Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Re: Eric Bauman, what is a "soft redirect"? Joyous | Talk 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Good evening. This afternoon, you made a "popups-assisted reversion" of vandalism to Gun politics. Unfortunately, the vandal had made two edits to the article in question. Your popup only pushed the version back by one. That left some of the vandalism still in place. I've cleaned up that article but thought you would want to know that the popup may not have worked the way you intended. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Please pay better attention to what your robot does. Deleting ones own talk page is standard when leaving WP. -- Fenice 18:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
On my Arbcom voting page, you opposed my candidacy with the comment "due to recent Userbox controversy". Could you please explain what about that controversy moved you to oppose? Kelly Martin ( talk) 18:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.
The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs 2000 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Just wanted to let you know that you forgot to sign. Guettarda 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there Sceptre, Im Moe Epsilon. I would like for you to join in of the conversation about the above user at Wikipedia talk:Are You a Wikipediholic Test about his possible fake score on the test. I contacted you because you were one of the top scorers on the test, so you could probably tell if the score is fake or not. We would appriciate your input. — Moe ε 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I have enabled my email, as per the requests at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crotalus horridus. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sceptre, just thought i'd say that I hope my 36 hour block of your school's IP won't affect you (much). Take care, dude! SoLando ( Talk) 12:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey there! I just noticed that there is a teenage wikipedians category. I thought you might want to put your name on the list. The template for you to put on your userpage is [[Category:Teenage Wikipedians|Your name]] :) -- Ali K 14:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. i hope to find my misgivings completely unjustified. if you are promoted and want any advice I'll be glad to provide the best I can. DES (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DESiegel")
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Francs 2000 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Sceptre, thank you very much for supporting me during my recent RfA campaign! Thanks to you, I am now an admin. Please drop by if you need anything - I'll be glad to help you. Once again, thanks! -- M @ t hwiz 2020 22:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You deserve it, I wouldn't have supported you otherwise. Use the mop with pride, congratulations! -- § Hurricane ERIC § archive -- my dropsonde 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! -- King of All the Franks 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem...congrats. PJM 03:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, second congrats on reaching adminship, and I notice you've started deleting articles that have been through AfD already! You fast mover!
Something that I have found from experience that works well, is when you delete an article that has been through AfD, link to the discussion in the deletion summary: that way if the deletion is disputed, it is easy to link to it from the deleted edit history of the article.
This is by no means a rule, and you haven't done anything wrong. It's just something that I have found helpful. Good luck with it! -- Francs 2000 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and congrats on your adminship (even though I opposed).
You closed the afd in the subject header but seem to have forgotten to remove the notice on the article or leave a note on the article's talk page about it. - Bobet 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sceptre- Thanks for your support on my RfA. If I can be of any service please leave me a message -- rogerd 01:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Congrats on your new tools, and happy editing! KnowledgeOf Self | talk 03:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Umm... It appears that school had not quite closed. If the block on the IP is causing you any distress, just unblock it again, I won't complain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed the {{db-move|}} tag from Children of the Grave (COTG). You stated in your edit summary "I'm not sure...".
I wanted to have the COTG article deleted because as it is, it's just a redirect to the album it appears on. There exists a proper article about the song at Children of the Grave (song) (COTGsong), and I attempted to move it to COTG, but the software doesn't allow moves where a page already exists. I could just cut and paste the contents of COTGsong to COTG, but that would erase the edit history.
The reason the article belongs at COTG is that there is no need for disambiguation; adding the suffix (song) or (album) or (computer game) etc is only done when there exists another possible definition for the title. I hope this clears it up. -- Qirex 10:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is felbeast banned?None of my edits were vandalism. I was not even given a fair warning. User 69.236.222.13 kept harassing me and reverting my edits. I attacked his talk page for this.
Unblock me Felbeast2 13:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You say on your user page that you're the youngest admin to be promoted at an (sic) age of 14 years, 10 months, and 9 days. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think I now take up the mantle of the youngest admin. I became an admin on 3 December at the age of 14 years, 1 month and 19 days. <insert gloating comment her>!!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You reverted my 3 edits en masse. But my two first edits were genuine and clearly documented updates to the page. Only the 3rd one was an erroneous one.
