Crystal 128 kuser.png My user page · Crystal Clear app kopete.png Talk to me · Nuvola filesystems folder cyan.png See my archives: one · two · three · four · five · six

Hi and welcome to my talk page!
Feel free to ask me questions. I'll do my best to answer them.
Always be sure to sign your comments like this: ~~~~. Thanks!

Snowball (Animal Farm)Edit

Hey Tygrrr

Just a quick question really, and it probably demonstrates my limited understanding of the overall goal of this particularly Wikipedia, but why would you not leave Snowball's article as is? It was categorised, interwiki linked and wikified. If a category such as "fictional animals" exists then I don't really see why this one shouldn't go in there? I'm not trying to be a pain but I'm just curious if I'm missing the point? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As it was, it gave no additional information not given in the Animal Farm article other than "Snowball is a pig" so I merged that new info into the existing article on the book. If someone cares to take the time and effort to create a proper, lengthy, encyclopedic article, it would be worthy of more than a redirect. Besides, Animal Farm is barely more than a stub itself right now. Let's get it expanded to the point where it's long enough to need separate articles for the characters--not the other way around. · Tygrrr... 16:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I'll get on with it! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection of United StatesEdit

United States is getting hit hard by 3 different IP addresses. It is all I can do to keep it at bay. Please protect this page temporarily. Thanks, Razorflame 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. All three of them have stopped now. Cheers, Razorflame 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


When you create new death year and birth year categories, do you think you could add {{deathyr}} to death year categories and {{birthyr}} to birth year categories please? They help make it easier to navigate between the categories. Thanks, Razorflame 14:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: what you said about my edit to discordianism.Edit

what do you mean nonsense? i even put up a reference (, home of a large group of real-life active discordians that would all disagree with the paragraph as it stands now). didn't you read my description next to the edit? there are a LOT of discordians that do not say "Hail Eris" and/or eat hotdogs on friday, and actually think this is a prime example of completely missing the point of discordianism.

The bit about "They say "Hail Eris!", and on Fridays they eat hot dogs with no buns." is in fact the nonsense, because this is simply not true, except perhaps for a very small minority of online discordians (that claim to do so). In fact, I have never, ever heard of a discordian regularly eating hot dogs with no buns on a Friday in real life. Maybe some do, once, just as a joke, but it is in no way the sort of dogma the current article seems to imply (like Catholics eating no fish on friday or something, is).

The bit in the Principia about not eating hot dogs on a friday should not be taken as dogma. There might be a minority of discordians that take it as such, and even if i disagree with them their beliefs should probably be represented, but it completely fails to even describe the main idea of discordianism.

The way the article reads right now is akin to saying something like "Christians are people who believe that women were created from the rib of the first man". While sort-of true, in the sense that a minority (worldwide) of christians believe this is actually what happened, it doesn't even come close to describing Christianity.

I hope I made it clear, it was not my intention to vandalize the page. (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A few things. I don't really care about the hot dog thing. If you'd like to add information about it, please source it with something other than a forum. And I'd recommend not labelling the link as "stupid" since that's not neutral, encyclopedic wording and will be removed if you say something similiar again. I have in fact gone back and removed the entire back-and-forth regarding the hot dogs because none of it was sourced and seems to be only a minor detail of discordianism anyway (it's not mentioned on any of the en:wiki pages related to Eris, the book, or discordianism itself). If you'd like to contribute non-neutral, encyclopedic information about the topic, you're encouraged to do so. Thanks. · Tygrrr...
Hi, I just saw you changed the page again. I talked it over with some other discordians, and we agreed (it happens), we like the page as it stands. It keeps it fair, the way it doesn't really say anything either way ;-) Thanks.
Apart from that i'd like to point out it was not "stupid" but "STFUPID Cabal", which is the common name under which the group of people on is known.
The reason why i linked to the forum and not the domain itself is because the forum has more information and the domain is just a simple (outdated/under construction) front page linking to the forum and a copy of the Principia. Is it allowed to source from a wiki? because that's one of the problems with sourcing things about discordianism, the Principia is the only generally accepted "official" thing that exists, but there is so much, much more, and the Principia was explicitly meant as not becoming central dogma of discordianism. We have a wiki at that is a collection of a lot of discordian texts, exploring the ideas of discordia.
FWIW, the page on the main wikipedia isn't particularly neutral either, but it's nearly impossible to change something over there, with all the politics going on. Seeing that one can't even improve accuracy on a single paragraph on the simple wikipedia without an argument like this. (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Striking out a voteEdit

