From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is archived material from my talk page from January 3 to August 25, 2008. For my current talk page click here

Three-Way Race[change | change source]

Three-way race for the Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama and John Edwards says AP

The BBC was reporting what strange things you do in Iowa. Going out to "community halls, even people's sitting rooms" to choose a candidate. Nothing strange about that. Hell I've been doing that for years, except my 2 parties meet at the British Legion bar or the sitting MPs office.

Happy voting. --Bärliner 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Going to a bar or pub, now that sounds interesting to me! Wish we did that. I'm pulling for Obama out of the top three. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you BrownE, Biden and Obama are great candidates. It'll be interesting to see how things turn out in Iowa tonight. P.S. I'm not sure I'd call a man who doesn't believe in evolution "reasonable". :-) · Tygrrr... 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I close my mind off to that and try to not let that bother me, somehow. He just seems more humble I guess than a Romney or a Giuliani. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see that, I guess. I was kind of joking though. That issue isn't on the top of my list of what I look for in a president. · Tygrrr... 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

hi[change | change source]

thank you for your considerations in dealing with the user. I do not think he was in bad faith though. perhaps hopefully he may wish to sign up? ^^ I'll deal with the user myself, but thanks anyway. Please reply on my page.Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks. but i hope that taking a softer approach with him/her/it will mean that he/she/it will react kinder him/her/itself. lets see how it goes. ^&^ maybe im a pushover haha... Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the IP address? Razorflame 17:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
He's already registered an account here. See IuseRosary. I've already welcomed him and have agreed to help mentor him here. Razorflame 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont understand[change | change source]

why do you want to revert my changes? they were pretty :( and just because you're an admin doesnt mean you're more important. Everyone is equal in the world... we should all love eachother the same :) and we should love colours and happiness :)))) so you see? do you understand now? ;p

the colours on the page help attract the reader's eye... so they will feel happier reading it, and will be more loving and caring in their thoughts, and also will want to read it more... so everyone wins all round :) Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

well? Oo what is wrong with the colours? Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But it did look nice. It caught the eye and was attractive. If you will find me a policy that states it was not allowed, then I will respect this (as long as the policy gives a good reason...). What is your problem with colours? Do you find them 'disturbing'? we live in a world of colours! if you are going to set wikipedia in a world of black, grey, and white, you are creating an artificial environment, in which we are unaible to simulate our proper thoughts. I am an intellectual person you will find Eric, and have studied psychology and learning. I understand what psychological environments are best for writing and learning... I am not a vandal that is trying to disrupt things... and I am not stupid :'( Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

School's IP[change | change source]

Hey there Browne34, this is Razorflame on his school's IP address. I would recommend you block this indefinitely, as this is a school's IP address, and is most likely to be an open proxy. Please only do this if it won't make it so that I can't log in from school. Thanks, Razorflame. 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Our block policy requires a need for a block, a school IP isn't enough cause. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How about the fact that if someone who decided to use this IP for vandalism used it, then you do a check user and you find out that he's connected to me, how do you think that would make it look? Razorflame 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism[change | change source]

It looks like we are really getting hit hard with the vandalism now. Razorflame 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

user talk:Iamandrewrice[change | change source]

i have replied there... (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Browne34[change | change source]

I just wanted to say thank you in defending me when Gwib continued harrassingly reinstating the content on my page. I am very grateful, and you are a great wiki-friend :) IamAre 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi[change | change source]

Please do not block me, we should discuss this first. What is it exactly about the thread that is 'uncivil'? I am just stating the facts... and it is only going to remain on my page until the thread on the AN about it has been finished. As I have already said, I have forgiven Gwib, but we need at least some kind of list of events as to what happened... and I have simply put it there for the time being in order for anyone involved on the AN to go see what exactly the edits that Gwib left said, as otherwise, there is no visible record, as both IuseR and myself reverted them from my page. Please reply on my talk page. IamR 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but IamAR, it is considered a personal attack or an attempt to continue the matter that was dropped yesterday. Razorflame 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Browne34, I've been able to successfully let IamAR know that he should remove it, and it has been removed. Just thought I'd let you know. Razorflame 17:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting redirect[change | change source]

