User talk:Fran Rogers/Archive 8
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Request for Deletion Review
You deleted that article without any comment, even though there was a lot of discussion, and there was a lot of editing done by the author. I can't remember the process for requesting a deletion review, but if you can provide the link, that would be good. Mandsford (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Request for Deletion Review - Same-sex marriage and procreation
A page I helped startup, Same-sex marriage and procreation, you deleted with no comment, as Mandsford points out. Having made many edits in response to critiques of others, I wish to know why you deleted the article, to see if the page can be additionally edited to satisfy your concerns. Otherwise, I will be asking for a deletion review, especially since there was no explanation for the deletion. Greg Aharonian (talk), 20 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus in the AfD seemed to indicate it was a PoV fork and shouldn't be a separate article. However, I would personally be glad to move it into your userspace so that you can integrate it with same-sex marriage, if you would like. krimpet✽ 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but I would appreciate it if you could consider undeleting the page and let me proceed to continue the editing to make it more acceptable - the consensus was that it was on its way to being a non-PoV fork. One critic, Mandsford, indicated his satisfaction with the changes I have made to date, and a second critic, Chris, wasn't posting a new criticisms (which I assume meant he found my changes acceptable). A new critic complained, not about the explanatory language of the page, but rather that all of the court cases and legislative activities I cited were where procreation was used to justify same-sex marriage bans. In response to this new critic, indeed the day you did the delete, I was starting to expand the Wiki page to include references/quotes from laws and court decisions where procreation was NOT used to justify same-sex marriage bans. For example, I was about to add three paragraphs from a Massachusetts court decision where the judges nicely explained why procreation isn't an issue. With these additions, the Wiki page was slowly become a balanced review of all such activities around the world. I would have edited quicker, but this is a volunteer effort for me, which I do in my spare time. In fact, I don't even have a copy of the last version of the Wikipage, never figuring I had to save it, even for just myself.
I appreciate your suggestion about incorporating the page into the Same-sex marriage entry, but when I get through making further additions, the length will be too overwhelming to add into the Same-sex marriage entry. My entry is more along the lines of secondary Wikipage already spun-off from Same-sex marriage.
Thus I would appreciate it if you could reconsider the deletion, and add the page back to Wiki, at least for a few more weeks, so I can continue my edits to make it non-PoV. Thanks. Greg Aharonian (talk), 20 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 02:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... I still think a merge of some sort may be the best solution; however, I have restored the page; I agree now that there probably wasn't consensus to delete at that point. :) krimpet✽ 03:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated - thanks. I will be continuing the edits in light of the suggestions made, and adding more third-party materials. Greg Aharonian (talk), 21 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Hetero Marriage...
Why was that Deleted?--Wolfdog 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- CSD T1; template space is not for divisive/polemical userboxes. krimpet✽ 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Request
Heya Krimpet. I fully agree with you that Crum375's action is ill-advised, especially considering the knowledge of how controversial it seems for him to do it. I have told him that, flat out. But PLEASE, don't get yourself in trouble if he reverts again. I have a request in to the ArbCom clerk for a decision on this. If he does it again, let it go and let's wait for cooler heads to step in. SirFozzie (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm already at my three reverts anyway... the hypocrisy is really making my head spin. krimpet✽ 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm at my one reverts. R. Baley (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, I know I'm guilty as anyone of this, by my initial revert, but please don't risk getting yourself in trouble. I did my BRD, and Now I have a request for a clerk to take a look. (wasn't aimed at you Krimpet.. just a quick message to all before we go down the edit war path) :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm at my one reverts. R. Baley (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Category:Rouge admins
Hi Fran Rogers,
I noticed that you still use the Category:Rouge admins on your userpage/usertalk page. Please consider removing it, as it has now been deleted as of this discussion. Have a nice day!