Hi there. I noticed this post made to this conversation in the requests for adminiship stated by Archer7 that Walton One's vote wouldn't count in this vote. Do you think you could strike out his vote as stated by Archer7? If you don't want to, I am willing to, but I believe that only administrators have the right to strike out a vote that is deemed to be an illegal vote? Or do you think that we should wait until the end of the vote? Cheers, Razorflame 19:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like it's a conflict of interest here, but that rule only applies to RFAs. RFCUs require a certain number of votes for it to be valid. Therefore more votes are required than there are active editors here. I have voted on Wikiquote RFCUs, but I have fewer than 10 edits there, however I was familiar with the candidate. It is sometimes best that for things like Checkuser, that people who know the user well from other projects can vote. In any case, if such a rule did exist, Eptalon wouldn't have passed because there was at least one "invalid" vote. Majorly (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to be striking out any votes in this particular situation unless there's puppets--I don't think that's happening. The wording of the rule indicates (to me, at least) that new users' votes will not have as much weight as those who have been here longer. But as you say Majorly, that really has only been defined for RfAs and RfBs. I'm not sure whether it's open-and-shut based on numbers or if there is some objective judgment involved. It'd probably be a good idea to find that out, huh?... · Tygrrr... 19:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's irrelevant now, as I have withdrawn. Thanks for your comments anyhow, both of you. Majorly (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position on this - the previous RfCUs were done under different circumstances where CheckUsers that desperately needed to be done were not being fulfilled in a reasonable time by the Stewards. Even the old RfCUs had the vast majority of votes from established members of the community. This is different, as we are voting for an extra CheckUser to "lighten the workload". I believe that Majorly, as a well-known EN editor, is in a position where he could gain the necessary support percentage without the support of actual community. Which makes the vote pointless, and leaves the community powerless to decide who could potentially handle their IP information. I think that exploiting a loophole like this isn't really a good idea at all, especially when we're talking about giving access to private information with potential legal implications. That's all just my opinion of course - it seemed common sense to me to extend the rule to RfCUs, but we can always ask the rest of the community if we think it's something worth discussing. Might be a good idea to ask a Steward for voting guidelines as well - I couldn't find anything on Meta. Archer7 - talk 21:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The current % required, according to the Guide page, is 70-80%. I could have passed with 70% at 25/10, but I'd have not accepted that as sufficient agreement. Too many against would make me think I'm not trusted enough by the community. I withdrew with just 6 opposes for this very reason. I'm not exploiting a loophole at all. Feel free to stop people who don't edit here vote. In fact, I agree with it. But don't claim I did this maliciously - I had enough of that crap from Creol and Mike Lifeguard on the request itself. I'd have kept it up till the end if I'd done it maliciously, and requested the moment I had 25 supports. However, I could see that many users I respect were against the idea, so I decided to respect that and withdraw. Sorry for the orange bar, Tygrrr... Majorly (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly not implying that you acted in any way "maliciously", I was attempting to illustrate my point that your RfCU could have been swayed by your popularity on other wikis, when we're deciding about permissions that affect users here quite strongly. I don't believe that you would ever engage in any kind of "vote-rigging", if that's the idea you had. Archer7 - talk 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My first articleEdit

Hi there Tygrrr. I just wanted to let you know that I made my first article over on the English Wikipedia. I really hope that it doesn't get deleted. I made sure to reference it as completely as I possibly could, so I'm pretty sure that it shouldn't get deleted. Cheers, Razorflame 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats :-) I'm sure it won't get deleted. · Tygrrr... 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Little Fat PatrickEdit

Why didn't you delete this article as an obvious hoax? Wouldn't be better to deal with it now and not let it sit around for half a month on RfD? Maxim(talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious to me, but with another admin making edits to it, it thought it might be controversial to qd it again. · Tygrrr... 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Show them the Ghits (it's obvious like the grass is green) and delete the article. Maxim(talk) 13:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Notability's an obvious issue that it fails to reach, and even if it is real, which I doubt, there's no way to verify it. You're right, it's gotta go, and it's gone again. · Tygrrr... 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your voteEdit

