Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
8 June 2024 |
Previous comments/messages in:
Your input at Wikipedia:Requests for Comments/GoRight would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am asking a number of administrators at random to review Independent National Socialism which is sourced completely from a white nationalist webpage called Stormfront, which has anti-Semitic and other xenophobic material on it. A user is claiming that this website is acceptable for use. I believe that this source is not reliable and could be original research, but you you believe that this website can or should this source be relied upon for the article? Please post your determination on the talk page of Independent National Socialism. Thank you for reading this.--R-41 (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
YOU and YOUR BUDs are are fools...68.75.179.155 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
...I could refrain from editing these articles JoeHazelton has such a woody over. --BenBurch (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Should something be done about User talk:98.223.48.177, the IP you just blocked... ccwaters (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You win, for now. Your tyrannical will over reason in this particular instance. I hope you understand your mistake some day. So where does an obvious fact like the logical fallacy of the appeal to the majority belong in the article? Are you familiar with this logical mistake? Are you open to correction? I sincerely hope you see how tyrannical you acted with my small and clear edit, and no good explanation for rejecting a very basic logical statement. --Joseph Prymak (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not even say which side makes the appeal to majority. I did not say anything about appeal to authority. Some on both sides make up lists of scientists and appeal to some major amount. I am taking no side, and simply stating a logical fact. You reject some basic logic, not me. I take no personal offense to the use of reason and logic or not. I am however amazed how there is a use of will power by you without a good argument to back it up. I sincerely hope you understand how you have made an error in judgment and logic. By assuming I even took a side, which I did not, this indicates to me that you are biased and on one side. Surely there should be some neutral, logical statements allowed? --Joseph Prymak (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not even get a fair warning! The warning came after I did my 4th edit, so how is that a warning? It is not a warning. How can I ignore a warning that did not even exist yet prior to my 4th edit? Again, Baley, you claim what is not real or true. I also did not intend to take a side as you claim. I was merely trying to point out a fact of logic, that either side should not make. I think a good edit would have been to move my edit, or improve it, instead of delete it with no good reason. Clearly you are not editing and just policing the article for your own one sided, not neutral personal point of view. --Joseph Prymak (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this thread at AN regarding Violet Blue (author) and offer any insight or knowledge on the situation? You were mentioned specifically. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I note you edit states please regard the consensus at talk, thanks. I would ask you to where I have not. Lucian Sunday (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm gonna request a free image from a Wikipedia biography subject by following your guide. I was wondering, if I'm planning to upload the image to Commons and the subject doesn't speak English to understand the e-mail, what should I do? Admiral Norton (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Votevets logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(This is being cross-posted to everyone listed in Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Category:Wikipedians in New Orleans, Louisiana)
Infrogmation and I are organizating a Wikipedia meetup in New Orleans on Saturday, August 23. Everyone is invited. Raul654 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey R.Baley! Remember Jsn9333 (talk · contribs), who was blocked and later sanctioned at WP:ANI? Specifically he was advised to stop making spurious edits, attacking other editors, and to prove his good faith interest in contributing by editing topics other than trying to push an agenda? Well, once he was enjoined he stopped contributing. Well, now he's returned (see AuburnPilot's post here). Having not complied with the parameters of the injunction, and having only returned to shovel his agenda. Can you handle this? Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
We're going to be having our first Mississippi meetup next month, and I would love it if you'd like to come out! A few of us will be staying overnight, so if you feel up to it, we could have a meet and greet that night and then breakfast the next morning and talk about Wikipedia and everyone's areas of expertise. Let's show 'em how it's done Southern-style! Mike H. Fierce! 21:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I was just having a look through some of the hot spots I watch (I returned from vacation today), and was pleased to see your involvement at Rick Reilly and Joseph Farah. Welcome back! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It's good (?) to know you are still watching!?! :) --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I am certainly not out to get him. I reported him for some unpleasant behavior some time ago, and Chris blocked him. I don't have his page watchlisted, and am not stalking him. Not sure how to address this issue, except to simply ignore it. Anything else becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, which would be a damn shame. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
Hello. This user is another sock as involved here, so as it's a Grawp sock, the talk page should be blocked as well. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Troyster87, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (3rd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Troyster87 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note — I will not unblock, simply because of the reasons for my blocking. I'm altogether unfamiliar with both editors and their dispute, and the only reason that I blocked was because of the repeated posting of the email address. I don't believe that there's any situation in which one editor should post another editor's personal email address, regardless of the behaviour its owner. If the block is taken higher up, I'll calmly oppose unblocking, but I don't see it as a big deal (it's only 24 hours after all), so I'll not, say, start fighting about it. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikiport (talk · contribs) Remember this yahoo? He was causing major disruption on several of the more contentious articles (Fox News Channel, Keith Olbermann, etc) pushing an agenda. He was brought to ANI a few times, and ultimately he was offered the option of making constructive contributions to non-contentious articles for a short while to show he was here to improve Wikipedia by following policy. Instead, he simply disappeared for about 6 months. Well, he's back now and seems to be again trying to bait other editors. I gave him a pretty firm "do it again and be banned" notice on his user talk, but would you mind keeping an eye and following through? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Why did you undo the revision?
