Jump to content

User talk:Kntrabssi/archive/1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Kntrabssi/archive/1, 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:Where to ask a question, 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!  Reyk 07:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IPs on watch

Tags

I have responded on Talk:Alcoholism. Please do not use {{NPOV}} save for situations where disagreements on the article cannot be resolved. JFW | T@lk 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of talk page postings and watchlists is adequate to attract attention. Then there's requests for comments, which is sometimes necessary if a discussion deadlocks. JFW | T@lk 18:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Christianity and Christianophobia

I've made a suggestion on the talk pages of these two articles, on which I would appreciate your thoughts. JHCC (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on my talk page.

You posted on my talk page about deleting articles. Arent admins only allowed to delete pages? Thanks for you help.67.9.135.197 02:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to policy you shouldn't wipe the page. That makes it more difficult for admins to come and actually delete the entry. They then have to look at the article's history and determine if it should truly be speedy deleted.

213.42.2.10

Hi, sorry I missed your message. I didn't see it on my userpage. We'll just keep our eye on that IP, but remember that we won't ban someone. That's the Arbcomm's gig and indef blocks on IPs are generally frowned upon. Many times they are leased and will probably change owners down the road. That's not to say we can't give them a good stiff block if they keep it up. In this case if I remember right they only made one edit today and didn't receive a last warning. Personally I like to see a test 4 or some other specific final warning before a block. Anyway, if they make another vandal edit I'll block them, let me know or post it on intervention. Thanks for taking the time on this and the great work on vandalism! Rx StrangeLove 07:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive blocks

Hey Kntrabssi. This message concerns your comments on User talk:24.65.6.99 and WP:AIV, particularly "I suggest sending him a message with a ban. That ban can keep getting higher the more he vandalizes. It is obvious that he isn't going to edit genuinely." Please note that the blocking policy specifically states that "In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and serve only to avoid damage to Wikipedia." Blocks should never be increased because a user vandalises more often or more severely; it should only be increased when there's a good chance the user will continue from that IP address after the block is lifted. It's a common misconception, much like the difference between a block and a ban. :) // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: WP:AIV

Hello, thanks for your attention, I am just trying to stop attacks against Iranian articles by two or three contributers here, these are follow ups to these incidents mentioned here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02 Persian people Looks like we have to start one for Iranian people soon.. it is very sad that we dont have an admin willing to take an action against these attacks, unless you are willing to do so, thank you --Kash 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found at least 10 occurances of you not subst-ing. This is not a problem now however -- I am fairly sure most date back to February. Don't worry about it -- no one is perfect! My reminder is just for those users who never knew about subst-ing, and are just now learning this important tag in Wikipedia. Sorry for any misunderstanding. The list of non-subst-ed templates:
  1. User talk:202.182.131.21
  2. User talk:203.12.22.34
  3. User talk:213.42.2.10
  4. User talk:66.159.69.82
  5. User talk:216.162.81.27
  6. User talk:162.39.102.3
  7. User talk:207.253.47.221
  8. User talk:206.78.228.67
  9. User talk:67.106.10.11
  10. User talk:201.226.107.118
If you have any further questions, please see my talk page. Happy editing! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, subst works if on any template. Just type "subst:" inside the template brackets and it should work. Look at Wikipedia:Template substitution for exceptions and whatnot. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your support in the RfANenyedi 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The final warning needs to be recent (i.e within 24 hours) for ips because they are often shared and the previous person vandalizing might be the same as the current person. A lot of times a final warning will stop the vandalism. I've added a final, so report back they vandalize again. John Reaves (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching

Hey Kntrabssi, I saw your request for an admin coach, and thought I might be able to assist. Drop me a line at my talk page or send me an e-mail, whichever you prefer. Nice to meet you, Mysekurity 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it didn't go as planned. Editcountitis is indeed fatal. Hopefully there is a positive lesson to be learned from this. One of the cruel realities of RFA is that the lurkers tend to have certain abstract standards that no one but they themselves know of. Let me know if there's anything you'd like to ask about further. Always at your service, Mysekurity 03:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The biggest advice I can give you may seem completely counterintuitive; relax. You are most likely to be rejected (or pass with a slim margin) if you only do things so you can become an admin. There're hundreds of admins now (significantly fewer are active, but still). Prove that you don't just want the tools for the sake of having the tools. Don't make adminship your main priority. Write a featured article, participate in discussion, get your ideas heard. Join the mailing list, come to a wiki meetup (am I to take it from your user page that you're in the Boston area?), and be active, but not overactive. People like to see someone who has been active pretty steadily for a few months, yet also has a life outside of Wikipedia. Standards vary for different people, but typically they like to see that you've been here for 6 months (check), edited consistently for three, and have 1500-2000 edits or so. I can hook you up with some vandalism tools if you so desire. -Mysekurity 04:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You can check out Category:Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools for a few. I've personally used AmiDaniel's VandalProof and CryptoDerk's VandalFighter (now under Henna's control) to great effect. A Meetup is a collection of Wikipedians from an area who gather to talk about things "in real life." There's one in Boston, if you ever decide to come down. The Mailing list (specifically WikiEn-l) can be joined simply by signing up at that website. I think writing a Featured Article or at least getting something you've mostly written to Good Article status is a sign of committment that shows you aren't going anywhere. Find a topic you're interested in and work on that. Edit counts aren't the biggest thing in the world, but they're sort of the defacto standard when you aren't well known. Participating in welcoming new users, article patroling, vandalism patrol, and community discussion are all good places to start. -Mysekurity 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Medical Slang

