User talk:Otterathome

I am Otterathome, I registered in March 2008 and have been editing since. I have made over 2,000 edits.

My face when I 'lose' to vandals.

There are a few users I dislike, namely this user and this user, but I put up with it.

I also 'lose' to vandals, apparently.

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

Super Smash Bros. Melee FAC

Your concern has been addressed here, thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your further concerns have now been addressed. Thanks.Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Oscar Wilde

WP:SERIOUS notwithstanding, you have been reverted. You could try it on Dubya's page, I suppose, but it wouldn't last long there either. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Otters

Yay, another otter at home editing Wikipedia! (See my user page regarding my in-joke on otters.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer was a vandal on Uncy, by the by... 75.128.25.59 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

sarcasm

You may want to consider reading this. I believe, as you seem to, that Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, but there is no need to be constantly smarmy and sarcastic with everyone. Just a thought. Thanks for your time. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

searching for sources of an article is a common sense thing to do before nominating it for deletion.. I was simply suggesting you do that in future.--Otterathome (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big thing here, but explaining why you removed a prod template from an article is a common sense thing too. If you read the template, it encourages editors who disagree to edit the article, and explain why the removed the prod. If you had done that, I would have known why it was de-prodded and it never would have went to AfD. The article in it's original form read more like some kid's made up idea for a term paper, and the only explanation I saw for why you removed the prod is that you felt it was put there by "deletionists". Beeblbrox (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not searching about an article to check if it's true/notable then trying to get it deleted is just plain lazyness. Seeing as the article was copied and pasted from The Times, I don't quite see how it looks like a kids made up idea for a term paper.--Otterathome (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez. OK, let me explain even further. I may have taken assume good faith a little far, in that I assumed the person who put the PROD up checked it out beforehand, when I added the PROD2. Then you removed both templates with no explanation, so I took it to AfD. I was frankly shocked that it was a copyvio from the Times, as I honestly don't think it was well written at all, but I suppose that's neither here nor there at this point. My point about the sarcasm, however, is that both your edit summary for the prod removal and your vote at AfD consist of nothing but sarcastic remarks, as opposed to citing logic and Wikipedia policies to back up your stance. I'm not saying you were wrong, just that it does not help your case to be sarcastic. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

oops

Sorry. I didn't pay attention to your edit summary. My apologies. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Rsnbrgr

Mucho thanx for the tag fix to my user page! My very best to you. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:CP\M/User

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on User:CP\M/User. The reason I declined it is because it's a subpage of an existing user's userpage. Please note that if there's a slash (/) in a page in the User: namespace, the everything before it is the page name, and what's after it is a subpage name. . For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How confusing. Sorry for time waste.--Otterathome (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that seems a bit unfair...

I saw your article you wrote regarding citing Uncy, and your belief that only vandals edit there, that it incites edit wars, and all other distasteful things. I can say personally as a Pee Reviewer there, that a lot of Uncy editors are dedicated to writing humourous articles, and that there actually is a defination as to what vandalism is (and such edits are indeed reverted!) While the edits encouraged on Uncy may be considered Vandalism on Wikipedia, that does not mean that one cannot edit both and equally contribute.

Warm regards, Javascap (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For quoting what I had to say about Uncy. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

You recently re-added some of my old pages on the page for MfD at User:MZMcBride/Sandbox 3. Please don't re-add stuff to that page, please. I will keep deleting them. Report me at 3RR, and I swear I will take immediate action, as this is just wrong. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Thank you. Might I ask how you came to find that message? DS (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Comer

The sources are already sufficient according to the notability criteria. There is absolutely no reason the sources need to be independent of Wizards of the Coast. The sources need to be independent of Alan Comer, and they are. Some of the articles have already survived AFDs with the very reasoning you're suggesting. Your PROD was poorly explained and I provided a reasoning when I contested it. I was not merely removing the template. I understand WP:N and these articles are fine. Jay32183 (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

It looks like I forgot to thank you for your essay(I thought I'd thanked you on the talk page of that essay, but seeing as there is none I must be mistaken.); it inspired an article on Uncy, you see. Anyways, I'd offer a link, but under the circumstances it seems inappropriate. Cheers, - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 16:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

One is as good as another, no special reason. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the readers mostly, what the vandal wants to do is disrupt, and I intend to keep that disruption to a minimum. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:temporary userpage

Hey I noticed you are using {{temporary userpage}} on what appear to be abandoned pages. This template is intended for indef blocked users only (and the template is also up for deletion) and use like this was the subject of a recent WP:AN post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive138#Admin...well.2C_not_abuse...regarding_spam_talk_pages, which ended in a pretty clear consensus that this tag is not to be used on non-indef blocked users. I suggest you look at using WP:PROD or WP:MfD; although there is arguably no particular benefit to deleting user pages like these. Cheers.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Temp user pages

(copied from User talk:Doug for unified discussion)