Why do you still think that I haven't made any progress? Do you still think that I would not have good enough judgement for the flag? Razorflame 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that I don't think you haven't make progress. Just that you're still not ready. Each nomination puts me on edge. It makes me nervous that you want the tools so badly. I feel like if you'd just let it be and not be so anxious about everything, let a few months go by without a nom, I could relax and feel comfortable with you having the ability to protect and delete. It's just all too much, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who finds it unnerving that your desire for a few extra tools is so great. You're already respected around here, you've done a lot of great work, the tools aren't a big deal (insert quote attribution to Jimbo Wales here). Don't you think 5 self-noms in less than 6 months is a bit much? Why do you feel you need them so badly? I know that's nobody's denying you just to be mean (I think we're all decent people here). I think that some people see something about yourself that you don't. I think my problem in supporting you boils down to this: you've shown bad judgment, you've made quite a few mistakes in the past regarding deletions, protections, warnings, blockings, etc. You've also made it quite clear that you get involved in everything and will continue to be involved in everything. I think your tendency to look before you leap would only get worse, not better. Your eagerness to show everyone you can do everything has, I think, undermined you. You have made progress and are continuing to make progress in "slowing down". But I think that you think it's improving much quicker than it is.
I think I've said just about everything I can about how I feel about you and your editing. It makes me uncomfortable to judge people this way. I hope that our past conversations combined with this conversation make it clear why I'm not comfortable supporting you. I'd rather not discuss it ad nauseam. If you feel there's something else that I really must clarify, I will. But I truly hope that this is sufficient response for you. Thanks for reading my long-winded reply. · Tygrrr... 14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the thanks go to you. It made me understand quite a lot about myself that I didn't think that I knew before and I hold you in the utmost respect, like I do with every other administrator on this site. Now here is the chance for me to explain why I feel like I need the tools so badly. Yes, it is true that I think that I am improving much quicker than I actually am, and every time that I post a self-nomination, it is because I believe that I am ready for it. Your response here has shown me that I might not, in fact, be ready for the position. It's just this: every time that I post a nomination, I then get to watch my nomination fail. After I post my nomination, I then get to watch as someone else's nomination passes. I just don't think that it is fair to me that you have to hold me in a much more strict way of thinking than other people who have had their nominations pass. During my last RfA, I watched as I was not promoted, yet Chenzw was, and to tell you the truth, I think that I have brought much more to the plate than Chenzw has, yet I know that I cannot say that without having somewhat of a dirty conscience. I hold Chenzw in the utmost respect and I believe that he or she has brought much more to the Simple English Wikipedia now that he/she is an administrator. What I don't agree with is the fact that I believe that you are holding me to much stricter standards than other people who have requested adminship. If you are so uncertain if I will do a good enough job for you, then maybe this suggestion will help cool your worries down: What if we were to use something called administrators open to recall here. What if, even after I was given the tools and you notice that I am not using them appropriately, then why not just recall the tools? I don't understand why we can't do something like this here instead of just denying me the tools. I feel that I would be able to bring much more to this Wikipedia than I already do if I were to just be given the chance to help the Simple English Wikipedia more. I still see that you aren't as willing to give me that chance. I want the tools so badly because time after time, I am forced to sit there and watch as vandals continue vandalizing without the threat of having an administrator on because they know that I am not an administrator. There have been times when there aren't any administrators on that a lot of vandalism occurs and I am helpless to prevent it (page creations, I can handle the reversions). Please give me the chance to show you and every other user on this site that I can handle the task at hand. Thanks for reading my response, Razorflame 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh myEdit

See the Eyes's talk page and also mine please ma'am. SwirlBoy39 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen. That's what prompted my RfCU. Everything's under control. I suggest you leave the situation alone for the time being. No use in being argumentative with someone like this, is there? I noticed your comment about the edit conflict we had on RfCU. Great minds think alike, huh? :-) · Tygrrr... 16:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I obviously can't open my eyes to my soul and stuff :) SwirlBoy39 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we just block now? The user has been disruptive after the final warning. Thank you. SwirlBoy39 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


You revert? And can I have my name change now, please? Theeyesarethewindowtothesoul (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to change it to User:Openyourselfupforme Theeyesarethewindowtothesoul (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to ask a bureaucrat. · Tygrrr... 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Tygrrr. I did the RfCU, but without much of a result: Between 5 and 10 users use the IP range to connect to WP. The range belongs to a big ISP. Looking at user agents, there is one potential match; that user has a similar age, and their edits are totally different though - For this reason I'd rather not reveal their identity at this time.--Eptalon (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Can you confirm whether the user is or is not IuseRosary? The more interaction I have with the user, the more s/he seems reminicient of IuseRosary, and this edit makes me suspicious as well. · Tygrrr... 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
IUseRosary also connect through that range; their user-agent string is noticeably different though (to the point I can almost rule out this user is IUseRosary). --Eptalon (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I wonder if it's another friend of theirs (i.e. of IuseR and Benniguy)? · Tygrrr... 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The user might be purposely having different edits. SwirlBoy39 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
To the point that they do not overlap at all? -Not even theme-wise? we are talking about less than 10 edits for the non-vandal user matched.--Eptalon (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree with SwirlBoy39 in this instance. It's just too coincidental. This user pops up right after IuR is unblocked. That isn't just coincidence. I really do believe that they have something to do with each other. It might not be IuR himself, but it could easily be a friend of his or hers that just happens to share the same views as him. The only thing missing between the two users is the morbid fascination with Gwib....Cheers, Razorflame 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That link will be hard to show, though. Until I see clearly abusive behaviour from that user, I have no reason to block them. Also remember, I am bound by checkuser privacy policy. It basically states to protect identties as long as possible. So far I cannot establish a clear link between the user whose identity I am protecting, and the user mentioned as being abusive. Therefore I will not reveal their identity at the moment. --Eptalon (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Please check it ASAP. SwirlBoy39 20:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:) SwirlBoy39 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Can you please delete User:runningblader/Vote? Runningblader, Proud owner of OGame artical 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Done · Tygrrr... 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Could you cancel my account and delete everything about me here? ThanksBobneilbruce (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't cancel your account, but we can have your account renamed to something else so that it doesn't exist like that anymore. I have put a {{qd}} tag onto your user talk page under the premises that you are exercising your right to vanish. Cheers, Razorflame 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Check this out, please. WP:RfA also had to be protected due to constant vandalism. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