Do have a problem with the infobox? And the information it contains?
Or with the scholarly classification that existed in the article for years?
Please follow wikipedia policy on discussing what edits should be removed and on what grounds. I will revert the article, since the additions are in accordance with wikipedia policy and not in contradistinction to it.
Thank you and have a nice day.--Gkeorgke (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome, and I already have. . . R. Baley (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not see your logic here, and why I am the one edit-warring and not him? so you are saying that you are reverting the article so that he does not revert the article himself, and break the three-revert rule himself?
And why do you trust him? Do you have any knowledge on the issue, or are you just gaming the system on his behalf? FPaS has history for Macedonia related articles and his most recent disruptive editings have gone to the ARBCOM for Macedonian related issues.
In the end, do you have any knowledge to judge my edits or are you just gaming the system on his behalf?
If you do have nay knowledge then I am certain we can discuss your points for the article, according to wikipedia policy instead of simply discarding scholarly contributions for POV-pushing of some established administrator.
--Gkeorgke (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you will not answer to any of my questions. Please refrain from gaming the system, and editing pages which you have no knowledge to carry out even the most basic discussion.
Thank you.--Gkeorgke (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Give it a rest with fishing. Worry about yourself gaming the system. Or opt for some basic decency to engage in constructive conversation regarding the actual topic, which most evidently you are incapable to, so refrain from editing. Have a good day or night. --Gkeorgke (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind remarks on Fut. Perf's user talk page - you're certainly right about the "little appreciation" part! If you have any thoughts about the situation, you might want to add something to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Please check your entry. There is no registered user named User:VK vandal OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick revision on AFA. I didn't notice links to additional pages. EJNOGARB 21:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support last night in the discussion on my talk page. It was greatly appreciated. BTW, since when does editing Wikipedia take a back seat to a TV show? (big grin) Horologium (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I bring this to your attention. It is essentially a veiled attack on Ryu and you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Developments were happening fast and thick at ANI and user talk last night. This went down at the very end of my evening, so didn't have time to see the full outcome and follow up. Have started a subthread at ANI you'll probably want to read. In the last few minutes before you implemented the block DougsTech was becoming cooperative.[1] His actions changed my view of this incident; they might change yours. With respect, DurovaCharge! 15:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI. Nothing serious.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the assistance with ThePizzaEatingCaveman. What started as a small edit war became a very stressful incident to deal with.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
...for fixing up my userpage after the vandalism. I think that's the first time my userpage has been vandalised, funnily enough. It was a thoroughly disappointing experience all in all, I was sort of hoping for something vaguely amusing, witty or cunning! ColdmachineTalk 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I emailed a guy about whether I could use his pictures and he that I can. Now I need some help on the declaration regarding this:
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image(s) attached to this email.
Does the copyright holder have to provide the links to the images or do I have to do it? That is all I'm confused on. Thanks. Showtime2009 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi R. Baley, an editor writes that he does not want summarize O'Reilly's smears and you see nothing wrong with that? Interesting. --Tom (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please recuse or whatever from my "investigation." Pzrmd (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You beat me to it replacing this file, so thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Batiste votevets video.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. This is part of my large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I started at talk:Treaty of Tripoli. --TS 04:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
<Snickers>[2] Thanks for fixing that, oddly that seems to happen more often than I would have expected... Risker (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear R. Baley, I was unable to write to you directly since there was no hyperlink provided. I have a picture to upload. You can write me at [redacted R.baley] for it. Thanks,
Dan Wallace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbw2882 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Please show me the policy that says that. There is no such policy. An editor does not need consensus to change anything on Wikipedia. You need consensus to keep a disputed image, and there is no such consensus as all of the discussion has demonstrated. Why would we keep a disputed image in the lead section when we have dozens of available, alternative images? You need to support a compromise that ends the conflict, not continue a dispute by restoring an image that has no support. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be——Critical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You asked about better ways of using your watchlist when bots are about. There is a good tool, which I can't remember the name of. It is definitely worth asking on WP:VPT. Rich Farmbrough, 03:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
...for this edit. I was sorely tempted to do something like that myself, but as a non-admin I didn't think it was my place to do so. BMK (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, R. Baley. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi R. Baley.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, R. Baley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, R. Baley. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, R. Baley. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.
Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux Talk 01:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)