Some of the pages I have tagged are of users who have not edited in over a year, and they are of users who have either vandalised or not contributed anything or their username is very inappropriate e.g. User:FriendlySockpuppet, User:Whatever it takes to get an account! and usernames that are emails. Prods take less time to take, and MFD is lengthy process. But if you support me in tagging the appropriate pages with a full reason using prod, then I will.--Otterathome (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the first of these should probably be indef blocked and tagged using {{Uw-ublock}} (or {{uw-vaublock}} if also a vandal account), the second - maybe - I didn't review contribs; but no accounts should ever be tagged with {{temporary userpage}} unless they have first been indef blocked by an admin. Even then the tag shouldn't be used as the indef block tag puts the page in CAT:TEMP itself. Deleting the pages isn't a good idea because the users aren't blocked at all and can just come back and edit, vandalize, or recreate their userpages. I noticed the first page above was already deleted so I'm going to mention it to the admin too. If you PROD them I'll consider them - but you'll have to let me know as I don't check the PRODs very often. If they're really abandoned, I'll delete them but keep in mind I was 7 months between my second and third edits, people do come back. If they were spammers/vandals that's another story. I'd rather see you ask for the usernames to be blocked where appropriate. You can take the blocks to WP:UAA or make a list and ask me directly. Please review WP:U before doing either. Unless an account is a username problem there is really no point to blocking abandoned vandal accounts and policy probably probably wouldn't support it (though for a vandal only account with a substantial number of edits, it might be supportable). But these pages could be PRODded if the user page was a problem. Pages that simply have no recent activity, no edits outside their own userspace, and a userpage filled with userboxes, really aren't a big deal. Sure they waste space but that's not our problem and deleting doesn't recover the space anyway.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said a little, the users who have not edited in over a year also haven't contributed apart from vandalism or user page creation. Tagging user pages of actual contributors who have not edited in over a year is definately not what I'm doing. They are users simply using Wikipedia as a web host/myspace which is under WP:NOT, which is why they sometimes get deleted by admins.--Otterathome (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they have vandalized and nothing else, I would indef block them as vandal only accounts which would move them into CAT:TEMP. If they have unacceptable usernames, I would indef block them for that reason which would have the same effect. If their page is actually spam/webhost/BLP/NPA type junk, I'd speedy delete it if you pointed it out to me and probably indef block the user. (All of this assume I agree with you on the policy violations) If it's just a collection of userboxes, and the user has never spammed, etc., you could PROD it or MFD it but I personally don't believe there is any reason to delete such pages. My point is that someone's only edits may be to userspace but they may come back - if the edits are advertising then they can be deleted, if the edits are additions of userboxes or the sort of thing one normally says in userboxes, such as: "Hi my name is JohnB, I'm a male from Washington DC who believes quotation marks belong inside other punctuations and center should be spelled 'er' not 're'"; well, I don't see the problem, even if User:JohnB never does another edit. Since there is no particular benefit to deleting the pages (as a practical matter nobody is ever going to think they are someone to communicate with if they aren't actually editing at least in userspace) the only possible effect can be negative - for the 1 in n who actually return to the project under the same username to edit. As for usertalk pages, policy is unclear but current practice does allow them to be deleted for indef blocked users but I personally won't do it (though I won't do anything to prevent it, unless they're a sock or something). My real concern is with {{temporary userpage}} which, if it remains after the TFD, is only for indef blocked users. I don't like the tag at all and I will not support it on any page unless the user is indef blocked and the blocking admin (or someone else) didn't place an indef block tag. Before I noticed you had quite a number of pages tagged I undid two or three - then I stopped when I saw your contribs so we could discuss it. I will review any of these or any other page and tell you what I think. I'm happy to work with you on this and I can block uses or delete pages if I agree that policy supports you but if I don't all I can do is tell you that I won't do it but you'd still be free to nominate it. The easiest thing for me would be if you created a subpage in your userspace with a list of userpages and usertalk pages and I'd take a look at them and tell you what I thought. Even easier, template the page to my talk page and I'll template it back when done (e.g. leave something like {{User:Otterathome/Spamuserpages}} as a message for me on my talk page - please don't fully transclude it though unless it's very short). Would something like that work for you?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my contribs Here there's still a few remaining pages of indef blocked users. The helpful edit summaries I used say if they are indefinately blocked or just vandals that are not indefinately blocked (except User talk:The Office I didn't use a full edit summary. Many of them have already been removed, out of my 800 edits, about 200 are deleted.--Otterathome (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look shortly. Please note that the TFD for {{temporary userpage}} has closed as delete so that tag is now no longer of any use. If some of the pages you've placed it on are not indef blocked we should try to pin point what should happen to them if anything as the tag will go red and then be removed by a bot shortly.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

An example of one I'd question: User talk:Ljedynak. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for it being tagged for deletion is usually in the edit summary, in the case it is a very old vandalism only account. I'm sure there will be no problem in deleting the ones I have tagged, indef or not. But that is of course up to you.--Otterathome (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A bot has replaced the template messages with the temporary user pages category, I don't think any further action is required.--Otterathome (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah that's just the result of the TFD. The question remains whether to delete those. I'm going through them and I just don't see the purpose to deleting the talk pages, indef blocked or not. In the case of the non-indef blocked users the category needs to be removed. In the case of the indef blocked users, I'm refraining from deleting any pending an RFC on that topic. As for userpages, I'll delete any for indef blocked users (other than socks - by the way, I found one of those among the ones you tagged) and consider prods of non-indef blocked users. Please give me some rationale for the deletions of the talk pages though, especially the non-indef blocked ones, or I will have to remove them from the category very soon. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in Peer Review of The Orange Box

The Orange Box, an article that you recently commented on at Featured Article nomination, has been put up for peer review. Please can you take the time to re-examine the article for anything that you feel remains an issue. Should you have any comments or concerns, please can you add them to the discussion. It is hoped that once this peer review is complete that the article will be resubmitted for consideration as a featured article.

Many thanks for both your time and valuable input. --Gazimoff (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've responsed to your peer review comments and hope I've addressed most of your concerns, but I have a few follow-up questions as well. Please can you take a look at the peer review page when you have a moment and let me know what you think. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your further comments, particularly where areas needed rewording, or where the awards section was an impenetrable jungle of listcruft with no context or meaning. I hope you feel that the article's improving and I'd appreciate it if you could check over the changes when you get a chance. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Annoy

You have been blanking my sandboxes. I'll revert that soon enough. Stop blanking my sandboxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk • contribs) 08:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Uncy

Do you think I should WP:BOLDly delist Uncy from GA status myself, seeing as the article is a wreck now? (P.S. How did you get your username?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Uncy must be your nickname for it eh, Otter? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, my otters want to know why you're just an otter at home. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I never said I was otter king. There's no royal blood in me or my otters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncy again

The GAR is turning into a mess isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Uncy

It is not a sister site, see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Please use the talk page of the article instead of my user talk page. Thanks.--Otterathome (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RV of Uncy

Why did you revert my edit? On the top of the article, it says it needs improvement in 3 areas, notably cleanup and Copy editing. Now might I inquire as to why you have such an extensive revert pattern, reverting (Between you and Tenpoundhammer) every attept to edit Uncy, DESPITE the fact YOU labled this article as needing improvement? Javascap (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And furthermore, looking at the history of this page, 64.72.65.130 had some very valid points. Do you care to tend to those? "Regarding your insistance of Uncy not a sister site, Whether you know it or not, Uncy IS suppouted by Wikia, and as such, is a Wiki, therefore, it is a sister site. I believe my point still stands. 64.72.65.130 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Otterathome/Uncy What did I know... you DO have a problem with Uncy. I find it kind of funny, you insistance that Uncy serves as a source of Vandals, claiming that "2 of the 5" top editors are banned. Doesn't seem like a majority to me. Care to explain away a point of view in this particular instance? 64.72.65.130 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)" An excellent point, and one I agree with. You and Tenpound, with your own biases, are deliberatally TRYING to reduce the quality of an article. WP:IDONTLIKE, anyone? Javascap (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think he undid it for the links to HTBFANJS, and the Flamewar Guidelines. Apparently we're trying to avoid links to Uncy, especially in the main text. I don't know why, I'm sure there's some kind of micromanaging policy about external links, but I can't be arsed to look for it. Anyways, yeah, in the future, Otter, can you just remove the links, as opposed to reverting the entire edit? They're almost always in good faith, and it's mostly because of not knowing that external links are a no-no. If you fix what was added instead of destroying it, it looks more like you're giving the edit due consideration, which is always nice. Cheers, all, - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you keep reverting Uncy so that it lists Jonathan Huang as the site's sole founder in the introductory section. This is incorrect. He is one of two original co-founders. Please do not do this again. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Y Granted. I trust you know what to do with it. Rudget (Help?) 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AniChai

Just letting you know I replied to your concerns. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

I'm sorry for my reversion of ClueBot! I'm new to Huggle, so I accidentally pressed the wrong button! Cheers, Razorflame 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, of course

Yes, you can copy/paste my comments there. I have no problem with that --Enric Naval (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ZuluPad

Thank you for commenting on the Deletion review of ZuluPad. At the end of my write-up, I've included a listing of sources that substantiate the claim that ZuluPad is notable. I just labeled it as "Establishing Notability" to make it a bit clearer. If you want to skip the history, just take a look at that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeomi (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

Please don't edit my signature. If you want to notify me of policy violations, then use my talk page. I understand it's the the thought that counts, but I was about to edit it anyway... --User:Jacob Myers 03:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:David Icke. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. It should also be noted that your WP:BLP claim is wrong, and that is the only possible relevant justification.