The Helpful One (Review) 13:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for personal attack
This edit [3] was a personal attack on Dmcdevitt a
nd a bit too incivil to ignore. Per WP:CIVIL and W
P:NPA I'm placing a short block on your account (6
hours) to encourage you to cool down and contribu
te in a more polite and constructive manner. Georg
ewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2008 (UT
C) ...Uh.. What?????? Don't you think that's just
a little OTT there, GWH? —Preceding unsigned com
ment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 03:56,
23 February 2008 (UTC) Georgewilliamherbert, you
are intimately involved in the same discussion and
you're blocking a fellow administrator for "cool-
down"? Read the goddamn blocking policy. krimpetâœ
½ 03:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I was also (polite
ly) criticizing Dmcdevitt at the time, so I don't
think there was a conflict of interest. Georgewill
iamherbert (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC) (e
c) That's two cool-off blocks (that I've noticed).
. .there must be a new policy somewhere. R. Baley
(talk) 04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I don't thin
k this is appropriate, I'm discussing with George
now. Unilaterally unblocking would be a bad idea,
hopefully this can get sorted. Keilana|Parlez ici
04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Also, for context, D
mcdevit was rather smugly mocking Durova and her c
omments in #wikipedia-en-admins at the time, which
is what drove me to post that (admittedly not tha
t helpful in hindsight) comment. krimpet✽ 04:14,
23 February 2008 (UTC) It sounds like there's con
text there I wasn't aware of then. I had to go by
how it sounded by itself. Ah well. You'd think tha
t on a wiki project, we'd have some hope of actual
ly knowing everything we need to know... I'm satis
fied with the explanation and responses on ANI, th
at I pulled the trigger too easily on this. My apo
logies for that. I appreciate that you acknowledge
d that the comment wasn't so great. Georgewilliamh
erbert (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Well,
I am all for block for incivility but that was har
dly nearing the edge. ViridaeTalk 04:40, 23 Februa
ry 2008 (UTC) O since seen that that issue was res
olved. Ignore me. ViridaeTalk 05:49, 23 February 2
008 (UTC) **************************************
**************************************************
**************************************************
**************************************************
**************************************************
**************************************************
**************************************************
**************************************************
- lol - how did you do that???!!! Wow! - Alison ❤ 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bravo! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked user
Hi, I've put a post regarding the block to User:PatPeter. It is possible we are being mislead by the information derived from the statistics collation. I suspect the top summary refers to all edits across wikimedia projects. Anyway we need to check it out in more detail. How was the 48% User: namespace edits calculation derived? This may have exasperated the issue for the user by being blocked indefinately if the statistics are misleading. --Zven (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, the edits do appear to be for Wikipedia only, however the totals are much higher in the summary at the top than the collation for individual Namespaces by article. --Zven (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I made those calculations using this tool. However, the statistics are no longer accurate half a year later as many of the pages he contributed to in userspace have been deleted since. (For reference, 910 out of his 1301 deleted edits are in User: alone.) krimpet✽ 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Help needed
Saw you here. I need a commons admin to help me out hard-link to Commons Administrator's noticeboard thread. -MBK004 05:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Disregard this message...Another admin saw my message there and took care of it. -MBK004 05:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Best user page I've ever seen! That method of graphics is kinda like [1] (but a little more interesting, I think....) :) • Anakin (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Krimpbot
Why is it removing welcome messages? [2] It should only have removed the category. Neıl ☎ 13:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my, thanks for pointing that out - it's a bug. Apparently when un-tagging unblocked nodes, I forgot to read in the text of the page, so it would end up saving a blank string back to the server. This bug should now be fixed. :) krimpet✽ 14:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Jarlaxle's back
Apparently at least one obvious sock was recently active: Mister Jarlaxle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Might want to consider restoring his LTA page ... Blueboy96 05:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Haha
Hilarious! Haha that made me laugh out loud. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally
My commendations on the impressive size and thickness demonstrated in your recent closing decision, which in itself was firm yet flexible. I hope to eventually make this into a valid and valuable article, but only because I couldn't find a suitable double entendre for that. --Kizor 22:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:ASL letter
MZMcBride (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Thanks
