User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 19:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Zlatiborian

Why don't you believe that there is the Zlatiborian language? Please, write any sentence in English, and I shall translate it to Serbian and to Zlatiborian. You'll see the difference! George D. Bozovic

I don't have a particular feeling on the matter. I saw you and a moderator getting into a bit of a revert war, and jumped in on the moderator's side. Whether I should have done so is another matter. I will stay out of this one from this point forward. TexasAndroid 18:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user

Hello. You have reverted edits by 134.161.144.50 on the George W. Bush article, and now this user demands to know why. Please see Talk:George W. Bush#stop deleting my additions; maybe we can resolve this somehow. Thanks, Sango123 21:29, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hope I explained my self sufficiently. :) (Got a bit long winded.) TexasAndroid 00:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More than sufficiently. :) Thank you, Sango123 02:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Steve's history

Good idea. However, you should sign your comment so that people know who to ask about the information. - Tεx τ urε 22:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I normally mean to do so, but tend to forget at times. I'll go sign it now. TexasAndroid 23:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking IP 134.161.244.89

By what means are you tracking User:134.161.244.89, et al? Hall Monitor 23:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest is that he says that it's him. He signs some of his posts "Steve", and that's consistent across the IPs. He's not trying to hide his identity. For all that he has annoyed people, he's never tried to hide his identity. He's got a dynamic IP that changes every day or two, and is not really under his control. (As an aside, I have a pretty good idea why his IP keeps changing, but don't want to broadcast a potential exploit.)

Assuming he was trying to hide himself with the changes, there are other ways of knowing that it's "Steve". The first two numbers in his IP are constant. There is continuity of attitue. Of style. Of techniques. Of targets (GWB, metrosexual, and Ebonics). He also has a continuing fixation with the whole Dubya nickname.

The problem is that, because his IP changes, he's got no visible history behind him. A new mod comes in, sees only the talk on the current IP, and judges the situation only on that one IP's actions. Steve has been advised a number of times to get a free ID. In the end, though, it's his choice not to do so. But as long as he refuses to get a consistent ID, and continues to be a recurring thorn in the Wiki community's side, I would like to make sure he does not benefit (intentionally or not) from his shifting IP. (Benefit by receiving lighter punishments from a mod unaware of past blocks than he would receive from a mod fully aware of Steve's past here.) TexasAndroid 02:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might be wise to consider an RfC at this point. At the very least, it could be used to catalog Steve's edits in a central location. android79 21:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please drop me a notice if an RfC is started so I can sign in agreement. - Tεx τ urε 21:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Davidson

Hi there.. just wanted to ask about the recent change to the Davidson article.. might I ask your source for the Kingston on Hull reference? --Peripatetic 20:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing disambiguation link repair. If you check into the link in my edit comments, you'll see the project I'm working on. The basic idea is that we don't want links pointing to disambiguation pages as much as possible, but rather we want them pointing to the real page for what they reference. In the specific case, I was working through all articles that point to "Hull". Many were references to ship hulls. Many were to the city Hull, Yorkshire, England. A few were to a former city named Hull in Quebec.

For the Hull in Yorkshire, from the Hull Disambiguation page, the correct link is actually titled Kingston on Hull. I have no idea why it's called that, but that's the correct page for that city. And the Lionel Davidson page was obviously referring to that Hull, so I updated the link.

So in the end, no reference, but extending information already in the Davidson and Hull Disambiguation pages to properly execute the project to improve Wikepedia. TexasAndroid 20:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Alphax ^τεχ 14:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When performing similar, but not exactly the same, edits numerous times, this becomes increadibly tedious. Cut&Pasting is not always an option, because there are differences. The work I'm currently doing trying to clean up the Fictional Characters category is a good example. No one edit summary will work, and typing variations of "moving to more appropriate subcategory" over and over makes a 5 second job into one of 30 seconds or more.

So when the edits are simple (not necessarily "minor", but not complex) I am generally content to let the edits speak for themselves. If I don't I suspect I will quickly burn out over the extra work and it simply will not happen. TexasAndroid 14:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I'll at least come up with a general comment I can use. "Clearing up overbroad and over populated Fictional Characters category" may work for my current efforts. It says nothing about what I did to the specific entry, but gives an idea of what I'm generally up to. And it can be cut&pasted. TexasAndroid 14:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De-Categorization of Cartoon Characters

I noticed you removed several categorization of Looney Tunes characters (Charlie Dog, Sniffles, Daffy Duck). Your statement was that they should not be categorized under a category and a sub-category. I agree, however "Fictional Dogs" is a different category than "Animated Characters". Cujo is not an animated character and Bugs Bunny is not a dog. Can you please revert all your edits in this vein? I agree with Yosemite Sam and Bosko edits though. Perhaps Charlie Dog should be a "Fictional Dog" and a "Looney Tunes Character" but not an "Animated Character"? Jeff schiller 21:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has nothing to do with dogs, etc. The issue is that these articles are already in Looney Tunes characters (LTC), and LTC is a sub of Animated Characters. By categorization policy, it should only be in the more specific one. It has nothing to do with the additional Dogs/Rabbits/Pigs/etc categories. Those are down a separate branch of the category tree. TexasAndroid 22:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for Deaths in August 2005

I noticed that you had edited Deaths in August 2005 and I thought I would let you know that I have redirected the page to Deaths in 2005 similar to the edit of 9 July [1] to Deaths in July 2005 Once August 2005 has ended the two pages can be merged.--Regards AYArktos 10:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links from Individual Hardy Boys Articles

There is a discussion I referenced you (or you might be interested in) at [2]. --PhilipO 16:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Willy (now with 10% more wheels!) (talk · contribs)

Now blocked. If it's an innocent user, he has the worst luck in choosing user names EVER. But I'm curious, how did you find that one? He doesn't seem to have made any contributions yet. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool idea! I will take a look at that myself. I see Kbdank71 already blocked another "sleeper sock", so this could be very helpful (if slightly inconvenient, but cleaning up after WoW is more than slightly inconvenient). I'll write that up somewhere official when I find the time. Thank you! -- grm_wnr Esc 14:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can check if a user is already blocked at Special:Ipblocklist. ~~ N (t/c) 15:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps

Hi, I'd like to extend my appreciation of your ongoing maintenance at Google Maps. Your attention span on the link clutter issue is admirable. -Joshuapaquin 21:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Suspected WoW

I agree the category Category:Wikipedia:Sockpuppets_of_Willy_on_Wheels should be removed. However, perhaps we should make a Template:WoW-suspected or something along those lines to mark the suspected sockpuppets as opposed to the ones that have actually vandalized (and then swap the category for Template:WoW). The problem for this would be the addition of unnnecessary user page creation, so I'm not sure what I'm proposing would be useful in the first place. Just a way to categorize the actual versus suspected socks, but I'm not sure it would be needed. Your thoughts? Adam ^Rock 18:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. An interesting idea, but I'm not sure how much it gains us. The single WoW template/category serves well enough for both types of SPs (used, and sleeper). I just don't see the benefit we would gain from templaing them differently. It would also be quite a bit more work, especially moving the existing sleeper socks over to the new template. As for user page creation, we're already creating pages for every WoW sock, sleeper or used, so I don't see two templated as being bigger in that sense. TexasAndroid 19:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]