<font color=”red” face=”Old English Text MT, Papyrus”>Honeymane</font>^{<font face=”KlingonTNG, New Times Roman”> Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>} 02:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to get the <font> tag inside the <a> tag (handled with [[ ]] brackets on Wikipedia). You would do this with the following code:

[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]
 <sub>[[User:Honeymane/talk|<font face="KlingonTNG, New Times Roman">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub>

Which renders:

Honeymane _{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam}

—Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about accepting a nomination for a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the stir it caused as it drifted to the ground in flames! Still, it was as educational as ever. Thanks for your input; it will be on my mind as I continue to edit Wikipedia, and perhaps I will have earned your support if another nomination comes around. Kafziel Talk 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your last minute support at my RfA. I was getting a little discouraged near the end, but it turned out fine. I have a lot to learn but your words of support mean a lot to me! Any advice is welcome as I learn to use the new tools. Thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for voting on my administrator tryout.--Rat235478683--

[edit] re: vandalism on User:Mgoodyear's page

Hi there, her page is on my watchlist, so that's what made me want to check what was going on. I'm not at all offended by your other post on ANI, you gave a lot more details than in my original message. Thanks again! --Kyoko 00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as the vandal goes if you are determined enough you just register again, but they might get bored.....Mgoodyear 11:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as messages go, making it public would be even better! Mgoodyear 11:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if you know, but it didn't take long for you know who to come back and attack my page again Mgoodyear 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If 'get back in the kitchen' is this person's trademark, he is very active under many differenrt ids. Should feminism be protected it is attracting so many obscenities--Mgoodyear 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

O, I wasn't so much thinking about him - I find obscenities posted there every day--Mgoodyear 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on the protection page! --Mgoodyear 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interrogations continue

Please don't do that again. ... aa:talk 08:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where I insulted you. As you can see from the recent history on my talk page, this has come up near-incessantly. And, I didn't just say I didn't like it (although I am within rights to say that, with no explanation), I went and looked at the various comments related to this and cited them. It was my hope that you would understand my position and mild irritation if I not only stated how I felt about it, but provided sources to indicate why I am irritated about it. Irritation doth not make a personal attack nor even a breach of agf. Nothing was intended to be personal, and while I was irritated, I did attempt to discuss it with you, and explain my position. Bear also in mind that, had you told me some hours before the rfa closed, I would have thanked you, and gone to take care of it. There is no reason whatever to badger me as so many people have. ... aa:talk 09:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You totally slammed me for leaving a courtesy message. I leave messages of this type all the time, and you're the only person who has ever reacted this way. You immediately assumed that I did it 1) knowing that you were busy in real life, 2) on behalf of the people up for adminship because I was their friend, 3) assuming you were some kind of newbie because apparently every experienced user who participates in RfA watchlists pages where they cast a vote, and 4) in order to make you respond against your will, or earlier than you wanted to. All of those assumptions are wrong, and many are terribly offensive when you follow those thoughts through to the assumptions you made about my character. You don't know me at all, and immediately you assume that I have an agenda and that I think you're too stupid to follow up RfA votes. These are horrible horrible assumptions that offend me terribly. I am not like this.

This was just a courtesy message. I thought you might not see those comments. I did not read your user page. I did not read your talk page. I just left you a note saying that people commented on YOUR SPECIFIC VOTES (which doesn't happen all that often in RfA, and is worth mentioning in my opinion) so that you'd know and be able to respond to them if you wished.

And you're still making assumptions about me! Where do you see me bring up WP:AGF? WP:NPA? There is NOTHING more insulting than dangling policies like WP:CIVIL in a user's face during a discussion, and here you are automatically assuming that I think you're incilvil and not acting in good faith and all of this other crap.

You have utterly slammed my character. I could not be more insulted. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how all that adds up to insult your "character"...? I think we also have different definitions of civil. For me, uncivil entails things like expletives, refusal to discuss something, name-calling... and I never did any of that. As you have said, you didn't read my talk page, nor user page. The corollary here is that I did not read yours, either. So I made reasonable assumptions that were based on the data I had, not knowing that you were doing this frequently. As I said, this has been happpening a lot lately (primarily when I do not support a candidate), and I am particularly peeved about it. This is why I was so stern with you. I'm really tired of it. But also bear in mind that I had no intention to insult you, your character, or anyone else. I'm not sure what you extrapolated here as an insult, but I can tell you that I don't think I was being insulting. I was simply expressing my (more than mild) discontent, and providing links to support that. As I also said, had I told you I was very irritated that you'd done that without telling you why, in your shoes, I would have called that "rude." I'm not sure I would call it uncivil. But, I did not. That is precisely why I answered the way I did, to explain. Not to insult. It appears we're both guilty of reading too much into a message. I am sometimes acerbic, especially in regards to stuff like this, but in general, I think I'm a pretty tolerant, reasonable guy. ... aa:talk 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've calmed down a bit. Let me start off by saying that I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position, especially considering how busy you are.

In retrospect and with the explanation you posted, I can see where you're coming from. My apologies for not sensing the stress that people hassling you about RfA's has caused you.

