User talk:Physicq210

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This user is an administrator
This user is an administrator.
Physicq210 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Please post new messages at the bottom of this page, and title and sign all your posts appropriately. I reserve the right to remove any post here for whatever reason. If you wish to keep a thread or conversation together, you must specify so in your post, or I shall reply on your talk page.
  1. June 2006 — September 2006
  2. September 2006 — December 2006
  3. December 2006 — January 2007
  4. January 2007 — March 2007

Welcome!

Hello, physicq210, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Bachrach44 01:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your accusations

Did I somehow manage to tangle with someone in your clique? If so, please accept my DEEPEST apologies. I simply can't think of any other reason you could come to the conclusions you did about the thread I posted in the RfA discussion page. One way or the other though, you're simply wrong. Please point directly to ANYTHING in my message that would be considered "trolling", and also to where posting my reasoning to a closed RfA's DISCUSSION page is against ANY Wiki policy. In the absence of your doing so, I'll ask that you withdraw your accusations in bad faith that I was trolling or that I was in any way "hounding" someone. My thread was direct, honest, and most definitely NOT a personal atttack in any way. (It's also interesting when you happened to choose to archive.)K. Scott Bailey 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Physicq210, and considering your concern at unwarranted and unneeded comments about Chacor, this is a little over the top. Expressing one's permanent distrust of another editor, especially in the controversial circumstances of the RfA, is nothing like "akin to defiling someone's grave". Really, in no way whatsoever. Adminship is "no big deal" and therefore failing an RfA is not a terminal condition.
Yes, the comments were probably best removed and no, they shouldn't be re-instated. But throwing such innapropriate analogies around is unhelful at best and inflammatory baiting at worse. Please lets be try to resolve this incident rather than reignite it. Rockpocket 01:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Being prone to hyperbole myself, I know what its like to occasionally overstate your case in the heat of the moment. I always appreciate being asked to reconsider them, so I thought I would pass it on. Best wishes, Rockpocket 02:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some help? (Part deux)

I don't know if you missed my follow up at User talk:Physicq210/Archive 4#Some help, but the user has uploaded the same pictures again (Image:Pagemcconnell199.jpg & Image:Jonfishman18.jpg) and is claiming to be Frank Stevens, the original photographer of these photos when at http://www.musicgods.com/momentends/ it states " All photographs and contents of this site are © 2000 John Davis. All Rights Reserved." The user brings up the copyright notice, though, which seems to contradict itself at http://www.musicgods.com/momentends/copyright.html since it says both:

"The Moment Ends Photography encourages artists to use the images for non-commercial and non-profit projects, especially CD-R cover artwork."

&

"Any other reproduction or manipulation of these images without the permission of The Moment Ends Photography is a violation of copyright. No images are within Public Domain."

Please, any help would be appreciated or telling me who else can help me. Thanks! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page in [[Category:Archival templates]]

Ok, I took a look and cannot quite figure out how your user page ended up being listed in [[Category:Archival templates]]. I didn't want to mess anything up, but want to let you know. — MrDolomite • Talk 10:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:How?

I think AAA! (talk • contribs) is most likely a confused username because the letters and /!/ makeit look like it a "screaming username". Plus, he or she moved from "User talk:AAA!" to AAAA AAAA: AAA! (which is the one I'm puzzled with that). Groupempty (talk • contribs) 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Hamsacharya_duh (talk • contribs)

Hi, I noticed you blocked this person as well as several of his sockpuppets. I was wondering if you can help me figure out how to find the citations for what resulted in his block? He has a new sockpuppet who is evading the block: [1]. Thanks --Hamsacharya dan 16:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment at RfAr Free Republic

I am sorry that I missed your comment several days ago at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Proposed decision#Reversion by Newyorkbrad. I have belatedly noticed it now and responded there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Nice block on that username. Crested Penguin 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JustaHulk

Thanks for the unblock of JustaHulk; I added an unambiguous note to the User page identifying it as my alternate account. --Justanother 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Physicq210 I want to first assure you that I'm not appealing your decision or looking to have the account in question moved. I am interested in how Wikipedia handles unusual issues and this is one. It was my understanding that usernames are not supposed to contain anything which may be seen as an indirect violation of WP:NPA without speaking to everyone involved. In the interest of saving space I'll briefly summarize, JustaHulk.
  • 04 March, I tried to resolve a difference of opinion re: WP:BLP with Justanother on his talk page and got this reply,

    Hi. First, please let me know your religion or other spiritual beliefs (or lack of), your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. so that I can cast aspersions on them (and you) for your misapplying the self-same policy, in addition to your fear of being caught WP:CANVASSING, and any other errors that I happen to catch you in. Talk about offensive! And all with the "goody two-shoes, I'm so pure and holier-than-thou" attitude. Makes me gag. I sure as hell could give a shit if you think I work for OSA. Or if you think I am one rude motherfucker. --Justanother 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

    This is a link to the archived discussion, if you have time I encourage you to read it.
  • The next day I tried to explain to him that he has an extremely volatile temper which makes him difficult to deal with (he had stated that I was inconsistent in the way I treated him). This quote from the Justahulk page shows what I said:

