User talk:T-rex

For older disscussions please view the archives

Um... those songs were singles on "Christian" radio. Same thing with Head Over Heels (In this Life), a song whose eligibility and validity as a single has gone uncontested. Those old singles (Gone and More Than Fine) just got lost in the shuffle because Switchfoot was all over radio back in those days, and news tends to get forgotten/lost. They were indeed huge hits on the Christian scene, and are still played at Switchfoot shows almost routinely. They deserve their own articles, and deserve to be recognized as such. The Christian music scene may be a minority, but it shouldn't be totally disregarded, (although sometimes I wish I could) because these Christian singles are pertinent pieces of Switchfoot history. Please consider them as such.

single does not mean "they play it on the radio". Although there is often a corolation between the two, simple because some obscure radio station gives a song a few spins does not mean that the song is a single. In fact given the lack of support from the band for Head Over Heels, I'm not too sure about that one either. Also you can't be adding chart numbers without any indication of what chart they belong to. That just makes no sense. --T-rex 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

first off, the charts do say where those songs hit No. 1. CHR is a valid, Radio And Records Christian Hit Radio chart. Secondly, they were impacted to Christian radio, which makes them singles. Even if they weren't think about "Stairway to Heaven." It never was officially released as a "Single" per se, but it is one of the most popular songs of all time. I'm not comparing the CCM singles to Stairway, of course, but they are significant enough hits.Joberooni (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stairway to Heaven not being a single, while still being popular really has nothing to do with this at all. The mere fact that they are not singles, should be reason enough to not list them as singles. As for this imaginary CHR chart I have yet to see any existence of it anywhere. What you refer to as "sources" are just news articles and best I can tell don't mention the chart anywhere. If this chart really does exist you need to point out a few things, notably who maintains it, and where can it be found. Otherwise you're just making up numbers. --T-rex 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-Rex, check the CHR article at the top of the charts. If not, here is the link to those charts. Have fun. [1]

Well the article Christian CHR that you liked to is a music format not a chart. However the other link should be usable. However are there archives avalible anywhere? And that chart seems to indicate that Columbia still had it hand in Head over Heels, which may need a mention on that article. --T-rex 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that they parted ways but it looks as if that discussion as to how it effects Head over Heels may need a second look. --T-rex 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for archives, but several articles have indeed mentioned that Switchfoot swept the No. 1 spot on CHR for all the Beautiful Letdown singles. I'll try to find them again. I think the chart mentioned Columbia on Head Over Heels (In This Life) because it was on an Oh! Gravity. release. But the single was released after Switchfoot parted ways with Sony. Thanks! Joberooni (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-rex: While I agree with most of what you say, my pre-order of Oh! Gravity. did arrive with a sticker on the front, stating that the album contained the singles "Oh! Gravity.", "Head Over Heels", and "Awakening". I have no idea whether that means anything or not. --3M163//Complete Geek 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Thats interesting, but I'm not sure how much stock to put into that given how that falls on the timeline. --T-rex 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:BetterDays.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Switchfoot 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. HokieRNB (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edit summaries to that article recently that aren't straight forward. If however the use of a template is preventing you from getting across what you are really intending to say let me know (as I doubt you were really looking to mention the sand box as well) --T-rex 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've either simply "undone" the editing work of others (see here, and here, for example), without any discussion whatsoever, or used "rv v" (see here) when no vandalism had taken place. You've also violated the three-revert rule. HokieRNB (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That second edit was after you left the message so I doubt thats what you had in mind, and the third edit was vandalism. Sorry about the first edit, that was a few days ago so I didn't think that what you had been talking about but in all fairness I had mentioned it earlier --T-rex 22:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That second edit was exactly the sort of behavior that I had in mind. Just because you did it after I initially brought it up in your talk page doesn't negate the fact that it's bad editing conduct. You reverted on at least 4 different occasions without spelling out your reasons either in the edit summary or on the talk page. You simply "undid". The time that you used "rv v" there was no vandalism apparent on the page. What you reverted was a good faith edit that was attempting to span the gap between what you thought was "trivial" coverage of an individual concert, and what other editors see as evidence that the band is keeping its Christian slant despite covering a song that might seem to indicate otherwise. It may not be the best way to make that point, but it's a far cry from vandalism. However, removing it the way you did multiple times does constitute vandalism. HokieRNB (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A far cry from vandalism? No, the repeated reinsertion of bad content to the article is vandalism. Just because you want Biola to be mentioned in the article doesn't make it not vandalism --T-rex 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care one bit about Biola or about its insertion in this article. I do care that you have carelessly reverted other people's edits and alleged vandalism when none existed. Please see Heimstern's comments on what constitutes vandalism in this article. HokieRNB (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lie to me. Furthermore that is vandalism, regardless of what Heimstern's opinion is. Not blatant vandalism, but still a form of vandalism. --T-rex 01:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite relentless aren't you? And not terribly civil. Please assume good faith. HokieRNB (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too civil to accuse me of not being civil, mot assuming good faith, and not knowing what vandalism is. That said I'm not too easily offeneded, and really more ammused than anything. So go ahead and keep it up, you should have figured out by now that I've spent enough time on wikipedia to know better than back off whenever anyone threatens me. --T-rex 02:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've admitted yourself that you don't understand the Wikipedia policy about vandalism. (As a refresher, vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.) To label those edits as vandalism is not assuming good faith. And specifically to accuse me of lying to you is considered uncivil. Why would you think I'm lying to you? HokieRNB (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that I don't understand Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. So I guess you have decided to continue to lie to me (please don't do that). However even by the definition you just provided the edits are marked as vandalism still are. You got anything else? --T-rex 05:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Switchfoot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? --T-rex 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor who just reported you for violating WP:3RR. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then you go and start reverting yourself? That's funny. --T-rex 22:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since that noticeboard is not for dicussion, I'm bringing this here. Note that the policy page of the 3RR says this under its "exceptions":

reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself.

Thus, only simple and obvious vandalism is exempted from 3RR. I point this out to you not because I feel the need to win this dispute, but rather because it is important that you realize that this is how blocking works here, that no admin is going to accept your claim that your reverts were exempt for this reason, and that if you do this again, you are likely to end up blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow wikipedia policies close enough to see that. Regardless my assertion stands that it was vandalism. I was never contesting the 3rr anyways as much as I was defending myself against the accusation that may edits were malicious and not "removing vandalism". I guess it really doesn't mater at this point, but thanks for the clarification anyways. --T-rex 02:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:BetterDays.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I do this already, like two weeks ago? Whatever, I'll throw something else on there to make you happy. --T-rex 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going over the list of bots and noticed that DinoBot (talk · contribs) has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no reason to de-flag my bot. It isn't running, but if that account ever is used again it will be for bot activity. --T-rex 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to tell you this, but just because a couple people agree on something doesn't mean no one else can change it. I'm a noob and I know policy better than that. A consensus involving a SMALL amount of ppl really means nothing. You all seem to think that you own the article and no matter what someone else does you can revert away and say" goes against our consensus" "vandalsim, that isn't what we want in our article" and so on. It is completely and utterly ridiculous. You all need to take some time and familiarize yourself with policy. 123.242.230.161 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but I do know the policy. Apparently way better than you. A number of people agreeing on something is called "consensus" and is how decisions are made. Just because one person disagrees doesn't mean that they can just delete whatever they feel like. And in this particular case the discussions have been long and involved to come to the current arrangement. Furthermore, for the record, I was never even a part of that discussion anyhow. Also unregistered editors repeatedly deleting what everyone else has agreed upon is the very definition of vandalism. --T-rex 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-rex, can you tell me what I'm doing wrong in the St. Vincent languages section for you to keep undoing it? Everything I've added can be verified with the sources I cite. Do you disagree with the content? Or am I doing something wrong in the way that I'm adding it? I'm new at this, but I've read how to add content and feel like I'm doing it right. Help me out here. (Nrp0450 (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry for not posting sooner, but I didn't notice this was here right away. I've been undoing the addition of Vincentian Creole because it's not remotely close to being true. The vast majority of St.Vincent speaks English and only English. While this might have been different a few hundred years ago, it is not the case today. --T-rex 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What St. Vincent have you visited? Ride a van to Georgetown or sit on a street corner with a group of guys in Sandy Bay and Vincentian Creole all you hear. It's a different pronunciation, different vocabulary, and different grammar. Granted, it's not immediately obvious to an outsider because of the stigma attached to the language. When speaking to an outsider Vincentians will speak their best English. But within their own people it's very definitely the majority language. Would you say the situation is different from Jamaica? Jamaica has a language subheading that describes the situation much the same way I would describe St. Vincent. And Jamaica and St. Vincent have pretty similar histories. Same thing for Belize and Guyana. Why does Wikipedia recognize their Creole languages in the country writeup but not St. Vincent's? (Nrp0450 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I can't say anything about Jamaica, but as far as St. Vincent goes, it's straight up English. --T-rex 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you lived or visited in St. Vincent? What are you basing this on? --Nrp0450 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to pretty much the entire Island (it's pretty small). I guess I can't speak for the smaller islands, but the main island is still around 90% of the nation's population --T-rex 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you've been to the entire island and have never heard things like, "Ah pah yu deh?" (Where are you?), or "Me ah cum jus now" (I'm coming soon), or "Ah mek aayu pickney ah-dem na go a school?" (Why are your(plural) children not going to school). These are just examples, you would hear similar phrases in conversations everyday all over the island. Would you say these are English?