I'm perplex as why you would need to delete the SMOG redirect. Especially considering its the name of the readability formula and has a corresponding article on the en. --Dispenser 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't needed. SMOG is just an all capital letter version of Smog, and therefore, really isn't needed. Razorflame 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Smog and SMOG are different things, SMOG is an acronym for Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook. --Dispenser 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That may be, but the SMOG in this case just redirected us to a section of a page called the List of readability tests, which I don't think have anything to do with the Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should add in that SMOG stands for Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook on that page, though it almost never referred to as that? -- Dispenser 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As it has nothing to do with the article, I don't think you should. Although what you could do is to create a disambiguation for SMOG and list any different meanings that it may have (one of which would be Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook, the other referring to the readability tests). --Gwib -(talk)- 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Searches for smog with any case but all caps will lead to smog. So can we undelete the redirect now it now? -- Dispenser 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would have to support the undeletion as it does seem to be a perfectly valid redirect being that it is the acronym for what it was redirected to. -- Creol(talk) 23:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision/review[change | change source]

Could you please answer this question I've posted on the Requirements for good criteria talk page? Thank you! · Tygrrr... 14:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[change | change source]

Thanks for removing's pages. I've given him two warnings because he created two pages.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightywelsh (talkcontribs)

mightywelsh[change | change source]

Alright, thanks for taking the time. Is there a way i can help out without admin tools? Normal wiki has a whole page of tasks for un-admins to complete. So far, i haven't found one on this site. Later Mightywelsh (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightywelsh (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the welcome[change | change source]

I appreciate your swift response. Already i feel as if simple wiki has surpassed normal wiki in terms of helpfulness. Again thanks Mightywelsh (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:archival of ViP[change | change source]

I would never block an account for longer than 24 hours unless it was a return vandal, and then, no more than 72 hours. As for page protection, since running my own Wiki, I've seen that there is little need for protecting pages unless it needs it because of a large amount of vandalism. As for the ViP, I will not use it as much now. Thanks for letting me know that I use that page too much. I hope that I can stop using it as much now. I hope this clears things up, Razorflame 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...:'([change | change source]

Sorry! I am new here and I am still studying the rules. Sorry! --*JasPerTheKid (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ViP[change | change source]

Browne34, I just wanted to ask you if you think that I have improved on the amount of people that I've been reporting to the ViP. I have been only reporting users that continuously edit after they've been warned the 4th time now. Is this better? Razorflame 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you still do it to much. It simply doesn't need to be done M-F from about 9am to 3pm, CST. Its the middle of the day for US admins and late afternoon to early evening for the admins across the pond. Someone is watching, I assure you. One IP cannot do enough damage to warrant a report. I also dislike the fact that you think one bad edit equals one warning, a second edit equals a second, and so. It's a judgment call when warnings are issued and blocks. You also need to dealy sometime in the warnings to make sure the IP sees. Sometimes, only one warning should be issued before a block. Things aren't as black and white as you think. You have done better recently than before. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  03:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Carolyn Doran[change | change source]

Are you sure this person is not notable?

Do you contend that this person is more notable? Or maybe Buckethead is more of your notability cup of tea?

Please restore the article about Doran, and I will cite the notable sources and outcomes. - PathWrote (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As there is a request for undeletion, I briefly restored the article, re read it and deleted it again. I mentioned BLP as a reason to keep deleted, it seemed to be a very negative stub.--Bärliner 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I am so use to replying on the same page I never noticed you had already mention BLP on PathWrote talk. :( --Bärliner 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Name change[change | change source]

Name change has been done. You may want to go back and clean up any unneeded redirects from the old name (editcounter and such) that were created with the page moves as well as relinking subpages from your own pages so the redirects are no longer needed. Enjoy :) -- Creol(talk) 19:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey just realised who this is! :) Majorly (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) -  EchoBravo  contribs  15:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Block[change | change source]

Did you just accidentally click your name or something?  :) I found that to be interesting that you would block yourself for vandalism :) Razorflame 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got in a little hurry there. At least it let me unblock myself. -  EchoBravo  contribs  15:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

09:50, 20 March 2008, EchoBravo (Talk | changes) blocked #5207 (expires 09:50, 21 March 2008, account creation blocked) (You have been autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by EchoBravo. The reason for EchoBravo's block is: Vandalism)

Don't forget to unblock your autoblock :) Razorflame 15:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think...?[change | change source]

Do you think that I have improved myself enough in the areas that I needed to improve in order to be successful? Thanks, Razorflame 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA question[change | change source]