    From my archive - "You appear to experience some kind of Incredible Hulk persona when you really start to melt down (I was gonna say Jekyl/Hyde but the Hulk sounds less like an insult considering many consider him to be a superhero whereas the former is considered a monster)." --Anynobody 10:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that I wasn't asked if the account name offended me because even though this doesn't offend me, I think there are many editors who would consider it a constant WP:PA. Again, in this case I am not offended. Frankly it does more to make him look deceitful and spiteful than I could ever describe for a WP:RfC on his editing style I am working on with several editors. I say deceitful because he misrepresented the origin of the name with at least one other admin: Jersey Devil by saying he created the Justahulk account to mess with someone else. User_talk:Jersey_Devil#JustaHulk
Please respond here, I'm not looking to start a conflict over this with him. (I'm also not trying to give you a headache, I'm just curious) Thank you for your time, Anynobody 10:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UW future?

Hi Physicq210,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri 10:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ohlone

Hi Physicq210...you were kind enough to review the Ohlone page and left a comment "SFBAProject B class; looks like extremely close to GA class, might be worth a try)". Please tell me if there is some area in particular you recommend improvement, if any, before we try for GA class? Goldenrowley 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Lawson

I didn't mean to be uncivil. It's just he is being so unreasonable and "shouting" at me, etc. Please do not let him become an administrator...PLEASE!!!! For all our sakes, for history's sake! JohnHistory 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Are you threatening me? I am trying to be civil. I will try "extra" hard. I hope you have told Chris Lawson this too, as he is the one pushing the envelope, I am being modestly reactionary. Agian, I will be extra civil. But I hope your not setting a double standard here??? JohnHistory 04:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

If you read that discussion thread, and the previous one on the same subject with two-three other users who opposed him, and looked at his source and it's quote, then how can you not vote agianst him for becoming a moderator???? JohnHistory 04:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

OK, Just I thought I would appeal to your "desire for truth and integrity". JohnHistory 04:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory


Is it better now? JohnHistory 04:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory


[edit] User talk:67.33.132.26

Hi Physicq210, as I noted on the IP talk page that you declined the unblock, I'm the one who made the mistake of reverting the IP's edits on it's talk page for just removing warnings.(I thought that removal of warnings was considered vandalism, but it's only often frowned upon, which puts me at fault for whatever vandalism on the talk page. Please forgive me. I've apologized to the IP, and notified another user aswell.) I know that I still can't expect you to change your decline even at this point, but I wanted you to know that it wasn't entirely the fault of the IP.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 12 20 March 2007 About the Signpost
WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of banned users

As I said at WP:CN#Community ban library: Please feel free (and welcome!) to add your efforts to Wikipedia:List of banned users. I've been finding and listing banned users who weren't already on the page, with links to Arbcom decisions or other discussions, Wikipedia:Long term abuse sections and subpages, etc. Just today I finished going through the five archive pages of the relatively new Community [sanction] noticeboard. Still ahead: the hundreds of archive pages for WP:AN and WP:AN/I. Oh boy, would some help be nice!

By the way, I've updated the {{vandal-s}} template (used to list these entries) with a span-id that makes each username its own anchor, so anyone can cite individual entries like WP:BANNED#AWilliamson or WP:BANNED#Verdict. The same feature is in {{usercheck}}, which I recommend for ban proposals, so even if the section header omits the username, noticeboardname#username will find the entry, e.g. WP:CN#Roitr while that entry's still on the page, -- Ben TALK/HIST 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 4

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 4 24 March 2007 About the Newsletter
Departments: Features:
Project news March 16 IRC Meeting
Deletion debates Kentucky and Utah projects demoted
Featured subproject A quick look at the structural integrity of state highway WikiProjects
Featured member
From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback on SSP

Hello there. I would love to get you or any other admin's feedback on the following report. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jonawiki Things are beginning to get uncivil and I'm trying hard not to cross that line, but I have to admit, it's getting rather difficult. If you have any free time and can offer some help or feedback, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turok

Hi there. I'm changing the Turok 1 sock list to Turok 19. They got started at the same time and are being consolidated. All new socks are being tagged with Turok 19. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right; Turok 1 came first. But they're all being tagged 19 now. I think one list is more useful... Thoughts? Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Turok 1 it is. I'll let Persian Poet Gal know. Just sucks that we were working against each other on this ! Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Turok 1. Turok 1. I need coffee. Turok 1. Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tedious

I made the report at WP:AIV but it's not moving over there.

What say you go ahead and block and save us the frustration? =) — coelacan — 05:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. — coelacan — 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Turok 1

I didn't know that banning was for long-term abuse, not for shorter abuses, no matter how severe. I made the report, because of the severity of the case, but now I know that ignoring those short abuses is the best way to handle it.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 07:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 13 26 March 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Buchanan

This article's editors have made considerable progress toward achieving consensus, and one of them has requested I unprotect it. Since I've made clear my opinion on the matter, and since an opposing editor has taken a short break, I don't think it's appropriate for me to remove the protection you have given the article. Although I don't particularly agree with the consensus, I have no intention of manifesting my opinion anywhere but on the article's talk page. I realize it's a lot to plow through, but when you have time, would you review the article's talk page and consider removing the block yourself? Rklawton 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/y/User_talk%7EPhysicq210_4b59.html"