Google "Vincentian Creole" and you'll get back several published papers on the language. I have three books that all mention the language here on my desk: "An introduction to Pidgins and Creoles" by John Holm, "West Indians & their language" by Peter Roberts, and the "Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage" by Richard Allsopp. There's also a wikipedia stub article about it (which I did not start). The educated world knows there is a creole language spoken in St. Vincent. Most Vincentians I met during the two years I lived there readily admit that there is second form of speech too. The majority call it 'dialect', although many call it Creole or Vincy Twang. If you doubt this, call any Vincentian on the phone right now and ask them what 'dialect' is, ask them if it's 'straight up English' as you say, and not one will say that it is. They might call it broken English but every one of them will say it's different from standard English. This is 100% typical of a situation where a creole is in contact with it's superstrate language. The Creole is looked down on and regarded as degenerate, see the 'Creole language' wikipedia article.

I'm probably not going to convince you, but you at least have to admit there is evidence in support of there being a Creole language that is widely spoken in St. Vincent. How can we compromise? --Nrp0450 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've never heard any of that. Like I said only English, every part of the island, every person I saw. I'm not claiming that the language doesn't exist. All I am saying is that it is not regularly spoken in (modern day) St. Vincent. Like I said, not just mostly english, but 100% english. --T-rex 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you explain the preponderance of evidence saying that there is a widely spoken Creole language in St. Vincent? I have explained that the reason you may have not heard it is that Vincentians don't speak it to foreigners, or in front of them sometimes, because of the stigma attached to speaking it. And in most formal situations Vincentians would always use English even among themselves. --Nrp0450 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "preponderance of evidence", there is instead just you. I'm really not buying your stigma claim either. Even if you aren't making this all up, above you just said that "in most formal situations Vincentians would always use English even among themselves" if that isn't saying that English is the primary language I don't know what is. --T-rex 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned three books above and I cited two sources when I originally posted the paragraph. That is five saying there is a creole language spoken in St. Vincent. How many have you cited saying that it's 100% English? I believe you are the one that is just relying on your own 'knowledge'. It's fine with me if you want to call English the primary language, it does have the status of being the official language of the country. What I wrote, and what you undid, said that Vincentian Creole is the mother tongue (the first language you learn, usually from your mother) and is used in informal domains (home, friends, sports) while English is used in formal domains (government, church, meetings). That is all I would like to have in the article. I'm fine with you saying English is the 'primary' language. Did you read the wikipedia 'Creole language' article I mentioned above? It clearly talks about a stigma against Creole languages at the end of the 'History of the Concept' section. Read the 'diglossia' article as well, it talks about the same thing. --Nrp0450 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I said stands. I'm not going to waste my time arguing semantics --T-rex 18:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your recent edits on the article since they messed up all of the non-latin characters. I reverted the vandalism you'd removed and removed a misplaced or irrelevant ref, but if I missed something else you had meant to change, please let me know, thanks. - Bobet 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I don't have too many non-latin fonts installed, so thats probably what messed it up. Sorry about that. --T-rex 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 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. We've covered this before... rv v means that you are removing obvious vandalism. Removing a legitimate and sourced edit, regardless of how much you don't like it or disagree with it, is not vandalism. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You enjoy going out of your way to undo every edit I make. Anyhow, I've already posted my defenition of vandalism for you, and it covers this. --T-rex 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, and after that you go and then mark my edit as vandalism? Within a whole minute of saying this. --T-rex 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed the same legitimately sourced edit on the following occasions:

• 00:56, 25 February
• 22:42, 17 March
• 03:33, 25 March
• 18:26, 5 April
• 02:09, 8 April
• 04:35, 9 April

