User talk:Gwernol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello. Welcome to my Talk page. Feel free to leave a comment at the bottom of the page. Please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end. Thanks, Gwernol.
[edit] Archives
- /Archive 1 April 2005 through early March 2006
- /Archive 2 March 2006
- /Archive 3 April 2006
- /Archive 4 First half of May 2006
- /Archive 5 Second half of May 2006
- /Archive 6 First half of June 2006
- /Archive 7 Second half of June 2006
- /Archive 8 First half of July 2006
- /Archive 9 Second half of July 2006
- /Archive 10 First half of August 2006
- /Archive 11 Second half of August 2006
- /Archive 12 First half of September 2006
- /Archive 13 Second half of September 2006
- /Archive 14 First half of October 2006
- /Archive 15 Second half of October 2006
- /Archive 16 First half of November 2006
- /Archive 17 Second half of November 2006
- /Archive 18 December 2006
- /Archive 19 January 2007
[edit] Darantz11
My apologies for my earlier behavior. I guess I still feel myself a newbie here and didn't yet know how to do things here. I'll try to learn as much as I can... if you guys still let me and help me to.
Thanks again. Darantz11 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I still need to learn, as I always seem to annoy somebody here for trying to do things right.
sigh Darantz11 15:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] vandel
hey, some one destroyed the norse page, I dont know how to revert it back to what you had edited last, as I'm kinda a newb. If you fix, can u maybe drop some hints as to how?
Cheers--24.83.107.101 05:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks...
...for blocking 64.20.34.88 (talk • contribs). You're right on top of things. =) →EdGl 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pie man, or whatever his name is today
Thanks for the help with him. I really appreciate it... --Mhking 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal
By my reading of the times, the vandalism on your userpage by User:Lollylollylollygetyour took place after they got their level 4 final warning. I am not yet qualified to block, but it si clearly now appropriate.--Anthony.bradbury 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gosh we need a bot for this.
Gwernol, the IP you recently blocked is from a shared school in Michigan. User:198.110.53.252. Thanks. Real96 18:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User Sparspost
He changed the article Poles to a version that an IP vandalize many times. I tell him, that he has to discuss about this kind of changes but he does it again. I don't want to do an edit-war, so I tell you about it. Can you tell him that he has to talk about this change before he editing again? And can you reverse his change in this article, please? I don't want that someone think that I do edit-war. Thanks in advance!--Plk 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Award
Hey Gwernol, I just made this award and thought I'd give it to you first! §†SupaSoldier†§ 23:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
Gwernol; in the face of the torrent of vandalism to which your user page has been subjected recently, I am quite certain that no-one would feel it wrong if you were to fully protect it. The irrational and unwarranted level of attack is beyond anything in my experience by whole orders of magnitude. And while it is clear that the attacker is psychologically deranged, that does not mean that you have to tolerate it.--Anthony.bradbury 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:68.55.106.131 blocked
Hi. You recently blocked subject user for vandalism. However, he also violated 3RR (after I warned him). He had many more than 4 reversions. Now that he's blocked, should I bother with a 3RR violation report? -Amatulic 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- HE'S BACK! On a different IP now: User: 70.17.235.208 -Amatulic 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake - 'twasn't vandalism. -Amatulic 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
Thanks for all the advice you have given me so far and your Support, it is much appreciated. I am sure that I will look to you for help in situations that i feel uncomfterable handeling, etc etc. Thanks again for the unofficial editor review which you obviousley took sime time to peruse my edits, it was very much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a template for indef block due to innapropriate usernames per Wikipedia:Username? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sweet. Thanks much. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
Hello, Gwernol. I was just browsing through a list of random admins when I found your name and looked at your contributions. I said to myself, "Wow, this is great!" Thanks for making Wikipedia a happy and reliable place! Cheers, --Jimbo Herndan 04:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Eedo Bee
Has stated on ANI they will continue to vandalise the talk pages of articles he considers to be inappropriately tagge. I gave him a {{test4im}}, but he blanked it and is continuing to remove tags. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffpw (talk • contribs).
- He's blanked the warning given to him by another editor yet again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs).