3RR doesn't apply to WP:BLP issues.--Otterathome (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No one but you thinks there's a WP:BLP issue. Since you insist on the multiple reversions, I'm bringing it to WP:AN3 if I can get Wikipedia to give me the diffs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your rollback rights for reverting during a content dispute. Please re-read WP:ROLLBACK thoroughly. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, admins are not either. I consider it a misuse on both sides. But sysops have the right integrated into their other rights, so it can't be removed from their account unless they were desysopped (which would be a drastic step). I've mentioned the misuse on ANI. Furthermore, do not refactor my talk page header. I was updating T:DYK at the same time as dealing with this, and that required attention because it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny I get punished and the admin doesn't, guess admins get a special wall of protection.--Otterathome (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have rolled back your edit to Arthur Rubin because an edit summary like that makes it very hard to believe that it was meant to be constructive. Please have a cup of tea / glass of beer / whatever and calm down. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job.--Otterathome (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Signature fixed

Signature fixed :) thanks for alerting me! --Jacob Myers _{(Flame me!)} 02:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncyc

See talk at above..--Buster7 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

4chan

Hi, thanks a lot for your comments at Talk:4chan/GA1! I've responded there and have also put up some thoughts on a new article layout which I'd appreciate some comments on. Cheers. —Giggy 08:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your ugly userpage

Kindly remove the rainbow stuff from the side of your userpage. It's flashy, distasteful, slows the hell out of my browser, and doesn't render correctly in many browsers such as Konqueror and links. I believe other users most likely feel the same.

--Jacob Myers _{(Flame me!)} 05:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it ugly, but in Opera it covers all the menus on the left except the search box and you can't even click on the links by guessing where they are. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it ugly either, but the links on the left are inaccessible for me also (I'm using Firefox 3). I do not think the links there can be clicked from any browser except possibly Safari, considering the HTML/CSS you've used to render it. It's only a minor annoyance for me, since I can reach most of the left column tools from your User talk page, but newbies may not know that, and some pages (like "What links here") are not accessible anywhere else. I strongly suggest shortening the rainbow graphic to just the Wikipedia logo area. For your convenience, I've worked out the code for this (have only tested in FX3 and IE7; is still broken in IE7 as it currently is broken now):

<div style="position: absolute; left: 0px; top: -44px; -moz-opacity: .5;"> <div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; right: 0px; z-index: 2; padding-left:0px;"> [[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]][[Image:Animated rainbow rule.gif]] </div></div>

Hope this helps. -kotra (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncy again

Fine. I re-added it. I don't think it's too short though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncyc

Please don't remove a fact tag without providing a cite. Corvus cornix_talk 18:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Go away"? I have no ax to grind in this discussion, I'm trying to uphold policy. You are edit warring, and repeating the activity will get you blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should mind your own business?--Otterathome (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Using Twinkle to edit war is unacceptable. Changing other people's Talk page comments is vandalism. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Otterathome_using_Twinkle_rollback_capability_to_edit_war Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change your comments, and i'm not in an edit war. You shouldn't revert to other peoples revisions without looking at them more carefully first. I don't know why you posted this at admins noticeboard as no admin tools are needed to fix your misunderstanding of the article.--Otterathome (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins need to be notified of your inappropriate use of Twinkle. Note that I have already gotten one supporter for my request that your use of Twinkle be removed. Corvus cornix_talk 20:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am an admin, which you will have realised by my use of Rollback to revert your inappropriate use of Twinkle. Now, how do you complain about my use of a anti-vandalism tool when it is reversing your use of an anti-vandalism tool? You could try edit warring, but then I have access to the banhammer too (not that I would use it inappropriately, naturally). You see, when folk get teasy in their editing it can lead to all sorts consequences - so it really is best not to go there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't complain about the use of any anti-vandalism tool and threatening me with the 'banhammer' really isn't helping anyone. I have merely been fixing an error being added into an article by editors who don't know how to read, is that such a crime?--Otterathome (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[1]. Again, there is no error -- just incivility on your part. Had you explained to the OP that the citation was directly above, and had you copied the citation per cite (by referencing it) to that line, this drama could have been avoided. Don't overstep the bounds; further abuse of this could result in the removal of your Twinkle package. seicer | talk | contribs 21:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4chan

Thanks very much for your comments here, they really helped improve the article. I think they've all been addressed; if you could take another look it'd be great. Best regards, Giggy (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please revisit to update the status of your oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Liveleak logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Liveleak logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fitna

I did not ever and I'll never remove information from Wikipedia just because I do not like it, that's if I really do not like Fitna movie, you may got to read something about faiths, discussion.--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 01:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Internet memes

I've reverted this edit of yours [2] where you removed a significant amount of content from the template. Bear in mind, that this template appears within each of the articles listed within the template. If you remove them from the template, you will also be required to remove them from each of the individual articles. Opinions in this case are superficial - please don't remove entire subsections based on impulse, because chances are, those edits will be quickly reverted --Flewis^(talk) 14:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your threat

I reverted... what happened? Timeshift (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [3] It's uncool to delete someone else's comments. Gerardw (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You've just done it again. Don't. Add a comment to the Talk page of the editor responsible and they can strike it. But don't delete it. --HighKing (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(As per my own advice here). You've added some inappropriate links here and I recommend that you strike them immediately by adding a <s> and </s> before and after the text, or seeing as it is *your* edit and nobody has edited since, you could delete your own comments.

In case it wasn't clear. Nobody was condoning the behaviour to add the link you object to in the first place - but the appropriate action is to point it out to the editor and have them strike their own comment. It's frowned upon to mess with other editor's comments is all. Peace. --HighKing (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, my "spam" was a link to another Wiki-type encyclopedia that is a joke. It was a valid response to the Wikipedia is a joke comment. The editor was welcome to go there and edit, if they felt sufficiently joke-ish. Your "spam" was unrelated to the content, and your reasons for reversion of my comments were certainly not WP:AGF. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandal edits to User:Otterathome/Uncy?

