User talk:Guanaco

See the histories of /archive and the /archive2 for old conversations. For more recent conversations, see /archive3.

---

Template:User mountain dew

I would expect that you would be aware that removing tfd notices out of process is a pretty extreme offense no matter how ridiculous the nomination was. Please don't do it again. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The nomination was an obvious attempt to disrupt TfD, and the user responsible has been blocked. I have closed the page Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 16/Masses of userboxes. —Guanaco 05:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:69.12.166.47

How do you know this is a Mike Garcia account? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at its contributions. In the article namespace, it has only edited rock-related music articles, and most of these are favorites of Mike Garcia or a confirmed Michael account. Its edits in other namespaces are Michael-like vandalism. ([1] and [2], for example) If this is not Mike Garcia, it must be someone trying to impersonate him. —Guanaco 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

He sure doesn't seem to have reformed, after all, has he? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've emailed Danny about this. Hopefully we won't have to resort to an unenforceable ban again. —Guanaco 05:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

203.186.238.128/25 range block

You originally indef blocked this as 203.186.238.0/24 for Squidward vandalism, I narrowed it down later to 203.186.238.128/25. However, it appears to be a Hong Kong ISP (see User talk:Rayleung2709).

I've reset the range block to expire in under 40 hours. The reason is because it seems to affect at least one genuine user, but also because each such address was only used to make one vandalism edit (or in a couple of cases two or three), whereas the open proxy IPs each made numerous vandalism edits... so even though numerically almost half the Squidward vandal IP addresses were in the 203.186.238.128/25 range, a much smaller fraction of the total vandalism edits (less than 10%) were made from this range. It would be nice to contact the ISP to ask them to warn their client (or secure their IPs against outside abuse), but I'd prefer to leave that up to someone who could actually speak in the name of Wikipedia, so I asked David Gerard if he wanted to get involved with that (I'm not sure if he does). -- Curps 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

T1

CSD T1 was established by Jimbo Wales, and re-established by him when someone removed it. It's not for negotiation, and certainly isn't for removal. -Splash^talk 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo needs to be willing to discuss policy if he is going to take an active role in writing it. A clear majority of people disagrees with him, so if he doesn't have time for a discussion, he should simply stay away from policy pages. If he doesn't want me to remove CSD-T1, which is constantly being used for abusive purposes, he can tell me himself. —Guanaco 17:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Illegal-Immigration-2 revert

Although I disagree with the speedy delete of that (and pretty much any) userbox, I want to know if what you did actually removed the article as a canditate for deletion or if it only removed the notice. If the latter is true, it should be reverted so that people know it is up for speedy deletion. I don't really know how it works, so if you do, can you tell me? Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

An article is only up for speedy deletion if it contains the speedy tag. Reverting the tag removes the listing. —Guanaco 01:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

your unblock bot doesn't work

It only works if the origional block was to "64.12.0.0/16", otherwise you'll have to unblock each ip by hand--205.188.116.11 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(IP list blanked —Guanaco 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

not to mention, if you're not using a bot, and are actually doing it by hand, that would be pretty tedious--205.188.116.11 23:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking the range for 1 second unblocks all IP addresses within that range. The 64.12.?.? block returned because Nlu remade it. —Guanaco 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't use a bot for blocking and unblocking. —Guanaco 03:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your use of the rollback button

Hello there. The rollback button is reserved for vandalism. I contest strongly that tagging that template T1 is vandalism. What are you doing? Mackensen (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I undeleted Template:User admins ignoring policy (talk · links · edit) because a majority on Wikipedia:Deletion review voted for its undeletion. If you feel it should be deleted, please vote at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. —Guanaco 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Restoring

Thank you for restoring so many of the templates. You're one of the good admins. Kudos. Эйрон Кинни 22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just doing my job and clearing out the backlog at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. —Guanaco 22:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

GWB

Hi, I noticed that you are one of the few ppl here that still respect the process. Could you take a look at the Deletion Review Page? Mark Sweep has unilaterally declared all GWB templates deleted and has blanked the discussion at DRV. He then proceeded to threaten all the users trying to revert him with blocking. I put this up at WP:ANB, but in their blind rage against userboxes they have ignored the principals of consensus and debate that wikipedia depends on and let his actions stand.--God of War 23:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• WP:ANB#Page_blanking_DRV_discussion

If you copy and paste the discussions back onto the DRV page, I will see that they are not removed until they are properly closed. —Guanaco 23:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have restarted the DRV discussion on these. I am counting on your support. --God of War 23:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Well, thanks for giving it a try, anyway. -Seth Mahoney 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Food Not Bombs Image

I noticed you are the one who uploaded the Food Not Bombs logo into the encyclopedia and it is labeled as copywrited. About a month ago Doc deleted the picture from a subseted userbox I made, which is understandable (unlike most of the admin userbox deletions going on now) since I didn't have any idea about the problem with policy at the time. Basically, I'm wondering why it is copywrited because I seriously doubt that logo would be copywrited (just look at what FNB stands for and does). Could you help me understand why you labled it as copywrite, and if there is a way to make sure it really is. Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 08:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In the US, unless there is a specific indication that a work is not copyrighted, it usually is. In this case, if you can find the original author, they will probably say that it is in the public domain, but we need hard evidence of this for tagging it on Wikipedia. —Guanaco 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the creator of that specific version (ie, from the webpage you got it) or of the logo itself? I can tell you that as a participant of Food Not Bombs anyone is allowed to use that. I don't even know who the original author of that logo is and I doubt anyone does. FNB is a highly decentralized organization, to the point that it really isn't even an organization. Good luck finding the creator (actually I would be the one doing it, but still). There isn't even an official website, so I couldn't just email Food Not Bombs and ask to use it. I do know that anyone can, it's just a matter of finding it somewhere in writing, which is hard since I tried. The Ungovernable Force 05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I also tried to find something in writing. You would need authorization from the original author, or if the author is dead, the author's heir. For all practical purposes, the image is safe to use freely, but Wikipedia policy is strict about copyrights. (IANAL, don't sue me, and so on.) —Guanaco 05:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I just want to tell you how much I appreciate your work in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates.
We need more of your kind!
Keep up the good work! --UVnet 15:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try. With luck, I won't be desysopped again or banned for following deletion policy. —Guanaco 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well your undeletion of {{User Unionist}} and {{User Irish Republican}} is exactly the sort of behaviour which got Ashibaka desysopped! It is unhelpful in the extreme; this sort of political cruft has no place in the Template namespace. Physchim62 (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(Jimbocruft blanked. —Guanaco 21:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

I did not restore any one page five times, and Ashibaka's access will be restored in a few days. I am not concerned about this threat in the least. —Guanaco 21:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

{{polemical userboxes}}

Good move. Now if some other admin indeed deletes it, I'll have a good fun seeing it go through WP:DRV. Lol! Thank you! Misza13 ^(Talk) 23:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

CSD?

Guanaco, User:Guanaco/Undeleted userbox watchlist is appearing in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Please review your page and any pages transcluded within it to remove what ever is listing it here to avoid confusion or accidental deletion. If you want this page deleted by someone else please blank it and put a CSD tempalte on it. Thanks, xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The page contains a template which previously contained a CSD tag. I made a null edit, removing it from the category. —Guanaco 02:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

*shakes head*

I'm amazed, Guanaco. I'd taken you on your word that you'd genuinely changed after the antics you pulled the first time around. I guess I was wrong to assume good faith, and to assume that you wouldn't just start the same old crap again within days of being re-sysopped. I guess it's time to rinse and repeat. Ambi 07:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)