For the comment in my RfB. Despite what happened, I hope I have your trust as a Wikipedian and an admin. However, can you please point to some errors in judgment on my behalf please, as well as some decisions you disagreed with? I'd be grateful if you could point them out. Thanks. Acalamari 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would appreciate a response to this please. Acalamari 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, I didn't notice this section here :/ I was just concerned about the behavior at the MONGO RfA, as well as some of your votes in the ArbCom elections that were "per" certain controversial Wikipedians, that concerns me whether such a bureaucrat would be able to determine consensus neutrally. I apologize :( krimpet✽ 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
IP range blocks
Are you the maintainer of the rangeblock helper tool? If so, you may have access to the data required to answer my question. I've been noticing a few large range blocks (e.g. /16) recently, and I'm concerned about the collateral damage. Is it easy for you to tell me how many IPs are currently blocked in total, and how this has changed over time? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's an interesting idea - I think someone did these calculations before. If not, I can see what I can do :) I'll let you know what I can find. krimpet✽ 01:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Bovlb (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I cooked up a quick script to parse the ipblocks data - while it might not be the most accurate (particularly if any rangeblocks overlap), it says that 4595465 IP addresses are currently blocked - or 0.213% of all possible IPs. Unfortunately though I don't have any statistics for farther back - the devs might be of help here though. krimpet✽ 05:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Bovlb (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
BetacommandBot
Hi Krimpet
I see that you unblocked User:BetacommandBot. While it is true that the bot has stopped, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Unblock on what conditions should be applied to an unblock.
Please could you reinstate the block pending a conclusion to those discussions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I understand your concerns (and had not noticed that ongoing discussion); I had unblocked the bot after noticing it had stopped, and personally asking BC for an assurance that the task would not run unapproved again. However, I'm not sure re-blocking is a good idea - BCBot performs a very large number of important tasks (not exactly the best design, IMO, and I do hope they get separated out at some point as planned...), and leaving it blocked after it's stopped the unapproved edits is potentially quite detrimental to the workings of the project. I do hope the discussion at AN/B proves fruitful; I'm just not sure leaving the bot blocked in the meantime is a good idea :/ krimpet✽ 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Approxtimespan
MZMcBride (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Dancing_daisy_large.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dancing_daisy_large.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Dramatica article deletion
The article was previously deleted under consensus for being poorly sourced. It has been several months, and the version you deleted had 2 television news sources, several newspapers, and print magazines. Please restore it so it may be put up for AfD vote. Thank you. --Truthseeq (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also please note it has been around a year since the last AfD. --Truthseeq (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
CH2
Hey, I have tried to install your script but I cant seem to get the 'Move this image to commons' button. Would it be possible for you to upload an image so I can see where it is meant to appear, not sure I am looking at the right place! Thanks. Tiddly-Tom 07:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, re User:Samiharris sock tagging
On WP:AN. Lawrence § t/e 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I removed "confirmed" as an attempt at compromise - technically only a CU or arbitrator can conclusively "confirm" sockpuppetry (hence if he is blocked, I'd go with {{sockpuppet|Mantanmoreland|blocked}} rather than {{sockpuppet|Mantanmoreland|confirmed}}), though on the other hand nobody can say with a straight face that there isn't a strong, significant community suspicion that he's a puppet, so a suspected tag is certainly appropriate. However I have no intention of modifying the page further if someone decides to revert war and remove the tag. krimpet✽ 21:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
uCfD closing
Just to address your closing comment, I didn't disrupt Wikipedia, and I certainly didn't do it to illustrate a point. I don't even know what point I could've been trying to make, or what point someone could misconstrue my creation of that category as an attempt to make. That honestly didn't make any sense to me. I'm not contesting the deletion and I know why it needed to be deleted, but I felt your closing remark was pretty far off. Just thought I'd mention that. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:06, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Riana's request for bureaucratship
 |
Dear Krimpet, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. |
*sigh* ~ Riana ⁂ 12:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You most likely get this joke all the time
Believe it or not, Krimpets are actually completely unrelated to crumpets - they were named such because they were crimped on the edges to stop them from falling apart. :) krimpet✽ 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I thought you might be the granddaughter of Ladyfish. One of my favorite movies... Dreadstar † 17:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Rangeblock helper
Hi Krimpet,
Just discovered your rangeblock helper and tried it. when an IP is tested, which is blocked by both an single block and a range block (or presumably inside a rangeblock, which may be a /32 block and a larger rangeblock), the program ends with an error "Multiple rangeblocks found". See here to find a list of sample IP's for testing. Please note that copy/paste of IP's from this list won't work (includes an extra nbsp to prevent crawlers to pick-up the address).