How are these edits to User:Otterathome/Uncy considered vandalism? I was only fixing a wiki link. Yes I did make a mistake (as I used {{Reflist}} to preview since I was editing a section and meant to remove it before submitting my edit), but did I correct it no more than a minute later. Anyway... Template:User Uncyclopedian (history | logs) (which I have re-created) is only a redirect to Template:UncyclopedianUser (history | logs). By the way, User:UBX/User Uncyclopedian (history | logs) was created by Karmafist (talk · contribs). Template:UncyclopedianUser was created by Nerd42 (talk · contribs). So you might want to re-check your references in your essay. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Log pages (which include move logs and deletion logs in this case) are visible by all registered, anonymous, and even blocked users. Those logs pages (which I have linked to) show what pages were moved where and even when/why pages were deleted. The page history shows who created the page (if you go back far enough to the very first edit). Although it is likely that a page might have been deleted and only some revisions restored by an administrator, I highly doubt that has happened. Just thought you'd like to know where I got my information from. Anyway... I'm not going to edit the said page any further on this. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

BITing

I call vandalism as I see it, perhaps sometimes too forcefully; contributions containing patent nonsense should be identified as such. In my experience, those who begin by vandalizing Wikipedia NEVER, EVER change their ways.

Look at my talk page; one disruptive editor even threatened to kill me. Such individuals have nothing of value to contribute.

My position may earn me reprimands from my fellow editors, but I would point to the validity of the vast majority of my contributions as evidence of my belief in Wikipedia's mission.

Just out of curiosity: how many times do YOU have to be reminded not to mess with people's talk page edits?

C1k3 (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on now

OK so you don't like Uncy. I've read your essay about it. But why don't you want anybody to mention it in their talk page posts? None of these three edits seem helpful to me:

• Talk:Werner_Herzog you edit somebody's comment to remove a link to a nonexisting Uncy page, calling it "harmful"
• Talk:Ainsley_Harriott you remove a comment that somebody thinks the lame article reads like Uncy, calling it "unproductive"
• Talk:John_ac_Alun you remove a comment which tells vandals to stop their nonsense and directs them to visit Uncyc if they want to write garbage. You refer to this link as "harmful material"

The Herzog link you removed is of course useless (the linked page doesn't even exist). But is it "harmful"? Did you even follow the link to see if it led anywhere? The comment at Harriott was intended to spur people on to improve the article, which is not "unproductive". The comment at John ac Alun was actually intended as a measure to reduce vandalism.

It seems to me that your definition of "harmful" is in need of revision. Staecker (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You say you've read my essay but somehow I'm not convinced. Please read WP:TALK and WP:BLP again which allows me to remove the text/links. If you need further help in understanding, may I refer you to Wikipedia:Help desk.--Otterathome (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC) (This bit copied from my talk page- let's keep it all here --Staecker (talk))

First of all, I have read your essay but I don't agree with you. Is that so hard to believe? OK let's look at these links and your reasons for reinstating them:

• The link to Uncyc's main page from ac Alun was removed again citing BLP and GFDL compatibilty issues.
• The mention of Uncy at Ainsley Harriot was removed again with a mysterious citation of WP:TALK.
• The link to a nonexistent Uncy article at Werner Herzog was removed again citing BLP.

The first one: how is a link to the main page of Uncy a BLP violation? Your point about GFDL is interesting, but not really compelling- I agree that copying WP pages to Uncyc is a license violation, but in this case Uncyc would be the infringer, which has nothing to do with a link to their main page from a WP talk page.

The second one: If anything WP:TALK says that you shouldn't be deleting other people's posts. So I assume you mean the section of WP:TALK which outlines some cases in which other people's posts should be edited. None of these cases apply, unless you think that the comment was "not relevant to improving the article". I agree the comment isn't overly instructive, but it offers criticism of the content of the article, presumably with the intent that the article be improved.

The third one: I must say that this wins the prize for Lamest Invocation Ever of the BLP Policy. Are you honestly saying that a link to a nonexistent page on Uncy is a BLP violation? Seriously now. There are plenty of reasons to remove links to nowhere, but this is not one of them.

Are you really suggesting that I take up this discussion at the help desk? What would you like me to say there? Something like "can somebody please tell me if links to nonexistent Uncy pages are harmful to WP?" or "can somebody tell me if a link to the main page of Uncy is a BLP violation?" How about "is it against WP:TALK to mention Uncy in a talk page post?" I already know the answers to these questions: no, no and no. Staecker (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As you don't quite understand...

• Talk:Werner_Herzog BLP violation as it links to an outside page with potentially harmful information to the living person. It's not my job to check the harmfulness or even if the page exists, the fact it has the title of the subject and it is on uncy means it could or will contain possibly harmful information.
• Talk:Ainsley_Harriott Unconstructive, unproductive. No more useful than saying "this article sucks", "this article is terrible" etc. May offend authors of the article. Helps improve the article? No.
• Talk:John_ac_Alun Removed due to potentially harmful information to the link, the vandalism content shouldn't have been moved as the licenses are not compatible, and linking to it is just as bad. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Helps improve the article? No.

Everything I've said is already covered in my essay which you say you've read, so I don't understand why I need to explain it to you further.--Otterathome (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see this is going nowhere. You're citing your own essay as if it were policy with widespread consensus. At least this discussion will stand as a monument to my disagreement and your steadfastness. Staecker (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My essay simply links to the relevant guidelines and policies which I've also done above.--Otterathome (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxxy restored

I don't understand why you tagged this for G10. It is clearly not an attack and has been restored per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 21. If you feel it should be deleted, I would suggest WP:AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

G10 only applies to negative unsourced BLP. The Guardian article while it has "blog" in the URL, is an newspaper article that others may comment on. The source is the newspaper article. Do not blank the article. You need to seriously reread BLP. Blannking is not needed unless disparagement is a problem. There is no attack or disparagement to blank. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not re-add the {{G10}} tag to this article. It does not meet the criterion (it it not an attack page or negative). Continuing to do so will result in your being blocked for disruption. seresin ( ¡? )  01:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blogs are not necessarily unusable. Stop being disruptive; if you have a problem, there are other options available to you. seresin ( ¡? )  01:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Like adding the AFD notice without blanking the article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. You've got to admins telling you that blanking is not appropriate. While blanking increases the drama and the likelihood the article will be deleted out-of-hand, it is not appropriate in the abcense of negative BLP, disparagement, etc. Dlohcierekim 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that BLP applies here, because the content is not contentious. But I'm going to disengage. Other administrators can handle this. seresin ( ¡? )  01:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked other administrator on ANI to review the situation. Link. seresin ( ¡? )  02:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why, I've quoted you the relevant policy.--Otterathome (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What annoys me to the point of physical disability is you tagging it for G10 when it has been restored per discussion at WP:DRV. If I'd seen it first, I'd have declined the speedy. But it was blanked. So I deleted it before I saw it was restored per DRV. It clearly does not meet CSD and had I left it deleted, I'd have reversed (against consensus) the decision to restore made at DRV. Looks to me like you want the thing deleted regardless of process or policy. Dlohcierekim 02:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Religious agenda

