User talk:Tide rolls/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

re: M Night graph

Hey there, I'm actually not sure how messages work, but I'll give this a go. I didn't revert an edit, I simply re-added it, I wouldn't say I am proficient in Wikipedia by any stretch. Anyway, I still don't feel IMDB is an invalid site. Movie reviews are a subjective rating, whether they come from people who get paid (critics) or people in general. However, as we know, a collection of people in general are not necessarily bad; just look at wikipedia!

I could use rotten tomatoes, (which uses real critic reviews) if you would like, but I don't see the difference. How else can I present ratings of his movie, if not by subjective ratings?

Thanks, Jeffrotman (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when you re-added the image you reverted the edit that removed the image. Furthermore, your edit summary stated " Not sure why this was deleted ". The editor that removed the image stated in their edit summary that reviewers should " see talk ". This is shorthand for look at the article's discussion page for explanation. User:SummerPhD did not alledge that IMDB was an "invalid" site, they explained how IMDB's information is not always verifiable. Movie reviews are indeed subjective; that is why Wikipedia has a notability guideline found at WP:Notability. As far as presenting ratings, you might ask editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. I would advise that you also read this essay: WP:BRD. It explains the editing cycle ideally and will give you many pointers on how to engage other editors in discussion. If you have any more questions, let me know. Thanks Tiderolls 23:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

About vandalism

Every user sometimes make mistakes by reverting edits that is not vandalism. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I've done that myself. Tiderolls 23:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I know because it's on your talk page saying that you make mistakes and that you're human. We are all human expect for the bots. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

About 15 years ago...

This movie made me wished I had joined the Navy instead of the Air Force... incidentally, when you became a Sysop here, that ringtone (@2:07) just pops into my head again. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I enjoyed the movie also. Imagine my disappointment when I did not see Bear Bryant listed in the cast of characters... Tiderolls 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wasn't he dead even before the movie was shot? Or did I got it all wrong? *scratches head* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Block 65.34.149.110

Can you block 65.34.149.110 because of vandalism? Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously disruptive. Done. Tiderolls 17:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

For reverting a lot of vandalism you deserve a cookie!

Wayne Olajuwon has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cookies are good...many thanks. Tiderolls 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Jake McGee

How is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Renner

Any different than this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Leonard_McGee

I'm asking in seriousness; I want to get McGee's page to stay here, so if I need to chop down some things, please let me know what I should. I've been a fan of his for years, and am not sure how McGee can't get a page on Wikipedia.

[[[User:Erosinski|Erosinski]] (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Ernesto RosinskiErosinski (talk)]

Thanks for your polite message. First, I would make you aware of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. To answer your concern in more detail; if an editor places an A7 CSD tag on an article it indicates that they have concerns regarding the significance of an individual. It does not mean that the article will be deleted. If you have made a credible claim of importance, the reviewing administrator will decline the CSD. You may want to check you article for this claim of significance. Let me know if you have further questions. Tiderolls 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Could we ....

Could we get a permanent block on User talk:67.85.167.187 as its clearly the same editor and he/she does not care what we have said or blocked them about ....Moxy (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Permanent blocks for IPs is a virtual non-starter. I've extended the block after reviewing the IPs recent contribs. I'll also mark my calendar so that if they return with more disruption the cycle can repeat. I appreciate your bringing this to my attention and thank you for your good work here. See ya 'round Tiderolls 02:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow that was fast and fair....Thank you for the comment i feel the same way about your Wikipidia contributions. !!!!!Moxy (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If a user vandalizes my talk page

If a user or IP Address vandalize my talk page, Tide rolls, will you please revert it? Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. There are many watching; someone will surely catch it. Tiderolls 23:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I know. :) Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiFriends

Do I have any WikiFriends? Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My take on friends here is that everyone is my friend until they don't want to be. That way it doesn't distract me from my tasks :) Tiderolls 17:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay and there's never been an administrator who uses Huggle as much as you. :) Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to argue, but there have been a few. It doesn't really matter, though. Non-admins using the tool are as valuable as admins using the tool. Inversely, admins that don't use huggle don't suffer any handicap. It's all a matter of choice. Tiderolls 18:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Cheers. :) Wayne Olajuwon chat 18:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

you are dead wrong

It is reverting vandalism. Because it was/is written in the text about Palestinan terrorist horrific homicide bombings. That is POV and vandalism and must be reverted It is not inserting false information and mischaracterizing the edits of others. --Ftsw (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You are the editor that changed the text from a direct quote in a citation. The editor that you reverted was restoring the information. That is not vandalism. Discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Tiderolls 16:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Completely wrong. You are mixing up the edits. --Ftsw (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh...you're about to be blocked so the subject is an Ångström from being moot. Tiderolls 16:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

re:Just to let you know

thanks for notifying me. by the way, many thanks for supporting my revert, i had the same opinion.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I would caution you to be careful on using vandalism in your edit summaries. It gets folks upset. I don't use Twinkle so I don't know what your options may be. Just a thought. See ya 'round Tiderolls 16:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

Hey don't "FINAL WARN" me, the Pop was before not after the Poxy Music thing. You can't warn people like that, I never abused editting privileges after your first warning, ok? Professor Fairness (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your suffering under the misconception that you are due a specific amount of vandalism. Let me inform you...you aren't. Tiderolls 23:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Qin Dynasty???

