User talk:TigerShark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk Archive 17th April 2005
Talk Archive 4th April 2006
Talk Archive 22nd May 2006
Talk Archive 11th June 2006
Talk Archive 23rd June 2006
Talk Archive 15th July 2006
Talk Archive 3rd February 2007
Talk Archive 10th March 2007
Talk Archive 31st August 2007
Talk Archive 8th September 2007
Talk Archive 7th November 2007
Talk Archive 14th February 2008
Talk Archive 4th May 2008

Contents 1 Thanks 2 Why blocking? 3 Requesting an Editor Review 4 Semi-protection 5 Thanks, 6 Here have a cookie! 7 Re: WAGS

[edit] Thanks

I just wanted to thank for something. You've blocked me before (and yeah, it was because I was edit warring over genre delimiter; no surprise there, as that is what got me all 5 of my blocks) and I've tried to change my ways and I think I am now very helpful to wikipedia as far as edits and vandalism protection, though I was blocked somehwat recently again for genre delimiter edit warring again. I have to be more careful. But anyways, I'm thanking you because I saw this comment, "but I blocked Navnlos and the significant similarities between the IPs locations and reverts meant that I felt I had to block them too, to be even handed," on the 156 IP user's talk page (yes, I know it was a month ago, but I just saw it). It's not that I'm tahnking you for blocking the 156 IP man, I'm not. I'm thanking you because of one simple reason. The admins who have blocked me before always seem to block me whether I "started it" or not and the other user(s) recieve no warning or anything. Those admins claimed it didn't matter, that I was warring, and that wikipedia is not supposed to be fair and punishments are not punitive but preventative. Now I understand all this, I do, but I still believe in fairness and I guess it's nice to see an admin who checks out both sides and make a just decision, even if that means blocking both users who were warring. So, thanks, I guess. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why blocking?

I wish to inform you that I am not the lease bit happy about your previous action. Granted, I am at fault here, but it wasn't orthodox for you to block me without a warning message first. This comes from the fact that I was never aware of WP:Edit war, or that there was an article for WP:Dispute resolution. It would have been easier for me if you mentioned these articles instead of blocking me and telling me why. That, I believe, is called "stabbing one in the back." But don't get me wrong, I did have some time to cool down, and I thank you for that. But for future issues (either me or others), please consider warning, they help out. — NuclearVacuum 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting an Editor Review

Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

The semi-protection of Juventus F.C. is caused by a continuous submission of erroneous information by a number of IP users who kept on adding a player who is not contracted yet to Juventus (he will be part of Juventus only from the 1st of July), and thus not eligible to be included in the "Current squad" (namely, Olof Mellberg). This information is obviously erroneous, as the transfer will not be accepted before the new football season officially begins (that's why a disclaimer was included in order to discourage wise users from adding him in the squad, but it proved not to be enough) and the player is obviously not even listed to Juventus FC's website. This is definitely not a "content dispute", as you can see. If you do not agree with it, please consider the July 1 deadline is a widely accepted practice by users involved in the WP:WPF project. Bye, --Angelo (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I consider inclusion of misleading and erroneous information as being disruptive. Please note also such additions always came from anonymous users, rather than more experienced ones. This should mean something, don't you think so? Anyway, if you feel my decision is bolder than WP:BOLD, feel free to unprotect it, you have the rights to do so. --Angelo (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see my concerns, just have a look at A.C. Milan's history immediately after your unprotection. IP users re-adding Flamini to the team squad (despite the guy is still signed to Arsenal until the 30th of June) and even putting completely false information, such as the transfer of Alberto Gilardino's to ACF Fiorentina (even citing an alleged price); unfortunately, there's no official confirmation of this from both clubs and the main Italian media, so it's merely a rumour. Considering my previous experience in Italian and European football articles, I can ensure you this will keep on going for the whole summer (at least for major teams such as Juventus, AC Milan, Inter Milan and a few others). When such these things become excessive, I think these contributions can be easily considered as disruptive (especially when an editor ignores a disclaimer warning not to include unconfirmed and premature information). In these cases, semi-protection is obviously an option. It's not that different than, for instance, editing George W. Bush, defining him a "former" president before his successor is officially named by the U.S. Congress. --Angelo (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks,

Whilst i found this amusing, at the same time all i think about is what if i wasnt on my guard for it, how long would it have been there?

Vandalism1 Vandalism2

• If i set up an anon talk page, Would it be ok to semi protect my talk page? Prom3th3an (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here have a cookie!

[edit] Re: WAGS

Yeah, that was a major cultural misunderstanding on my part. I am not at all familiar with acronyms associated with British sports and the only definition of "WAG" that I knew of prior to my "initiation" today is purely derogatory. I'm really sorry about that. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)