User:Fvw/TalkArchive/9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been archived, please do not edit it. New talk and comments on this talk go on my talk page.

I understand you might want to cut down, but I hope you're not leaving permanently. You've done such a great job here.-gadfium 07:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. We all need a break every once in a while, but I hope you come back soon. RickK 07:25, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Same. Have a nice break, Fvw. Please come back to us when you're WikiStress level isn't too high. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Take a few weeks or a few months off, but do come back. You're one of the bright stars in the Wikipedia sky. -- Curps 16:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seriously. Wikipedia would be a lot poorer without you. I can hope that you're only taking a break and will be returning to us, but above that, I hope you're happy in whatever you do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hope to see you back eventually, Fvw! You always contributed a much-needed sense of humor. dbenbenn | talk 18:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We need you. Cut down on your edits, but reamin with us. utcursch 06:24, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hope you do come back soon. Did you ever complete the proxy block script? Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to see you're leaving, Frank. I hope it isn't for good. Cheers for all the help. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 21:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Enjoy your wikibreak, but hurry back! — Dan | Talk 03:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We'll miss you. I hope to see you back sometime. Best of luck, Joyous 02:30, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I just got back from a little wiki break. I hope yours goes well. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Frank, didn't you know? Wikipedia is an addiction!  :-) I hope you find a balance that allows you to devote time to other things as well as helping out around here. Take some time off, but do come back. SWAdair | Talk 06:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll be looking forward to your return, Frank. -- Hoary 08:39, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Enjoy the break, I am looking forward to see you again. -- Chris 73 Talk 13:57, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Just to echo what everyone else has said, you'll be missed and hope you can return soon. GRider\talk 17:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your kind words. I still do the odd RC-patrol when boredom strikes, and keep an eye on wikipedia goings-on. --A temporarily relapsed addict 00:54, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I know what I say may be unpopular, but I think it needs to be expressed here as representative of the views of many other contributors. Many on wikipedia are glad to see that you're gone. You always enjoyed being aggressive on wikipedia, often engaging in long feuds. You also enjoyed punishing those who crossed your path. You contributed barely anything to wikipedia in the way of articles. It really has not been pleasant dealing with you. You are hostile and adverse to discussion. Wikipedia is better for your absence. BlasphemousBlasphemous

Toyslove images[edit]

Greetings. You recently voted to delete several toyslove images because they were orphans, the copyright status was suspect, and there was a URL to a commercial site on the images. The URL has now been removed, the copyright status has been verified, and two of the images are no longer orphans. I was wondering if you might consider changing your vote. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:37, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

User Talk Archiving[edit]

I was reading your hints to User:Wyss and was wondering if archiving Username's talk under User talk:Username/Archive #n would satisfy your concerns. hydnjo talk 03:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not really, my point was that User talk:<username>/foo is only appropriate if it's a discussion of User:<username>/foo. Feel free to manage things however you want to however, it's just a matter of æsthetics after all. --fvw* 00:41, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Open proxy page[edit]

Watch out! Vandals, probably Sollog vandals, are using subdirectories of your user page, ex. User:Fvw/proxytest2, to mark open proxies to later use for the purpose of vandalism. Andrew pmk 02:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that was me, scanning open proxies for blocking. The problem has since been (incompletely) solved in a different way though, so the page has become irrelevant. Thanks for your vigilance though. --fvw* 00:44, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Frank?[edit]

It has been over a month. Where are you? Come on, you've gotta come back. At least visit us occasionally.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 11:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So here I am, visiting. Where are my tea and cookies? Smiley.png. --fvw* 00:49, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
Hold on, I'll get you a cup.
Dig in!
Fvw, hey! Have your just desserts! User:Bishonen

We aim to please. Very nice to see you! JRM · Talk 00:56, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
My, the service here is quick, Ta. --fvw* 01:03, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Welcome back! However, I'm afraid the cookies won't be much good, since I ate them all moments after having taken that picture. — Dan | Talk 02:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, man; didn't know. RC is pretty addictive.