A StatusBot has now been implimented on this Wikipedia. Feel free to follow the instructions at User:SoxBot to set up your Status. Cheers, Razorflame 03:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


I have only just noticed you removed the categories and iw in my sandbox. Thanks for doing that, I never noticed it, and now realise what that would have done. Thanks again. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


  The Resilient Barnstar
For having to deal with Maxim over the past few weeks, and for keeping you cool in doing so, I hereby award you the Resilient Barnstar! Razorflame 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As always, thank you. · Tygrrr... 14:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem! Cheers, Razorflame 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, what about me..? Maxim (talk | editor review) 18:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Um...what about you? · Tygrrr... 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I was a bit confused by the choice of wording in the barnstar... but I asked Razorflame on his talk for an explanation. It was a more appropriate place to do so. Apologies for the edit summary, it was not aimed at you, a bit more to Razorflame. Maxim (talk | editor review) 21:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your apology. I was taken aback by the tone of your comment and edit summary so I'm sorry if my reply was rude. · Tygrrr... 21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image QuestionEdit

Trgarr, I have some pics I have been sent for M-Train in my inbox. However, I were not sent (by accident) a permission slip for OTRS. They have sent me pics for this before (see M-Tram), and the Flickr user knows I am obtaining images for Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Do I need to wait for the slip to be sent or can I upload the pics now and wait for the permission slip. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not very familiar with the rules for uploading images onto Commons. I would think an admin there should be able to help you, though. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful! · Tygrrr... 22:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello Tygrr, can you take a quick look at Talk:Evolution and perhaps write a short reply?- Am I too ambitious?--Eptalon (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tidying my messEdit

Hey Tygrrr, thanks for moving the template and tidying up for me. I'm still getting the hang of things! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it was no big deal. :-) · Tygrrr... 21:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


Oy. Read up on what vandalism is. I'm sick of your constant reverts of my contributions and labeling them as vandalism. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I'm clearly not doing that. I'm simply being bold, and you're reverting stuff mindlessly trying to back it up by labeling my edit as vandalism. You need a serious attitude adjustment. Maxim (talk | editor review) 21:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to learn to respect the consensus of many intelligent editors (even though they aren't you!). Please allow for further discussion on this topic before making such a rash decision. I can see the point of removing it and I can see the point of keeping it. This is a community, however, and the community decides what we do--not one editor (i.e you). For what it's worth, I'm sick of you acting like you can do whatever the hell you want and change everything that was put into place after hours of work by a large number of other editors (i.e. not you). You have given no good reasons for your changes. If you want to ignore the rules, by all means please explain why your way is better than everyone else's. I'm all for improving things. However, what you're doing is causing confusion by changing what people already know and thus not improving the process. Is it that hard to believe that people other than you can make a good decision and come up with a good way to do something? Get over yourself already... P.S. I called your edit "borderline vandalism". If I thought it was vandalism I would have rolled it back without an explanation and wouldn't have bothered to make a comment on the CfGAs talk page. · Tygrrr... 21:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not any vandalism of any sort, borderline or not. I was acting on the discussion on the RPGA talkpage; someone does have to flip the switch. I thought it was a good idea; does everything here must be done so bureaucratically? You're not allowed to make decisions on guidelines, especially were the decision is to excise something so pointlessly redundant, here?? Of course articles go through multiple revisions, is it so not hopelessly obvious? Maxim (talk | editor review) 21:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If you read my comments, you'll see that I can see the point you're making and I can see the flipside as well. You don't have to convince me to get it changed. To get it changed, you should respect the time and energy put in by others who decided it was a good idea and hear others' opinions. I'm trying to respect that and am asking it be discussed more. You can always find 3 people who don't like something. That doesn't mean that those 3 should dictate for the majority. I'm suggesting a re-discussion of Point 3 to determine whether or not these 3 are in the majority or the minority. That's seems perfectly reasonable to me... · Tygrrr... 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine then. I've given your comments on the talkpage another read, I see what you're going at. But please don't label my edits vandalism, when they're clearly not. That creates unnecessary conflict. And also, I encourage you not to make personal attacks against other editors; "You need to learn to respect the consensus of many intelligent editors (even though they aren't you!)" You're calling me unintelligent; that makes your argument so credible... Maxim (talk | editor review) 22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
What I was saying with that comment was that you act like you're the only intelligent editor here; I was saying you should respect other people besides yourself. There are other intelligent people around here. The rules/guidelines/policies you buck so hard against were discussed for many hours by smart people who only have the best interest of this wiki at heart and your actions have shown zero respect for those people or their decisions. · Tygrrr... 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I take you're taking me "acting like you're the only intelligent editor here" from comments I made after you accused me of vandalising RfA? Tsk tsk, I just told you in my previous post, not explicitly, but heavily implied that I respect others' opinions. I do not disrespect others' work or decisios; I try to improve upon them. This is a wiki, after all, and if you take offense at having someone edit pages you edit before, that's very troubling. As for the part of me thinking you called me unintelligent, apologies again, another misunderstanding. Maxim (talk | editor review) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's like you really don't even read what I type. By not respecting consensus you're disrespecting the time, energy, and intelligence of the users who came to that consenseus. Conversations with you are so illogical they make my head spin... And your accusations are ridiculous. I hope you know that everyone can see right through them. You can't discredit me with nonsense like that. · Tygrrr... 00:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And while you're at it, please quit stalking my edits. You have no idea what you're doing. That page was moved there to match the categories which were decided to be City, State/Province for Canada and the United States. You moved it to be spiteful and that's wrong. Please get over your petty little grudge against me and try to be productive rather than destructive, why don't you? · Tygrrr...