Why do you have such a religious agenda against me? May I remind you that this is in violation of WP:CIVIL. And stop accusing me of being a "fanatic" LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 13:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The hidden truth about Chris Crocker

I don't know why this part was removed. --TIB (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Otterathome. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

{{helpme}} If a site has copied a wikipedia article and does not follow Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations where do I report this?--Otterathome (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your tirade

My edits were not vandalism. The information was wrong and does not violate WP:CENSOR. If you had taken care to actually read what I'd written then you would see it was constructive.LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 17:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not. One of the sentences read the people in the protest said things on their slogans as "Freedom go to hell" when clearly at the very front it says "Liberalism go to hell". Frankly I don't understand why the have to be repeated in the paragraph when the reader can clearly see them in the picture (as I had written in the article), which hardly constitutes as "censorship". If I had wanted to censor it I would have deleted that photo. The photo is perfectly acceptable. The previous images were, as noted by other editors, in violation of WP:NFC. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 17:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, why didn't you point this out in the first place instead of acting like a nutcase and telling me I'm "censoring" things? Stop acting as if you own the article. Your bully tactics don't really work on wikipedia and certainly not with me. Please refrain from deleting good faith edits and labelling them as "vandalism". One more thing, please fucking read the policies before you jump into bed with them, okay? Then fuck off and implement them. I really don't have time wasting my efforts on slime-of-an-editor like you who always acts as a troll and misuses his tools.. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me "incivil nonsense"? Read what I've written and please for the sake of the world don't push your pro-Nazi beliefs on me. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Public perception of George W. Bush has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. This is NOT 'vandalism'. It also appears that you're attempting to provoke a reaction to gain the upper hand in a dispute: this is frowned upon and is likely to have negative consequences, as editors and admins don't like being manipulated. CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that motion. Your edit summaries are not accurate and mislead people. This is a very serious problem. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 13:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your message

If you can't be bothered to explain even minimally, I can't be bothered to look beyond the obvious. You certainly had no difficulty grinding out several hundred words of complaint on the admin noticeboard, and your absurd 'reasoning' in your complaint and the prima facie mislabelling of your edit summary remains sufficient for me. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

'COI'? Is User:LOTRrules being paid by the byte for how big the talk page is? Even if 'COI' were to--somehow--apply, that is NOT 'vandalism' by any measure. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If--suddenly--you have become too lazy to type more than a randomly chosen shortcut rather than a several hundred words of rationalising (or, perhaps, a genuine reason), you might just as well save yourself further typing in the future on my talk page, as I'll not believe a word you say. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing other p[eople's talk edits

Why? It's generally bad form to remove other people's talk page edits. Dlohcierekim 15:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you be clearer? You are usually so expansive. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Rate My Poo

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Rate My Poo, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Kyle1278 (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: hi

He only passes on "Entertainers - Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." So I guess that is enough to have your own page, even though I strongly disagree that most of the Youtube "celebs" should have pages. His page needs to be re-written also because at the moment it reads like a fan has typed it up. I don't think it should be deleted because he was in HBO's Hooking Up and won Sexiest Geek of 2008 competition in Wired. The other stuff on his article might as well be removed because the only sources for that are his Youtube videos. --TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I saw your recent comment on User talk:TwentiethApril1986 the only edit i have reveted of yours was the one to the Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush. Kyle1278 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

i also found one other edit was to rating sites articles but none of my edits were unconstructive and you message to User talk:TwentiethApril1986 makes it seem so. Kyle1278 (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I only put one tag on your article and the reason i tagged it is because i find that a page like that on wikipeida is unneeded i did not create the Philip DeFranco article i have only contributed to it. Kyle1278 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not staking you as you might think i just came across the article Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush undid an edit that should have been undone there is no reason to remove someones talk from a page thats going against someones freedom of speech. Kyle1278 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say one last thing that i am sorry if i made you mad at any moment what i was doing i though was right and none of it was aimed at you or anyone. I try to keep my edits constrictive as possible and try to do the best for Wikipedia as i sure you do to. So Again sorry if i made you mad Kyle1278 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rate My Poo

I have nominated Rate My Poo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rate My Poo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rtm frontpage.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Rtm frontpage.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

delete tag on User page

Hi, just letting you know that the recent page you tagged for speedy (User:Regional123) was a user page, and I have therefore removed the tag. Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Got you, just presumed you'd made an accident and thought that you were tagging a main space article. Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fred

Thanks for the quick reverts. I indeffed him. Horologium (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Me, myself and I

Clarified. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Citing the morons

It is appropriate to cite an unreliable source when you are just citing this to show what the author of the source believes. For instance, if an organisation were to publish something that stated that the earth was made of microwaved popcorn, if you were discussing this "alternative view on geology", it would be fine to cite this publication to support the statement that "Organisation X has stated that although the earth is made of delicious, piping-hot popped corns, it may not be suitable for people with a gluten allergy." Similar arguments apply to creationism. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply re users who are removing information from articles

It could be User:LOTRrules or User:Vexorg. Vexorg is in a 96 hour ban and LOTRrules is also banned. I've seen both of them before on related articles. Vexorg in particular removes information about Al-Queda from articles and tags others with neocon. The anon I reverted was doing the same. Mohummy (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:AncientUni is User:LOTRrules, he was also quickly blocked. I'm sure he will be back soon as an anon. Mohummy (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bar Wizards

How about, coming in the Top 5 in a massively successful talent show and being on the news for yonks afterwards? There's the coverage.. Out of curiosity, which country are you from??? [[Andrew RACK]] (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't my talk page was an alernative to articles for deletion?--Otterathome (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

re: removing usernames

I have a couple issues with your having gone around and removed the username of someone else from project pages. One is that it is not your place to do so in any situation. That you are actively involved in the sock case and compiling evidence is another. Whether the user is banned or blocked or not, there seems to be a feel of bad faith in your doing so, especially given the edit summary you used "your gone" and the posting you made yesterday on the user's talk page [4]. Regardless, the person was here, did do work, and now aren't. At least for WP:CRIME and WP:ACTOR, there are no policies or guidelines in place to just remove a participant name regardless of the circumstances, the name was moved to the inactive participant list, which is where former member names go, and that is where it should be put. Regardless of what is happening now, editors who have been banned do return to Wikipedia sometimes, legitimately. I see nothing productive in going around eradicating any mention of them and honestly, I think the time is better spent concentrating on the sock cases and not giving what could be viewed as an appearance of victory. I don't care one way or the other about the specific user in question, but I do care about how it looks to me, which could be construed as a bit triumphant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That might be valid if I saw a policy or guideline that mandated or even suggested that, but WP:CRIME does not distribute newsletters and in general, newsletters are distributed by subscription, not by blankly spamming anyone's page who is listed as a member. The overriding reason to keep a list of former and current members is to leave a footprint of users who have been involved and my objection honestly is the level that you are involved in the sock case with this individual. I have never seen anyone remove other user names from such lists before under this sort of circumstance and I truly encourage you to not do so. It truly has a feel of bad faith to it. Sure, I've rejoiced in the past when a particularly bothersome sock puppet has been banned, and I've been stalked in real life by one of them which led to the need for intervention by oversight and bureaucrats, but there's nothing productive had I also gone about and scrubbed that user name from lists like that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SoWhy 12:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't apply to edits by banned users.--Otterathome (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Here you replaced a blog back in. Can you explain your rationale? Thanks, Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support and wisdom at the ongoing "Deletion Review" on James Hoffmann. I think if i had a more experienced user like you on board when I listed originally the article for deletion it would have prevailed. Again, thank you. Yardleyman (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The newsletter dispute

