User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/5

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹

⬅️ Previous Archive Page (#-1) ☕ 🗄️ ☕

Next Archive Page (#1) ➡️

🌳 🍀 🌳 🌿 🌳 🌱 🌳 🗄️ClueBot Detailed Index Archive #AndreJustAndre/Archives/5🗄️ 🌳 🌱 🌳 🌿 🌳 🍀 🌳

A quick note to say thanks

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Firefox on Main page

I know you're keen on getting the Firefox article onto the main page. You might already know this, but now that it's gained featured status you can request for it to be put on the main page at the tomorrow's featured article talk page. CheekyMonkey 14:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Timing of page protection suspect

It is noted that the timing of your placing protection over the Medical analysis of circumcision is suspicious to say the least. Would you like to declare your interest inthe subject please. - Robert the Bruce 06:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I don't buy that. Why did you wait until the edit was made by the most extreme of editors? This is an issue which is needed to be raised at policy level at Wikipedia. This "shooting from the hip" by passing admins must be controlled. If you know nothing about the subject then stay away. The system is not working when there is a 50/50 chance of whose version gets to be protected. All one has to do to beat the system is to get a "tame" admin to protect the page after ones edit has been made. I will be raising this issue on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as you gunslingers must be restrained. - Robert the Bruce 07:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Actually the protection policy says more than that. It even gives guidelines as to which version to protect. But gunslingers never worry about the fineprint. You needed to take this particular individuals history into account. You did not. Read up on it: [1] - Robert the Bruce 07:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert, this isn't the first time I've caught you launching a personal attack on someone you disagree with. Could you please consider what your choice of words does to the atmosphere in this Wiki? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 07:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Go away Tony. You are one step away from stalking me. - Robert the Bruce 08:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I once again plead with you to moderate your language. Words like "stalking", "gunslingers" and the like are more reminiscent of Usenet flame wars than civil discussion. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 16:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tony would you please stop stalking me. - Robert the Bruce 17:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, can you recall any discussion on WikiPedia in which you have strongly disagreed with someone but not impugned their motives or personality for expressing that disagreement? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 18:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• That guideline is strictly permissive. You can always appeal to another admin to unprotect. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I have made my point. I believe you came in shooting from the hip. I don't expect you to back down in public. My point is simple the system failled. Any system which acts like a flip of a coin, protecting an article has a 50/50 possibility of entrenching a particular version. This is not clever. Sadly, however the likelihood of a particular POV being so entrenched has better than 50/50 odds ... that is a real concern. - Robert the Bruce 08:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The POV dispute notice is still on the page in question. While you are pushing your POV and the other guy is pushing his, and neither of you is interested in compromise, it's likely to remain there. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 16:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Editing userpages

I just noticed on user's personal pages, you can edit them.

Why is this allowed? I couldn't think of a good reason why, and was wondering what the reasoning behind it is? GregNorc 20:38, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Is there a place where newbies can go and ask "dumb" questions?

I don't want to clutter up your talk page, and the search function is down.

Thanks

GregNorc 20:52, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Andre! I'll keep an eye (or a Firefox tab at least) on the instructions that you sent! --Daedelus 20:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And thanks for supporting my bid for adminship! --Woggly 20:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Three revert rule

Don't talk to me like I'm a moron, Andre. I'm the only one who's made any serious attempt to discuss anything in this dispute, and I've been ignored every single time. If you want to talk about being "impolite", check out the talk page to see what Reene has written about me in the last few days. I suggest you block her for 24 hours for vandalism. Everyking 01:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where is the note on Reene's talk page, Andre? Everyking 02:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi

If it helps, I don't think you did anything out of the ordinary by locking the page on whatever version was the latest. However, I believe a User:Robert Blair is anonymously editing things as a SockPuppet in his revert wars, and a few other users as well (on unrelated subjects). What would be the proper method to look into such things?--Josiah

Umm... who/what exactly is a developer? (Please forgive me if i'm being dense tonight)--Josiah 21:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