Maxim's point is that he made a contribution in good faith, which is never vandalism. He was upset that you labeled his action (which I admit was hasty) as "borderline vandalism". I think that's all he was most upset about. As for Winnipeg, I know Simple is its on wiki, but the English Wiipedia has it at en:Winnipeg. But their policies are different from ours. Cassandra 00:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're the one following me around policy/guideline etc. pages labeling my edits as vandalism. I'm attempting to be productive... you're intent on reverting me. I moved because I was simply following what was at You're the one throwing wild accusations, utter crap like editwarring because of spite. Sheesh. Also, read up on what wikistalking is before accusing me of it. As for having some "petty little grudge", if you didn't go around accusing of vandalism, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Maxim (talk | editor review) 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm sure you would have been just as upset that I reverted and suggested a sensible discussion even if I didn't say your blatant, rash removal of criteria was borderline vandalism. As for reverting your edits of policy pages, that's what I do as an admin--protect this wiki from removal of information without consensus with only the explanation that "it's pointless". If you continue to do that, I guess I'll continue to revert, and if you want to call that stalking you, that's your perogative but you'd be wrong. At any rate, I'm done with this nonsense for tonight. Please move on. (By the way, for someone who has no respect for rules, you sure do point to them a lot to support your actions. Interesting that you would call someone else who does the same "mindless"...)· Tygrrr... 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, you're an admin, I'm supposed to listen and obey you like a good little puppy, am I? Go do something else Tygrrr, you're the most stubborn, inflexible and elitist user I've ever had to attempt to collaborate with. Reconsider your attitude, I'm at a complete loss at how to attempt not only communicate, but to not flamewar with you. Maxim (talk | editor review) 01:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
That's obviously not what I said. You're being ridiculous. And what a coincidence: you're the most stubborn, inflexible and elitist user I've ever had to attempt to collaborate with. Why can't you just drop it and leave me alone like I asked you politely to? If you want to discuss Point 3 of the RfGA, please do so on the talk page. If not, I'm asking you one last time to please just stop. · Tygrrr... 02:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) - Please stop. WP:NPA. -- America †alk 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, might I suggest some mediation? I don't know if I am the perfect mediator, but I think it would be a good next step. Bstone (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest User:Steve Crossin to come here and mediate? He is a mediator over at en-wikipedia. We cannot just leave this discussion alone, something has to be settled. If no mediator is needed just for this, then let it be so. But I highly suggest a good mediator handle this. -- RyanCross (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ryan, I'm not the super ultimate mediatior that you may think I am ;). Anyway, I was alerted to this. This appears to be a matter over editor conduct, and not over article content, therefore mediation is not what you are after. The fact that Simple Wikipedia has zero dispute resolution process is a little concerning, but I suppose that they are so few and far between that such a process isn't needed. It's clear that something needs to be done, but I'm not sure exactly what. I think the first thing that would help is for diffs to be provided, specifically the edits by Maxim that may be disputed, and the reverts of those edits. I guess I can have a look at it further once I've seen that. Steve Crossin (contact) 02:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd be content to just move on and let another admin handle future issues with Maxim (in the event that there are any). I believe that Maxim's changes today would have been reverted by another admin eventually, but I was on so I did it. (Think about it, if a brand new user or an IP made those changes, a revert would have been perfectly justified as vandalism reversion. As Maxim is an established user, I didn't do a blatant rollback, I explained the revert in my edit summary and on the talk page of the changed page. I wanted to him to know, however, that his edit could easily be viewed as vandalism if he wasn't an established user--hence my comment of "borderline vandalism".) He didn't understand my intention to not escalate the situation and (I hate to say it but) I honestly don't think he was reading my comments as slowly and clearly as he could have, because he misinterpreted a number of my comments and began to make attacks, further frustrating me. I think that we can try to put this nastiness behind us, and I will step back and allow another admin to take action if Maxim's edits in the future are inappropriate. I think he was just a little hasty today and I hope he will not be so rash in the future. I don't think that he had the intention to vandalize, but as I said before, those edits by an un-established user would almost certainly be seen that way. In short, I hope there are no future issues with his actions, but if there are, I will steer clear. I'm sorry to anyone who was distracted from editing by this sillines (I admit I was being silly too). This project is about the content and articles. I'd be embarassed to distract others further from that goal by taking this further. I hope others agree. · Tygrrr... 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's fine by me. I like the issues that go away by themself. :) Hopefully things sort themselves out. If not, you know where to find me. Steve Crossin (contact) 03:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


