User talk:Tygrrr
From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change
Feel free to ask me questions. I'll do my best to answer them.
Always be sure to sign your comments like this: ~~~~. Thanks!
[change] Snowball (Animal Farm)
Hey Tygrrr
Just a quick question really, and it probably demonstrates my limited understanding of the overall goal of this particularly Wikipedia, but why would you not leave Snowball's article as is? It was categorised, interwiki linked and wikified. If a category such as "fictional animals" exists then I don't really see why this one shouldn't go in there? I'm not trying to be a pain but I'm just curious if I'm missing the point? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- As it was, it gave no additional information not given in the Animal Farm article other than "Snowball is a pig" so I merged that new info into the existing article on the book. If someone cares to take the time and effort to create a proper, lengthy, encyclopedic article, it would be worthy of more than a redirect. Besides, Animal Farm is barely more than a stub itself right now. Let's get it expanded to the point where it's long enough to need separate articles for the characters--not the other way around. · Tygrrr... 16:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll get on with it! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] Protection of United States
United States is getting hit hard by 3 different IP addresses. It is all I can do to keep it at bay. Please protect this page temporarily. Thanks, Razorflame 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. All three of them have stopped now. Cheers, Razorflame 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] Question
When you create new death year and birth year categories, do you think you could add {{deathyr}} to death year categories and {{birthyr}} to birth year categories please? They help make it easier to navigate between the categories. Thanks, Razorflame 14:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] Re: what you said about my edit to discordianism.
what do you mean nonsense? i even put up a reference (principiadiscordia.com/forum, home of a large group of real-life active discordians that would all disagree with the paragraph as it stands now). didn't you read my description next to the edit? there are a LOT of discordians that do not say "Hail Eris" and/or eat hotdogs on friday, and actually think this is a prime example of completely missing the point of discordianism.
The bit about "They say "Hail Eris!", and on Fridays they eat hot dogs with no buns." is in fact the nonsense, because this is simply not true, except perhaps for a very small minority of online discordians (that claim to do so). In fact, I have never, ever heard of a discordian regularly eating hot dogs with no buns on a Friday in real life. Maybe some do, once, just as a joke, but it is in no way the sort of dogma the current article seems to imply (like Catholics eating no fish on friday or something, is).
The bit in the Principia about not eating hot dogs on a friday should not be taken as dogma. There might be a minority of discordians that take it as such, and even if i disagree with them their beliefs should probably be represented, but it completely fails to even describe the main idea of discordianism.
The way the article reads right now is akin to saying something like "Christians are people who believe that women were created from the rib of the first man". While sort-of true, in the sense that a minority (worldwide) of christians believe this is actually what happened, it doesn't even come close to describing Christianity.
I hope I made it clear, it was not my intention to vandalize the page. 82.73.17.224 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- A few things. I don't really care about the hot dog thing. If you'd like to add information about it, please source it with something other than a forum. And I'd recommend not labelling the link as "stupid" since that's not neutral, encyclopedic wording and will be removed if you say something similiar again. I have in fact gone back and removed the entire back-and-forth regarding the hot dogs because none of it was sourced and seems to be only a minor detail of discordianism anyway (it's not mentioned on any of the en:wiki pages related to Eris, the book, or discordianism itself). If you'd like to contribute non-neutral, encyclopedic information about the topic, you're encouraged to do so. Thanks. · Tygrrr...
-
- Hi, I just saw you changed the page again. I talked it over with some other discordians, and we agreed (it happens), we like the page as it stands. It keeps it fair, the way it doesn't really say anything either way ;-) Thanks.
-
- Apart from that i'd like to point out it was not "stupid" but "STFUPID Cabal", which is the common name under which the group of people on principiadiscordia.com is known.
-
- The reason why i linked to the forum and not the domain itself is because the forum has more information and the domain is just a simple (outdated/under construction) front page linking to the forum and a copy of the Principia. Is it allowed to source from a wiki? because that's one of the problems with sourcing things about discordianism, the Principia is the only generally accepted "official" thing that exists, but there is so much, much more, and the Principia was explicitly meant as not becoming central dogma of discordianism. We have a wiki at www.blackironprison.com that is a collection of a lot of discordian texts, exploring the ideas of discordia.
