User talk:Thirteen squared: Difference between revisions

I recently removed about a hundred pages on my watchlist. If I inadvertently removed a page in which I was involved in a discussion, please notify me.

NO DRAMA LLAMAS!

Please leave me a message.
If you're a registered user, I'll respond where the conversation started; if you're an anonymous user, I'll respond on this page. Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Always assume good faith Do not make personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers; we were all new at some point!

User	Talk	Contribs	Sandbox	Email

I can has archive?

Archive 1 (the beginning through October '09

Duggars

Hi!

If you know how to put Jordyn's age back in, could you? Someone's been playing around with the table with the kids and I can only put Jordyn's birthday. I'm not sure how to configure it to show her age, for a baby under two years old. Thanks! TH43 (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed! The main infant age template had gotten vandalized. I reverted the vandalism and restored the tag. :) --13² 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to put something similar, but Jordyn's page was still messed up. Thanks! TH43 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandal on Jon & Kate Plus 8

Hi, I couldn't help but notice that you've been having some trouble with an ip vandal on Jon & Kate Plus 8. Should you need to take further action, please let me know and I will add my voice of support in it. The ips are a sockpuppet of banned user TH43. The user was banned for repeated vandalism and removal of sources from Law & Order articles. He keeps coming back and vandalizing the Jon & Kate and the Law & Order articles and I plan on filing a WP:ABUSE report soon if he continues this action.

Thanks in advance for letting me know about any action taken against the user. I hope this information provides some insight into who this user is. Redfarmer (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:DUCK, it's the same user as R7604 (which would be the original account, I believe). I brought this up to admin Tom Harrison a few months ago here. R7604 was repeatedly blocked again and again on various IPs and accounts for similar issues (you can see the zillion messages about it on that admin's talk page). Thanks for letting me know about the IP. I wouldn't mind helping out with whatever since I was involved very early on. Thanks for letting me know. --13² 04:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. I wasn't aware of that account's existence, probably because they didn't edit any of the pages I watch on a regular basis, but they certainly pass the WP:DUCK test. Same condescending attitude, same refusal to discuss edits, same edit warring, same refusal to see anything from anyone else's perspective. Since I've already had a sockpuppet investigation initiated on TH43 and it's archived, I'll go ahead and leave TH43 as sockmaster and tag that account as a suspected sockpuppet. Thanks for the heads up. They've been doing this longer than I realized. Any other ips you know of we can tag? Redfarmer (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Going off of Tom's page, here are others: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5] (yes, he really tried to copy Tom's name). The user is incredibly frustrating. I have little doubt that we'll be seeing a new account soon. The user is like the poster for WP:DISRUPT. --13² 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The new account has arrived: User:RubyP. Already filed a sockpuppet investigation. Redfarmer (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew it had to be coming soon. Thanks for keeping me updated! --13² 00:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, you may want to keep the admin, Tom, updated about this as well since he was so involved in the issue. It would be good if he knew what was going on as well. --13² 01:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bento

Sorry if you felt I was messing with the format of you vote... The Ogre (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. :) --13² 13:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

grmike here some discussion is needed regarding the issue of sasha baren cohen

i don't have seniority here like you appear to but i have been a valuable member of wikipedia for some time. the issue of antisemitism is clear as it applies to cohen. this is not debatable the Anti-Defamation League has in the past condemed Cohen for his speach and language as it applies to anti semitism. what i did on a talk page is not out of order and i am fully within my rights according to the link you provided when making the statements that were removed. someone must hold either you or the encyclopedia accountable for refusing to acknowledge the anti semitism displayed by Cohen in his numerous acts. a talk page is where this kind of discussion takes place. if the warning is not removed and the discussion is not allowed to happen I will take this to every discussion panel until I receive a more coherent, just response. you're decision to threaten me with a ban for something you deem a blatant attack (when the other editor who last removed my contribution called it a source of discussion that shouldn't happen on a talk page (ludicrous)) is actually you being derelict. what is most ironic about this whole incident is that apparently on seach engines like google wikipedia is given precedence, the first result when freedom of speech is ssearched. the freedom of speech issue is something that wikipedia better smarten up about because the more editors that are lost (tens of thousands last year) the less credibility is given to the site. it's clear that in the future that could be the major hurdle the site will have to overcome in order to keep its place at the top of search results, and thus relevent to the group it seeks to inform. Grmike (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

the removed section has everything to do with the article. the article's subject is Cohen and the section was added to his talk page in order to facilitate dialogue between me and anyone who would remove the additions pertaining to this issue at their discretion. maybe i wasn't cogent enough for you. issue number 1 : whether he's an observant Jew. issue number 2 : whether the anti semitism displayed by him in the entertainment industry, and that was acknowledged by Jewish people at every level Judaism as well as the ADL is relevent enough to be included at any level within the article or its talk page. inclusion as it pertains to the talk page shouldn't even be up for discussion as the talk page is the outlet for discussion.Grmike (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

You are discussing Baron Cohen, not the article. Can you not see the difference? Here, I'll help. If you were discussing the article, your messages would be something like "Such and such a statement needs a source." or "Should we be linking such and such external link?" or "Can we discuss trimming down such and such section because it is adding undue length to the article." You're not doing that. You're ranting about something you disagree with Cohen over and you're doing so in a very inflammatory manner. You aren't bothering to find sources for any of your extremely biased statements and the closest you've come to discussing the article is basically "We should discuss, at length, the merits of this NPOV issue that I can't source, but I think is true because it might be tangentially related to some random, one-sentence statement within the article." Sorry Charlie, but that's not going to fly.