America's Army

I would appreciate it if you could take a look at America's Army. I am of the opinion that a lot of recent additions have made the article POV (see section: "Culture"). I also believe that a lot of the information currently added is copied from articles that are also linked on the article and would fall under copyright infringement. (See the talk page). Thanks for your time. K1Bond007 00:46, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Just an update, the article is now looking like it's going to go through a revert war (again). Since your edit, it's been reverted 3 times. K1Bond007 18:40, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

1) there is no copyright infringement;
"I also believe that a lot of the information currently added is copied from articles that are also linked on the article and would fall under copyright infringement."
if the article is from wikipedia as well, there's no copyright infringement and if the information fits to both articles it should be in both articles
2) if there's a POV (see section: "Culture"), discuss it
3) if you create a "revert war" you force me to do the same
User talk:62.52.37.172

The exact same line found in the Guardian editorial was found in the America's Army article. AA Article: "...the U.S. Army, the world's biggest games developer, pumping billions into new software,.." Guardian: "The US army is the world's biggest games developer, pumping billions into new software." This is copyright infringement. I also point to this line found in the Guardian: "Essentially a playable piece of PC propaganda", which was ALSO written exactly the same in the America's Army wiki article. Because of just these two lines (have yet to search for more) I do believe that the America's Army article should be reviewed for further possible compright problems. By the way, I believe you're getting Andre and myself mixed up here. If you wish to discuss this further see my talk page. 2). The section "Culture" was discussed in the talk page on more than one occasion. K1Bond007 22:37, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

then only remove the POVs but let the rest (like accounts & Honour)
because it does NOT contain POV at all and is based on facts that can be read at the official website User talk:62.52.37.172

oic

Has it been on the front page though? I think it should be GregNorc 02:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

linking with &

Hi Andrevan, I was hoping you could help me with an editing question. I've RTFM. Luckily, there's an example of what I've trying to do on your user page: "4,300 edits"

Is there a way to do this without making it an external link? For example, I'd guess the syntax would be something like 4,300 edits, but that produces an error. Any thoughts on this? Thanks.--Pdurbin 15:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cool! But what about something like this? recent changes With an ampersand in it so I can use the "hideminor=1" variable. Thanks! --Pdurbin 21:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I got your message about not being able to link internally with &. Oh well. Thanks for checking this out for me! --Pdurbin 22:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFA

You commented:

1. Oppose as per comment added by Michael Snow. 6 months may be time enough to gain sufficient experience and maturity after making such a statement, but I can't see a big difference. Andre (talk) 20:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Would you please explain "but I can't see a big difference"?GeneralPatton 20:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you wrote "What I meant was, I don't think you've matured much since that quote of yours."

Well, could you kindly further elaborate on that, with an example? GeneralPatton 20:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you wrote "I don't think you understand at this point what adminship is about, based on your response to the bringing up of the quote."

In what way was the response inappropriate? I just explained what I was thinking at the time. I see no way how would that impair my possible performance as an administrator, as NPOV our policy, and I’ve never personally pushed for a POV, no matter how i felt. GeneralPatton 21:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you worote "I don't think you'd be a bad administrator, I'm just not confident enough in you to support."

Well, you can always vote Neutral, If you want, I can assure you, that as an admin, if I do something that you and the community thinks is inappropriate, I will resign immediately. I really try to follow the rules myself, I’ve never for instance violated the 3 revert rule and do my best to stay out of perpetual revert wars. I believe in creating content, and feel adminship would help me fight vandalism, but i'd never miss-use it in an editorial discussion. GeneralPatton 21:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PictoChat, Wi-Fi

In response to the message left in my talk page, I already stated that PictoChat uses Nintendo's own proprietary technology, which is seperate from Wi-Fi. Games such as Super Mario 64 DS use the same protocol. Wi-Fi will be used for Internet capabilities sometime...whenever that is. --Evice 22:03, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Keeping track of my user pages...

Is there a way? I put this one, I was using it to test my sig (which though it's probably simply to most vets, I'm quit proud of it)

I put the page on my watch list, but it doesn't show up. I planned on making a page to store articles I'm working on, but I don't want to have to bookmark it.