Btw useful tool that may make above list superfluous. Rgds RonaldB-nl (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, you've found a rather serious bug - I've fixed it now :) See e.g. [3]. krimpet✽ 03:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Semiprotection of DRV page
I've requested that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 18 be un-semiprotected as the debate that you were dealing with has moved to its own page. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Cjhard
Cjhard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just reverted an edit of mine in a manner most like User:Grawp. You have previously given Cjhard a final warning, so I thought I'd leave it to you. See [4] [5] [6] and, of course, this;
Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It just got a lot more interesting; [7] [8] [9]
This tag-teaming IPs with the second one undoing vandalism is certainly Grawp. Taking it to ANI. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You blocked the IP for vandalism on the 18th. Mind if we switch it to anon only because this block has caused Erik the Red 2 to be blocked as well. Please comment at User talk:Erik the Red 2. Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- On second thought, there is quite a lot going on over there and I'm a bit confused by it. If you get a chance to take a look at the situation, I'd appreciate it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hensel page
So, um, we let people go around now chopping 3kb out of pages by revert -- including *all* the references -- for undocumented reasons? And it wasn't a revert war, no one reverted more than once that I can see. "There are good reasons and I'm not going to tell you what they are", though, is not itself a good reason. I fully expect the reverts to pick right back up again, unless someone posits a *rational* (to the denizens of that article) reason why whacking 174 edits is considered reasonable. You set the protect flag -- do you have one? --Baylink (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- We don't want, need, or allow information on the intimate anatomical details of two teenage conjoined twins a penned by a banned sex criminal. Full stop. krimpet✽ 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- While I'm not going to make any accusations of criminality here, I will state that the edits were made by a banned editor who is about as banned as they get. I am highly uncomfortable reverting to his version wholesale. I've already seen this editor's comments regarding other people's children. By all means, please pick through the reverted edits piecemeal and try to make sense/add what you think necessary but we cannot allow this banned editor edit articles, especially BLP ones - Alison ❤ 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for closing
Thanks for your help wrapping up the Don Murphy afd. DurovaCharge! 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem :) I actually agreed with your nomination and would have !voted delete myself - it's a shame the community seems overwhelmingly adamant on keeping the article. :/ krimpet✽ 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm investigating a request for unblock of the above user. You had placed a CU-Confirmed sockpuppet template on the user's page, however I can't find any discussion that led to the checkuser involvement. Could you provide a link to that discussion or any evidence you may have regarding it? Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I contacted the checkuser, Dmcdevit, on IRC after blocking User:Four Thirty-Nine as a obvious puppet of MyWikiBiz - he or any other CU can confirm that the checkuser was run (note also the associated IP blocks in his admin log). Daniel and Flyguy649 were also in the channel at the time, and beat me to blocking the accounts. :p krimpet✽ 04:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Melissa Auf der Maur.jpg
I just now noticed this like 6 months after the fact, but you speedy-deleted Image:Melissa Auf der Maur.jpg citing CSD I8. However, I'm unable to find any bit-for-bit copy of the image on commons, so I'm not really sure why it was deleted in the first place. I went to alot of trouble gaining GFDL permission for the use of the image, and I think it's much better than the current image on her page, so I'm wondering what the heck happened. Any clarification you could give me would be great. Drewcifer (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize - it seems the copy on Commons was actually deleted just last week as a copyvio, most likely because the OTRS request does not seem to have been confirmed. I've restored the image on Commons, and will gladly verify the permissions for you - would you happen to have the OTRS ticket number you were given when you sent the permissions e-mail? :) krimpet✽ 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. Unfortunately I don't know what the OTRS ticket number was, or if I even got an email confirmation at all. That was a while ago. Anything you could do would be helpful. Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ned sucks at the internet
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKrimpet&diff=200816985&oldid=200795397
I'm sorry that you felt I was trolling you. I really wish that you would consider what I wrote, but I would never troll or harass you about it. I'd like to repeat my first comment in that thread:
"I don't hold a grudge about this, and I don't take it to reflect on your judgement over-all. I can understand how you came to the conclusions you did. But I wanted to let you know that this really bothered me."
