User talk:Jahiegel

Archives
December 2005 – April 2006

Oliver Diller

It is not nonsense it is real - oliver diller is real —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emstu10 (talk • contribs) .

Assuming arguendo that the subject exists, he is nevertheless non-notable, and the information you added was plainly unencyclopedic; see the deletion log for more. Joe 04:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning

First of all, after reading your user page, I would bet that if you did indeed attend the universities which you claim to have attended, you did so as an extension school/night school student, rather than as a legitimate undergraduate. Secondly, you have been identified as an agitator by the User:AeurianOrder, and from now on your edits will be watched and reverted if they shown sign of POV. AO Charles 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This was posted in view of my removing unsourced criticism from an article with an already large criticism section. You be the judge! Joe 05:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Emstu10

Hmm, yeah, this is an interesting one. You're right that AN/I would do little at this point; the guy has made an interesting mixture of small useful edits, trolling posts and nonsense article creations, but has swung clear of doing anything bad/often enough to warrant a block. If I didn't know better, I'd think he was gaming the system and trolling with every edit, fully aware of what he's doing. But Assume Good Faith: he must be a newbie who doesn't know our ways yet.

The best I can suggest is that we keep an eye on him. I'll watchlist his talk page and pop by to see his contribs every so often. If he's going wrong, we can point him in the right direction and guide him. At the same time, if he resorts to adding lots of nonsense again or indulges in personal attacks, the fact that we're watching means we can get him quickly through the {{subst:test}} templates and out the door in one day - although one, as always, hopes it won't come to that. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 08:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Jcreator11

Excuse me, but you reverted a piece of my user page, and I don't appreciate that. I don't bother you, and you don't bother me. I'm not angry, just irritated. Thanks.Jcreator11 02:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert your user page (you haven't a user page); I reverted your removal of my vandalism warning (given after you altered an AfD tag). Joe 03:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The AO club

Joe, I strongly suspect that you and I will get along just fine, despite the a priori truth that your Badgers must have cheated whilst playing against my Bears. If you read my comment on WP:AN/I, you'll see I'm probably in for some sort of elite, special level of membership in the "I obviously hate Jews" club (nevermind that I could regale you with stories about, say, my brother's bris. Yick). I see you've already read it. You're right: I simply want attention. I've been informed that my hands are tied and I am "unforchunately" powerless to resist AO Charles, but have not received the warning I sought, so it appears my efforts were fruitless. Perhaps next time. JDoorjam Talk 03:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA

The Minor Barnstar For taking time to vote in a Request for Adminship, it's a minor thing that helps keep this site ticking Joe 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good for a laugh.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 06:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mike Gabbard

Thanks, I basically agree with your assesment. When I saw the spinning and pulsating graphics I almost let it go. If Gabbard's people were shrewd they'd point to that site and say, "See? This is what our critics are like." Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for your vote.

Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions's RfA

Thank you, Jahiegel!
	...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I usually ignore nonsense personal attacks that crop up here and there on Wikipedia, unless the person making them is persistant, but when you get six emails addressed to "dear cunt" with pages and pages of vituperation, then that's a little over the top. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and in general, I agree with you, but there are times when an admin can only take so much. My Talk page gets vandalized daily, but I tend to ignore it. Other people revert the edits, I just don't worry about them. They would be attacking my User page, except that it's protected because it used to be the target. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the commiseration.  :) Having read your discussion, I think you'd probably make a great admin, because you still believe in WP:AGF, which I've left behind years ago, unfortunately. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits like this tend to wear you down after a while. I got so fed up that I left Wikipedia for over a year. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheep sexing

Yeah, I sniggered to myself when I wrote it. Personally I pictured someone walking away from a sheep with a really satisfied look on their face melting into concern, then panic, then terror. Or maybe the sheep was more worried than he was... Phileas 04:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Second nomination

Thank you for moving my second nomination of "Intel processor confusion" to its own page. I wasn't sure how to add a second nomination, so thanks for helping with that. Jgp 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor For brightening my day with your comment about wanting to create a new article about your friend that passed the Jeopardy! test, I award you the Barnstar of Good Humor. Andy Saunders 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Jahiegel, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Glen ^T _C 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD

wow, a "strong delete". and after i made it neutral. so unnecessary... fascists.

the only reason anyone would go to thomas cooley is the money or the schedule. i've always wondered if i would've been happier there. i doubt it, you know... michigan.