Please consider taking this issue to WP:BLPN if you can't cite any policy but still think this link to be not ok. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Otterathome. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User talk pages

Hi. This edit popped up on my watchlist. Editing other users' comments (especially in their own user space) is not acceptable. See: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, – Toon^(talk) 22:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history you'd understand why it was removed, perhaps the links in the edit summary 'WP:BUTTOUT/WP:DENY/don't feed' may also be of use to you. And please don't tell me to look at guidelines you haven't looked at yet.--Otterathome (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I have read them many times :) My advice to you is to leave other users' comments on their own talk pages alone. You should consider applying some of the opinions in those user essays yourself, considering the topic you raised with the user. Repeatedly removing comments from others' talk pages is disruptive, especially when they have made clear that they wish for the material to remain. Consider this a warning; if you continue, you will be blocked. – Toon^(talk) 22:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Then did you read the part about keeping 'on topic'? I was removing troll food which had nothing to do with the discussion, and I didn't remove the same comments more than once. Your entire misinterpration and misunderstanding makes me wonder if you are fit to be admin. But by all means, if you want to bring drama and blocked users spamming your talk page too, by all means carry on feeding trolls. You're more than welcome.--Otterathome (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thank you for nominating some of the non-notable articles from Britain's Got Talent (series 3) for adf's. I surprised how long some of them have lasted like the Hollie Steel page, so just wanted to say thanks. Cheers Kyle1278 14:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverting declined speedy

Any editor, who is not the creator of the article, can remove a Csd speedy tag with good reason. Your reversions of the edits by User:Cunard were invalid -- being an administrator is not necessary, it only requires an understanding of the guidelines. More to the point, every one of his reasons for declining the speedy tags were correct. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

What's the deal with claiming that other users are your sockpuppets? I most certainly am not a sockpuppet of anybody. Are you trying to get us in trouble? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

I just tell him that help to main page uncy Burmese Myanmar language I do not have ads. I just tell him to appreciate and I'm sorry Thank

I'm sorry, I go back on the page User talk: hintha I swear that I'm not spam. I'm not advertising. I not sell man or country that I differ with you if it is Sorry, I came here and I am at the spit. Just sell the gold it mildly. Where do not want to sell again thanks

uncy not profit as Wikimedia foundation is to help so thanks

If you blog me I'll sue you uncouple the meta-wiki blog base penalty by others madcap Because I am friends with the administrator of the high meta I am here to report to my friends thanks

But whether or I deleted it. But I do not. I will not warn!!!!!

--Sahayfont (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

note

hi. thanks for your note. errr, I've been here for almost three years. which edit are you referring to? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Autofellatio

Because there is a great deal of controversy over inclusion of even one photo in that article. You may want to look over the talk page archives. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Three photos are not needed to describe what one photo describes very well, particularly in this case, where inclusion of even one image was hard-won and remains controversial. I'd advise you not to bother adding back the images for the simple reason that it's apt to begin a flurry of reverts. If you want to increase the number of images in that article, then I would suggest discussing your proposed changes on the article talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's the feeling you get you're either not reading or not understanding my posts. As I've explained, there was, and remains, a lot of controversy over inclusion of even one single image in that article. Therefore, in order to avoid yet more controversy and a flurry of reversions, I am advising that if you want to include more images you discuss on the talk page first. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Which I see now that you're doing. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

Please do not redirect your user page to any Wikipedia article or to a user page that does not belong to you. Additionally, please remain civil, even in edit summaries. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see it violating WP:USER, nor did did I see any of my edit summaries being incivil. So please quote things more often.--Otterathome (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've undone your redirection again. This a violation of WP:POINT and does not facilitate the construction of the encyclopedia which is what your user page and user talk are for. Exxolon (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Otterathome. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Exxolon (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And you still can't tell me which part of WP:USER it violates. And editing my own user page is barely a WP:POINT violation.--Otterathome (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It violates Wikipedia:Redirect#Abusive_redirects and is also a cross-namespace redirect which are discouraged. Exxolon (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be self-evident. WP:POINT does not only apply to article pages. Besides violating WP:UP#COPIES ("One should never create links from a mainspace article to any userpage") it goes agasint the very reason for user pages ("Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia"). Also, the redirect violates at least #s 2, 4 and 5 of WP:R#DELETE just as a start. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are all mainspace orientated pages apart from WP:UP#COPIES which says you shouldn't have links to userspace from the mainspace, not the other way round. User pages allow this freedom.--Otterathome (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Would a soft redirect or other form of prominent link or banner be acceptable to you, Otter? Seems to get the point in without as much potential for confusion or complaint. Just looking for a compromise option, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/archive1. I've resolved all of the issues that you identified - I'd be grateful if you could check it over and update the FAC page accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Graphics