I was pleased to see your name show up on my watch list (in several places, too). Hope you'll be sticking around for longer than a visit, even if you cut back your involvement. — Knowledge Seeker 03:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back. Please don't burn yourself out again; take at least an hour off a day, and maybe get some sleep occasionally.-gadfium 06:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luigi Mottola[edit]

I just thought that you ought to know that User:Chadbryant has been under attack for some time from a person who has so far opened at least five accounts solely or mainly for the purpose. Luigi Mottola (talk · contribs) is the latest, and I've been blocking them indefinitely on sight. As soon as your block has expired, I'll do the same to this one. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Welcome back! Don't put too much wiki-stress on yourself :) utcursch | talk 09:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, Frank! Nice to see you around, hope you are here to stay this time! jni 09:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, great to see you're back! -- Ferkelparade π 11:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Return of the Soldier[edit]

Hi Frank! I was so pleased today when your name showed up on my watchlist. Well, in the time that you've been away, I've become an admin. See what your disappearance did! Does this mean you're back for good? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! If I'd been around at the time you would have had my vote. --fvw* 05:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Tea and cookies[edit]

He's back! He's back! Yippee! You asked for tea and cookies; here they are.  :-) It is great to see you back. I apologize for the delay in responding -- I had an unexpected vacation. You sure did a lot in the one day you allowed yourself, but come on. That was a week ago. LOL! Oh, sorry. That was the addiction speaking. Welcome back, Frank. I hope you find a balance between Wikipedia and RL so that you can devote quality time to each. See you around. SWAdair | Talk 01:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You should be banned[edit]

Fvw, you should be banned, you have banend over 50 people in the past couple of days, can you honestly say that all of the people you banned deserved to be banned themselves? [Jakewater (talk · contribs)]

What?? Fvw's most recent activity on Wikipedia was on April 28th, and he blocked only two users in the last four months! — Knowledge Seeker 01:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're quite right of course, and for my sins I've taken it upon myself not to wikipede more than once per trimester :-P. --fvw* 06:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Good to have you back, if only briefly. I hope you decide to stick around more. --Deathphoenix 19:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cinema by country[edit]

I think it should only be noted on the talk page. That user created the other cat after the Cfd had decided not to, and then populated it. Since then has vandalised the Cfd page, removed the Cfd tag on Category:Film by country and then put that one up for speedy with that comment. I left notes on the talk page about this. This category should have NOT been deleted in the first place, and the consensus as of now, is to revert the unauthorized pages. I understand your point about having it there for admins, so they dont' speedy it, but it leaves a false impression about the history of the cat, since it shouldn't have been deleted (retired) in the first place. I appologize if I am seeming rash, but this anon is just creating categories and moving articles around going against the consensus of the Cfd. Thanks for your understanding, I will leave the note, but adjust it to be more neutral. Thanks. Who?¿? 07:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, any note works for me. It's just my experience that empty categories have a tendency to get deleted, whether they're CSDs or not. --fvw* 07:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Thats understandable, and thanks for the consideration. I left the note there, just ammended it. Thanks for replying. Who?¿? 07:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Re;AIV[edit]

Ok, that's why I listed it on AIV instead of just going ahead and doing it. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

ok, what part about 'Give A Reason' do you have trouble understanding?[edit]

Just wondering - sincerely ,the great and powerful, anon 172.145.75.28

Aloha, and welcome back. FWIW, I just saw the edits by 172.145.75.28 and your revert of the anon's edits. I don't know who the anon is, but it has been speculated that User:Coqsportif is a sockpuppet on WP:AN/I, and it is likely that User:I-2-d2 is one of them. --Viriditas | Talk 03:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Aloha, and thanks. I've been reverting the edits by a clump of anons who have been marking both the image and user pages as CSDs and vandalising them in other ways. If there's evidence for sock puppetry by all means add the template with the evidence linked, nothing wrong with that (that is to say, I'm not really fond of the idea behind the sock puppet template apart from for epidemics like sollog, but there appears to be broad community support for it so who am I to object). --fvw* 03:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
We're probably on the same page. The sock template would certainly be more useful if there were a verified check user IP behind it (plus an arbcom decision) but given the response time required for such a request at present, and the proliferation of puppets of mass disruption (!) I'm afraid that Wikipedia is literally drowning in trolls and a solution is desperately needed. If you have any ideas, please share them. --Viriditas | Talk 03:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and btw, since you're a wikiexpert, can you take a look at the new Template:Attack I created, and offer any criticism, changes, or suggestions? That is to say, will this template be helpful? I think it might work well for newbies. --Viriditas | Talk 03:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Ooh, I get to be a wiki-expert, yay me. I'm afraid someone beat you to the idea though, see Template:No personal attacks. For what it's worth, I like your wording better, though it should be kept in mind that the blocking policy doesn't cover personal attacks.
As for how to rescue wikipedia, I'm afraid me and the community are on different pages (if not in different books) on that subject, which is one of the reasons I don't hang out here quite as often anymore. I'm tempted into a little RC patrol every now and then when I'm trying to avoid the things I should be doing though. --fvw* 03:59, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a subpage explaining your position and how it differs from the community? If not, I would be interested in hearing it. In any case, I've changed "blocked" to "banned" on the attack template. Thanks for your input. --Viriditas | Talk 06:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Nope, as it's mainly people-need-to-change-their-mind-about-this stuff, not some simple procedural changes. In a nutshell, the problems wikipedia is currently facing are caused by it taking much too long for negative behaviour to get an appropriate response. This is manifesting itself amongst admins as well as the single-issue troublemakers. I think we (and when I say we, I mean them, but we sounds so much nicer) need to keep in mind that our end goal is making an encyclopaedia, and that there are some people (who may be well-intentioned) who do a lot more harm than good and that chances are, we cannot reform them into editors who are going to edit harmoniously. A lot of troublemakers who are currently not banned outright because they're also doing some useful work are a net drain on wikipedia as they make editing unpleasant for all the good editors and thereby driving away a number of editors and potential editors that could far exceed their output. If we quickly tell those who are causing trouble (as opposed to newbies of course) "I'm sure you're a wonderful person but it is felt that you're probably doing the cause of wikipedia more harm than good so we've decided not to take any further contributions from you", I think a lot of people's wikistress will go down a lot and wikipedia will revert to the kinder, gentler place it once was (yes, I'm one of the everything-used-to-be-better believers).
Once that is happening we should also start putting consequences to transgressions made by the editors who are in the balance doing good, like violations of NPA, revert warring, self-unblocking (what's with the recent spate of that by the way?), block-warring and severe wikiquette violations. Even the best of editors have moments of weakness, but as there are no repercussions apart from for chronic and severe violators, people are getting used to it and starting to accept it as normal. There's no need for huge penalties, but a slap on the wrist to remind people it is not acceptable.
Anyway, thanks for the invitation to rant, always nice to hear that someone actually wants to read this stuff. --fvw* 02:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