Somehow I got a notification (seemingly to my IP address) of the reversion of an edit of the Qin Dynasty article which I am sure I had nothing to do with. Do you have any idea how that happened? 76.225.156.94 (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that your IP address is not permanent and another individual executed the edit in question. The message you refer to is 18 months old. Do you know what your IP address was in April '09? Tiderolls 10:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Was this edit vandalism? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but not indisputably. Definitely original research and opinion based on personal observation. Tiderolls 23:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and I also reverted an edit by a page creator on the page he created because he blanked the page with explanation. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If an article creator blanks a page it's best to tag the article CSD G7. The creator may have blanked the page in response to a CSD tag in another category and may just want the page deleted. If you come across an edit that looks like commentary it's best to revert with an edit summary stating your reason. If applicable, welcome the user and leave a note explaining sourcing, verifiability and/or original research. Just suggestions...not instruction. Tiderolls 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this edit also unconstructive? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That one is way too technical for me to make a call. I would have to research the term and the edit to decide. Tiderolls 23:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and he made that same edit later, and then it was reverted. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because he removed information without explanation. Wayne Olajuwon chat 01:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing content without explanation is taking a risk, to be sure. However, I checked both sources referenced in the removed content and neither mentioned the subject being "...now considered one of, if not the worst mayor in the history of Cairns..." That makes the statement appear to be the conclusion of the writer. We do not draw conclusions; we report sourced information. Even if the statement were directly supported by sources, as a BLP the inclusion of this content would have to be approached carefully. If I were you I might consider undoing your reversion. It's just an observation on my part. Tiderolls 01:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Wayne Olajuwon chat 14:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear; I understand the situation you faced on your original edit. I have done the same myself. I have also had to go back and examine edits and self revert. Huggle was not designed for a comprehensive appraisal of any edit or set of edits. That is the task of the operator. Whenever one is presented with a situation involving a BLP while using Huggle, it may be necessary to dig a bit before mashing the button. Experience is an editor's best weapon against vandalism and none of us will ever reach 100% efficiency. Thanks for taking the time to re-examine your action. See ya 'round Tiderolls 15:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I also reverted this edit because he didn't cite a reference saying that the information is true. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

just a question

how do u make those username effects? Roambassador (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I borrowed the mark-up for my sig, so I'm no expert. Apologies. Tiderolls 23:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop deliting and etiding my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hershey99 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Roll Tide!

Don't know if you are in Alabama now but you sure have a great name! Roll Tide Roll! JodyB _talk 23:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in Alabama now. Thanks for the compliment. Roll Tide :) Tiderolls 23:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I grew up in Tuscaloosa and worked for the Alabama Football Radio Network briefly. In Mobile now and loving every minute of the Tide. JodyB _talk 00:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Tide Rolls! Since you were on, I was wondering about the username policy as this user User:Larryhoover01 is a name of a criminal with the same name and I was wondering if a such a username is allowed. I reported and it and reverted my report as it seems that an editors name is not in violation of the policy so I would like you to explain to me whether this user's name is allowed or not. Thanks!--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that a lot would depend on their edits. If they concentrated on articles that related to Larry Hoover, then there could be a case made that the username was improper. It could be argued that the editor is either editing from a conflict of interest (i.e. a relative or close associate) or they could be attempting to impersonate the subject (a stretch as the subject is in prison I believe). Larry Hoover seems a common name and so could be the editor's real name (assuming good faith). If they avoid Larry Hoover and related subjects there should be no problems. I hope that helps Tiderolls 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, the reason I asked was because the user did indeed edit on the article even though he has removed his edit.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case I believe it would bear watching so I have watchlisted that article. I would appreciate any help you can bring to this effort. See ya 'round Tiderolls 00:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lack of admin abuse

Tide rolls, I'm disappointed that you didn't use the powers of the mop during that fourth quarter. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, I restrict myself from editing whilst inebriated. If I could've edited more carries for Ingram and/or Richardson I would've broken my restriction with glee. Touching another point, please be more careful with your section header formatting :P Roll tide Tiderolls 12:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Shirik

Put page up on protection page, unless you'd like to do the honors. Who'd he piss off? HalfShadow 20:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? Looks like he got it. I'm ambivalent about protecting user pages without a self request. I guess I coulda done the deed and left a note. How u been? See ya Tiderolls 20:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh, didn't know he was an admin; just saw an IP bombing and you were an admin on the scene, so... HalfShadow 20:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh how adorable; I have a fan. HalfShadow 23:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert my changes?