Please modify your left column graphics - they obscure the main wikipedia links when viewed in Internet Explorer (Version 7 tested). Exxolon (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The rainbow graphics also prevent clicking on the links in Firefox. I too urge you to fix this, it's a usability issue. I proposed a fix above in case you missed it; my proposed fix would still allow you to retain the rainbow graphics for behind the Wikipedia logo. -kotra (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please fix it; neither Firefox [5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.12) Gecko/2009070611 Firefox/3.0.12], Google Chrome (latest: 2.0.172.37), Internet Explorer (8.0.6001.18702), Safari [3.1.1 (525.17)], AOL Explorer (1.1.4234.1042), nor Netscape 7.0 allows me to access the links on the left. It's also quite hideous on some of the browsers I tested. —LOL ^T/_C 23:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If it bothers you that much, then go complain to the admin who doesn't follow WP:PROTECT.--Otterathome (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In short, you're refusing to un-fubar your user talk page as a revenge against Bjweeks for protecting your user page? --Aqwis (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, there is nothing wrong with it, it's suppose to be on my user page which was protected against WP:PROTECT, so the alternative is here instead.--Otterathome (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely something wrong with it. In addition to Wikipedia being supposed to be an encyclopedia and not Toys'R'Us on acid, it makes it impossible to use the sidebar as all the links are hidden by the rainbow. Users with old/slow computers can have problems loading this page because the animation consists of a large number of individual images, which seriously slows things down. It was removed from your user page for a reason and should also be removed from this page. --Aqwis (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If people want to use those links, they can press the back button. There's only 3 now, so it won't slow down anyones computer.--Otterathome (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still inconvenient for other users, and likely to make them less likely to consider you a collegial and cooperative editor. As a method of protest it seems rather less effective than chaining onesself to the railings. Unless, of course, you're looking for an effective argument as to why users shouldn't be allowed CSS overrides on their pages at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Currently, a dark grey bar obscures the links on the left during normal viewing, and a flashing rainbow obscures them in edit mode. Please review WP:UP, where you will learn that userpages and their content are not owned by you and content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Userpages, including your talk page, are not a personal website; they exist to further the goals of the project by making communication with you easier. Although the community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in terms of userpage content, the community has told you strongly and repeatedly that it does not want this content here because it is disruptive to normal use of the site and makes communication with you more difficult; please remove it. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How does it make communication more difficult? I prefer it on my user page. If WP:PROTECT policy can be so flagrantly ignored by admins, then me bending the rules of WP:USERPAGE, a guideline, seems reasonable.--Otterathome (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not about the protection of your userpage. The HTML/CSS is problematic in either place. You have reduced the number of rainbow images, but the <div> continues to obscure the entire sidebar (excluding the logo and the search box) for me (Firefox 3.0 and IE7), it is just black now, not rainbow. I have absolutely no problem with customizing the user page associated with one's name to show one's personality and opinions, but this is having an actual impact on the page's functionality. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I do not see how pressing the back button would allow the use of these links. If you are referring to the fact that the links on User:Otterathome aren't obscured, that's fine, but at least one of the links on this page (What links here) is not available anywhere else, nor should people be expected to go to another page just to find links. You have made your point, and it's well taken. But please find an alternative way of expressing yourself that does not cause this problem; our patience isn't unlimited. -kotra (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never used those links on the right, and I don't know why anyone would want to while they are on my talk page. If you unprotect my user page I will put it there instead.--Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the entire point, Otterathome. You have been asked repeatedly to remove these images. The community has made itself clear on this. It's time for them to go. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you use those links is irrelevant; many editors (including me) do. And I repeat, it is problematic in both places, so moving it to your user page solves nothing. Consensus is clear, so I will remove or change it if you don't, as described here. -kotra (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you all like the new changes, and am flattered you take have taken such an interest in to such a low profile wikipedian. And I thank you for all your patience unlike the admin who protected my user page.--Otterathome (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see discussion at ANI. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Dark Side of the Moon/archive2

Hi there, I've replied to your comments - I wondered if you wouldn't mind addressing my replies? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please address the responses I have given to your comments in this review? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything I said seems covered.--Otterathome (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Vendetta Against Lonelygirl15 Related Articles

Otter, why are you going around marking articles like KateModern and N1ckola as possibly not-notable, when in reality they just need improvements? If you researched these topics, you would find that you could improve these articles instead of taking nonsubstantive actions and suggesting that articles are not notable that actually are. Generally people agreed with your nominations of non-notable lg15 related actors last week (like Becki Kregoski), but did not agree with your nominations of LG15: The Last and Jackson Davis. I feel your recent edits have the air of reacting to a perceived personal slight upon you, which is disheartening. Cheers - --Milowent (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because it informs everyone who visits the page of the core problems problems the articles suffer from, and encourages them to deal with it. I don't fix the problems because it's mostly WP:N problems of articles that are on a thin line because nobody can find any decent sources. And it's not my job to go routing through thousands of websites looking for any usable sources, see WP:BURDEN.--Otterathome (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, yeah, re the Jackson Davis birthday, its on the LGpedia ref I added to the actor box. While the LGPedia is largely a fan edited wiki, you will note that the actor pages are locked from user editing. Those are controlled by EQAL, the owner of lonelygirl15 and related series. See [5] for official announcement related to those pages. --Milowent (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback Nsaa

Hello, Otterathome. You have new messages at Nsaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nsaa (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lucinda Rhodes-Flaherty

Inre this diff, thanks. If I had not thought the article could be improved, I would have opined delete right alongside you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

TheAmazingAtheist

Protonk has restored the history behind a redirect. The version you want is here. You should probably include a note in any edit summaries merging info to maintain attribution. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't copy and paste any sentences, I used it as a reference.--Otterathome (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The link problem

Salam I was wondering whether it is possible to add the link about Marriage of Aisha

The reason for not accepting their view (According to the link you provided) here was that they were not historians apparently this is not correct since here according to wikipedia Qualified Islamic scholars are acceptable and reliable sources.If possible I would like to get that link included.Looking forward to your view on this subject. Thanks --Firstcome (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

They can be used as sources but you added it to the external links section. Stop pov pushing please.--Otterathome (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Hello, Otterathome. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding your activities on LG15-related pages and disregard for community consensus on which of them to keep. Thank you. --80.171.27.157 (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You will be taken more seriously when you start abiding by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You could spend your time finding sources for the articles I nominated for deletion instead of wasting it by going after the nominator of them.--Otterathome (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Global Cool

What part of our policies support your statement that a long spammy article is better than a short article? WP:PROMOTION WP:NPOV WP:V are policies and WP:RS is a guideline that say otherwise. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Image deletions

It is unfortunately still very very rare for organizations to actually release promotional material under a free license, let alone as public domain. Either way their website give no indication of this so we still require confirmation of this fact. If they send a confirmation to OTRS as have been done for that PETA image you mention then great! If not they get deleted, I would not consider either outcome to be a waste of my time (took me a lot longer to write this than flag those images ;)). --Sherool (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Lee Rose

Thank you for taking the time to review Jessica Lee Rose's page as a C-class. Here is why I disagree with you. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseless Accusations

If you are going to accuse me of 'wikistalking' perhaps you should provide examples. Trust me I have more important things to do then care about what you are doing. As for reverting,all two times I have reverted something I have given a valid reason. The first was when you eliminated an article and replaced it with a redirect the second was when you removed the results of a recent afd decision, which you started. Mathieas (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for all of your comments on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding my Rollback rights. I really appreciate it. Regards.--David | ^Talk 18:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Otterathome. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Euclidthegreek