But do you understand where I'm coming from? You completely misread my intentions, and responded very harshly. It was "insulting" because I was innocent of everything you accused me of. Furthermore, I did it as a courtesy, with the intent to help you rather than hurt you. It's like your stern rebuke came out of nowhere, since like I said I was unfamiliar with any of the circumstances leading up to what happened.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with your assessment of what happened. We both misread each other's intent when we first made our comments on your talk page, and that led to a huge misunderstanding. I think now that we understand each other a little better, this issue is pretty much settled. I look forward to working collaboratively with you in the future. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 11:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can see where you're coming from. That's why I tried to explain it to you. It wasn't as if either of us was being entirely unreasonable. If you'd just told me to fuck off, I wouldn't have bothered. See you 'round... ... aa:talk 22:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

Just noticed the exchange above this message and I thought I'd drop you one of these. Alex is very straightforward (as I've found out myself), but he's a good bloke :) Take care, riana_dzasta 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Double Vote...

Sorry, that was an accident. I meant to put the support in someone else's RfA that I can't remember at the moment. —The Great Llama^moo? 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I was just letting you know so that you could fix it, since double votes are not counted by the closing bureaucrats. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Keeping your admin status on the down low?

LOL... is it standard to mention it on your user page? Since it wouldn't fit right into my intro section anywhere and (as much as I hate to propagate this quote even one more time) adminship is "no big deal", I hadn't really thought of mentioning it. -- Renesis (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - I've never seen that template before. I prefer not to add icons to that area because I have a script that adds an "Edit top" link there (to edit the first section of a page), and icons placed on that line tend to interfere with it. Anyway, I hadn't thought of it being helpful and I will probably figure out some place to put it just in case it can let someone visiting my page know that I can help them. Thanks! -- Renesis (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USC photo

Hello! Thanks for the compliment. Yes, I graduated from USC in 2000 with a bachelors in International Relations (and the U. of Minnesota in '05 with a JD). There are small but determined number of us Trojan Family Wikipedians. --Bobak 17:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing

Just so you know, there's no difference between oppose and strong oppose, here or on RFA. I'm modifying your comment so that it fits on one line. --Cyde Weys 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully agree with your statement. How strongly a person opposes a candidate (and of course how well they present their rationale for doing so) are an important part of the consensus-building process. However, truncating my !vote to one line is fine. Thanks for the head's up. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Reid's ArbCom questions

Just a brief note, following up on your oppose vote for John Reid in the ArbCom elections, to point out that John Reid didn't technically ask those curt questions of all the candidates (though he may have intended to). I in fact asked those questions of many of the candidates (after he stopped asking), as I was interested in the answers. I'm also not quite sure why you saw the questions as judgmental, but that is your opinion and you are fully entitled to it. Hope that clears up any confusion. Carcharoth 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. However, I still believe his questions to be incredibly rude and stick by my rationale. Predictably, being 19, I am offended that he places so much stock on a person's age. While there is obviously a correlation between maturity and experience, and a younger person is less likely to have as much experience as an older person, the tone of those questions seem to dismiss outright the possibility that a younger person can be mature enough to serve on the Arbitration Committee. I hope that helps to better explain my rationale, since you asked. =) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Feminism vandal

Not really...I usually just report it to AIV like you've done. The admins there are usually sensible enough to review the edits and count obvious POV rants (like these) as vandalism and block accordingly. Keep up the great vandal fighting! I've run into so many edit conflicts with you tonight... :) Gzkn 13:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking

Cyde's "wikistalking" is illusory. I spend time on discussion pages such as WP:DRV, WP:MfD; and WP:TfD. We tend to disagree; I thought, and think, that editors should be generally be left alone, and that the userbox matter was handled with excessive abrasiveness; I also think namespace redirects are harmless. I !voted accordingly in several polls. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the welcome back on my talk page. I'm very happy everything worked out in the end. USC, huh. Well, I won't hold that against you too long. Tennis expert 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4chan and SA

The user, Ggnext (talk • contribs), was doing WP:POINT disruption at both 4chan and Something Awful because he either owns or is a member of General Mayhem which got deleted per WP:WEB. I reverted both times, and then notified him on his user talk that what he was doing was disruptive.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question for people who watch this page

Hey guys! I recently changed my signature to use the font CAC Krazy Legs Bold. I'm wondering if this shows up for everybody? It's definitely not the most common font. Please let me know if you see the signature properly in the new font, or if it still looks the same as the text on the rest of this page. Thanks everyone! – Lantoka (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Kelly

Please use these templates for warning users: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Warnings. They are so much easier than typing out personal messages. BTW: I was rooting for UCLA last week! Go Gators! Bearly541 10:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bah! Evil Bruins fan! In response to your advice, though, I was actually using the NPOV templates ({{comment2}}, {{comment3}}, etc.) for that revert. I ran across the very page you linked and am playing around with using more specific warning templates during RC Patrol, since I've had complaints from other editors about warning too softly {{test1}} and too harshly {{test4}}. It's pretty awkward at this stage but I'm confident I'll come up with a consistent method of warning vandals that is both comprehensive and fair. – Lantoka (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)