However, I am now forced to agree with you that your edits, however poorly intentioned, do not constitute vandalism. Per the page on Edit warring, "content disputes, even egregious POV edits and other good-faith changes, do not constitute vandalism." I retract both of my former edit summaries, but maintain that you still are not justified in removing this material, and more to the point, are totally out of line to label the addition of this material as "vandalism". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule? Thats 6 reverts over the last 3 months! I barely have one revision in the last 24 hours, let alone four. Can you please just go edit war with someone else, and stop wasting my time. thank you --T-rex 18:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, for now I think I'll just keep restoring this one edit that you keep removing. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, have you utterly failed to read the text of the warning, which explicitly states, "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." I think it could be just as well argued that you have wasted other editors' time by needlessly reverting perfectly legitimate edits, and labeled them as vandalism to boot. I also noticed that you prefer your own "defenition" of vandalism over the established criteria for what Wikipedia calls vandalism. That's probably going to aggravate other editors too. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually you seem the only one aggravated by it. While I know the spirit of the rule is more important then the letter, the fact that you feel the need to post that here is a bit ridiculous. I've been editing here for years now, I know the basic policies. --T-rex 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, you will be blocked from editing. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mind if I but in? Using templates on regular users is considered ill-mannered, likely to raise hackles and might be considered threatening, considering the level you've taken them to. In respect of your differences, please Don't template the regulars, but discuss content issues on the relevant talk pages. Involving other parties will allow you both to establish a consensus for your edits rather than indulging in edit wars. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a template. However, it is a gentle reminder that incorrectly labeling your edits as "rv v" is contrary to civil conduct and assuming good faith. One would hardly find cause to template you if you made your edits after consensus was achieved in the talk page. HokieRNB (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I care if you use a template or not? What is insulting is thinking that you feel it is needed to tell me that in the first place. I've got nothing against the proper use of templates at all. --T-rex 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he has played professionally already, and if he's still with BC then he hasn't, he doesn't pass the WP:ATHLETE guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He should, no problem. He was a Hobey Baker finalist this season, and was named to NCAA All-Tournament Team last season, and AHCA All-America First-Team Honors this season. He had a hat-trick in a victory in the NCAA semi-finalas a few days ago, and could well end up with a national championship by the end of today. Additionally he has been drafted by an NHL team. He won the 2005 IIHF World U18 Championships, and had the second most points of any player in the tournament. If this isn't significant independent coverage, I don't know what is. --T-rex 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to PC(USA), see its talk page for the related discussion. Actually, I like your change it's just premature. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a response on the talk page --T-rex 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE; [2], i think i've done this once or twice. FYI--Hu12 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I probably was getting a tad bit too copy-paste happy --T-rex 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 4 May 2008 ( -- !!! cool beans.)

Just a quick note to ask whether there has been any progress on the bot you said you were looking into for the WP:INDIA auto-assessment. It's just that I have managed to code an AWB extension and can file a BRFA later if you haven't got anywhere. Thanks. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 11:02, May 24, 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. It sounds like you will be able to have yours up and running well before I do. --T-rex 14:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. With one week allowance, there was no substantial efforts in addressing my comments for Nothing Is Sound to reach GA status per criteria. I failed it; please refer to the article's talk page. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello t-Rex. I just read your response in the article's talk page today. Sorry that I forgot to indicate that the article needs sourcing. I failed it, not just because of that, but because there are remaining comments you did not address. If you consider it a mistake, please renominate it in WP:GAN. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the article page, but I'm starting to wonder why. --T-rex 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! In your case (because of the edit warring a few months back), I'd be extra careful when going to use rollback. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --T-rex 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't meen to be rude, but it seems you forgot to sign one of your afd comments. Thanks, NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back and signed it --T-rex 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oHai. who dis?

I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.

Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?

If so, please contact me.

Thank you.

  — The Transhumanst 22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't currently have any code for moving or creating pages, which would be needed to complete this task --T-rex 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that since your post there, I have made and am still in the process of making a number of changes ranging from grammar fixes to asserting notability to referencing out of universe content, etc. see for the active efforts to improve the article. Please therefore keep in mind Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built can't really apply when the house should have never been built in the first place --T-rex 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a template is not required. Regadless it appears as if User:AWeenieMan has now added one --T-rex 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed correct. A template is not needed. But at the time I tagged the image, the rationale that was there was incomplete. Hence why it was invalid. For future reference, WP:RAT is a good link that shows what kind of info is needed with rationales.--Rockfang (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sofixit}} --T-rex 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear T-Rex, in regards to your opinion in support of 'Deletion' of the article Hindu Literature, the entry being non-OR Hindu text, please consider the following and offer your comments/explanations:
Hindu text and Hindu Literature are entirely two different entities. Texts are partial manifestations of Literaure. Literature involves far greater dynamics than simple Texts. Texts can not have periodization, but Literaure can have. Texts can not be analysed in respect of general patterns and themes, while Literaure is amenable to such analysis. Further, Hindu Literature has a great degree of oral tradition, which can not be classified under Hindu texts. Thus, the two entries possess separate and independent standing. Thus, Literaure must not be confused with Texts. The ways of looking at things are different when dealing with Hindu Literature on one hand and Hindu texts on the other hand. Hence, the current article on Hindu Literature should neither be deleted nor merged with any other entry.
Thanx. -Softdynamite (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, T-rex, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy. The latest discussions include Talk:Taser controversy#re:Globalise and Talk:Taser controversy#Renaming this article?. Flatscan (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

you're welcome!

