User talk:RyGuy

From Wikireligion

Welcome to wikireligion RyGuy! I think you will find it much more calm than wikikidsen here. I am wondering if you can make some templates to use on articles. Also will you do me another favor and make me some portals? Like saints, and one for each major religion? If/when you do tell me where to find them. Thanks. Happy editing. --Sir James Paul 10:27, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Sure thing! RyGuy 06:02, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Please take your age off your user page.--Sir James Paul 08:40, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Okay, done. (I think I know why you asked) RyGuy 08:42, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Sorry for taking a while but I was not online. You have to do what is said in the policy. --Sir James Paul 13:32, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Okay, but then why was Arjun auto-sysopped? RyGuy 14:12, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Contents 1 Sir James Paul RFA 2 Supposedly.... 3 Tip 4 Sysop powers 5 Ah, I should probably have just ignored him but... 6 Thanks... 7 Thanks a lot! 8 Talk:Main Page#voting 9 Email address 10 RFA 11 Policy Proposal 12 Checkuser People 13 Congrats!

Sir James Paul RFA

Is currently only for his adminship powers. If you wish to bring up bureacratship change it to Oppose, Sysop + Bureaucrat or something like that. Same with me (ForestH2). ForestH2 19:29, 8 February 2007 (EST)

Supposedly....

Nothing, I believe. It might also revert vandalism. I've long since stopped using it. Um, by the way I still have checkuser powers and I have checkusered AntiChrist, ILoveReligion etc. They are all sockpuppets. All I need to do is block them. I've contacted Sir James Paul everyway I could at this point. ForestH2 10:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

As AntiChrist told you, they're probably using Tor or something (like I am) to cloak one's actual IP for privacy reasons. You can't accuse of sockpuppettry only based on having IPs in common some of the times. (one figures you know all about sockpuppetry, since you have been banned from various Wikis because of you being one) Qwerty 13:22, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Ok, *sighs* maybe we should make a new wiki, copy this wiki, then continue from there. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Yeah, good luck with that. heh. Qwerty 13:22, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Tip

Don't remove my own messages from my own talk page. AntiChrist 17:26, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Hey. I made you a sysop. Peace :) --Sir James Paul 23:24, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Okay, thanks, maybe we can get back up and running. :-) -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

A 3 month block of AntiChrist is still against policy. Should be 24 hours, after a warning. JesusFreak 11:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Please note that AntiChrist made more than one edit that was removed. I am considering shortening the block, but telling me to do so will not make me, so please, don't argue with me about this matter. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 12:32, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Relax, no one is arguing. I'm just pointing out a (continued) policy violation here. JesusFreak 13:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Sysop powers

I need to get my sysop powers back if you want me to continue on this wiki. Otherwise, I will leave. ForestH2 10:55, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I have made you a bureaucrat. I will pretty much leave you alone and let you do what you want within reason. --Sir James Paul 16:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Can you make me a sysop? If you do, I'll remain running in an RFA to maintain status. I also need bureaucrat powers. Thx. ForestH2 18:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Since you're giving it out like crack, why not make everyone a sysop?

You must run in an RFA to maintain status to do this. ForestH2 11:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Thank you for sysop powers. I feel that I'll run in an RFA for bureaucrat tools because it's unfair I get both tools at the same time. After some time, if I get enough supports in an RFA I can become a bureaucrat. The only reason I would be auto-bureaucrated is if you aren't active an the Request for adminship page is clogged up with needs for other users for adminship. ForestH2 09:45, 12 March 2007 (EST)

Ah, I should probably have just ignored him but...

He was angering me to much that I just decided to respond to his questions at whatever. It was also a part of my plan on which to start by answering whatever and then switch to just plainly ignoring it. I should probably have been a bit nicer though. Oh by the way, as I said on the talk page if you find any bugs or any software updates you need to be added let me know right away. ForestH2 17:20, 12 March 2007 (EST)

From now on we will block whoever is making a dispute with someone with no warning as long as we want. --Sir James Paul 22:09, 13 March 2007 (EST)

And I presume the same policy applies to you, and Forest, too, right? Seven of nine 22:29, 13 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, because it is annoying just to give warnings for people so out of control. ForestH2 22:43, 13 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks...

...for the welcome, RyGuy! I still may have questions here and there, since I'm new. But at least I know now where to ask them :-) P.B. Pilhet 17:14, 16 March 2007 (EST)

No problem! That's what I do. I'm even in the Adopt-A-User program on Wikipedia. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 06:04, 17 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks a lot!