I have answered your question that you posted on my RFA. Although I'm not sure what he was meaning by that, I believe that he might've been talking about Christianman16. I highly doubt that it swayed my previous RfA the amount that RTG thinks it did....even if he hadn't voted oppose, it still would've only been about 58% support, which wouldn't have been enough to have the RfA pass. Cheers, Razorflame 13:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eric![change | change source]

You deleted my article, I was going to create the Church's and College's pages in a little while. But I understand from your perspective, :] Blessings, AmericanEagle 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat nomination[change | change source]

I've been thinking, and I think that you are a great choice to become a bureaucrat here on the Simple English Wikipedia. We might not need anymore than we already do, but you are far more active than 2 of our 4 bureaucrats, so I think that you would be a good choice. Cheers, Razorflame 20:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While I think I'm up for the task, I certainly don't feel the need or have much desire to be promoted at this point. I think we have plenty of bureaucrats at this time. I certainly do appreciate your offer. Thanks, -  EchoBravo  contribs  20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
All right. I understand your opinion and will honor it.  :) Better luck next time, maybe? Razorflame 19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just my $0.02... while more may not be needed as such, they can be useful, say if someone created an inappropriate username that needed quick action. I think most, if not all admins here would be fine as bureaucrats. Over on Meta I proposed all admins became bureaucrats after a month of being an admin, and it went down well. I don't know about here, but it could be worth a try. Majorly (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Having a system like that might be something for us to consider. Not a bad idea. -  EchoBravo  contribs  19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The only potential problem that I can see with that kind of system is giving people the bureaucrat powers before they are ready to take on the load. Also, not every administrator on here would like to be a would have to take into account the other person's feelings and wants before being exact and saying that every administrator should become a 'crat after a month. I think you or Majorly should take this to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Cheers, Razorflame 20:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The admin would ask a current bureaucrat to promote them. It would be optional. I'll propose it somewhere if no one has. Majorly (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's OK[change | change source]

Come to think of it, I don't really want the same username on both Wikipedia's. If it works I'll be OK. Thanks for your concern, AmericaNeedsJesus 20:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Google[change | change source]

When you delete something that has an e-mail address in it, next time could you take out the address in the summary, thanks Oysterguitarist 00:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: ViP[change | change source]

Quoted from ViP:

"This page is to report vandals, spammers and usernames in violation of the username policy to administrators to have them blocked."

If you believe I still made a mistake please notify me. SwirlBoy39 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize and I see your point. Great job! SwirlBoy39 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus[change | change source]

"The decision to unblock him lies with the community. Consensus to unblock will most likely not be reached and thus will most likely not occur." It looks as if there are 12 votes for unblocking Inkpen and 8 votes against. I might not be great at math, but I'm pretty sure 12 is more than 8. — This unsigned comment was added by Andrew from NC (talk • changes).

It's been explained time and time again that it's not about numbers and the vote is not law (I also might add that even if it were, 60% support is hardly overwhelming). I'm getting tired of explaining this to people that don't actually read other people's comments. If they did, they'd realize the issue they're bringing up or the "slight" they think they've "discovered" has already been addressed. Please read the above links and try to understand. I'm getting tired of repeating myself. · Tygrrr... 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Inkpen2[change | change source]

I have composed a response to many different editors regarding Inkpen2 and it can be found here. Thank you! --Andrew from NC (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA[change | change source]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which ended unsuccessfully with 59% support. I found this Request for adminship to be extremely helpful in learning what I need to work on now and I appreciate your vote in my RfA, as every vote that was posted helped me learn a little bit more about myself and the work I do here on the Simple English Wikipedia. Even though the RfA failed, I still thought it to be an extremely successful RfA and I hope to show you what I can do now. Cheers, Razorflame 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Inkpen2[change | change source]

I just noticed an error that I made in my message. I meant to have the Please in the last sentence bolded. Now that it is protected so only sysops can edit it, can you go back and fix this error for me? Thanks, Razorflame 15:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not crucial and I'm not inclined to do so at this point. The edit conflict I had with you and InkPen (in response to you), isn't helping my attitude. You encouraged further discussion and debate on a topic that is over. I gave you advice not to reply to every statement or question posed by someone on this wiki. Your replies and fixes of grammar and formatting seem to be compulsive and I'm not going to encourage it. -  EchoBravo  contribs  15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Sorry for replying to that page. Cheers, Razorflame 15:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[change | change source]