Please have a look at User:LegalFiction/James Sears. This is a second attempt to create a viable article that won't run afoul of WP:BLP and won't suffer from lack of notability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm waiting for your opinion on User:LegalFiction/James Sears before I move the page to a Wiki article (this would be my first one). LegalFiction (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing your concerns on the recent issue Issue with TinucherianBot in Project Banner Tagging for WP:FOOD . I have make some comments at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#TinucherianBot and I am leaving this note just for your information -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 08:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some comments. I think this whole thing is getting blown way out of proportion. Mistakes were made, but I see no reason not to trust you to fix them. --T-rex 15:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Tinguat (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that. Not quite what was supposed to happen. I'm looking into it. thanks for reporting the bug --T-rex 00:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou this has now been fixed --T-rex 00:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weigh in again. I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've marked it for speedy deletion. --T-rex 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd be grateful if you could look at this again in light of the references added. Thanks BoogieRock (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I still feel that WP:NFT applies --T-rex 20:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not with the additional sources! - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note since I thought you may be interested in this disussion. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 13:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I completely agree with the substance of your arguments at the AfD, please remain civil during the discussion. Telling Wikidemo that if he questions your civility again to "go fuck yourself" is not conducive to productive discussion. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

probably not, but if he's going to unjustly accuse me of being uncivil, the very least I can do is to prove him right --T-rex 03:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I really wish you wouldn't. It denigrates the discourse for everyone involved when either one side or the other lets the conversation devolve in such a way. While you were accused of incivility unjustly, in my view, you did act uncivil in the very next post, most likely justifying how Wikidemo felt about the initial post. Pleast try to keep your temper in check, if at all possible. S. Dean Jameson 04:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to take wikipedia to serious --T-rex 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was (slightly) uncivil about your earlier statement is that you said I had an "odd" way of dismissing every argument I disagree with. I was doing nothing of the sort. I take the discussion seriously - but some are simply invalid arguments and I said so. When you tell people they're not arguing well instead of responding to their argument, the conversation goes downhill. I'm not bothered by the F-U and don't want to make anything of it, I know you were just teed off so no offense taken.Wikidemo (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did I say about accusing me of being uncivil? --T-rex 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool. Are we all good then? (BTW, would you mind taking Utahredrocks under your wing? I've completely lost patience with him, and now he's accusing me of making personal attacks against him.) S. Dean Jameson 04:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, please don't respond to Utahredrock's admonishing of you. He's isn't always aware of how things are appropriately dealt with here. S. Dean Jameson 04:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  After much ado, he finally removed his "response" to you last evening. S. Dean Jameson 14:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even seen that. Isn't wikipedia fun? On a related note I really should get around to writing my meta-uncivil essay. Perhaps that will help me be able to get my point across without creating so much drama. On the other hand it did make for an amusing read, and had the unexpected positive result of getting Utahredrocks to moderate himself a little better. --T-rex 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. Of course, he went off into the good night with some parting shots at me for supposedly making "personal attacks" on him because he supposedly "shot [my] arguments full of holes", but it's not a big deal, really. I've officially asked him to not post on my talkpage anymore (you should have seen the number of threads he started), so if he abides by that, it's all good. S. Dean Jameson 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After helping with this software-related AfD, would you be able to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterModule? Thanks in advance :). Ironholds 10:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article has a very obvious lack of sources. Although I'm not exactly tripping over myself to leave an opinion at that afd either --T-rex 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day By The River. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Just saying "Keep" with no rationale has no bearing whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I would just keep my comments simple. If you insist I will go back and the comment "it is notable" --T-rex 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"i've found our difference"....lol. =) Gave me a good laugh. the_ed17 15:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(An actual laugh, not a sarcastic or "what is wrong with this guy" laugh. Thanks. =D the_ed17 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, I must inform you that an AN/I report has been opened for your disruptions in AfD. DarkAudit (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, waste everyone's time then. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make me a troll. But you know what? I'll give AfD a five day break from my presence here --T-rex 16:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo T-rex, I've left a comment on your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars vs. Star Trek if you'd like to respond. Regards, Skomorokh 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a response. Simply I think that there is no notability in the comparison and no significant sources for the comparison, while the two are individually notable --T-rex 00:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that clarifies your reasoning quite well. Triviality of coverage seems to be left up to a judgment call by policy, so I think we can agree to differ. Regards, Skomorokh 00:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I can't really say that I see anything improper in the deletion of this article. Well it was speedied as a copyvio, the AfD was leaning heavily to delete anyhow. --T-rex 03:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I have actually come across two lists and lists concerning episodes and characters at that that I may actually support deleting. See User talk:Narutolovehinata5#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FYin .26 Yang: Might and Magic School. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good for you? --T-rex 14:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what this edit accomplished... Pats1 ^T/C 00:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a look at it. --T-rex 00:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the same thing on the Kansas City page. The obvious similarity is the "." character in the article name. I'm still not sure why that would mess it up though. --T-rex 00:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the change to the Kansas City page was correct. Furthermore it left P. J. Pope alone --T-rex 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey does your name have anything to do with this band? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, never even heard of them --T-rex 00:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GO REDSKINS! BOO COLTS!!(even though the score is 10-9: Colts) Gears of War 2 01:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't bring myself to root for NFC teams (unless they are playing against the Patriots) --T-rex 01:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating - I couldn't oppose my principles :D Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that afd: I'm finding no evidence that such an album exists. "New Album" certainly isn't the name though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is based upon the assumption that it is called "New Album". If not then it does clearly fail due to complete lack of verifiability --T-rex 18:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The act in question does not have a page; Desert is about the dry place, not a dance band. I don't think that the single meets WP:MUSIC criteria for singles, given that the act Desert doesn't have a page, and the single didn't chart or anything. Plus the only sources are track listings. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Power however does --T-rex 18:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for answering the request. Looks good but I made two simple suggestions at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DinoBot2 6. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the bot request page. Short version is that it is impossible to anticipate what formatting each article will already have. --T-rex 03:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the best solution is to simply fix the template. I will fix the capitalization myself, but would prefer if someone with more experience tries to implement the if more than one use plural aspect of it. --T-rex 17:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-rex, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you created all of these redirects for articles that failed AFD? Burning Up Tour, maybe, but High School Musical Phenomenon? What possible use does that redirect serve?
Kww (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It discourages these articles from being recreated and prevents an links to these articles from elsewhere from showing an empty page. --T-rex 18:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed High School Musical Phenomenon as well and proposed to speedy it under R3. A redirect does not make any sense. If someone wants to recreate an article called like this - let them, it can then be speedied under G4. The dead link argument does not count as well - there are no links in article namespace that link to this page - why would they? This can be verified here. By the way the AfD decision was Delete and not Delete and redirect. There was no consensus for a redirect (the matter was actually addressed in the AfD), so none should be created. I see in the preview right now that it has already been speedied. Please do not recreate crap like this. Regards, Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about internal links, but rather links from non-wikipedia sites. Also there is no problem with the redirect. Why would we want people to create an article just to delete it? The fact that you want to delete this harmless redirect is incredibly annoying, I'll be recreating it, and if you still want to delete it you can take it up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion --T-rex 22:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-rex, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