ECommerce Best Practices[edit]

You put this on VfD, and it is indeed a blatent ad. It is also a copyvio from the corporate site, and I have listed it as such. Btw, please remember to Subst {{vfd}}. Thanks for spotting this one. DES (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice catch, I must have forgotten to google it. Thanks.
As for substing VfD, despite lots of discussion I still haven't found any convincing arguments for it. The server load argument is no stronger for VfD templates than any other, and I doubt how effective it is against detagging (and I watch my VfDed pages anyway). On the balance, I prefer the labour-saving of not typing the extra subst:. --fvw* 05:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
You are welcome.
On subst -- VfD pages are rather frequently viewed, but particualrly are frequently edited compared to most pages, and this increases the load effect of templates, as I understand it. Furthermore, the subst inserts the html comment warning against de-tagging. This will not stop a malcious de-tagger or vandal, of course. But it may help educate a newbie, IMO. All that said, if you have considered the issues, it is your choice. i will subst and un-substed vfd when i happen to notice one. DES (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Nope, templates only get invalidated if the template itself is edited. Also, I'm not sure pages on VfD get that many hits; if we were to choose a template to subst in for performance reasons, my first choice would be template:current, as articles marked with that tend to get a lot of hits (and not just from us behind-the-scenes munchkins). You're welcome to edit my tagging mercilessly of course (just as I'm well within my rights to mercilessly split my infinitives). --fvw* 05:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re: NPA[edit]

Where do you see me making any personal attacks? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Phrases like coward out aren't conducive to level-headed discussion. --fvw* 17:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re: redirects[edit]

Thank you very much for informing me of the developing discussion on the archery redirects. I admit that I am a bit appalled that this would be taken to the incident board without consulting me first. I am not some anon for which there is no other recourse than administrative action. I am gratified that you took the time to rectify this oversight by others. I have posted a response in the discussion thread. Indrian 16:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

A Barnstar! For your speedy reverts of page move vandalism

KeithD (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Awww, thanks. --fvw* 18:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. Well done on putting it all back before anyone else even did one of them! KeithD (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
All mine! My preciousssss vandalism :-) --fvw* 19:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Kakashi Bot[edit]

Sorry about that... The edits it makes is rather tedious. --AllyUnion (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Hardy Boys[edit]

Fvw - you might like to take a look at the discussion on this issue at Vandalism in Progress - if you aren't away of it already. All Hardy Boys articles are affected. --PhilipO 20:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what brought it to my attention. Your best bet is probably to put up a request for page protection, I'd protect it myself but stupidly got involved with the edit war instead and I'd rather avoid the grey areas of conflict of interest. --fvw* 20:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is the first time I noticed this, but does Flonga look like a sockpuppet of FWDixon? Check out the edits. The User page was first modified yesterday. How does one raise this on Wikipedia? Thanks --PhilipO 00:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Kenneth Irons[edit]

My apologies. I assumed, since the lead sentences were so similar. I wonder if VfD might be better, though... ral315 23:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, or otherwise a merge somewhere useful. I'll leave that up to you though, to allow you and the article to bond a little :-P. --fvw* 23:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

copyvio vs. PUI[edit]

Hi Fvw, thanks for the note. You are right, images without a source should go to PUI. I had intended to look for the source (they are all obvious professional images) but didn't get them all.