-
- Thank you for looking into this situation. I hope that I've been acceptably calm about it, and I appreciate you - someone who isn't directly involved in this disagreement- helping to mediate it. Reading your explanation, I realize that I shouldn't have been so quick to return the vandal4 tag to Eedo's talk page, and I won't do it again. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wanted to thank you, too, for your help, and apologize if I made your work harder. That was not the intention. I had limited time before I had to leave for work (on a break, now), and wanted to see it resolved before I left. Thank you for helping out! Jeffpw 16:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into this situation. I hope that I've been acceptably calm about it, and I appreciate you - someone who isn't directly involved in this disagreement- helping to mediate it. Reading your explanation, I realize that I shouldn't have been so quick to return the vandal4 tag to Eedo's talk page, and I won't do it again. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:GymLeader_Dalton
Thanks for un-vandalizing my boring page which hardly ever gets vandalized. I turned in the user [1] to an admin already. I don't bother fighting with them anymore. Wahkeenah 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for un-vandalizing it again. I see he picked up on my comment, so I'm assuming he's watching with glee. He'll be blocked soon. Wahkeenah 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfA
Oppose, eh? Well, that can be expected, what with our rather...unpleasant business a few months back. I'm sorry about that. ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
Thanks for undoing the Revision as of 02:42, 12 December 2006 (edit) by 64.107.190.194 on Edward Szczepanik. I appreciate your work as a recent changes patroller! Tom Szczepanik 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spamming accusation
I'm not quite sure if this is the right way to message you. I got a message from you saying i was spamming because I posted an article about a book i just wrote. Why is putting a link to my book any different from the other books there on the same subject? I thought that it was ok to include links to books that related to the subject? The Anatomy of Mona Lisa is about the Mona Lisa, why is it considered "Spamming" to include it as a book on the mona lisa page? If it's ok could you please list it? I am not spamming —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itsjustlife (talk • contribs).
[edit] User:Eedo Bee
Thanks for stepping in and blocking Eedo Bee. I had hopped that he had merely misunderstood what project tagging meant and that the argument could be resolved through discussion. It is a shame he decided to re-emphasise his hostility to LGBT issues on his userpage and tag the Pedophilia article in response. He could no doubt have been a valued contributor had he stayed away from areas in which he had such strong feelings. Ah well, his choice. You made the right call, regretable though it is. WJBscribe 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eedo's Matmice article
I notice you Prodded it. While he is not one of my favorite editors, could you consider removing the PROD until his block has expired? I have no doubt that the article will never survive Afd, no matter how long anyone works on it, but at least he will have had a chance at it. Jeffpw 10:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another thanks (you seem to be collecting them)
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage! —Remember the dot (t) 03:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank You and Semi Protection
Hey Gwernol, Thank You for reverting the Vandalism on my Userpage and also....do you think you could Semi-Protect the Ninja article because of Non-stop IP Vandalism! §†SupaSoldier†§ 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Range block
Do you know of a way to do a range block? There is an ip that keeps replacing juimbos pages with a mans ass. the first 3 octets are the same only the final number is changing. I am going to assume the subnet has 256 possible address. 59.91.253.80 , 115. I am not saying that a range block is appropriate here but should the same ip address patern continue, is there a way to impose a short term range block? Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! I found the reading useful and all those networking classes actually paid off (i.e. i understand it!) Thanks, i will exercise extreme caution should I choose to use such a block. Thanks for the ptompt reply. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Great job
You must do a great job because you piss off vandals and get your page vandalized all the time! The vandals are cowering in fear! Keep up the good work (I am sure the userpage vandalism does not even phase you. lol). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Gwernol, I have said it before and will say it again. In the light of the amount of vandalism coming your way, fully protecting your userpage would be wholly reasonable.--Anthony.bradbury 11:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism Reversion
Hey. Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I appreciate it. Kriak 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Indef block
Not sure if you saw this, but User:ReggiN kcid's last placement of the block template was done before your post (3:10 vs. 3:11). Thus he didn't disregard your warning (since he didn't add it again between the time you warned him and the time you blocked him). If you knew that already, sorry to be a bother, but I personally don't see a problem with giving him another chance. --Spangineerws (háblame) 03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hah, never mind. I just saw his last comment; keep the block on him. --Spangineerws (háblame) 03:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to this, this gay just left me a, banned from editing label...odd Gavin Scott 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism and warning
Just a heads up that I reverted a vandal attack on your page, and gave the offender a level 3 warning. Akradecki 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Review
Gwernol, thank you for your comments. You highlight two failings which I was aware of, and am working to overcome; a tendency to get annoyed with vandals who attack pages which I regard as sacrosanct, such as Auschwitz concentration camp, and a tendency not to sign if I get excited (though I usually go back, sign and apologise). I shall get there.--Anthony.bradbury 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hi.
You're an admin, right? Can you please delete the page Team environment? I put the prod template on a few days ago, but it was taken off (despite the article being patent nonsense). Thanks for your help. Abeg92contribs☃ 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for your policy guidance. Your help is appreciated. Abeg92contribs☃ 03:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How to site my sources?