Kntrabssi,

Today, while at work I added several entries to the Medical Slang article which you came behind and removed, claiming I had vandalized. Up until about 8 years ago I was a surgery nurse and the additions I placed were used reguarly by me and the staff where I worked. Why were they removed?

I neglected to log in and my work address is what you sent the notice to. It is a natted firewall address and could be one of about 60 users, which could explain the other notices.

Best Regards,

JW 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kntrabssi,

I had looked at the others entries and felt mine was in line with other postings, vulgarities and all. I felt some were worse that what I had added and others appeared to me to be made up or of local use.

I no longer practice nursing but I still enjoy some aspects of it. I was involved in many, many horrendoplasties and foreverectomies, which is some of the many reasons I left nursing. I was an ortho nurse and we called our procedures gorilla surgery and as a result, the surgeons were gorilla surgeons. These terms were well known in the area.

I will endeavor to remember to log in whilst at work.

Best Regards,

JW 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Links to external forums/sites

Kntrabssi, Read your message. There IS in fact a problem with your statement - that forums in support of this movie are allowed to remain, while the link to a forum that DOESN'T buy into the hype winds up deleted.

Leaving those other forum links up while deleting a dissenting forum tends to give the whole entry a POV, don't you think? (personally, after seeing the bot designs & other info through the "OFFICIAL" sites, I think this film could be A LOT better than what they're doing with it).

Gynsu

Smegatron POV

Problem IS, that the vast majority of those who are "gung ho" over this movie tend to think that THIER oppinion is the only one that matters, and anyone who says different should be wiped out. I have tried his talk page - he deleted the post and ignored it. That's when I removed the links to bay & murphy forums, which as I said before are for suporters only and anyone who thinks different get's the boot.

(BTW - sorry for posting on your mainpage.)

Gynsu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.95.242.28 (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Revert

You have removed my correction to the article Total war. There is no "von" in the name of Erich Ludendorff. Please revert. 83.248.225.211 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Vandalism

Yo what up man How is deleting ym talk page vandalism...I dont want it there...... Jewsoph 00:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Trachtenberg

You said: "Regarding an incident that occurred on Michelle Trachtenberg, you reverted a picture posted by 82.134.121.18. You then issued him his first and final warning for vandalism. Could you please justify this? Because, at least as I see it, it seems as though he attempted to add a different picture and made a mistake. This is hardly vandalism in itself, unless I missed something. Thanks for your clarification."

This user removed the following warning: "Only freely-licensed images may be used to depict living people. Please see WP:FU before adding an image here. Deliberate violations will result in a block." The user then replaced the image with a fair-use image. Furthermore, the image itself specifically points out that it may not be used to depict the actress. Not once but twice. And the image license contains text that notes it may only be used to depict the product (in this case, the character, Dawn Summers) where a free image could not be created to replace it. And the license notes that a detailed fair-use rationale must be added for each use (though obviously here, WP:FU means no such would be appropriate for use on Michelle Trachtenberg). Given all these violations, I concluded that this anonymous user was deliberately violating at least one of those numerous prohibitions and believe the warning to be appropriate. --Yamla 14:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at Medical slang

Hi Kntrabssi,

I saw you recently participated in the deletion discussion for Medical slang. If you take another look at the article, I think you'll agree that the changes made show that only terms with citations remain. Please take another look and reconsider. Thanks. Noroton 02:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate your commentary on my RfA. Not just the "for" vote but for your thoughtful responses to allegations made. But for your benefit, I grew up in CT and my family is all about the Patriots (not me personally, I don't "do" sports). ;) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ambassadors of Wikipedia

Admins are not ambassadors of Wikipedia? You have been following the news coverage of the recent Essjay debacle, I take it? Besides, I do not obey Jimbo's or anyone's word blindly. The oppose reasoning I used is based on my firm believe that admins are working as a role-model, whatever anyone says they are (or should be) or not. The childish attitude on display at RevRagnarok's user page is testimony to immaturity I do not like to see in any user, let alone an admin. Would he abuse the tools? Maybe not, but I trust him "about as far as I can throw him". —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are all ambassadors of Wikipedia, Jimbo maybe more than other Wikimedia employees, they in turn more than bureaucrats, admins, registered user and IP editors. You do not tell me how to vote. Not even Jimbo does, and you're not HIM, however often you're quoting HIM. In case you think it gives you any authority or argumentative power to bring HIM up: It doesn't. It's a cheap attempt at getting the Last Word. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposing him for 1) voluntarily displaying his POV and 2) for his reaction upon receiving criticism for that voluntary display. I do not want to win over anyone, actually I don't mind RevR being an admin, it's just me opposing. Why can't you let it go already? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on my user page, I'll contemplate on your remarks. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about RevRagnarok's rfa