Further, many of these allegations you are making, including that of supposed antisemitism, are blatant violations of WP:BLP with no support through reliable sources. You are spouting libelous statements with zero support outside of your own opinion. By policy, statements such as that are to be promptly removed from talk pages.

Even further, a similar discussion was made previously over his level of observance, and it was done in a far more respectful manner than you are doing, and the result was "find sources" not "rant more." You have not shown sources for any of this information. You're going off on this issue, just to go off on it. You may be frustrated with something he has done or said, but that does not give you the right to explode about it. At least not here. You're more than welcome to start a blog or something about it.

I want to thank you for bringing this here to try to explain to me where you are coming from. That said, continued pursuit of this subject in this rage-y manner will lead to a discussion of your behavior at WP:ANI. (Edit conflict: at least you've saved me the effort.) --13² 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that the matter immediately above is under discussion at ANI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --13² 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Suleman

You're welcome. For a BLP, I'm surprised how some edits has gone unnoticed. Thank you also for watching. --Jmundo (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised with such a high profile person there aren't more people watching it. Lord knows that's an article that needs it. Thanks again. --13² 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at found my name on the whitelist accused of vandalism that the accuser has since apologized for and retracted it regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, lol, my talk page is getting looooooong. I didn't really notice that until this message. I think I'm going to have to finally cave and start archiving. :S --13² 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Come to the dark side. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I will get on that after lunch. :D --13² 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. It looks so sad and bare. Also, LOL at 84,800 characters! o_0 --13² 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done. Your wiki appreciates your sacrifice. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Appalachian Trail

Your "how to" tag is much appreciated - that is an issue which has come up before on the article when I've removed excess detail and been over-ridden. It would be helpful, however, if you could back it with a short item on the Talk page, pointing to one or two spots that you specifically think are problems - sort of what you did in the Edit summary, but more visible. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here. I have addressed my concerns on the article talk page. That said, I'll no longer be editing the article or participating in discussion. Rjanag's removal of the tag without either giving me a chance to address your requests here or contacting me himself took me off guard and made me feel a bit uncomfortable. I may be totally off-base with those feelings and the intent behind the removal, but it still didn't sit well with me and I'd rather just avoid the issue all together. --13² 17:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it makes you uncomfortable, 13; this is exactly how WP:BRD works. After discussion we can all decide on the best way to handle the tag. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I misunderstood why you removed the tag. Thanks for clearing that up on the talk page.

With regard to your edit summary here, perhaps you need to read the intro to BRD again, as it says to use it with care and diplomacy, acting in a way that is considerate and patient. I reacted to your revert by feeling uncomfortable. Whether or not that feeling was justified, telling me I was being touchy is neither considerate nor patient.

I removed myself from this discussion with my previous two messages. Please leave me be. --13² 18:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman888

Did you see this? We knew our little tendentious friend had issues, but holy cow. Drmargi (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Teens Run Modesto Speedy Delete declined

Hello, I am a Page Patroller and declined your Speedy Delete. I attempted to do a Temp Save just about the same time you DB'ed the article as I knew it might get a SD nomination. I will copyedit the article and bring up its status. --Morenooso (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't ever give a Page Patroller a warning. I did not create the article and within my rights to decline your nomination. --Morenooso (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally when a Speedy Delete nom is declined, you cannot re-establish it. You need to review the rules or else I will cite you. --Morenooso (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledge you understand on this your talkpage. I have it under Watch. --Morenooso (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The warning is automatic. I cannot control it with the program I use. Additionally, while I assumed you were the creator and readded it, by the time I tried to remove it, you had already done so and I had an edit conflict. That said, it still needs to meet WP:ORG, which it currently doesn't. A high school club will almost indefinitely fail that test. I have since replaced the CSD with a PROD tag. Feel free to fix the article before the PROD expires. If you remove it without establishing notability, I will AFD the article. --13² 04:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You better control it or you will be reported. --Morenooso (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll report me for not agreeing that the article establishes notability? --13² 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You can be reported for edit warring and re-establishing a Speedy Delete after it was declined. Removing Maintenance tags and issuing a warning in non-WP:AGF is not WP:CIVIL. And yes, I disagree. I am a Page Patroller and will establish its notability

Additionally, you have no right to remove the UnderConstruction tag. You can establish other tags but removing it is a warning that could be applied to you. If you don't fully understand the SD rules, you shouldn't be reverting and re-establishing Speedy Deletes. --Morenooso (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove that tag? Everything I did was automatic per my program and never replaced text (at least as far as I'm aware). Nor did I mean to replace the Speedy as I've already stated above. Your excessive amount of messages here led to a delay in, literally, everything. Every time I tried to explain something or change things, I kept getting an "edit conflict" message. It would have helped immensely if you just stated your viewpoint and let me explain mine because, really, everything past the first message was unnecessary and would have been addressed if you had actually let me respond. I feel you're just trying hound me at this point. --13² 04:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: I decided to go ahead and just check whether or not I removed the "under construction" tag, under every single edit of mine on that page, and that would be a negative. Your accusations here are baseless. I've filed the AFD. Fight it there. Not on my talk page. --13² 05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)