Also, how do I delete one of my own pages? Do I just blank it, or will someone not be able to see I own it and revert the "vandalism"?

Thanks a ton

[[User:GregNorc|GregNorc|Talk]] 21:50, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Meetup

Your name is on the list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC for December 12. In case you forgot to check the page, the venue and time have been both been set. We are planning on meeting at the Moonstruck Diner at 1:30pm. Just wanted to let you know. -- – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 23:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

America's Army craziness from User:Nightbeast

(oh, andre, it's a bit pathetic that all you have as facts against what I have is the simple and childish allegation "craziness"... *clearing my throat*...) YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LIAR, ANDRE. You quit because you could NEVER oppose my arguments since you neither had arguments nor had facts against my arguments. You still haven't commented on the improvements but while we were in an edit dispute, you had your friend lock it in fovor of your version. Policy: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." Thus you totally ignored that one. Your little friend called what I did "vandalism". However, it was not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism . If it was something then it was stubbornness but that's not vandalism and I didn't revert the page but create improved ones. I did most of the article from the correct dates of all versions over to the correct history and to gameplay. I only tried to improve it so it wasn't even stubborness, I kept my mind open all the time. You? You had it locked and tried to dig in the same aspects of the conversation we already had again and again to distract. You changed the article in your favour, lost the argumentation and now you try to win it by calling my arguments "nonsensical" - which is pathetic, since you were the ones without objective ones - and now you run away to have the last word and to win because you locked the article with your version. By the way, you lied about the 3-revert-rule too. On that day, the article has been reverted two times by me, not 3. (1st: from 22:18, 2 Dec 2004 to 22:02, 2 Dec 2004 . 2nd: from 22:57, 2 Dec 2004 to 22:18, 2 Dec) There were only two reverts by me. You? 1st, You reverted from 21:49, 2 Dec 2004 to 21:33, 2 Dec 2004, 2nd from 22:06, 2 Dec 2004 to 21:33, 2 Dec 2004, 3rd from 22:32, 2 Dec 2004 to 22:06, 2 Dec 2004. 3?!?! 3-revert-rule... you remember that word? There hasn't been vandalization by me (look that word up again) but you banned me instead of you. You even banned IPs from me only to keep your version!!! You're abusing your admin rights all the time and I tolerated that. The very least thing you could do is open the main article again and let it improve. Before I came, before I affected the page, it looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=America%27s_Army&oldid=7907161 Now, with the version I'd like, it would look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=America%27s_Army&oldid=8163028 So could you please open it again and make way for progression?

"First of all, I didn't protect the page, Rdsmith4 did, to stop what he (rightfully) called vandalism" Yeah you must be feeling so cool having tricked the system! Just call your admin friend, probably just told him "help me please. just protect that page. thanks." Vandalism: Spam Adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion.

VandalBot A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or spam massive amounts of articles (hundreds or thousands), blanking, or adding commercial links.

Childish vandalism Adding graffiti or blanking pages.

Silly vandalism Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense (example (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia&oldid=3005270)), or add silly jokes to existing articles.

Sneaky vandalism Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation and typos. Attention-seeking vandalism

Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks) User page vandalism

Replacing User pages with insults, profanity, etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks) Image vandalism

Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. Template vandalism

Adding any of the above to templates

Does any of these fit to me??? No! "I did not block it, as policy dictates, though I would have liked to! As for the revert rule: as anyone can see in the page history, I had only three edits on December 2nd:"