VandalProof Problems

Hi Joe, sorry to hear you are having problems with VandalProof. There have been problems recently with users added to the list by moderators, and so AmiD has actually stopped us adding new users for the present time. Your best bet is to just leave a message for AmiD and he'll get back to you and should have you working in no time. If you still have no luck drop me a message and I'll take a look for you. --Wisden17 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalproof

Hi there. It's been discovered that a bug in VP actually removes all users added by a moderator when another moderator makes an addition - meaning we've all been adding people, seeing them get wiped, adding them again, and in turn wiping our fellow mods additions without knowing it. You can imagine the frustration! I will ahead and have you added manually now, and apologies for the confusion! - Glen ^T _C 02:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem sorry about the hassles! It may take a little while to come through so thanks so much for your patience - Glen ^T _C 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

==Welcome to VandalProof== Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just Curious

Was just curious why you posted a message on my talk page, erased it immediately and then apologized.

PCE 07:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the explaination. Just wondering where my user name was found?

LOL - I was looking for but could not find the stuff the doctor prescribed for me. Instead I took the opposite approach and began drinking coffee. I'm up to a pot a day.

Also I was curious becasue I had done an edit on law and my cousin graduated from Princeton.

I may have fixed the edit summaries bug

Aha!! God, am I dense. Try copying this into User:Jahiegel/monobook.js to install popups:

// User:Lupin/popups.js

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'

            + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
            + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

And then purge the cache by pressing Ctrl+F5, and click this link one last time. I didn't even realize that the switches my app uses were depependent upon popups' routines. Even more incentive for me to go to Java. Tell me if this works. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reason for reverted your change on Andrew Wiles

The two people mentioned and I plan to add the April Fools joke related to FLT but also important to stopping rumors about Andrew Wiles targeted Wiles most likely for fame but failed. One was a hoax and the other one was simply biazzare. I do not think I'll revert I'll just remove it. It was not meant to be a cristism section but ... Timothy Clemans 06:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

afd of cool

Your thoughts with respect to the capacious discussion that has taken place at both the AfD page and the AfD talk page well encapsulate my thinking on the matter; I have been altogether amazed that at the wide-ranging and strident debate that has taken place, parts of it altogether irrelevant to an AfD determination. I feel altogether sorry for the admin who closes the debate; it surely is easy to dismiss such a long page as necessarily reflecting no consensus, but that determination should not be made exclusively in view of a lengthy debate's having taken place--nevertheless, I expect the article will be closed as no consensus. In any case, you're altogether right that soon this may fall into the "lamest edit wars ever" category... :) Joe 03:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I've made my statement on what I believe should happen and I'm now staying away from that debacle. And you are correct--I pity the admin that has to wade into that crap. That's a shame, though. There is an article buried in all that crap but I suspect the editors involved will not be able to reach consensus and find it. Best, --Alabamaboy 11:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

DAATH and Roadrunner have 27,200 hits, (and on a major label)

DAATH has been signed to a major metal record label, Roadrunner records this month. If you checked the proper sites, you would have found this. DAATH is scheduled to tour with Opeth and Cradle of Filth this fall. Daath is listed on Roadrunner's main artist page. check here: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/artists/

and here: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/artists/Daath/

I'm not certain where you get your webhit listing from. But when you search the largest search engine, Google, you find the following:

Daath+Roadrunner = 27,200!!! Daath + metal = 54,200 hits Daath+MTV = 820

If you search Daath with other members you will find far less but much more than 22:

Daath+Eyal Levi = 148 Daath + Michael Kameron = 104 Daath + Mike Kameron = 24

Reputable notes:

-Daath's producer is former Death, Testament, and Obituary guitarist James Murphy. -Daath's new album has Kevin Tally from Chimara, a Jim Malone from Arsis and James Murphy as guest artists. -Daath completed one leg of a tour in Europe with the band Organ earlier this year. -Daath has had national interviews on ghostlytalkradio and 4Q Radio in England lasting more than an hour. -Daath has announcements of their next album on MTV and VH1 websites and will be on the MTV Headbangers Ball Compilation this year.

MTV Listing (search for DAATH on the page) http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1528101/20060406/lacuna_coil.jhtml?headlines=true

So as you can see we are deserving of being listed on Wikipedia. Please restore our site or make it available for entry, The first 3 times (daath) was entered in by our fans. It was being edited for consistancy.

Best regards Daath and Claire Reeve

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to point out ...