My frustration tends to leaks through in my messages sometimes, but please know that I was sincere when I wrote you. I have a tendency to get re-caught up in things when I start to write about them, but I don't intend to further any dispute with you. I wrote those messages with the hope of gaining some form of understanding, but I'm not very good with these kind of things, and I guess I screwed that up too. -- Ned Scott 23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
Thank you for supporting me! | |
| Many many thanks! Cream (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
--Cream (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
RfC
I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
You just vandalised User:Hersfold, please don't do that. Aren't you an administrator? Or have you been hacked? Happy editing --Atyndall93 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- ...and you just messed up my test for him of whether edits to user pages show up on "new messages," which was why I indicated "per IRC" in my edit summary. sigh. -_- krimpet✽ 04:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm tired
Hi, I would not have contacted you (or anyone) on this matter since there is nothing unusual from what I see regularly but because of the recent incident where you served a a judge of sorts, I figured I give you an example.
Things like this and this, an this recent "notification" that my contributions are watched (note the date of the article's creation, and note that it could'nt have been on anyone watchlist) happens a lot in Lithuanian topics.
Those are all diffs from just one day (today) and the first one is especially powerful. Now, I do not have and I do not intend to develop a habit of stacking up diffs to attack Piotrus' "when I have enough" but It's just a tiny example, what Lithuanian editors have go through. I've already expressed my angst on another page.
Finally there is my question - should I run to AE with that? Should I demand "sanctions for stalking and offensive speech?
I would not have even brought this up, as I do usually ignore this stuff. But because of the recent incident, I just want to illustrate, what Lithuanian editors have to deal with on a daily basis. Regards.--Lokyz (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't delete local versions of images unless you've made sure that the Commons version contains all the information from the local version. Haukur (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review for Penis game
I've asked for a deletion review of Penis game. Be a bit more lighthearted than some recent DRVs anyway ;-). Hope you don't mind... WjBscribe 03:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy April's fools!
Cream (talk) has put a trout your back! The Trout promotes playfullness and hopefully this one has made your day worse. You have no choice but to spread it to other editors! Happy April Fools' Day!
Add this {{subst:AprilFoools}} to their talk page with a friendly fish.
Caught You!
Was this in the spirit of April Fools'? You joker you :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I couldn't resist... :s I'll keep my april fools out of article space from now on :) krimpet✽ 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm shocked at you! You deserve a big, fat, wet, slimy smack on the face with a rainbow trout. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Awarding Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
Does this
Does this work cross-wiki? Oysterguitarist 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, it should - though it's been a long while since I used it, so use at your own risk :) krimpet✽ 06:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Giant_Tiled_Krimpet.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Giant_Tiled_Krimpet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
KrimpBot
Hey, I opened a thread at AN/I about KrimpBot and Tor nodes, apparently the bot has been untagging accounts shortly before these became active and were used by a serial vandal, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'm too lazy to find examples, but as a checkuser I have also found found several examples of tor nodes that were unblocked (by a human) as "no longer tor" but clearly still are. It is my understanding that some tor nodes go on and off for various reasons. What I'd really like is for whoever is making the list of "former tor nodes for unblocking" to adjust their algorithm so that nodes are checked several times before unblocking, and also to check the block log to see if an IP has been blocked as tor more than once. For example (ok, I went and found one) this IP should not be unblocked unless it stays off the active list for several consecutive checks. Thatcher 13:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)