KiB is the accepted prefix now for 1024 bytes. Read Binary prefix if you don't believe me.--71.194.190.179 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You're technically right, but many organisations use KB for 1024 bytes, and KiB for 1000 bytes. It's in the second paragraph here. DaL33T (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, why didn't you convert the values? Tiderolls 22:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Back in the day KB referred to 1024 Kilobytes. With larger HDDs they created the Ki,Mi,Gi prefix to clarify that KB means 1000 bytes and KiB means 1024 bytes. The value are correct. The article just needs to be updated to say KiB instead of KB.--71.194.190.179 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though the SI specifies that Kilo = 1000, but it's commonly accepted that one KB = 1024 bytes. DaL33T (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be commonly accepted, but it is more correct to say KiB.--71.194.190.179 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Then the values need to be converted. Stop being obtuse. You are editing disruptively. That will lead to your block. Tiderolls 22:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand. A page in computer memory always refers to 4096 bytes or 4KiB. Computers use multiples of 1024. It does not need to be converted. It is correct. Please try to have some good faith. Stop threatening me. I am trying to improve the article.

This discussion should take place on the article talk page.--71.194.190.179 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And when are you going to begin your discussion on the talk page? Tiderolls 23:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I did. Quoting the article Binary_prefix#Current_practice: "Main memory and cache memory universally use customary binary prefixes to state capacity."--71.194.190.179 (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did..after you came here. More disingenuous fronting; so much for good faith. Tiderolls 23:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I have references that clearly state that KiB is the preferred usage nowadays.--71.194.190.179 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Just letting you know that Special:Contributions/24.189.21.22 is just another sock of Special:Contributions/24.189.168.173. If you ever decide to check his history, you would understand why DoRD decided to extent the block to what it currently is.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 22:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, nevermind, another admin has taken care of it.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 22:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Accidentally end up editing with an IP address

Why does Wikipedia automatically log me out and I accidentally end up editing with an IP address? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It happens to me occasionally but I usually just work around it. Tiderolls 23:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It just happened to me today. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I think I deserve a barnstar for this. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That edit definitely proved your NPOV. And I know it hurt. It hurt me to look at it. Just saying, a similar edit of mine was offered as a defense for me in an edit warring fracas from long ago. As much as it pains me to say, we must sublimate our passions at times for the good of the project :^\ Tiderolls 03:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, I hadn't thought about it since my early Brit Lit class this morning, so thanks for reminding me! ;) At least the well-known Auburn fans didn't gloat; I thought them that in my class they should know what's good for them. Hey, I might even miss the game on Saturday. Oh, speaking of impartiality: look at what I just reverted--and I'm a flaming liberal, haha. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm thinking of running for office, maybe after I hit 60,000 edits. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't let edicountitis be your determining factor. I'll support you now. I won't hold your content editing against you :) Tiderolls 03:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Maine

Good afternoon. I noticed that you've occasionally edited Maine, so I figured I'd come to you for advice. For the past few weeks (and especially the past few days), there has been some edit warring on that article in the section about ethnicity statistics/demographics. A number of anonymous IPs are involved, as well as a few registered users. The numbers/stats are being changed daily, sometimes multiple times a day, with each editor claiming that his or her references are correct and that the other references are incorrect (which is sort of strange, considering that most of them are citing the same source — the U.S. Census — as their reference). Personally I find this constant back-and-forth to be rather disruptive and unhelpful. Is there anything that can be done about this? Thanks, BMRR (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, BMRR. I looked at the edit history on Maine and didn't see anything that couldn't be handled with what I would call normal editing. That is to say, an intervention with admin tools is not warranted. I saw a curious POV being espoused by one editor (who has been warned repeatedly regarding edit warring) but I have no resource to counter the editor's source. If the editor is misquoting the source or trying to "interpret" data from the source, that would be a different matter. The best advice I could offer would be to attempt to establish some consensus on the talk page as to how best present the demographic data. Once consensus is determined then any editor seeking to change the content could be directed to the discussion. They would at that point face the challenge of showing how consensus needs to be altered. I admire your resolve to maintain accuracy while avoiding edit warring. Please continue that course. I will watchlist the article and offer any help that I can. Let me know if you have further concerns. See ya 'round Tiderolls 00:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)