As you apparently will be reading for the law, allow me to point out that the originator of the Rfc which you endoresed [here] had closed that Rfc, annoucing in bold text near the top of its page: "This request for comments is now closed. The matter has been submitted to the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Arbitration. Please do not add further comments to this page. -- ChrisO 18:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" That you, whose screen name has not appeared much and who has never communicated with me, would endorse a dead file in the manner you did makes me wonder what you are attempting to contribute and to whom you are attempting to contribute it to. Thus, since you seem to have some interest in the area, I invite your communication. Terryeo 15:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that I needn't to justify myself to you, notwithstanding that it is generally understood as untoward to assume bad faith, and notwithstanding that signing an outside view on a closed RfC is understood as "commenting" on that RfC (cf., editing a closed RfA or AfD, upon the close of each of which a template requesting no further amendment is added), I would suggest that I am often involved at RfC (toward which proposition I adduce, inter al., that my Wikipedia space edits are more numerous than yours, especially to RfAr and RfC), and, so, irrespective of the fact that we haven't interacted much, my signing an "outside view" on an RfC about you isn't particularly gauche. I certainly haven't any animus toward you and don't impute malign motive to your writing me; I apprehend a sincerity in your query, and, so I should say that my signing an "outside view" stemmed mainly from my having read the RfAr to which you are a party and my having agreed with the views (apropos of your conduct) of those pursuing the RfAr and those agreeing with Cyde's outside view. Even as I haven't talked to you previously, I have certainly seen your contributions, inasmuch as sundry Scientology articles are on my watchlist, and I have appreciated in some of your edits a tendency toward POV, although I certainly don't mean to suggest that such POV insertion is volitional. Nevertheless, I hope you will not infer my signing the RfC, especially out-of-time, as reflecting disdain for you; I haven't any ill will toward you, and, indeed, think you to be a good editor in several areas, but fear that you tend sometimes toward POV in the Scientology articles. Cordially, Joe 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|Curps properly blocked several SBC IPs; mine, 68.21.197.219, was collateral damage}} Joe 02:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the only way to unblock you would be to undo the entire rangeblock.--Shanel ^§ 02:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but I think the relevant rangeblock should be undone; much of the vandalism for which Curps was blocking came from IPs in the other SBC blocks for which he issued blocks. In the alternative, the block time should be reduced; IMHO, rangeblocks, generally looked upon with disfavor, should be 24 hours only in extreme cases. Btw, after seeing the meat on your userpage last night, I ate exorbitantly today and now must work out seventeen straight hours tomorrow; my weight gain is on you (and Essjay, of course). Joe 02:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This particular vandal has been very persistent both yesterday and today, moving on to new articles when his initial target pages are protected and moving on to new IP addresses and IP ranges when his current IP addresses or ranges are blocked, making a few hundred vandalism edits using several dozen IP addresses. Articles targeted have included Disturbed, Gay, Queer, Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Introduction, Apple Macintosh, Michael Moore, Liberalism, Steve Wozniak, Apple Computer, France, Hacker, and ranges have included (to the best of my knowledge) 66.72.232.0/21, 68.21.192.0/20, 68.23.128.0/19, 68.74.160.0/19, 68.74.192.0/20, 68.75.80.0/22, 69.210.96.0/19, 69.210.128.0/19, 75.7.76.0/22, 75.12.128.0/21.

There really isn't any other way to deal with this person other than range blocks. I really hope you and other SBC customers have contacted [1], 800-648-1626 as suggested in the blocking messages. Given the IP addresses and timestamps, SBC can easily identify which one of their customers this is and can tell them very firmly to stop.

Here is a small fraction of the vandalism edits, with IP addresses and timestamp (in Central Daylight Time, since the vandal may be physically located near Milwaukee). You might wish to pass this information to the SBC abuse contact: /Apr 16/ 13:00 CDT 68.74.194.79, 12:59 68.74.195.87, 12:57 69.210.118.150, 12:23 68.74.195.57 /Apr 15/ 11:31 CDT 68.74.198.108, 11:27 69.210.119.239, 11:14 68.74.193.60, 11:12 68.74.199.116 /Apr 14/ 22:34 CDT 69.210.131.18, 22:33 69.210.150.113, 22:32 69.210.134.114, 22:31 69.210.137.170, 22:30 69.210.153.245, 22:28 69.210.121.139, 22:27 69.210.148.86, 22:22 69.210.151.8, 22:21 69.210.102.221, 22:20 69.210.98.43, 22:18 69.210.120.9, 22:17 69.210.122.38, 22:14 69.210.99.21, 22:13 69.210.133.84, 22:09 69.210.100.164, 22:05 69.210.129.50, 22:03 69.210.110.215

It's important that SBC customers contact SBC, because they are unlikely to give much priority or attention to complaints by third party non-customers. -- Curps 04:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)