i was just wondering how do i site my sources? because i thought they meant put it on the wikipedia page but i guess i thought wrong... please fill me in on how to site my sources you wrote me saying i added spam and advertisement wich was not my intention please write me back and let me know! thanksMatteo747 05:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
Thanks for the revert of my userpage (again!!) and for the sprotect - much appreciated! :) - Alison✍ 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 64.107.220.161
Can you please put an end to this nonsense? You blocked this person, but take a look at the talk page history. (jarbarf) 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sock of User:Jeff Dorlean
I noticed you were the blocking admin for User:Macdaddys, a sockpuppet of Jeff Dorlean. I've come across another editor with identical edits who I believe is also a sockpuppet of this person. User:Ashley Chiles has already been blocked for 24 hours, but may need another look. Being unable to find a sock report, I hope you can take a look. Thanks, auburnpilot talk 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Block of 207.228.211.35
On Friday, I reported User:207.228.211.35 (see debate User_talk:TigerShark#Barry_Bonds_et_al_). It had been 3 hours since his last edit so nothing was done. I see you must have caught him today. I am guessing that admins have some kind of tool to flag an IP adress so that when it edits you immediately check the content of the edit. Thus, I am guessing that my efforts are a part of the reason you finally caught the guy. Is it correct for me to claim any credit for catching this guy finally. Also, did you block his sock that I reported on Friday. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger 19:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hey Gwernol
Hey Gwernol, How are ya? ;^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
[edit] I noticed your revert of Squared World, and I was wondering...
Hi. I think you are perhaps more experienced than I in Wiki. Could you explain for me, either here or here, the reason why Squared World has a semi-protected tag, when it seems to lead to a web site consisting of a black holding page, no possibility of checking out notability or member stats, and does not Google in its own right when put into a search? Come to that, why isn't it on the rocky road to speedy delete? I've no axe to grind in particular, I just can't get over its transparent lack of notability. Any throwing of the smallest amount of light would be appreciated. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wow! That WAS speedy! Forget it, and well done. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your reply on my Talk. I have only just got used to the procedure for reporting serial vandals, I still have to get to grips with speedy delete nomination. You've a head start on me, of course, being Admin... Cheers. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] =why does my tourism section keep on getting deleted?!
hi i made the changes you wanted me to make i got sources and everything BUT WHY DOES MY TOURISM SECTION KEEP ON GETTING TAKEN OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i really dont understand at all so if you could tell me what else did i do wrong.... because i really dont think i did anything wrong and im thinking that if you dont want to allow me to put some truth on that article that contains so much inaccurate information then you should just completely erase it the whole page! because im not just offended im am angry because whats true is not allowed on but the bunch of lies that are on there are welcomed.Matteo747 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Vandal tagging
Thanks for message dear. I will try to be better then I am doing now and will work on your guide lines .Yeah some time I open too many windows so I often forget to sign.Next time i will be carefull .Thanks
Khalidkhoso 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear i can not identify some "subst". if you could help more regarding it . Khalidkhoso 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Got Your Point. Thanks Cheers Caio
Syndromeofadown 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Why you were blocking my friend? Now he will be deported because made unemployment by you and he leaving for Kyrgyzstan again next day. Maybe you abuse your administrator power. And stop doing that please for my friend he maybe never I see again. He is maybe tried for making more account and you dont again block him. I am angry for you already.
Askar
I'm sorry I write such things in my userpage, but my friend is deport now and maybe never I see again. I did not for personal attack. I dont know you yet maybe and I dont mean for attack.
Askar
[edit] 3RR
Gwernol, will you please fully protect your userpage NOW, before I get caught for 3RR.--Anthony.bradbury 13:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism reverts. Personally I don't think there's any need to protect the page, there seem to be hundreds of people watching it for no apparent reason, myself included. Regards, CiaranG 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I posted a message on Antohys talk page about it. I also blocked the ip address. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
OK, whatever you say. I have been here for only a year (nearly), but have never seen such a concerted attack on anybody. As you are clearly aware, many of us are waqtching your page. --Anthony.bradbury 13:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problems. In fact I have protected it for a short while mainly to give all you very kind folks who have watchlisted my page a break. I have seen worse attacks (check out poor User:Metros232 for example) but do seem to annoy some vandals. I take it as a sign I'm doing a good job here :-) Best to you and a huge thanks to everyone who has been reverting the vandalism on my user page. Gwernol 13:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- OK boss.--Anthony.bradbury 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism??
You accuse me of vandalism of AIDS yet all I did was clean up to paragraphs to make them more readable and consise? I find you are very rude to say that my edits were "unhelpful and non-constructive".
Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to AIDS. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and they have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 10:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hne123"
Kindly explain why you consider my changes to be vandalism or else undo your revert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hne123 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Thank You
Thank You for Reverting the Vandalism on my Userpage, Gwernol! :^) :^) :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- yeah, me too! Philippe Beaudette 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why
Why shouldn't I vandalize? I tried to help by uploading pictures to Mandisa only to have them be deleted without a reason as to why. It's not fair that the hard work I went through trying to find them was WASTED. -MFan3 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
The article Arnold Schwarzenegger is vandalized multiple times by different people. Would you consider protect or semi-protect it? Wooyi 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DURAN DURAN
I feel extremely offended for being blocked from editing. I am not aware of my errors or as you call "vandalism". It would be greatly appreciated if you could unblock me and and give me a reason for you actions!! Thank you DuranDuran 06:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Lucas
Hello Gwernol. You were very kind to help with blocking Ludvikus last week. Just to let you know, as you were probably aware, there were actually two problems editors in this case, namely Ludvikus and Lucas. The latter has also been a problem lately on other philosophy-related articles. He has a history of blocks and disruptive editing, summarised here. Is there anything you can do? There are a number of good editors that I am trying desperately to keep on the philosophy project, but it is getting to much for them. Again, the page I referred to has full details. Thanks Dbuckner 07:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Editing the AIDS article
I see that some changes to the wording have been happening, and reversion of those changes, apparently without any discussion on the talk page. When there is disagreement about the wording of a section, please discuss the changes on the talk page. It's helpful to put descriptive edit summaries, which can refer to the talk page e.g. "see talk" or referring to a particular section of the talk page where those edits are being discussed. Editors are not supposed to just revert other people's good-faith changes without discussion or explanation. Rather than repeatedly reverting others' edits, editors are supposed to discuss until consensus is reached before making changes to disputed sections. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I would appreciate seeing the disputed wording discussed in an organized manner so I can see what's going on. I'm putting this same message on a few users' talk pages. --Coppertwig 11:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize; since you had already reverted your own reversion, directing the above comment to you was unnecessary. I was telling you things you already know. I think the other two users I directed the same comment to were new users -- it was intended more for them. I retract the above complaint and apologize for any inconvenience. --Coppertwig 13:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- By the way: from my reading of the page history, I think Hne123 was editing the wording, not just re-ordering citations as you said in your edit history. --Coppertwig 14:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit]
When I saw the proxy block tag, I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies and indef blocked it per the open proxy policy, pending investigation. If you are sure that it is not an open proxy, then please unblock, and re-block for a time commensurate with protecting the vandalism. Also, I IPprotected the user talk page since the IP was vandalising the talk page as well. Thanks. -- Avi 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ludvikus again
Would be grateful for any help. The community is utterly exhausted. See KD's message on User_talk:FT2. Many thanks. Dbuckner 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Gwernol. I know Ludvikus would like to perceive it as stalking, but I think you can understand other editors hoping that the agony will be less prolonged this time around. KD Tries Again 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)KD
- Thanks also. Dbuckner 08:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Dear Gwernol
-
The issue was the Frankfurt school. The two historical figures you objected to pertain to the reaction of that school. The Frankfurt school was disillusioned by the prevalence of irrationality in Europe at the time. Anyway - I'm deeply disappointed by the level of attacks upon my person, and that this is not recognized. I'll do my best to keep away from Wikipedia - the behavior against my person is deeply disappointing. --Ludvikus 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
Gwernol, although you say that you have wholly protected your userpage, this does not appear to be the case. I have checked, and am able to edit it, though I obviously have not done so. Now, as a special favour, just for me, please totally protect your user page. It is not a lot to ask!--Anthony.bradbury 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Possible semi-protection and he states it's whole or temporary full-protect. BuickCenturyDriver 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly not so.--Anthony.bradbury 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The messages about this are in danger of outnumbering the incidents themselves. I'm sure Gwernol is more than capable of using protection as he sees fit. May I suggest ignoring the clown, then he will stop performing. CiaranG 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly not so.--Anthony.bradbury 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] North America
Looks like you beat me to the punch on notifying the IP even thought I reverted. Thanks. BuickCenturyDriver 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zoey 101
I did not express personal opinion. It was proved facts. Why did you feel the need to remove it? Babygurl13573 01:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rudeness
Gwernol, am I allowed under wikipedia guidelines to send insulting messagtes to User:Ockenbock? I have so far refrained from doing so, but he is really starting to piss me off!--Anthony.bradbury 20:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I knew that really. I have taken no action, except to revert your page once or twice, nor will I. But it is tempting and, as you know, I am occasionally excitable.--Anthony.bradbury 11:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User page vandals
Hi. Can I just express my sympathies regarding this sudden merciless campaign on your user page? I, like many other editors, will be watching your page and reversing this mindless and childish disruption whenever I see it. Cheers. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Hi, i'd just like to say thank you for telling me what to do, i am not sure how to send u a message so i'll just use this. thanks again
[edit] Leonardo reference
Hi, Gwernol!
No discussion necessary! I wrote the sentence. And I added the reference.
The process was thus-
It has been changed twice by people who considered that it must be in error. So firstly, I referrenced the sentence. Then I decided that it was better to modify the sentence so that it people no longer disputed its accuracy. Having done that, it no longer need a specific reference. The whole Section has a covering reference at the bottom of the section.
I'm getting a little bit tired of well-meaning people continually changing things that have been very carefully stated, and improving on information that have been checked and double checked.
--Amandajm 04:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stoopid of me!