Regarding the fair-useness of screenshots. I do and did object to these particular ones for specific reasons and explained why on the listing page. Did you miss this part? Anyway, some of the images that you put a fair use tag on are orphans (Image:Specmachine-a.jpg, for example). It's impossible to have a fair use rationale for orphans (I forgot to note this with the other reasons). Also a bunch are still tagged, did you want me to go and remove the tags? --Duk 23:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops no, I'd missed the reasons above, and they're very compelling (almost as compelling as the fact that if I didn't delete them for being copyvio's I'd have to IFD them). I've deleted the bulk of them apart from a few that are used in articles and are reasonable fair use. --fvw* 00:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. you are the guy doing the work clearing these, so I'm not really contesting.  :) --Duk 00:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh please do. Anything to alleviate the tedium of WP:CP :) --fvw* 00:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

copyvio at Semantic differential[edit]

Hi Fvw, this was a long-standing issue which was finally resolved - look at the bottom of the discussion. Please remove the coppyvio; if you have questions, please contact me. Thanx, Cruise 00:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I've sent a verification mail to support@vstat.net, and when that comes back I'll remove the copyvio notice. Happy wikipeding! --fvw* 00:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I finally noticed...[edit]

That you're back! (I just saw a post you recently made on RfD. I've backed off to mostly normal editing a while back, except for taking care of RfD - I had to give up archiving WP:AN since that was taking up so much of my time that I wasn't getting to work on articles any more! Which kind of bummed me out. So I've been busy in little corners, working on content...) Hey, good to see you. I hope/assume you're taking it a little easier this time! Noel (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nah, not really, it's just the I've aquired bigger responsibilities that require running from, so I've been hiding out here a bit. Still, good to see you too! Have a cup of tea and a some barnstars :) --fvw* 01:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Robertson[edit]

May I know why you cleared news about Robertson and Chavez ? Chris93 02:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It had already been covered, check the rest of the page before adding new stuff. --fvw* 02:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
OK. Sorry Chris93 02:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting my talk page! FreplySpang (talk) 02:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Only fair considering yours was vandalised in response to you reverting mine. --fvw* 03:08, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thanks for taking care of mine too. - Taxman Talk 23:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Current events[edit]

I think I understand why you blanked out the Robertson item added by an anon. user on Current events, but I don't think it's helpful to newbies who don't know enough to read your edit summaries. Don't bite the newbies while they are still typing. They wouldn't even know what they did wrong. I added the "Newslink Missing" tag to help out, hoping to show the way. Now, I've restored the news item added a newslink, too. However, I do suggest blanking out unsourced item clearly left unattended on Current events. -- PFHLai 23:38, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little gruff, but keep in mind that current events is one of those high profile pages on wikipedia, so if we don't source there, even for a few minutes it is sending a pretty bad (and confusing) message. Actually, I'm not even sure current events belongs on Wikipedia, but that's a story for another day. --fvw* 23:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I see that we are on the same team. :-) Just that I prefer being more gentle to newbies with just a handful of edits under his/her IP. TakeCare. -- PFHLai 23:54, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Mike Garcia[edit]

Please help! This user is deleting my entry on him on the 3RR page though he violated the rule on Hypnotize. 66.36.133.229 23:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

See my reply on WP:AN/3RR. --fvw* 00:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


Thanks![edit]

I can't tell you how much I appreciate you having blocked the latest "Willy on Wheels" incarnation. You da man. - Lucky 6.9 00:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he's the latest, but having blocked the latest-but-five one is nice too. I suspected as much, but it's always nice to have it confirmed. :-) --fvw* 00:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, you did me a favor. Least I can do is thank you. Anytime you need one in return, just ask. - Lucky 6.9 00:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

NTL vandal - worth it?[edit]