-
- FWIW, the page on the main wikipedia isn't particularly neutral either, but it's nearly impossible to change something over there, with all the politics going on. Seeing that one can't even improve accuracy on a single paragraph on the simple wikipedia without an argument like this.
-
- 82.73.17.224 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] Striking out a vote
Hi there. I noticed this post made to this conversation in the requests for adminiship stated by Archer7 that Walton One's vote wouldn't count in this vote. Do you think you could strike out his vote as stated by Archer7? If you don't want to, I am willing to, but I believe that only administrators have the right to strike out a vote that is deemed to be an illegal vote? Or do you think that we should wait until the end of the vote? Cheers, Razorflame 19:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to sound like it's a conflict of interest here, but that rule only applies to RFAs. RFCUs require a certain number of votes for it to be valid. Therefore more votes are required than there are active editors here. I have voted on Wikiquote RFCUs, but I have fewer than 10 edits there, however I was familiar with the candidate. It is sometimes best that for things like Checkuser, that people who know the user well from other projects can vote. In any case, if such a rule did exist, Eptalon wouldn't have passed because there was at least one "invalid" vote. Majorly (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to be striking out any votes in this particular situation unless there's puppets--I don't think that's happening. The wording of the rule indicates (to me, at least) that new users' votes will not have as much weight as those who have been here longer. But as you say Majorly, that really has only been defined for RfAs and RfBs. I'm not sure whether it's open-and-shut based on numbers or if there is some objective judgment involved. It'd probably be a good idea to find that out, huh?... · Tygrrr... 19:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant now, as I have withdrawn. Thanks for your comments anyhow, both of you. Majorly (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify my position on this - the previous RfCUs were done under different circumstances where CheckUsers that desperately needed to be done were not being fulfilled in a reasonable time by the Stewards. Even the old RfCUs had the vast majority of votes from established members of the community. This is different, as we are voting for an extra CheckUser to "lighten the workload". I believe that Majorly, as a well-known EN editor, is in a position where he could gain the necessary support percentage without the support of actual community. Which makes the vote pointless, and leaves the community powerless to decide who could potentially handle their IP information. I think that exploiting a loophole like this isn't really a good idea at all, especially when we're talking about giving access to private information with potential legal implications. That's all just my opinion of course - it seemed common sense to me to extend the rule to RfCUs, but we can always ask the rest of the community if we think it's something worth discussing. Might be a good idea to ask a Steward for voting guidelines as well - I couldn't find anything on Meta. Archer7 - talk 21:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- The current % required, according to the Guide page, is 70-80%. I could have passed with 70% at 25/10, but I'd have not accepted that as sufficient agreement. Too many against would make me think I'm not trusted enough by the community. I withdrew with just 6 opposes for this very reason. I'm not exploiting a loophole at all. Feel free to stop people who don't edit here vote. In fact, I agree with it. But don't claim I did this maliciously - I had enough of that crap from Creol and Mike Lifeguard on the request itself. I'd have kept it up till the end if I'd done it maliciously, and requested the moment I had 25 supports. However, I could see that many users I respect were against the idea, so I decided to respect that and withdraw. Sorry for the orange bar, Tygrrr... Majorly (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify my position on this - the previous RfCUs were done under different circumstances where CheckUsers that desperately needed to be done were not being fulfilled in a reasonable time by the Stewards. Even the old RfCUs had the vast majority of votes from established members of the community. This is different, as we are voting for an extra CheckUser to "lighten the workload". I believe that Majorly, as a well-known EN editor, is in a position where he could gain the necessary support percentage without the support of actual community. Which makes the vote pointless, and leaves the community powerless to decide who could potentially handle their IP information. I think that exploiting a loophole like this isn't really a good idea at all, especially when we're talking about giving access to private information with potential legal implications. That's all just my opinion of course - it seemed common sense to me to extend the rule to RfCUs, but we can always ask the rest of the community if we think it's something worth discussing. Might be a good idea to ask a Steward for voting guidelines as well - I couldn't find anything on Meta. Archer7 - talk 21:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant now, as I have withdrawn. Thanks for your comments anyhow, both of you. Majorly (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to be striking out any votes in this particular situation unless there's puppets--I don't think that's happening. The wording of the rule indicates (to me, at least) that new users' votes will not have as much weight as those who have been here longer. But as you say Majorly, that really has only been defined for RfAs and RfBs. I'm not sure whether it's open-and-shut based on numbers or if there is some objective judgment involved. It'd probably be a good idea to find that out, huh?... · Tygrrr... 19:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm certainly not implying that you acted in any way "maliciously", I was attempting to illustrate my point that your RfCU could have been swayed by your popularity on other wikis, when we're deciding about permissions that affect users here quite strongly. I don't believe that you would ever engage in any kind of "vote-rigging", if that's the idea you had. Archer7 - talk 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[change] My first article