I have just realised that the reference that I removed was the primary reference and removing it must have stuffed up every single reference to the same book! Thanks! --Amandajm 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User 65.13.229.183
This account has continued to vandalize entries after you posted a warning message to him. I am confused whether to post a warning message on his Talk page (and, if so, which level of warning), so I'm passing that buck to you, since you're an Admin. Thanx! Caliban 11:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Brf00
Thank you for fixing. I was trying to figure out what I did to irritate this guy. It has to do with reverting (on 2 different occasions) his POV-pushing of placing a picture of some asian type burning a U.S. Flag, on the U.S. Flag page. In the talk page for U.S. Flag, I contended that it was offensive to show flag burning on any country's flag page, but that it could arguably be put on a page that specifically discusses flag burning. (Which User:ChrisO had already done, on 9/11/06). That minor debate was a month ago [2] so that guy's a little slow on the draw. Thank you for fixing my page, yet again. :) Wahkeenah 16:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Black people
Ok. if you like the article on "Black people" then do so. Now i have to go and talk to my Black friend /matrix17
[edit] Black people shouldnt have their OWN page
Its fine with me if wikipedia.org wants to realy make a statement and devide black and white people. and i sooo like the african masaj highest up on the black people article. /matrix17
was it you who just wrote sista pvarningen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matrix17 (talk • contribs).
Ok. but i have done that and i cant see who did it. its called Sista tillsägelsen. look if you can see. thanks/matrix17
Sorry what i ment was that someone has wrote that on my discussionpage and even if i look at the historypage i dont udnerstand who wrote that/ matrix17
mm i found it out myself in the end. but thanks for the help. /matrix17
[edit] United Kingdom
I'm laughing at the idea that I broke a Wikipedia policy by adding to the UK article that the UK's economy grew faster than any other major European economy since 1999 to present, which it did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.86.234 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Recent vandalism to your userpage
Looks like you have a fan from Florida State University ([3]). Would a temporary range block for 128.186.159.* be possible? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope so. I'm tired of reverting that idiot's nonsense. - Alison✍ 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Euro statements in UK history section
Please see Talk:United Kingdom#The public generally favours keeping the Pound Sterling.... Thanks/wangi 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding your recent block of 131.123.48.225
I commend your fine work in this situation and add that 131.123.48.225 is definitely not my IP address. Burpen 13:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:MerddinEmrys.jpeg
Was reviewing the FR Locomotives table and the picture against Merddin Emrys caught my eye since it looked the wrong colour. On detail look I note that is actually David Lloyd George. Main identifying features are the length of the nameplate, the "tomato soup" colour scheme and the narrow cab sheets. ==Stewart 19:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anon user blanked your page
So I reverted it. --Matt J User|Talk 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- And he did it again at 22:17. Where are admins when you need urgent blocking carried out? Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I retract the above statement - that was pretty quick blocking! Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, good work by my fellow admins. Such a shame that a vandal continues to sully the name of Florida State University. Gwernol 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Florida State University
Gwernol, it's your call; it's your page. But is it really not now time to contact the University, which I know we can do, and encourage them to discipline their students? Because it just goes on and on. Graduation day is, I guess, July/August some time? I did take note of your comment about them getting eventually bored. My question remains valid.--Anthony.bradbury 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm wondering about that and/or a range block on the University IPs. Gwernol 23:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sensible course seems to be to contact the University, and, dependent on their reaction i.e. positive or negative reply, there then lies their future ability to edit Wikipedia or not, as a collective. Surely? Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- If contact with the university does not produce a useful response, then a six-month range block might make our point. No? --Anthony.bradbury 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is it possible to do a one-month range block? All they need is a cooling off period, not 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we can range block at any length. If we go down this road I think 1 month would be right in this instance, probably with account creation enabled to allow the legitimate editors to continue to work. Gwernol 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is it possible to do a one-month range block? All they need is a cooling off period, not 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- If contact with the university does not produce a useful response, then a six-month range block might make our point. No? --Anthony.bradbury 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sensible course seems to be to contact the University, and, dependent on their reaction i.e. positive or negative reply, there then lies their future ability to edit Wikipedia or not, as a collective. Surely? Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. So long as it's long enough that everyone there gets the message. And yes, of course, let account-holders work. Do it now.--Anthony.bradbury 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll second that! - Alison✍ 23:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thirded (?) ! Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The FSU range is currently blocked for 24 hours. We'll see what happens once that expires. Gwernol 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- He or she is back. -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see there is now a week-long block. Any reply yet from the University regarding control or otherwise of the users of their IT equipment? Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 14:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- As you noted, I've range blocked the FSU IPs for one week. Nothing heard from the University. Gwernol 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see there is now a week-long block. Any reply yet from the University regarding control or otherwise of the users of their IT equipment? Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 14:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the Userpage Revert :)
Thanks Gwernol for reverting this piece of nonsense. Better check the vandal's talk page...he argues a very strong case for unblocking :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I had a look at his talk page - no reply registered there as to his block - where did he put his "argument" for unblocking if not here? Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 14:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted it since it was clearly bad faith and contained a number of exceptionally nasty personal attacks. if you really want to see it, its in the history. Gwernol 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Eedo Bee (again)
Please see The ANI discussion. Jeffpw 07:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Syndromeofadown4
Please go to above as there is abuse posted. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Already indefblocked. Gwernol 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you mean. Thanks, taken care of, Gwernol 18:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] On Personal Attacks
Dear Administrator Gwernol,
- The following user claims to be a psychiatrist. He has made the following remarks about me. Do you consider them to be personal attacks at the Philo. Talk Page? If so, will you take the appropriate action?