Thanks, uncovered a couple of others too, but Editor510 wasn't one. --Stephen 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Otterathome, I strongly urge that you stop nominating articles for deletion or doing unilateral merge/redirects without discussion for a while. You could be blocked for disruption over this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a limit to how many articles you could nominate at one time. I only did one unilateral redirect. I recommend you stop being suckered in by other peoples comments and do some research yourself before saying such things.--Otterathome (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You just threatened to nominate GigaOm. 'Nuff said. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I gave editors extra time to make fix articles notability problem or face deletion, would you prefer I list it for deletion without warning then?--Otterathome (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But there aren't any notability problems with the articles you're nominating, and you know it. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not what you should base your reasoning for deletion on. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's why I got 3 similar articles deleted and users never address issues raised instead just assume bad faith and question my motives. If you want to buy in to drama without investigating anything yourself, by all means, act like a sheep.--Otterathome (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, in all my reading of policy, there is no limit to how many articles you can AFD. There is, however, an expectation that if you nom it at AFD, it's for good reason. As such, it's expected that if you're nominating a lot of articles, that most of the noms are SUCCESSFUL. The problem you've been running into isn't that there's a bunch of rabid lonelygirl fans hounding you(and I'll admit, they sure are rabid), it's that you're not accurately judging what's notable and what is not before you nom. I don't know if this is because you're deliberately trying to get rid of articles you don't like while hiding behind notability(which is what it comes off like), or if you really honestly believe they're not notable. Whatever the case, you are finding a lot of articles with problems. YOUR problem being, the problem with most of them is that they simply don't have the available sources linked. This doesn't mean they're not notable, it just means it's a poor article, quite possibly one that's been recently created. Notability is based on coverage, which means total available sources. That those sources aren't linked doesn't cause the article to fail WP:N. And per WP:DEL, deletion is a last resort.(Incidentally, reading both of those would help your endeavours VASTLY.) If an article can be made to meet the notability standard, by policy it should not be deleted. So when you nom an article, and this results in the article being edited up to standards and thus the AFD failing... that is, indeed, a failing on your part in most cases. A better thing to do would be to challenge the editors of the article(but remember to be civil!) to prove the notability for the article; AFD isn't the place for an initial challenge of notability. As for those three you DID get deleted, you should also note that in one case, Milowent, one of the Lonelygirl supporters, himself admitted that the subject didn't seem to be notable enough to include. If you can non-confrontationally demonstrate this BEFORE AFDing the article, you'll have a lot more success. In such a case, even if the fans flooded it, it very well might get deleted anyway because they wouldn't have a policy to argue from. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Monkey News Source

I'd suggest reverting your last edit and adding the {{prod2}} template with your rationale. I don't exactly see how WP:NOTNEWS applies, but the nominations would be clearer that way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking accusations

Hello, Otterathome. You have new messages at Zoeydahling's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notability and problematic interactions

Please note that a) you've pretty much lost the argument over whether (stuff pertaining to the LonelyGirl15 franchise) meets criteria for notability, and b) you shouldn't be perceiving it as an argument to win or lose.

If you keep tagging those articles for speedy deletion... and PRODding them, and AfDing them, etc etc etc etc, you're wasting your own time. There are better (and less personally frustrating) things you could be doing, both on- and off-WP. As for your comment about how maybe you'll "create a separate account to tag articles", I recommend that you reread WP:POINT. DS (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect to come to an agreement with fans of an article for deletion they don't want deleted. 3 actor/actresses relating to the franchise which I nominate were deleted, which suggested more articles relating to it failed our guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Hello, Otterathome. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: AfD close

Sure, I'll explain my view. Firstly, remember that ATA is an essay, and not set in stone. Try not to rely too heavily on it, because it does not apply to every situation. In terms of Tubefilter, I felt that the article is worthy of at least a stub given the sources in it. They may be minor mentions, but given the small field, I personally saw notability in the subject.

Now, that's just my discretion. Another administrator may feel completely different. If you'd like to put it up for deletion review, feel free to do so. Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Community topic ban

Otter, I'm very close to proposing that the community place a Community ban on you to stop you from disruptively participating in deletion discussions. Please don't give me the incentive to do this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't participate in my own deletion discussions? I'm nominating articles based on their failures of guidelines, it's not my fault if the fans of the articles don't like it.--Otterathome (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue. Telling everyone who shows up that they're not qualified the participate in the discussion is one. That is disruptive, and that is what is going to get you banned from deletion, or outright blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Give me me some examples of this large amount of times I've done this then. Most of my comments in deletion are about sources..--Otterathome (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Go troll-vote elsewhere"
• "If you're not going to argue your point then don't bother giving one"
• "I'm sure your first DRV edit has nothing to do with my nomination of your article"
• "Another SPA voting keep"

That's not telling them they're not qualified to participate, that's telling them that they aren't participating properly and their comment is useless. In hope they'd actually add something productive.--Otterathome (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback Billbowery

Hello, Otterathome. You have new messages at Billbowery's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Billbowery Billbowery (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Maintainence tags

Hello, Otterathome. You have new messages at Zoeydahling's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Zoeydahling (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

You just hit your 3rd reverts on Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability. I'd suggest taking your own advice and using the talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That was your fourth revert on Tubefilter.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

Thanks for your note. Shame about the tone. Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2

Thank you for your insightful comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2. Although I agree with nearly all of the points you make, I don't agree with your last sentence, which is an attack on the closer. Could you return to the debate and refactor that comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please revisit User talk:Cunard#Bad DRV comment. Your comment at the DRV is in error. Cunard (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing of BitchX

Otterathome,

I saw your message. Reverting a closing on a AFD is not the thing to do. If you disagree with a closing, take it to DRV, please. My close wasn't a quick close, rather, the nomination was a bad faith nom, BtichX itself is notable (the page itself has plenty of references to back that up) so I closed it. I didn't vote in the AFD and have no stake. Also, Non-Admin closures are okay, so long as the result isn't delete. I will undo your close and consider the afd closed at this point. Again, if you disagree, please take it to DRV. Thanks.--KoshVorlon (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Tubefilter. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Template:Z9 --Aqwis (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Otterathome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

2 reverts is not edit-warring, and I've been editing the talk page far more than the article.

Decline reason:

I see at least four recent reverts: [6], [7], [8], [9].  Sandstein  17:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

One revert is from yesterday, and [10] is not a revert. I can only see two reverts today.--Otterathome (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was yesterday, but still within 24 hours, which is what WP:3RR states. And your "is not a revert" link above is definitely a revert -- you were readding content removed by another editor. It doesn't have to be a re-add of all the content added to count.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your careful and precise monitoring of my edits to get me to violate 3RR have worked SarekOfVulcan. Well done. Except it seems you have been violating WP:WIKISTALK for some time in the process.--Otterathome (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am mightily amused at the concept that you reverted 5 times because I was "monitoring" you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You never edited the article before I did, nor have you discussed anything on the talk page, but by co-incidence decided to revert me when I had reverted 3 times.--Otterathome (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, because I'm not here for the content issues -- I'm here for the conduct. You'll notice that I templated Zoey for edit warring at the same time I warned you -- which was before your 5th revert. I could have just blocked as soon as I saw you were over 3RR, but I wanted to give you a chance to back off.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)