Hi there Tygrrr. I just wanted to let you know that I made my first article over on the English Wikipedia. I really hope that it doesn't get deleted. I made sure to reference it as completely as I possibly could, so I'm pretty sure that it shouldn't get deleted. Cheers, Razorflame 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats :-) I'm sure it won't get deleted. · Tygrrr... 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] Little Fat Patrick
Why didn't you delete this article as an obvious hoax? Wouldn't be better to deal with it now and not let it sit around for half a month on RfD? Maxim(talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's obvious to me, but with another admin making edits to it, it thought it might be controversial to qd it again. · Tygrrr... 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Notability's an obvious issue that it fails to reach, and even if it is real, which I doubt, there's no way to verify it. You're right, it's gotta go, and it's gone again. · Tygrrr... 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
[change] Your vote
Why do you still think that I haven't made any progress? Do you still think that I would not have good enough judgement for the flag? Razorflame 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say that I don't think you haven't make progress. Just that you're still not ready. Each nomination puts me on edge. It makes me nervous that you want the tools so badly. I feel like if you'd just let it be and not be so anxious about everything, let a few months go by without a nom, I could relax and feel comfortable with you having the ability to protect and delete. It's just all too much, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who finds it unnerving that your desire for a few extra tools is so great. You're already respected around here, you've done a lot of great work, the tools aren't a big deal (insert quote attribution to Jimbo Wales here). Don't you think 5 self-noms in less than 6 months is a bit much? Why do you feel you need them so badly? I know that's nobody's denying you just to be mean (I think we're all decent people here). I think that some people see something about yourself that you don't. I think my problem in supporting you boils down to this: you've shown bad judgment, you've made quite a few mistakes in the past regarding deletions, protections, warnings, blockings, etc. You've also made it quite clear that you get involved in everything and will continue to be involved in everything. I think your tendency to look before you leap would only get worse, not better. Your eagerness to show everyone you can do everything has, I think, undermined you. You have made progress and are continuing to make progress in "slowing down". But I think that you think it's improving much quicker than it is.
- I think I've said just about everything I can about how I feel about you and your editing. It makes me uncomfortable to judge people this way. I hope that our past conversations combined with this conversation make it clear why I'm not comfortable supporting you. I'd rather not discuss it ad nauseam. If you feel there's something else that I really must clarify, I will. But I truly hope that this is sufficient response for you. Thanks for reading my long-winded reply. · Tygrrr... 14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- No, the thanks go to you. It made me understand quite a lot about myself that I didn't think that I knew before and I hold you in the utmost respect, like I do with every other administrator on this site. Now here is the chance for me to explain why I feel like I need the tools so badly. Yes, it is true that I think that I am improving much quicker than I actually am, and every time that I post a self-nomination, it is because I believe that I am ready for it. Your response here has shown me that I might not, in fact, be ready for the position. It's just this: every time that I post a nomination, I then get to watch my nomination fail. After I post my nomination, I then get to watch as someone else's nomination passes. I just don't think that it is fair to me that you have to hold me in a much more strict way of thinking than other people who have had their nominations pass. During my last RfA, I watched as I was not promoted, yet Chenzw was, and to tell you the truth, I think that I have brought much more to the plate than Chenzw has, yet I know that I cannot say that without having somewhat of a dirty conscience. I hold Chenzw in the utmost respect and I believe that he or she has brought much more to the Simple English Wikipedia now that he/she is an administrator. What I don't agree with is the fact that I believe that you are holding me to much stricter standards than other people who have requested adminship. If you are so uncertain if I will do a good enough job for you, then maybe this suggestion will help cool your worries down: What if we were to use something called administrators open to recall here. What if, even after I was given the tools and you notice that I am not using them appropriately, then why not just recall the tools? I don't understand why we can't do something like this here instead of just denying me the tools. I feel that I would be able to bring much more to this Wikipedia than I already do if I were to just be given the chance to help the Simple English Wikipedia more. I still see that you aren't as willing to give me that chance. I want the tools so badly because time after time, I am forced to sit there and watch as vandals continue vandalizing without the threat of having an administrator on because they know that I am not an administrator. There have been times when there aren't any administrators on that a lot of vandalism occurs and I am helpless to prevent it (page creations, I can handle the reversions). Please give me the chance to show you and every other user on this site that I can handle the task at hand. Thanks for reading my response, Razorflame 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] Oh my