[edit] Comment on Lukvikus
"The comments by Lukvikus at (17:52) seem digressive with incorrigible perseveration, there seems to be veiled hostile insinuation, the questions he raises have been exhaustively addressed already and I feel do not warrant further comment. Richiar 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)" Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- PS1: What's the meaning of a "veiled hostile insinuation" alleged by self-described "psychiatrist" Richie?
- PS2: Do you think it's appropriate for me to be "analyzed" by another Wikipedia editor?
- Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "This user is certifiably completely normal"
"Just in case you missed it, I had entered a message earlier and it might get buried in the mass of information: "
"No, no hemlock my friend: maybe a round of drinks for all for this fine discussion ! I have done slightly more research since my posting of yesterday, and now can respond to your message here. 1) I am not formally trained in philosophy, I have my hands full as it is, but I find I cannot function very effectively in this world without some grasp of philosopy, so I try to educate myself, and this Wikipedia effort is commendable. 2) I was not making an accusation as you state above, but experssing a personal concern that came from a momentary impression just at the time when I dropped into the discussion. I wish to now say publicly that I withdraw my concern, and that I am convinced the issues being discussed are from people with sound minds. The debate is legitimate, and the discussion is legitimate. There is some emotionally charged expression which may have rendered the appearance of fanaticism, which is what may have triggered my concerns, but a little bit of communication and research has cleared this up for me. I would formally like to withdraw the concern about Bipolar Disorder. Please, everyone do continue with your work on the discussion here. Richiar 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"
"At the time I jumped in, Dbruckner had just made an internal link to the Elders of Zion, and I looked at that, and thought it seemed freaky; then I went to your user page, and saw all of these repetive links to Wittgenstein, and it felt like I had entered some freaky shrine, but then I noticed a connection to Andy Warhol, and perused some of the communications, and now I feel quite at home: either everyone is as sick as I am, or we're all quasi-normal. Cheers for philosophers !! I definitely think I can learn from you. Richiar 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"
- Above is User:Richiar's prior "certification" as to my "normalcy". I'm very curious as to whether you consider this a "personal attack" on my person by another Wikipedian. --Ludvikus 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- So to consider someone as possibly suffering from "bi-polar disorder" is an "extremely mild incivility", and not a personal attack? --Ludvikus 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Dear Administrator Gwernol,
-
- I am a minority voice on the Philosophy Talk page. I have successfully written & edited literaly hundreds of Wiki pages elsewhere. Nowhere have I had the trouble I've had as at Philosophy. It is actually a very difficult subject to write about. If you look, you will find that I'm no longer making any changes to the actual page - as this may upset the majority. If you also look around, you will find that Administrator User:Mel Etitis and I have successfully written a page together on John Passmore.
- At this point (through your prompting) I have completely re-read the Wiki policy statement as to what constitutes a "personal attack". And I am completely surprised that you believe that describing, or evaluating, someone in psychiatric terms does not constitute a personal attack on Wikipedia. If it does not, than it should! Do you really mean that if I call someone (Wiki editor) "crazy" you will not ban me from Wikipedia - at least for a day? I think describing someone in any psychological/clinical terms is a personal attack. And if you think not, can we get a third opinion on it? --Ludvikus 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps this may be helpful to the issues: User:Richiar describes himself as (1) having no particular knowledge regarding Philosophy, and (2) that he's a lay psychiatrist (who has also taken a break once to take his "Prosac", he once informed us). His contribution appears to be to engage in psychological evaluation of contributors - me personally. Is that not "bizarre" Wikipedia behavior? And you do not consider that a personal attack? What I've shown you is that it is his practice to analyze my contributions from the standpoint of psychiatry. And you only think that that's an extremely mild incivility? --Ludvikus 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Here's what you first said to me today:
-
"No, I don't think they are personal attacks since they comment on your actions, not on you as a person. At the most they are extremely mild incivility and I don't intend to take action. Gwernol 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)"
Is that not accurate as to what you think? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A Train's RFA
I notified him. I'm puzzled at as claiming to be an admin, but no RFA. Uninsureddriver 21:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sandford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[edit] Hi this is the person who messed with ribosomes, i am writing in here because i dont know how to leave a message, i just want to say i am sorry
. Rationalism vs. Empiricism First published Thu 19 Aug, 2004
The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge. Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they constuct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.