Hm, I was wondering that myself, but figured that a short block would at least buy a couple of minutes of peace - oops, no, there he goes again. I guess I'll stop blocking NTL proxies, but it certainly is frustrating to sit here and let it happen. FreplySpang (talk) 00:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Think of it as raking a pebble garden, in a zen sort of way. :) --fvw* 00:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Be the rake...be the rake...be the rake... :) Seriously, I went back and blocked the proxy for only an hour. Hopefully, the dweeb responsible won't be sitting in front of his computer in breathless anticipation of that block lifting. - Lucky 6.9 00:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • rake, breathe, rake, breathe, rake, breathe. :-) FreplySpang (talk) 00:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Vandalism on, Vandalism off, Vandalism on, Vandalism off? --fvw* 00:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sockster[edit]

User:Sockster conveys the same information that User:Sock-ster did, which I noticed that you deleted. I recommend deleting this user page also, unless I'm missing the point of deletion. I strongly think this situation is linked to (or rather, IS) WoW, especially based upon what User:Socknet's page said. AdamRock 21:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads up. I've removed the old content but not deleted the page, as it also contains Thue's block message. It's not like there's anything dangerous to wikipedia there or anything, so it doesn't matter that it's left in the history. --fvw* 21:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
By the looks of it, The Anome did the same thing a while back, which got "reverted" by Milyle (talk · contribs) (here [1]). I'm apprehensive as to whether or not it won't be reverted to the "descriptive" version again.
(BTW, how did you post your reply on both mine and your user boards? I'm still somewhat new... ) AdamRock 21:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Then we'll revert it, and if they persist we can always protect the page (deleting doesn't help here, as they can always just copy and paste the text in again).
My reply on both pages was done by copy and pasting the text to both, it may be a little more work but it keeps the discussion legible afterwards (as opposed to just replying on the person whom you're talking to's talk page which means the discussion gets split up into two parts, one with the replies and one with the responses and to read it back you have to interleave them again, or as opposed to just replying to people on your own talk page, which means the person you're talking to doesn't get a new messages indicator and has to check the user pages of all the users they've conversed with recently for replies (which I often end up forgetting and having a large watchlist means these things can easily go unnoticed)). You don't have to though, there are lots of people who chose for one of the less laborious methods. --fvw* 22:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • [2] Look at these sockpuppets...what do you think? AdamRock 17:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Fernando Rizo[edit]

Thanks for the correction, Fvw. A response and a question on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon[edit]

Well, German chocolate cake never got fixed. But go ahead and unblock and warn if you wish.... Evercat 22:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Nick Adams[edit]

I guess Nick Adams needs protecting too (endless reverts to unsupported material against consensus by the same editor, 141, who is targeting Elvis Presley in order to skew Google search results to a tabloid book by David Bret. Wyss 23:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, this may have to go to RfC. Wyss 23:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict[edit]

What were the odds of me getting in an edit conflict on a page that hasn't been edited in almost 3 weeks? Redwolf24 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't just because it popped up in your watchlist? Fun. Want to have an edit war on template:protected? Should be entertaining. --fvw* 23:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Please, people. I didn't protect that template for nothing. JRM · Talk 00:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

didn't think of that, it is no longer in my template. Howabout1 Talk to me! 23:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Too fast![edit]

Page vandalised 01:47, reverted by yourself 01:47. Is there even any point in watching this page? Would you kindly hold off for 30 seconds or so some time, and give a person a chance to feel useful? ;-P Bishonen | talk 00:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You're in luck, I'm going out in 5 mins. Enjoy your vandalism! --fvw* 00:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Region 10[edit]

I saw a note on Fernando Rizo's talk page about vandalism coming from "Region 10." Did your information mention whether or not the edits were coming from Texas? Joyous (talk) 00:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that IP appears to be in Texas. So, what's all this "Region 10" cloak and dagger? --fvw* 00:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's an education thing. About 35 years ago, Texas was divided up into about 20 zones. The public schools within a zone are provided various and sundry (lately, mostly sundry) services by an entity called an "education service center." In addition to teacher training, Region 10 would be the internet service provider for most of the public schools in Dallas and the surrounding counties. If you're extremely curious, there's a little more information here. Joyous (talk) 01:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Good catch![edit]

I'm glad you corrected the incorrect answer I gave at the Ref Desk. I obviously knew less than I thought I did! ike9898 01:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Helping out at Copyright Problems[edit]

Hi Fvw. I'd like to help out at WP:CP. Do you think you could give me a primer to get started? The page looks very overwhelming, and I'm not sure where is the best place to start. Thanks for your help! --HappyCamper 06:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole closing procedure should be properly documented somewhere. Until someone volunteers for that, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Closing_Old_Violations covers the basics. If you have any questions about cases (especially fair use issues result in a lot of incorrect decisions), feel free to ask here or just leave the case unclosed, there's generally no big hurry. If you'd help trim the backlog that would be very useful though. --fvw* 01:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)