I am more than fine with calling truce. --Maxim (talk | editor review) 13:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, nice to know everything's fine now. :) -- RyanCross (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RFD HeaderEdit

After this edit you made, I just wanted to explain why I took some of the things out instead of just reverting you.

  • Unregistered (IPs) and new users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance.
    • Their ideas won't be considered (as opposed to "may not") and the information is already shown on {{anon}}. I also don't think that accounts created before the RfD have more weight in the process, unless 'more weight' is defined as 'the right to vote'.
  • Make your suggestion or comment in bold text (for example, "Keep", "Delete", or "Comment").
    • I guess I should have left that in, but I took it out since everyone seems to use {{support}} or {{oppose}} now.
  • Try to avoid confusing suggestions, such as delete and merge.
    • What's confusing about that? Unless the user says something like substitute, merge and clean, complex suggestions aren't too hard to understand.

If you think all the bullets above are useful, I'll leave them in. But IMO I don't think they're necessary. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can remove the "unregistered users" part. I think the rest of the 1st point is useful however because the part about new users' opinions carrying more weight is true. If someone registers after the vote was started, simply to vote in the RfD, it's kind of fishy.
I think we should keep point 2 and add something like "or you can use the templates {{keep}}, {{delete}} or {{comment}}.
I think it's useful to say something about keeping your suggestion simple. "Delete and merge" could certainly be confusing to someone and we don't want suggestions to be interpreted the wrong way.
In short, I'm fine with re-wording these points, but I certainly think the points they make are worth keeping. A compromise should be easy enough to reach.
On another note, I've been MIA around here a bit. How have you been lately? :-) · Tygrrr... 19:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
How about:
  • The opinion of new users may not be taken into account, but opinions of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance?
  • You can use the templates {{keep}}, {{delete}} or {{comment}} to vote in the request?
  • Try to avoid confusing comments, such as delete and merge?
--Gwib -(talk)- 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


You have good reason to be MIA, I'm so pleased. While you were gone, I retired because I didn't like the huge amount of activity on SEWP. Then I can back because I was bored. Then I went to Italy and took some photos. Now I'm writing my EE and TOK essay both of which are time-consuming.

Still with girlfriend and she's even featured in the article! 1 year of school left, then I'm done. Ionas been blocked a bunch of times (a few of his socks and IP's were caught) and Benniguy and IuseRosary are both still 'out there' but not disruptive.

Soon girlfriends birthday and am stuck on what to buy her. Maybe a rock polisher? :P --Gwib -(talk)- 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what all women desire? :-P
Thanks for the update. I still check in all the time, but sometimes I miss part of the drama of the vandals/socks, which is good in some ways but it keeps me out of the loop somewhat. I'll go ahead and make some of those word changes and then give you a link to see what you think. · Tygrrr... 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to see youEdit

It is very good to see you back on here again :) I have missed your editing on here greatly :) Cheers, Razorflame 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) So many new editors all the time! It's hard to keep up. I've been keeping very busy at SE Wiktionary but I keep a close eye on things here. Kind of bored tonight and thought I'd pop in. · Tygrrr...
That is good that you have popped in tonight :) Cassandra just made the sysop flag today :) and a couple of days ago, I came back from a 2-3 week break from this site :). I am now back, though, to get myself active again in preperation for a somewhat soon RfA. I'm not exactly sure, but it will be within the next 2 months :). How has the SE:Wikt been holding up? I helped out that site a little bit with a few entries added :) Cheers, Razorflame 03:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Good to see you back, as well. :-) We're sitting pretty at 4.4k articles. TBC's been helping out a lot and will hopefully gain adminship soon. (The other 2 active users--myself and Brett--have already voted "support", so it's looking good for him :-P ) We'd love to have you back. The more the merrier! · Tygrrr... 03:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back :). I will definitely start editing over there because I look quite pitiful over there with only about 50 edits in like 8 months, lol. I'll start making new entries every day for the site and hopefully, you will accept me as an administrator over there in time :). Thanks for the invite; I've forgotten how much fun the Simple English Wiktionary was :). Cheers, Razorflame 04:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is great to see you back here and editing on this site again :). Hope to see more of you again on here as I still miss you editing on here ;). Cheers, Razorflame 20:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