The 3rd "edit", that prompted your reversion, is a bug of one sort or another: I am in the middle of alphabetizing the list (I'm still on it in another window, at the Show Preview stage) and apparently a corrupted version of the section I'm still editing has also been posted to the article (I don't understand it either, maybe another IE bug with the DEL key that sometimes acts as ENTER). You can see in the diff of that buggy "3rd edit" that the list was being alphabetized.
But you have reversed all three edits. You should have first looked at the history and seen the two first one were genuine. (Please also note that reverting a page and passing it off as "minor update" is an abuse of the minor flag.)
I'm going to revert the page to my 2nd edit (before the boo-boo), then finish off the alphabetization (hopefully sans bug this time).
62.147.113.126 14:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
--
Sorry, but I did say: " my two first edits were genuine and clearly documented ", i.e. both did have an edit summary, and a rather longass one at that:
All my (genuine, non-buggy) edits always have had a summary. But you had to look at the history before reverting to see them...
On a related but more interesting topic, I've found a bug in the MediaWiki, that explains the trouble with my 3rd "edit" -- and there's a real simple and classic software solution, too. I've thought about my sequence of actions during this 3rd edit, and here's how the bug can be recreated, and why it's actually a MediaWiki bug:
This explains why you saw an apparently vandalized page, one that was missing the bottom half of the section's previous content: only the first half of my new version was posted, thus the "corrupted edit".
But the real bug is: MediaWiki should NEVER have accepted to commit to the database a half-sent contribution, whose POST operation was aborted and never completed, and thus whose integrity was undefined. Now, one really simple and reliable software solution is:
The logic is of course that if/when the sending of the form is aborted by any mean before its full completion, then the server will never receive the last field, or its complete value (worst case scenario it would receive a partial "EndofForm=Commi"), and it should react by not writing to the database. Conversely, if the server did receive the exact "EndOfForm=Commit" parameter, then it can be sure to have received 100% of the data that was all before that, and it can safely commit it to the database.
Since I saw you're an admin, hope you can forward this to the relevant authorities.
62.147.113.126 15:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I came across your deletion of several comments by an anonymous user on his own talk page. Can you explain to me why you deleted those comments? I don't see any justification for doing so in this case. It's his talk page; he can say (almost) whatever he wants there. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Feel free :) Fir e Fox 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for nominating me to be an administrator, but I think that the ending date you set here is incorrect. --NaconKantari 20:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 48/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
No problems, but I really didn't mean to revert over the top of you. You must have just got to it quicker! Sarah Ewart 11:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I notice you indefinitely block this IP, we don't normally indefinitely block IP's unless they are open proxies, additionally that IP is in the range for AOL proxies, so I've reduced the block to 15 minutes. Thanks -- pgk( talk) 19:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the Kindness Campaign! I must say, this is the most attractive userpage I've ever seen. Bar none. - LambaJan 23:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
If you had read the text on [[Image:Ebaum vs SA.gif]] more carefully, you would have realized that it was a parody of the MSN 404 page.
The original image is copyright of Something Awful LLC, which granted permission for it to be used. The modified version - well, Eric Bauman has stated that images online are public domain. DS 22:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
— FireFox • T • 11:47, 24 January 2006
You should add your name under [[Category:Teenage Wikipedians]] :)-- Ali K 05:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You reverted this change that I did (mentioning something I'd just heard on the TV news), as part of an edit that you labelled "revert vandalism". I assume you were targetting the unsourced image that another user added at the same time.
If so, please be more careful when reverting content that you consider vandalism, and check afterwards that only the content you intended to remove was removed.
Thanks. I've reinserted and reworked the comment in the "after big brother" section. Stoive 19:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.
In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{ EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)
Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --
Cel
e
stianpower
háblame
16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by
Rune.welsh using
AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name
here.