User talk:Kaisershatner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Re:The Krab nebula

Well Krab has made it easy to detect the socks by the lack of originality in thinking up new usernames. If one of the accounts has been editing longer than the others and has some useful contributions assign that as the 'puppet master'. Indef block all the others as sock accounts, no need at all to have them hanging around, and no need to warn them first (as it's obviously the same person). If the 'puppet master' account has no useful edits give an appropriate block to that (which might also be indefinite). Any further accounts that show exactly the same editing pattern indef block on sight (i.e. re-creation of same articles, same 'Krab*' username etc. The IP can be treated in a similar way, just blocks will have to be shorter than indef. Hope that helps- enjoy the use of your new block button- looks like you need it here :) Let me know if you have any more questions. Petros471 20:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just been doing a pre-archive sweep of my talk page before archiving, and I wanted to check: has the above has been sorted or do you need any more help? Petros471 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight planning

Following your comments I have revised the LEAD section of Flight planning. Could you have a quick look and perhaps advise me of any further desirable changes. Thanks Murray Langton 08:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User OMG...

Thanks for pointing this out. I hadn't noticed it. I've just given an indefinite block to another user for sexual innuendo in his user name. And what about this new user, User:Dan brown ? Unless he is the writer himself, he should also be immediately blocked (reason : impersonating a VIP). If you can't do it yourself, give me a message. JoJan 15:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

check your history everyday for deletes. a friend

[edit] RfA Notification

Hello! I noticed that you have interacted with user:Staxringold who is currently undergoing an RfA and thought that you might be interested in participating at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Staxringold 2. You have received this message without the endorsement of the candidate involved, and this is not a solicitation of support, it is only an effort to make RfA discussions better (for more information see user:ShortJason/Publicity). Thank you in advance for your participation. ShortJason 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh...

Oh, that was your headline? You have quite a talent for article writing, and I'm not just kissing butt. It might be the first time in...EVER that I was interested in the Gettysburg address. As for me, all I can write is fictional stories... hey, do you know if there is a wiki for user-created fiction? -RadSkat3 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nice catches on the Battle of Tours

Good work on the edits on that article. I did a great deal of work on that article, but you were dead on that the introductory paragraphs were clumsy. Thanks much for your editing on them. old windy bear 18:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OUTSTANDING WORK!

Your rewrite and restructuring took a decent article and has it on the verge of being a great article! Thanks so much for your help! old windy bear 20:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thanks
Kaisershatner, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold talkcontribs 20:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln

The Gettysburg Address has long inspired me. The men of 1776 weren't the world's first revolutionaries, but they took a giant step in days when everyone had a king, and the great liberal democracies were all in the future. Lincoln summed up what they fought for then and underlined what they were now fighting for. Sometimes I wish that the leaders of the present day were more like Lincoln and less like kings.

It was a thrill for me to visit Washington early last year and to climb the icy marble steps of the Lincoln Memorial to look up into that gaunt face. I felt much the same thrill in reading the article. There's a lot of research, thought and love in there. Thank you! --Jumbo 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need an honest opinion

I need you to give me an honest opinion on a set of articles. I think there are a set of articles that are being used as news. As we both know, Wikipedia policy is against using Wikipedia as producing news reports.

As you can see at the main FIFA World Cup 2006 article, there are the standings which with game summaries with a link to the official match report to each game. Therefore, it makes those articles above unecesary and against Wikipedia policy. Can you give me your opinion on the situation? Kingjeff 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McEwen thanks

Greetings, Kaiser!
I've not been around for the past month or so and I only yesterday saw your best wishes on my Bob McEwen article being posted on the front page. I'm grateful for your support. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 16:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned anon comment

You said I was banned for a week. I was banned for a month. I'm not looking for trouble but please explain why you are in a computer all day checking our editing. Don't you do something with your life. I'm not commiting vandalism. I just want to talk to you. Thanks

[edit] Greetings!

Hey, Kaiser! Haven't been around much for the past month or two and wanted to say hello upon my return. Anything big I missed in those weeks? PedanticallySpeaking 14:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Kaiser! I told you I was working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment. I'd welcome your comments. PedanticallySpeaking 16:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I gave up reading the damn thing because it is so long. Caro should have broken it up into two or more books. PedanticallySpeaking 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Kaiser, Nice work . Bharatveer 03:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rand

I know you did some good clean-up work on the two main Rand-related articles a while back. As I remember it, your views were sympathetic to hers but you weren't an obvious partisan.