Kntrabssi, I just saw your reply to my comments on RevRagnarok's rfa. Honestly, I had avoided the page since I edited there. It is one of the first times I've offered my input on rfa. I was afraid that you or others would flame me, but I have to say, I'm very impressed with how civil your reply was and how well you seem to be able to separate your feelings from the rfa. Your reasoning sounds okay; that a potential admin really should only be judged on dealing with vandals, their participation in the community, and their answers to the questions. I guess it boils down to difference in our opinions on to what degree a potential administrator is given to express his or her own opinions even if they may be divisive. Anyways, I don't think I'm changing my input (or !vote, if you like -- I don't). And this message probably has no point other than to say, "Thanks," for being civil and clear-headed. --Iamunknown 12:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Barbosa

You didnt change anything, you just deleted everything I added. That seems extremely bias myself. There was only one POV sentance in what I wrote and it was the last one, the only line waranting deletion. What I wrote were his tendancies and his comfortable moves. Its what he does it belongs in his bio, especially one where descriptions of his playing style are oddly absent. This seems out of line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.29.248 (talk • contribs)

Responded on talk page Kntrabssi 01:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because its important to describe his strengths and the plays and moves he often reverts to, ESPECIALLY in a bio. Player tendancies happen to be very important in sports and theres no way you can write them off as POV. Its not subjective, its what he does, and its not your place to decide if it belongs in his bio, because it isnt POV.

I had nothign to do with the sentance ""Leandro is considered one of the favorites to win the NBA 2006-07 Sixth Man of the Year."", and no thats not a skewed POV, and yes its different than saying "he is going to win", its actually a fact he is leading the running.

You obviously have something against him and you have some sort of control complex, you have no right to constantly delete things with no POV what so ever from someones bio, you are being a vandal in this sense and you have no right. Youre not fooling anyone and its messed up that you convince yourself that things you dont like are POV violations so you delete them. Its obvious youre the one with the petty POV problem.

And now youre obviously getting your friends to do it for you so it dosent look extremely petty on your part. This whole affair is a blatant abuse of power and a childish crusade.

Abuse of Power

As a matter of fact I find it hard to believe you have not used your influence here to your unfair advantage, there are a lot of other ways to talk to a friend than a recorded discussion page and you wouldnt tell them to back you up on one. But its obvious my addition is being unfairly targeted because it is NOT a POV violation and only after you started some childish headtrip crusade certian completely reasonable entrys get targeted.

As a matter of fact a persons entry on wikipedia IS a biography and as a matter of fact the only difference with saying hes fast and using an adjective to describe it is asthetics and is quality writing. You are taking this extremely personally and you have no base to do this or legitimate reason, you seem to just have to feel like a big man. Youre really grasping and trying to fabricate reasons as to why what I wrote is unacceptable and now your final reason is that I used too many big words??? Please, this is an obvious abuse of influence and you have some serious ego problems to address. Theres a difference between fast and exceptionally fast, and I am far from the first to attribute this to LB.

You are grasping and trying to fabricate valid violations and in the course of which you are violating policies yourself and acting like some childish bully. I recognize this is a battle of wills and you will continue to delete content until you find something that matters in your life but you are on a crusade to make yourself feel big and exert your own dominance while I'm merely defending common sense and reality, and if you continue this people will notice. 69.254.29.248 05:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. Kntrabssi 04:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I have no pull around here. I am not an admin, and none of the users who have warned your or reverted your page even know me. It is easier for you to blame it on my "having a crusade" against Leandro Barbosa, whereas three different people have reverted the page. You can accuse me of whatever you like. However, you did blatantly violate the Three Revert Rule for which you are currently being reported. Please, in the future, read Wikipedia's policy about NPOV and 3RR. Kntrabssi 04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: You have more pull than me and thats all that matters, thats what you are banking on. You are not on a crusade agaisnt Leandro Barbosa and I never said that, you are on a crusade agaisnt me and to make yourself a big shot. You initiate conflict and you refuse to abandon or concede any disupute even when you dont have not one valid point. You struggle to construct points and POV conflicts but when someone proves you wildly wrong and out of line you ignore it and try to build something else. You have no right and behind this image you love to portray you OBVIOUSLY have no valid point and you are fighting some childish crusade just because you were wrong and out of line to begin with and you simply are too egomaniacal to admit it to yourself.69.254.29.248 05:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note 69.254.29.248 (talk · contribs) has been block for 24 hours for edit warring on Leandro Barbosa. While you may want to totally removed this discussion I recomment you create and archive at User talk:Kntrabssi/archive/1 by moving all this to that page. That way if the problem occurs again you can also refer admins to this discussion. Gnangarra 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kntrabssi/archive/1&oldid=1141835143"