Hi there, I hope you remember expressing serious concerns regarding category based WikiProject tagging by bots here. I made this FAQ list which tries to answer some of your concerns. Let me know if you have any questions . Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with category based tagging. It is not your fault if people add incorrect categories. --T-rex 14:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove them from page ranges and other uses required in articles by WP:MOS. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the Manual of Style on this. The long dashes ( — ) are preferred --T-rex 22:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not for page ranges, or ranges of any kind. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've looked at the edits you undid, I did not change the dash type in those articles but used the actual character rather than the HTML escape sequence. Please note that ( – ) and ( – ) display the same. --T-rex 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked at FAC and this is a firm rule. &ndash it to be used for ranges, including page ranges. Please read the ndash section in MoS. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked User talk:Malleus Fatuorum who is an expert on these matters. We will see what he says. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is his answer: You're right. (meaning me) Here's the relevant section of the MoS, pretty unambiguous. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change the dash type. Whatever was there before is what is still there now. Please note that ( – ) and ( – ) are the same dash type. Please look at what my edit actually did, rather than accusing me of doing something I did not do. --T-rex 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have over 52,000 edits, mostly mainspace and non of them overiding another editors preference with a script, making it hard for that editor to continue with that article. You have freed me from ever putting an endashe in an article again. There is no reason your "preference" should override mine in an article I have been working on when you are running around with a script. It is a grind putting endashes in and educating editors about endashes in FA and GA articles it a grind also. We spend a great deal of time in FAC talking about endashes. You replaced what I had spent days explaining to them with something that will be unfamiliar to them when they look at the code. Since you can do it all with a flip of the script, no more endashes for me. I will never put another one in an article. You can do it with your script so I will leave it all up to you and advise others to do the same. —Mattisse (Talk) 10:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care how many edits you have, and I don't care how hard it is for you to put in endashes. I agree that the proper dashes should be used, and have personally been using a script to make the additon of proper dashes easier and to improve the style of the articles. Personally I think that discussing endashes is a waste of time, so I am glad for your sake that you have decided to stop discussing it (although the many mentions on my talk page beg otherwise). --T-rex 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this mentioned elsewhere - in my view this sort of edit is not useful, and similar to those discouraged by the rules of use for WP:AWB, a script that is presumably analogous to the one you are using. I would suggest that you not confirm edits that are so inconsequential. Certainly, reverting to keep your preferred version in place reflects extremely poorly on you. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up articles reflects poorly on me? As for usefulness, I agree that editing mass number of articles in this way would be a waste, which is why I am only doing so GA and FA articles (and candidates). --T-rex 14:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these articles are cleaned up only in your opinion; the changes being made don't affect the reader-visible version and there is no consensus among editors that they are an improvement. I do think that edit warring over optional style issues reflects poorly on you and I expect that others would think so as well. The MOS says on the issue that "Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." Christopher Parham (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No edits I made went counter to the manual of style. Furthermore – and – are still the same character, so there was no change of style there. If you think poorly of me, that is ok, you are free to do so. --T-rex 15:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are discouraged by the manual of style passage quoted above since (1) this is an optional style choice - there is no community preference for the Unicode entry over the html escape - and (2) you were edit warring to maintain your preferred version. At any rate, at this point you have been made aware that edit warring over these issues is strongly discouraged and further edit warring on similar issues may result in a short block. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note than in medical articles, per this guideline, all articles should be named by their official scientific names (i.e. poliomyelitis, infectious mononucleosis), not laypersons terms (i.e. polio, mono). Poliomyelitis and infectious mononucleosis are the official names given by the international standard. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here. Kind regards —Cyclonenim ([[:talk · contribs) 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then the manual of style should be changed in this regard to give the common name preference --T-rex 00:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The 'common' (may I also state incorrect) name is also mentioned in respective articles, and these names also redirect to the correct medical name. Common names are often misleading, and we don't want people learning incorrect names for things then being baffled when they hear terms like infectious mononucleosis in real life. That is, of course, the purpose of an encyclopaedia—to promote education. The scientific name is the correct name in these circumstances. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 01:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the full medical name being included in the article (and really it should be right up there in the lead section), but I still think that making exceptions to the common name principle is a mistake. Furthermore by deffinition the common name can not be incorrect, so that argument is just silly. However wikipedia should reflect real world usage, istead of trying to change real world usage. You can not argue that "Poliomyelitis" is better known than "Polio" --T-rex 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice several articles that you used your script on, the editors reverted and "restored formatting". It is a preference and you should not override the preference of an editor who is actually working on the article. Please stop overriding editor's preferences with your own. —Mattisse (Talk) 10:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't understand do you? ( – ) and ( – ) are the same dash type. I am not overridding anyones preference by cleaning up the articles. Neither is this really a preference issues, but a style issues, based not on preference, but on the MOS. Furthermore I really do not appreciate when other editors undo my hard work. --T-rex 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that in the edit window I cannot tell the difference, so you messing with an article I am working on effectively prevents me from putting in endashes. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the difference between – and — ? They look different to me (might be related to why we have a MOS on it). Regardless that does not prevent you from doing anything, and I personally removed any other type of dashes from that article myself so you don't have to worry about that. Furthermore after looking at the history there were not other editors reverting my work as you claimed, but rather just you. --T-rex 15:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kind of Blue. 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. Editor437 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I am not engaged in an edit war. Nor am I about to be blocked, but thanks for the note anyways. However, in the future you may want to use a more descriptive heading then the current month and year, as that information is already conveyed in greater detail in your signature. --T-rex 15:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are in an edit war with me because you insist on messing with an article I am working on. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You call that an edit war? Give me a break. I am not "messing" with anything, just running a simple clean up script on an article that you just so happened to have edited before. Please read WP:OWN and leave me alone already. --T-rex 15:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can y'all take this to the talk page, rather than continuing to revert each other? Mattisse has indicated a willingness to do so; can you do the same T-Rex? Thanks--Editor437 (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Mattisse hasn't shown the willingness to do anything besides blame me for doing things he still doesn't seem to understand. --T-rex 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editors working on that article have discussed changes on the talk page. You should do the same. You do not have the right to over ride other editor's preferences without consulting first. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a coplaint take it up with the MOS not the individual article talk page. --T-rex 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a complaint with you doing mass changes to an article without discussing it on the article talk page first. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing some whitespace and cleaning up some HTML is not a "mass change" --T-rex 15:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get consensus from the editors working on the article. You did not do this. Please note [4] comment from Chrisopher Parham on your talk page telling you to stop. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You kindof already dedicated a whole section to telling me this below. Furthermore I do not need to ask your permission to edit the article. --T-rex 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note [5] comment from Chrisopher Parham to stop. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I responded to that message isn't an indication that I noticed it? Are you really so vain you have start yet another section on my talk page? --T-rex 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove others' comments on RfAs, as you did here. It's expected that people will comment on your support or oppose. GlassCobra 04:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One response was ok, but now it is just trolling. The removal of the comment was an attempt to calm down the discussion. I'll respond to it instead, but don't expect it to be pretty. --T-rex 04:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your response will add nothing productive to the discussion, I would advise you to refrain altogether. GlassCobra 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little too late for that. However, I was not going to allow such accusations against me to stand unchallenged anyhow, so as deleting it was not accepted (and I understand why) then I felt a response was needed --T-rex 04:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by your comment here. Do you know what "assume good faith" means? It means we assume people are trying to do the right thing. It has nothing to do with assuming they're successful at it. Teenagers should not generally be admins, but not because they don't try. It's not about good faith at all- children just generally have less wisdom and judgement than adults. Good faith alone does not produce useful work- competence is required as well. Friday (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with the blanket insult that teenagers are unfit to be admins, makes me seriously doubt the intentions and the objectivity of anything else that editor has to say. And while children generally do have less wisdom and judgment than adults, high schools do not generally make bad admins. To jump from one to the other is idiotic. --T-rex 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Don't you think that good judgement is one of the most important traits for an admin? Teenagers almost always have noticeably worse judgement than an adult. Friday (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that potential admins should be evaluated on their judgment. I do not think that they should be evaluated on the judgment of other people who happen to be the same age. --T-rex 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think any reasonable person is willing to be persuaded by evidence of unusual wisdom and maturity. Lacking compelling evidence, it's generally useful to assume a teenager will act like a teenager. That's why they call it "acting like a teenager." I'm willing to change my mind if I see good evidence of unusual maturity. But, a bunch of kids shouting "he's mature, I swear!" is not useful evidence. Friday (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered looking at her contributions? And what she has said and done, rather than her age and what others have said about her? The thing is most high school students are very mature. Also most wikipedians do no divulge their age, and as such using that as admin criteria is just silly. So far JamieS93 has proven to have far better judgment then you do --T-rex 15:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was curious about this edit. What has the tool done, and why would it do it? Yours curiously! --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It replaces the HTML escaped – with the actual endash character – . This has been confused before, so please note that – is (technically) different from the - the — and the − characters, even though they look the same. --T-rex 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, they all look different on my screen. Although curiously not when I'm editing. So, are you telling me that when I'm preparing an article for FAC I can just use those symbols instead of all that – rubbish? And if so, how do I access them? --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can use those symbols instead. However, besides that script the way I usually access them is via copy paste (that said a better way probably does exist). --T-rex 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Why doesn't nowikimarkup work on –!??! --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. I just changed my comment to use & instead and that appears to work --T-rex 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while I'm being nosy, did you target Bradman's article because it'll go on Main Page tomorrow? --Dweller (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason I saw it. I can't say that I follow cricket all that closely --T-rex 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. NB You guys should compare notes --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not the only one doing this. Technically my version of Advisor is a personal fork, so there are a few small differences between the scripts --T-rex 14:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm normally a big fan of DinoBot2, but on one of my pages I put {{bots|allow=Cluebot}} which I thought meant that the only Bot who would look at that page was Cluebot. Did I get that message wrong? because I seem to have wasted some of Dinobot2's time and had to roll him back and wouldn't want to hurt his feelings. ϢereSpielChequers 15:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DinoBot2 doesn't look for the bots or nobots template so it won't avoid this page. However, if you can give me the exact page I can add it to the whitelist to prevent this from happening in the future. --T-rex 15:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:WereSpielChequers/Cribs Please. ϢereSpielChequers 16:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix this. Hopefully that page won't be edited again. --T-rex 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting up another bot run now, hopefully this error has been taken care of. --T-rex 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please stop bot from doing these edits on my talk page: [6] [7]?

SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome templates should be substed --T-rex 20:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any guideline or rule about that? Anyway, that is my talk page so I have to decide whether to substitute the template or not. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 12:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!

--Smashville^BONK! 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

|Your bot broke something. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 14:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look into it. --T-rex 15:45, 8 Septe