I don't think it was a misspelling, I think the second editor misinterpreted what the page was supposed to be. OOD was a page about Odject Oriented Design which is a major thing in programming. Perhaps it should be moved back to preserve the edit history and then Ryan's edits split out to be the page for Odd. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Although looking closer there is an ODD disambig at the bottom as well. So maybe its not necessary. -Djsasso (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Now I confused myself haha. Stupid acronyms. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. Although my edit summary is wrong as the page already exists :-) · Tygrrr... 19:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now it's fixed. Yes, stupid acronyms indeed. · Tygrrr... 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A recent edit of yoursEdit

please return to User_talk:A_Link_to_the_Past/WikiProject_Video_games#WP:Video_Games and in your capacity as administrator consider moving this page with talk and history to the appropriate place as it is not a sandbox effort but a project under way with lots of members etc.. no point me cutting and pasting it as only admins can move them right (that right?). Then redirect his/her page noone will get lost (the actual talk page is seperate)... ~ R.T.G 01:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your request. The project is correctly listed in user namespace as it has not yet been approved by the community to be moved to wikipedia namespace. The talk page you are talking about is just the corresponding talk page of the project. If there is something I am misunderstanding here, please let me know. Otherwise, I don't see that anything should be moved at this point in time. Thanks. · Tygrrr... 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
No tygrrr I didnt understand the process and have tried entering the project for a vote although as a shock the first vote was an admin opposing (video games?) apparently on is more active but hopefully it will get at least 13 member votes by default before time is up. OK, thanks for that. ~ R.T.G 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


Don't think I've seen you active in a while. Anyway, there a discussion about images that every person of the community needs to see here. God bless.--  CM16  19:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's been a while. I've looked at the discussion but haven't had time to scour through the whole thing yet. I will try to find time to do that and comment sometime soon. · Tygrrr... 19:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple WiktionaryEdit

Hi, Tygrrr

We have missed you at Simple Wiktionary. I hope everything is well.--Brett (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi thereEdit

Great to see you back and editing again :). Cheers, Razorflame 16:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I see we've had some personnel changes. I've been looking around trying to figure out what happened. Would you be able to provide me with a summary? No biggie if you can't/don't want to. How have you been? · Tygrrr... 16:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been good. For the personnel changes:
  • Gwib, Creol, Cometstyles, and Archer7 have all retired from the Simple English Wikipedia.
  • Djsasso, Malinaccier, and Peterdownunder have all become administrators.
  • Yotcmdr has been demoted from administrator.
  • Majorly has become a checkuser.
  • Chenzw has become a bureaucrat.
That is it in a nutshell as for the personnel changes. Cheers, Razorflame 17:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Any reason why they retired? · Tygrrr... 17:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Cometstyles retired because of his steward candidacy and because his humor is finally gone. Gwib, Archer7, and Creol all retired because they didn't like the way that the Simple English Wikipedia was/is going (that is why I think they retired, but again, I am not sure). Cheers, Razorflame 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outdenting) Don't forget about the Simple English Wiktionary :). I hope to see you become more active there as well :). I myself have become very active over on the Simple English Wiktionary, so hope to see you edit there as well. Cheers, Razorflame 17:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Tygrrr's Day!Edit

Tygrrr has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Tygrrr's day!
For being such a great wikipedian and kind person,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Tygrrr!

Cheers, Fairfield Deleted? 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

What a surprise! Thank you kindly :-) · Tygrrr... 17:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


I've replied to your message on my talk page on the Simple English Wiktionary. I agree with you that I overreacted. It won't happen again. Thanks for pointing out my error to me. Cheers, Razorflame 18:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Today's user ratingsEdit

Congratulations, Tygrrr! You've received a rating of 4 stars today for your work on the Simple English Wikipedia! See User:Razorflame/Today's user ratings for more information! Razorflame 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Hey Tygrrr. I don't think we've ever talked (I'm not all that active on wiktionary, which I believe is where you do most of your edits). Anyway, I just wanted to suggest the flood flag if you're going to be doing more category-changing type edits. Thanks! EhJJTALK 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never had a flood flag and wouldn't know how to get it/request it. Do you really think it's necessary for the amount and type of editing I'm doing? I feel like I edit so sporadically that I don't ultimately end up "flooding" new changes. · Tygrrr... 19:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You can add the flood flag yourself. Go to your contributions page and click user rights management at the top. Then add the flag and when your done remove it. Exert 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I will keep it in mind. I think that's been added since I was last "seriously" active on a regular basis (like a year or more ago). · Tygrrr... 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Back!Edit

Nice to see you around. Hopefully, you'll stay for a while? Shappy talk 16:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm always around, just not always editing (besides updating the Translation of the Week) :-) · Tygrrr... 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


The merge you proposed several years ago for Space-time continuum has had zero discussion and since you are apparently supporting such a thing, I think you can move on with the merge. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


how do you earn the barnstar awards.--A.C.W 17:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


For Tygrrr, for more than three years service to the Simple English Wikipedia, and more than 15,000 edits, the Silver Editor Star. Peterdownunder (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This editor is a Senior Editor III and is entitled to display this Silver Editor Star.