Thanks for helping me with setting this place up. I do not have the time now. Peace:) --Sir James Paul 17:36, 17 March 2007 (EST)

No problem! As long as everybody can "keep their cool", everything should work out fine! :-D -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Main Page#voting

Um, when do these come into effect? ForestH2 09:49, 19 March 2007 (EST)

Hmm, how about now? -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 09:51, 19 March 2007 (EST)

I'd prefer everything to be done now expect for #1 which recieved one oppose from me. ForestH2 09:53, 19 March 2007 (EST)

Okay, I'll put all except #1 in effect and open a discussion on it. Sound good? -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 March 2007 (EST)

Yep. ForestH2 09:58, 19 March 2007 (EST)

Email address

I've changed the format of your email address to try and protect against spambots. If you don't know, spammers run programs to search through websites to pick up email links and text that seems like a valid email format. It's then added to a database and you'll never see the end of the spam. I've changed it into a format that's understandable to any human, yet won't be picked up by spambots. Revert it if you like, it was just a thought. Archer7 16:36, 27 March 2007 (EST)

FWIW, I think most spam bots have decoded the "AT" and "DOT" attempts at obfuscation. --Qwerty 17:05, 27 March 2007 (EST)

Not the ones I've seen... no doubt some will have got around it, but I don't think it's widespread. Archer7 03:29, 28 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks, I was in a hurry and forgot about the "[AT]" and "[DOT]"s -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 08:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

RFA

Hi, RyGuy! Just wanted to let you know that my RFA should have closed today. See you around! -- P.B. Pilhet 21:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the promotion, Ryan! One more thing: could you grant me checkuser access? It'd be useful in dealing with sockpuppet vandalism. -- P.B. Pilhet 14:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Of course. You are already more active than most of everyone else. I don't see why you shouldn't. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 09:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, man! By the way, I've made a proposal for a change in our blocking policy. -- P.B. Pilhet 15:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Policy Proposal

Thanks for your support of my proposal, Ryan. By the way, I didn't protect the WR:RAA page from edits, only moves (as the silver padlock says :-]). -- P.B. Pilhet 20:43, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Checkuser People

Yeah, that reminds me. Checkuser people should be people you really can trust, not people who are the most active. As I have said, checkuser can result in location of homes etc. Now, on Wikikids, you saw I was the only checkuser. I think it would best if you were the only checkuser here too. ForestH2 22:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

It really doesn't matter, because even if you don't have checkuser poweres, you can still run one from the control panel, thanks to that bug. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Can checkuser really reveal the location of homes? I thought you could maybe come close enough to finding out the city that someone lives in, but not a home. Anyway, I agree that checkuser is definitely not to be given out lightly, but I'm an administrator on three other wiki-sites, not to mention I have a near spotless record on all of them (including Wikipedia, though I'm not an admin there yet). So I'm more than qualified to carry a "checkuser badge" :-)-- P.B. Pilhet 22:29, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, no. Let's say for example, you checkusered someone. Their IP was AA.BBB.AAA.B or 74.0.12.166. Let's pretend. Then you could go to WHOIS or Dominan and search to find out the address of that IP. So you would find the Address:

000, Main Street Anytown, NY 90002 (Zip Code)

So you could, but you can't directly from the checkuser search.

ForestH2 22:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I ran a WHOIS on my own IP and the street address that came up in the search results was incorrect. I also ran a WHOIS on one of my friend's IP's, and his address was wrong also (though the city was correct). So I'm not sure these methods of finding out people's locations using IP's are reliable. -- P.B. Pilhet 23:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I know that any number of people could share an IP adress, so if you ran a WHOIS, it would only show one of the people or maybe it would show it somewhere in beetween. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

An IPWHOIS checks who that IP is assigned to. This will 99 times out of 100 be your ISP (eg AOL). Your ISP will then distribute those IPs to their customers in certain areas (one for each city for example). So that IP could be used by anyone in that city (most of the time it's given to one person or people are given a new one every time they reconnect). So it won't actually tell you who is using the IP, just the guys who are managing that IP. It's very rare that IP information on it's own will show you exactly who someone is unless they own that IP (not really going to happen). However, say a 10yr old comes on and says "Hi, I'm 10 and my name is Ashley Example". If they were editing from a school, a dodgy admin with CheckUser can find the IP, run it through the WHOIS and get the name and address of their school. It isn't a massive risk, but on a wiki full of kids you can see how it would have been an issue. Over here, you just need to make sure that the admin you give it to can keep their mouth shut and won't blab it all over the wiki, and also that they can use the tool correctly. It's really hard to use (at least the Wikimedia version), I wouldn't be 100% confident with it and to be honest I don't think any of you know enough about IPs and stuff to be able to understand it properly. You can run the tool, get an IP and block it, which is fine for a static IP (stays with one computer/network all the time and never changes), but could you do a range block on a dynamic (changing) IP range? Do you understand fully why an IP match doesn't make it the same person, and how if the IPs don't match it doesn't mean it's a different person? I really don't think so. If you're like me, you're probably thinking that you'll pick it up as you go along, but it just won't work like that. Right now, you probably don't need ANY CheckUsers, I'd just leave it. Archer7 16:13, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I understand what you are saying. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 08:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Congrats!

Congragulations for help making Wikireligion, a top wiki. Between April 15, and April 21, Wikireligion ranked #14 out of forty wikis. Please keep up the good work! Thank You. ForestH2 22:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, I didn't do it alone! :-) Actually, I think P.B. Pilhet did the most. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 07:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)