Yes, you're right, 3 edits from you consisting of three reverts. I had 8 edits, containing 2 reverts. Bond had 3 edits, containing two reverts. So why me? Because I added negative aspects of the game to the article which mainly neglected negative aspects. This article is not meant to be advertisement at all. Both positive and negative aspects belong to it. "On December 5th, which is what I blocked you for the second time, you had something like 5 reverts and I had 3 reverts, with one compromise attempt - a normal change, not a revert. Changes are not the same as reverts. K1Bond007 probably had several as well. Then, you returned with other IPs and continually reverted, so I banned the IPs." On that day I had 6 edits, containing 3 reverts. You had 13 edits, containing 3 reverts. Grover had one revert and some ugen had one too. Still no reason for banning me! "As policy dictates, I am not going to unprotect the page, because I was involved in it. Another admin will have to do that. I'm not going to be involved any longer because I don't care enough about it to be stressed out by your nonsensical (yes, nonsensical), POV, and biased arguments" So when is it going to be unprotected??? Never??? Why don't you tell that guy who locked it to unlock it??? Oh I see, you prefer your version and want it published as long as possible because... it's yoooouuur version with yooooouuur POV. You replaced the word "propaganda" with "advertisement" which is not the same and fails to define it correctly, but I must admit, it sounds better. And I must admit: if you only name that shooting teammates is punished and don't mention that shooting opponents of the US army is lastingly rewarded and indirectly called honorable, it sounds better too. And if you don't mention "propaganda", one of the strongest negative arguments IMO, in the first section of the text but that's for free and has the UT engine and many players... that sounds pretty good as well. But it makes it POV. There's no POV in mine, otherwise you'd have mentioned it. You can try to devaluate my arguments with any word you want, though, they'll remain valid and stable arguments while basically you have none.

Also, "This exception does not apply to reversions of well-established users just because you consider their edits to be "vandalism." Simple vandalism is indisputable—don't confuse it with edits which you simply disagree with." was totally ignored although it should be the case. Within a week, I added three main sections which you too agreed on. I've always tried to correct mistakes, search for compromies and convince on the talk page.

It is clear that it was a normal edit war in which you disputed and because you were invloved asked another admin to protect your version. It was on no account vandalism or anything. "Vandalism" is just the excuse in order that the following rules counts in favor of you: "In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version." The policy doesn't say you're not allowed to unprotect it so you can do that, especially because there's a solution on the talk page, isn't there? No one has ever opposed the version I suggested (but which was ignored and immeiately called "vandalism"). But what about the article?? Are you trying to keep up a semi-permanently protection and simply stop participating in the talk page to take away all chances of improvement of this article or are you going to make it unprotected again? It's all up to you. You have influence, I don't.Nightbeast 23:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, "This exception does not apply to reversions of well-established users just because you consider their edits to be "vandalism." Simple vandalism is indisputable—don't confuse it with edits which you simply disagree with." was totally ignored although it should be the case. Within a week, I added three main sections which you too agreed on. I've always tried to correct mistakes, search for compromies and convince on the talk page.

It is clear that it was a normal edit war in which you disputed and because you were invloved asked another admin to protect your version. It was on no account vandalism or anything. "Vandalism" is just the excuse in order that the following rules counts in favor of you: "In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version." The policy doesn't say you're not allowed to unprotect it so you can do that, especially because there's a solution on the talk page, isn't there? No one has ever opposed the version I suggested (but which was ignored and immeiately called "vandalism").

IF ANYONE OPPOSES MY PROPOSAL OF CHANGE OF THE AAO-ARTICLE, EXPRESS IT (with arguments) NOW, OR REMAIN QUIET AND ACCEPT IT. IF THERE'S NOONE OPPOSING IT, I'LL CALL THE DISPUTE, THE EDIT CONFLICT, FINISHED IN TWO DAYS AND OFFICIALLY CALL FOR IMMEDIATE UNRPOTECTION OF THE SITE.

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey :-)

I didn't get to them all. I got blocked by User:Silsor, though I got no warning from him! I'm pretty steamed about the whole issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting over the steamed up business pretty fast. Anyway, at least something constructive has come out of this! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Neutrality and I are engaged in an edit war. He has also contributed to a request for arbitration (and RfC) against me. He has just blocked me.

Please note that the block occurred just after I had discovered a new RfAr against myself, and was starting to provide rebuttals to it.

I consider this an abuse of his adminship.

Could you look into this action, and consider whether un-blocking me is appropriate? CheeseDreams 23:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit count

Out of curiosity is there an easy way to find out how many articles you created etc or are you just keeping count? LOL.. I just want to know for grins and I'm not about to go through my history LOL :) K1Bond007 23:16, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

RFCs

OK, I won't take them away again. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)