Rights removalEdit

In accordance with Wikipedia:Inactive administrators your rights have been removed. If you do become active again in the future you may go through a new RfA to receive them back. Thanks for your service. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Category:User simple-NEdit


An editor has requested deletion of, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Category:User simple-N and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Reception123 / Receptie123 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


RfD nomination of User:Tygrrr/CategoriesEdit


An editor has requested deletion of User:Tygrrr/Categories, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/User:Tygrrr/Categories and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:FutureEdit


An editor has requested deletion of Template:Future, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Template:Future and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Osiris (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Late replyEdit

Thanks for the notice on my user page from 14 years ago! It is the last thing on there from anyone, so I feel the need to respond to it.

I can't for the life of me remember what the deal was with Jonas Rand and Kimberly Ashton, if that was his sockpuppet or his enemy or something in between. All of these things seem so unimportant now. I haven't spoken to Jonas Rand for about 8 years or so now, or maybe longer, and I see that he is indefinitely banned from here now. I'm not sure why and I'm not sure that I care, as he and I are not talking. I remember he had some strong opinions about terrorism and he thought that Texas should go back to Mexico, but I can't remember what else. He was a smart fellow but a very stubborn person. It was his stubbornness that caused us to stop talking. I can't remember the argument and I am sure if I could find him again then we could sort things out, but he is one of a number of people I have known over the years who steadfastly hold onto a belief that is ultimately wrong and there is nothing you can do to change their mind about it.

I started editing Simple Wikipedia way back when I was given a 1-year ban myself over on the English Wikipedia, which in turn was a case of a mistaken identity, at least initially. I guess I misunderstood the situation and thought that it was about censorship so got upset about it, but it was actually about the fact that my ISP decided to give everyone who used it alternating IPs, which changed every day between around 10,000 possible addresses. I didn't understand the significance of that until I used Wikipedia, as it wasn't relevant anywhere else, but on Wikipedia they used the IP edits as if it were my history, to establish an editing pattern, and in spite of telling them which ones were me and which ones were not, they simply didn't believe me, and then, in spite of a year of positive editing, I found myself banned, initially for a year, but then after I served that year, it was made permanent within 10 minutes of the ban's expiration, the latter reason because I dared to complain about it. I have petitioned for the ban to be lifted several times over but each time they have insisted that I did deserve to be banned and I had to admit that I had deserved it in order to have it lifted. But when I know that the supposed sock puppets belong to many different people and all of the things they claim I did were actually done by other people (or at least one other person, I guess), there isn't much hope. It is a rather silly situation that seems to be unique to Wikipedia.

I run a MUD and on my MUD we see people's IP addresses. All admins do. If someone is multiplaying (the equivalent of sockpuppeting, I suppose) then we would know straight away, and if they have several accounts but log in at different times then that's okay. The problem with this mistaken identity situation seems to be based on the idea that because two people have at different points used the same IP address then therefore they must necessarily be the same person, when that is not the case at all.

It seems that people who made accusations have used telepathy to assume what I have secretly meant and assumed that different people are the same when they are not.

I have registered Blissyu2 for all inter-wiki activity. It was banned from En-wiki without a single edit, and whoever registered the name was not me sadly. I have guessed that it was an administrator trying to pretend that I was socking.

I have never engaged in socking. I created one account because I was told to, then created a second account because I forgot my password. There was no ban evasion as I thought that it had expired (and, as it turned out, it was never actually enforced).

Wikipedia can be quite silly at times. I have never engaged in any activities that ought warrant any penalties and yet at times it feels like they think of me as public enemy number 1.

I don't even use Wikipedia Review anymore after it was stolen from me by Mistress Selina Kyle and whoever supports her. They badmouthed me there too, and banned me from contributing to other Wikipedia criticism sites, which I haven't done since 2007 or so.

Perhaps if I contribute happily here and on other projects I will demonstrate evidence of good behaviour suffice to see my ban lifted. I was banned for criticising my ban, apparently, a ban which was a case of mistaken identity.

It is funny that I had 50,000 edits and you could look at any one of them to see my good behaviour, and yet nobody did, and instead they clung onto things that were said by someone else who they presumed was me. It is a very disappointing situation. Blissyu2 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy HolidayEdit

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message