And by the way, no Wikipedian Philosophy editor has presented any cited support that Rational[ity] is unrelated to Reason. So we must take Rational Enquery as in fact dependent on Reason.
- It's very odd - to say the least - to see Rationality and Reason revived by Wikipedia. So what is this mysterious Rational Enquiry which has nothing to do with Rationalism, or Reason?
- Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake - for some reaso, I thought I was on the Philosophy Page when I was here.
- And smart attitude, I might add - keeping away from the Philosophy Page. Had I done the same, I would have had more Wiki friends than enemies - don't let yourself be dragged in - into that quicksand page of troubles. --Ludvikus 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please see User_talk:PraderWilliSyndromes for comments
He created his user talkpage with disparaging comments directed your way. FYI. Ronbo76 06:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- And he's also posted abuse on his User page. Can't you justifiably blank it? Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Another of a series of sockpuppet accounts, in the KKKondom and Syndromeofadown series. I've indef blocked it as another abusive sockpuppet. The odd thing is I've no idea who this user is, but clearly he has a bit of a problem. Oh well, Gwernol 12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nicaragua & Related Articles
Hi. I wanted to drop you a question comment about user 190.53.15.171. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and trying to clean up some of the POV and vanalism that seems to pervade the Nicaragua artilce and others relating to Nicaragua. Particularly problematic is this user (190.53.15.171). He/she continues to change the article and add irrelevant and biased info. I notcied you had added a warning in their talk area but they pay no mind to it. There is also people trying to make it a toursim and Nicaragua promotional site. Any though on how to handle this situation?--Agrofe 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Talyllyn Railway page.
Hello mate, I'm not a great Wikipedia user so I apologise if I've deleted someone elses work.
Regarding my edits of the Talyllyn Railway page: The Talyllyn is a state of decline. It loses more passengers every year, year on year. To say that it is a popular and well-liked railway does not reflect the reality of the situation that the railway is facing. It is a poor performer in a area heavily used by tourists. I believe that what I wrote was accurate and your edits only paint a picture that does reflect the railway itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.106.90 (talk • contribs).
Surely though what you put is also pure speculation and pushing the POV that the TR is a successful and popular railway when the truth of the matter is not. I resent your remarks regarding my involvement with narrow gauge railways. I have been a volunteer on the Talyllyn Railway since 2000 and an ardent supporter of the Ffestiniog Railway. Who are you to cast asertions and judgements about my experience on the narrow gauge railway scene in Wales? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.106.90 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Ludvikus yet again
I am sure you're heartily sick of the subject, but Ludvikus continues to harrass and browbeat editors: [[4]]. I see you had a dose of it yourself above. I think we all know he's not going to stop of his own accord. Sorry to bother you again. KD Tries Again 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)KD
- Just noticed this untrue charge against me. Saying that I "harrass" and "browbeat" is plainly untrue - if you look at the remark I made, in response to Db's prior comment.
- It is depressing to find such dishonest remarks about me - in this secret effort to get you to take action against me.
- I came to your page because someone made a comment about you on my page - and I do not kmow why.
- Have a nice day. --Ludvikus 05:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wales
Hi, I just tried to reorganise the Wales page but I see that you reverted the changes for some reason. This has caused the page to become quite distorted if you have a look now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.77.39 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Wales
Can I just ask why you have taken away the part of Wales history 'medieval Wales' and 'nationalist revival'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.77.39 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Wales
For your information I haven't deleted anything from the Wales page and was just tidying up the history section which you immediately revert for no reason. Also the section on the economy you have changed it to say 'Wales does not attract high value added jobs' - this is your POV please use links to support that argument. Also you say Cardiff is significantly small, please support that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apple 123 (talk • contribs).
[edit] User page
Thanks for the reverts. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 82.144.243.116
Hi. Any quick way for you to report this idiot? It'll take me ages. He just went to five (at least) vandalisms (last one - Bryan Robson). Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Impostle???
Gwernol, I've heard you called lots of things, but "impostle"?? Is that like "apostle"? I've been keeping a quiet eye on Thomas for a while, now, and just couldn't resist sharing a chuckle over that one. Akradecki 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You should block the editing of Christian brothers College High School, due to vandals.
[edit] Another category
Hello, Jesusmyth has created the category Category:Bahá'í prophets. I was wondering if the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4 regarding Category:Manifestion of God covers this new category as well, especially given that the Baha'i concept never really calls these people prophets, which is a different concept. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hey
hey, gwernol it's patelco and i need some help. first of all, my talk page2 was recently vandalised by a guy named: User: Mad Game1. I also know that mad game is a sock puppet of User: Korean history. but, please do not block korean history3. anyway, hopefully this problem can be resolved.
