Jump to content

User talk:Dwayne/Archive8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



For you, Dwayne!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For beating me by one second at 2 vandalism reverts, I give you this. Nice job! MJ94 02:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Yet again...

I did the revert shortcut, and it said "Just reverted by Dwayne.". Good job! MJ94 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

New messages

In inbox. :) Tommy! 18:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I award you with this cookie for creating this template. I hope i will become it on my birthday. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Confirmation for Admin Tools Wiki

Yes, i am Dwayne and i'm requesting to test administrator tools on the Admin Tools Wiki. Thanks, - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Overzealous proxy fighting

Please stop reporting open proxies that have never been misused or abused. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies#Reporting:

Verify that the following criteria has been met:

  • The IP has made abusive contributions within the past week.

Many of the proxies that you've reported don't have any contributions. Can you please provide evidence of many misuse of these proxies? There is a legitimate use for proxies, especially if one lives in a country with high levels of censorship. I don't support your preemptive attacks on unused proxies. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, clearly you've never heard of User:ProcseeBot or seen any of his block log. This message was overly harsh and open proxies can and should be blocked as soon as they are discovered. Also, Wikipedia's policies regarding open proxies overpower what one wikiproject says. See here Tommy! 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain how I was "overly harsh"? I'm simply using text. Dwayne is reporting random proxies for blocking. It would be helpful if Dwayne explains how and why these specific proxy addresses were chosen. I don't see the point of reporting random proxies that haven't done anything. It appears needless to me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That's fair enough, I wouldn't know where Dwayne finds open proxies (other than google or searching for "anonimyzer"). But an open proxy is an open proxy and are often blocked even for relatively minor edits, or no edits at all. "I don't support your preemptive attacks on unused proxies" was unnecessary hyperbole. If one lives in say China or Cuba, I'm not sure editing Wikipedia is the website on their highest list to edit. Besides, anyone can always read Wikipedia. Not to mention proxies are very frequently used by banned users. Tommy! 18:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright. Dwayne, can you do me a favor and leave the banning to User:ProcseeBot? There are better ways to help Wikipedia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I did nothing wrong, i was just trying to help. Proxies cannot edit Wikipedia if you weren't aware of that. I was just giving heads up on the IP addresses that are proxies and that can be blocked just in case someone tries to edit Wikipedia using them. Forget about that rule that says The IP has to have made abusive contributions within the past week. I was still helping. If you guys don't think so, i just wont report IP's anymore. I'll leave it up to ProcseeBot. ^_^ - Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Correction: TOR users with registered account can still edit Wikipedia, but I see your point. Sorry for any trouble. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's okay. Just wanted to prove my point. Glad you understand. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Best Behavior

Hello, this is a note to inform you the article Best Behavior is currently up for deletion as part of wikipedia's deletion process. I am leaving this note to everyone who was involved in the AfD discussion of Best Behaviour, covering the same topic. You can find the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Behavior. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dwayne

Your vote in my RfA mattered a ton!!! Thanks Dwayne (and your photos look super cool). Sincerely. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

AIV report

Am I missing something? What was the reasoning behind reporting Teabaggindragon (talk · contribs) to AIV even though he had only one edit and no warnings? — GorillaWarfare talk 01:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not report him, Huggle did it. I'm guessing Huggle made an error. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
(Discussed on IRC) Sounds like it was a Huggle error or something. User blocked by another admin per the username policy anyway. Thanks! — GorillaWarfare talk 01:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Johann Peuriso

I removed the speedy deletion tag you added to that article. Articles that fit CSD A1 don't necessarily have to be short articles. More importantly, it's whether it identifies the subject or not. In this case the subject is Beatrix. Minimac (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah' - well, the article seemed a bit too confusing/unclear to me. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 04:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk page

Hi. Instead of blanked, shouldn't the user talk page be redirected? In fact, if the user "Jonas De Kooning" was renamed to "Ironpole", the first account shouldn't edit no more and his talk page should be redirected (not the inverse). So, what is the reason to blank it or delete it; or even wait for the author? Thanks.” TeLeŞ (PT @ L C G) 18:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The author requested that his talk page be deleted per G7. However, a rollbacker reverted the page as he didn't know that he had been renamed. Jonas De Kooning (talk · contribs) then tried again and this time blanked the page. Another rollbacker reverted the page too, as he/she didn't know that was the users prior name. I undid the revert and told the rollbacker in the edit summary that the user had been renamed. Then i requested deletion per G7, and i realized that talk pages aren't normally deleted, unless threats etc. had been made. I was going to wait on the author to give an explanation of why he/she wanted the talk page to be deleted. Thanks, - Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. There's a few issues about it. The user requested deletion but didn't explain why and the content of the page doesn't meet any criteria for deletion. Unless there is a good reason to delete, user talk pages cannot be deleted and a simple request is not a good reason. The account "Jonas De Kooning" was renamed to "Ironpole". He shouldn't edit anymore with the first account and he should be informed about it. The speedy deletion doesn't have anything to do with the account rename. Even if it had never occured, an account cannot request deletion of its own talk page without a reason and that is why he was reverted. He probably doesn't know that rules and I'm sure that it was a good faith request, but we have to undo his tagging/blanking and ask him to explain better his reasons. Do you agree?” TeLeŞ (PT @ L C G) 22:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, i agree. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE - i just asked him to explain why he requested to delete his talk page. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Nice. Thank you.” TeLeŞ (PT @ L C G) 00:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Talkback

Hello, Dwayne. You have new messages at Fridae'sDoom's talk page.
Message added 06:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:49pm • 06:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Hungary Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dwayne/Archive8&oldid=1218893009"