See the Eyes's talk page and also mine please ma'am. SwirlBoy39 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen. That's what prompted my RfCU. Everything's under control. I suggest you leave the situation alone for the time being. No use in being argumentative with someone like this, is there? I noticed your comment about the edit conflict we had on RfCU. Great minds think alike, huh? :-) · Tygrrr... 16:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] Why
You revert? And can I have my name change now, please? Theeyesarethewindowtothesoul (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to change it to User:Openyourselfupforme Theeyesarethewindowtothesoul (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- You'll have to ask a bureaucrat. · Tygrrr... 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] RfCU
Hello, Tygrrr. I did the RfCU, but without much of a result: Between 5 and 10 users use the IP range to connect to WP. The range belongs to a big ISP. Looking at user agents, there is one potential match; that user has a similar age, and their edits are totally different though - For this reason I'd rather not reveal their identity at this time.--Eptalon (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course. Can you confirm whether the user is or is not IuseRosary? The more interaction I have with the user, the more s/he seems reminicient of IuseRosary, and this edit makes me suspicious as well. · Tygrrr... 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmmm, I wonder if it's another friend of theirs (i.e. of IuseR and Benniguy)? · Tygrrr... 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I would have to agree with SwirlBoy39 in this instance. It's just too coincidental. This user pops up right after IuR is unblocked. That isn't just coincidence. I really do believe that they have something to do with each other. It might not be IuR himself, but it could easily be a friend of his or hers that just happens to share the same views as him. The only thing missing between the two users is the morbid fascination with Gwib....Cheers, Razorflame 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- That link will be hard to show, though. Until I see clearly abusive behaviour from that user, I have no reason to block them. Also remember, I am bound by checkuser privacy policy. It basically states to protect identties as long as possible. So far I cannot establish a clear link between the user whose identity I am protecting, and the user mentioned as being abusive. Therefore I will not reveal their identity at the moment. --Eptalon (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[change] Email
Please check it ASAP. SwirlBoy39 20:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] Hey.
Can you please delete User:runningblader/Vote? Runningblader, Proud owner of OGame artical 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Done · Tygrrr... 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] help
Could you cancel my account and delete everything about me here? ThanksBobneilbruce (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- We can't cancel your account, but we can have your account renamed to something else so that it doesn't exist like that anymore. I have put a {{qd}} tag onto your user talk page under the premises that you are exercising your right to vanish. Cheers, Razorflame 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] IuseRosary
Check this out, please. WP:RfA also had to be protected due to constant vandalism. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[change] StatusBot
A StatusBot has now been implimented on this Wikipedia. Feel free to follow the instructions at User:SoxBot to set up your Status. Cheers, Razorflame 03:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] Hello
I have only just noticed you removed the categories and iw in my sandbox. Thanks for doing that, I never noticed it, and now realise what that would have done. Thanks again. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] Barnstar!
 |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
| For having to deal with Maxim over the past few weeks, and for keeping you cool in doing so, I hereby award you the Resilient Barnstar! Razorflame 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
- As always, thank you. · Tygrrr... 14:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] Image Question
Trgarr, I have some pics I have been sent for M-Train in my inbox. However, I were not sent (by accident) a permission slip for OTRS. They have sent me pics for this before (see M-Tram), and the Flickr user knows I am obtaining images for Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Do I need to wait for the slip to be sent or can I upload the pics now and wait for the permission slip. -- Da Punk '95 talk 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm not very familiar with the rules for uploading images onto Commons. I would think an admin there should be able to help you, though. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful! · Tygrrr... 22:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
[change] Evolution
Hello Tygrr, can you take a quick look at Talk:Evolution and perhaps write a short reply?- Am I too ambitious?--Eptalon (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