Given this, I wonder if you would want to get re-involved in the mess that these articles have become. There are admins edit-warring, strange forks being formed and general craziness. Not an appealing picture, I admit, but it's one that you might be able to contribute to positively, if that's your desire. Al 02:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bricker Amendment

You were kind enough to comment on the previous FAC for the Bricker Amendment article. I have now proposed it as a featured article after extensive revisions and would appreciate your vote here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:400blows.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:400blows.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [Killian documents]]

I replied to your comments in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tphinney"> my talk area</a>. Tphinney 22:54, 15 Sugust 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and Judaism

You wrote to me: If you'd like to weigh in on the proposed split, I would welcome your view. Kaisershatner 17:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on whether that article should or should not be split up. I did add a section entitled "Basic irreducible difference" stating some things which need to be mentioned on the Jewish point of view - whether this remains a single article or is split up. I think many Mormons might not fully appreciate that their accptance of Jesus might, in the Jewish view, quite outweigh any similarities that exist between their religion and Judaism. The Jewish negative attitude to Jesus is mainly due to the nasty doings of much earlier Christians, long before the rise of the Latter Day Saints (doings which were certainly contrary to the teachings of Jesus himself as expressed in the New Testament). But whatever its origin, this Jewish attitude is a fundmental fact which must be taken into account.Adam keller 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming template changes

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Rv's my page

Thanks, btw do you know how to add the tag "This page has been vandalized one time" on my main page? Valoem talk 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dont remove warning templates

Those would be {{wr}}, {{wr1}}, {{wr2}}, and i believe {{wr3}}. Hope that helps! If ther is anythign else i can do to help you, please let me know. Chris Kreider 17:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your indefinite block of an IP

You blocked 206.180.101.19 indefinitely not long ago. I can understand that there's a lot of vandalism from that IP, but I thought that IPs weren't meant to be indefinitely blocked unless they are open proxies. Is there a problem with placing a definite long term block on the IP? JDtalk 19:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 195.93.21.41 vandalism

Hi, there is the user 195.93.21.41 continues with a persistent vandalism against the portuguese pretender Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza, aka Hilda Toledano in this wiki-page. He continues to insert this pretender in the category "impostor pretender" ( see the history of Hilda Toledano page) without any explanations. This is only his personal point of view because there are no impartial source affirm this pretender as impostor. Please help us in order to block this vandal. He is a supporter of the other portuguese pretender Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza so he want libel Maria Pia in order to favour Duarte Pio, but this is not possible in an impartial encyclopedia. User: 62.101.126.232 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this anonymous user (62.101.126.232) is the sock-puppet of a banned vandal. HE is the one vandalizing the pages. Charles 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not a vandal. The only vandal here is the 195.93.21.41 continues to vandalize Hilda Toledano page and libel this pretender with his personal point of view. Is a real vandal infact you can see his talk page. Please block this vandal. User: 62.101.126.232 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

I am happy to continue discussing, and will stop reverting as soon as you do. JBKramer 18:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killian documents RFC

Hi, thanks for the headsup and for initiating the RFC process. I'll admit that I was beginning to lose my patience, and as such was becoming perhaps a little more heated than necessary and ending up nowhere. With any luck, the RFC process might resolve this particular question once and for all, so we can all direct our energies to more profitable endeavours. We can only hope. — Impi 20:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, although I'm not sure what this does, or how to make comments on an RFC. I'll look about. htom 01:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Figured it out. So simple it was hard. Thank you. htom 01:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 194.80.240.66

I checked my talk page, and it appears you have given me a "final warning" please be awear that this is a University IP address, and it is used by muliple users who would be disavantaged if they are blocked from the site 194.80.240.66 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crusades

Be Bold, ok but don't be reckless. Ran out of time to leave comments. There are considerable debates on similar changes to the article in the discussions. Will take up specific issues on the page.--Tigeroo 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Crusades

As you said, the adoption of the standard campaignbox layout is for compatibility with {{Infobox Military Conflict}}, which should eventually wind up being placed on all the articles for each Crusade (and can be seen here, here and here) , and with other campaignboxes related to the Crusades (as here and here). There are, admittedly, many articles that don't have the infobox yet; but it should be fairly easy to add at least a rudimentary version to them. I'll try to find some time to add a few myself; but I'm not an expert on this topic, so I may not be the best person to be creating them. Kirill Lokshin 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complex vandalism

You're welcome. As it turns out, [User: I hate featured article]] was almost certainly also part of group (same pattern of edit summary and having same anon IP edit right after, claiming revert); that account got indef blocked (after first edit) because of the name. John Broughton | Talk 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/i/User_talk%7EKaisershatner_bcba.html"