Thanks for deleting my subpages, I am grateful for that. Talk to you later, AmericanEagle 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: My Usertalk[change | change source]

Ah, sorry. Forgot to change it when I was editing. Will change... Microchip 08Sign! 18:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Microchip 08Sign! 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hang on, talking at cross purposes. Sorry. Microchip 08Sign! 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Billy Graham[change | change source]

Please vote in this Wikipedia:Proposed good articles#Voting section for Billy Graham. Thanks, AmericanEagle 04:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats[change | change source]

Congrats on 5,000 edits :-) · Tygrrr... 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. --Gwib -(talk)- 05:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! -  EchoBravo  contribs  13:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has reached the 5,000 edit mark! I'm betting that most of those edits are from reversions, but still, you've done a nice job to get that far. Cheers, Razorflame 19:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Um... awkward... thank you?... Quality over quantity. -  EchoBravo  contribs  21:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to put you down. Since I've been here, one of the only things that I've seen you do is help revert vandalism (besides voting for RfA/RfD's and helping out other users). That is one of the reasons why I said what I did, because that is pretty much all I've seen you do, other than the things that I listed above. Cheers, Razorflame 14:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, he's also blocked 122 accounts/IP's and deleted over 820 pages. [1] --Gwib -(talk)- 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, it sounded pretty condescending to me too...
Thanks for that link, Gwib. I always enjoy stats. :-) Had no idea I had the 5th most admin actions here. · Tygrrr... 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You deserve every block, deletion and protection! I've started using it for my goals, instead of trying to get 500+ edits every month like I did when I was a regular user, I try to block 10+ people or delete 30+ pages every month instead. I'll overtake you yet!
>:D --Gwib -(talk)- 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

References[change | change source]

Block[change | change source]

I saw how you just blocked the IP for 72 hours. 72 hours? He has been blocked several times, he is just going to come back in three days and destroy more pages. I'm guessing that's in policy for to be blocked for three days, but it just seemed wierd. ~ AmericanEagle 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just an IP with sporadic vandalism. It'll be fine. -  EchoBravo  contribs  21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Question:[change | change source]

You know when you linking to an article in English, you put [[en:User:EXAMPLE]]. But what do you do, for example, the Simple English Wiktionary? I mean, wiki's that are in Simple English form. Thanks ~ AmericanEagle 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the "Wikt" one worked. ;~0 AmericanEagle 18:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[change | change source]

Phew, thanks for that. Without rollback here, it's an almost insurmountable challenge to keep up with persistent vandals like that. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unportect[change | change source]

Can you please unprotect Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, I am creating a page there per WP:ST. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal[change | change source]

The newest 6 users in the new users log are obvious socks of Novotarsky please block. SwirlBoy39 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please block Novozhmursky. SwirlBoy39 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Block[change | change source]

Wow, nearly three years on Wikipedia and never been blocked, but now I chalk one up after a month and half here at Simple Wiki. Awesome! No worries! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[change | change source]

For the help. Also, see my talk page. SwirlBoy39 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Question[change | change source]

EchoBravo (Talk | changes) deleted "User:" (QD G1: Complete nonsense: no user pages for IPs)

I noticed this deletion and I was just wondering:Does this mean that we are not allowing IP's to have user pages now? Cheers, Razorflame 13:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Only registered users should have user pages. Warnings and such go on the UserTalk. I suppose information about an IP being a school IP or something similar could be on an IP user page. -  EchoBravo  contribs  14:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me to understand it better. Cheers, Razorflame 14:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back![change | change source]

Hi there! Nice to see you back! I was worried for a bit that you wouldn't come back :( Cheers, Razorflame 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It's been three days. -  EchoBravo  contribs  14:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Considering I haven't seen your name in the recent changes for more than 5 must've been more...Razorflame 14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Seeing how there is a way to view my changes, you should have checked that page before writing and would have seen its only been 3 days. I'll leave it at that. -  EchoBravo  contribs  15:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, welcome back anyways! Razorflame 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn, was worried you'd come back :(. --Gwib -(talk)- 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew you would be. :) -  EchoBravo  contribs  16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistake?[change | change source]

I'm guessing this was an error? TheWolf 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the change has the same time stamp, must have just missed an edit conflict. -  EchoBravo  contribs  14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please comment[change | change source]

Can you please reply to the section here I posted. Thanks, Ryan Cross (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found out. I see your a baseball fan. Well, I think you'll find it interesting in joining this. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)