- ₪Patelco☻ 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
1= User: Mad Game
3= User: Korean History
- I reverted back to your last reversion; I see only vandalism since.--Anthony.bradbury 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ludvikus again
I made a suggestion to Banno here. I would welcome your thoughts on the matter. The question is, not the behaviour of this particular user, but the methods in general available to deal with this sort of disruption. Welcome your views. Dbuckner 08:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- And still it goes on. See the Talk:Philosophy page. He is now starting to edit the article again with nonsense comments that we are having to revert. Plus strange rambling comments on the talk page, veiled invective against users. PLEASE DO SOMETHING I IMPLORE YOU. Dbuckner 06:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for the message you sent me aboutthat transport museum, i was not awear that i had nominated it but i think i had left my computer (logged in on wikipedia) and i think my brother went and changed it, sorry for teh Inconvenience User:Robin99 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] please?
User talk:V2ja vandalised again after his final warning. could you please block him/her? thanks. :-) Ilikefood 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Important: Minor user needs help
I got the following message on my talk page. From my scans, we have a minor who believes he or she is about to be blocked or have their user account deleted from the system. However, because of the minor status, it appears someone only wants them to rework their user page to remove private information. I gather older edits would then be deleted. Any suggestions? I am learly of jumping is as others have already attempted to explain what is going on without success. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] *crying* HELP ME!
some one wants me gone! i did nonthing wrong! please help me! i dont wana go will i want to stay! please talk to them! please!--Lolicon(Down With Child Porn)Saikano 07:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC-6)
[edit] User 70.176.14.107
Could you check the recent edits of this user please - you last warned him/her on 10 February, but as far as I can see, most of the edits since than have been unconstructive. I don't know whether you feel an immediate block is appropriate, or another warning.– Tivedshambo (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User: 70.88.10.41
I noticed that this user has been vandalizing recently and that you have warned him a few times in the past. Could you please block this user from Wikipedia. Thanks.Hurleyman 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Club Penguin article rewrite request
Hi Gwernol. I believe you were the admin who semi-protected the Club Penguin article - thanks, someone needed to. Having looked through the article, a lot of the content does not appear to be encyclopedic, merely a game guide written by kids. Also, the talk page is getting ridiculous - I've seen sections asking about the Lighthouse game. I don't want to seem harsh on new Wikipedians, but if you've got some time, I really think this article needs a re-write and continued semi-protection. Don't worry if you can't, but do you think this is a good idea? --Jatkins 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:manstaruk
Hi DC- hope u enjoyed your visit. Have add u to r contribs page for the photos & additions you have done. Cheers Keith 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Greetings
Hello. You don't know me but I stumbled on your page checking Ronbo 76's page history, because of vandalism. Anyway, I saw you were an admin and was hoping you could help me. My situation, described below in my original AIV and Noteboard posting on the incident, has gone unresolved up to this point and I was hoping, perhaps, through direct personal interaction with an admin I might be able to get some assitance.
Original report: Situation: First I filed a report at AIV, which this situation was beyond the scope of. Here is the original report.
- JazzButcher (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log): Kinda long. I would like someone to monitor this situation. This user has continually inserted information about a non notable arcade into the DeKalb, Illinois article. Two editors have explained why it shouldn't be there, this action screams of an attempt to use the Wiki as an advertising service. After the explanation it was reinserted and a long screaming post appeared unsigned on my talk page from the user. The information first turned up about two weeks ago from anonymous , which was warned once. After the user Jazz reinserted the info I did give him a harsh warning. If someone could please monitor this situation I would appreciate it.A mcmurray 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Essentially this user is asserting notability for a non notable random business. See my talk page and his. I am trying to defend the Wiki against what I see as obvious spam. I mean the information he was inserting was ambiguous and ended with something like "the owner serves his guests a big bowl of popcorn." I was unsure of what to do so here I am. Any help? Thanks ahead of time.A mcmurray 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Basically I was hoping someone could watch this situation and/or explain it to the user. I am not quite sure how to.A mcmurray 13:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I unsure of how to approach this because the user brought me back two sources and placed them on my talk page, I am not even sure I am citing the correct policies here. I am trying to defend the Wiki against obvious spam, any help would be greatly greatly appreciated. Thanks ahead of time, your partner in Happy Editing, A mcmurray 18:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Housecleaning
The article needs to be called Housecleaning. It was only categorized as a workpage since it's not finished. It's title needs to be reserved somehow, and since it was only categorized as work page I see nothing wrong with it being called Housecleaning. Furthermore, somebody deleted three of its illustrations, and they need to be undeleted, because there are needed for the article. Therefore, please undelete the Images and put the article back into the name Housecleaning where it belongs. Chuck Marean 21:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Housecleaning, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuck Marean (talk • contribs).
[edit] Request for block
Can you please block 66.228.70.170. If you check his user page, he is continuing to vandalize. I reverted one of his pieces of vandalism, but it is obvious if you look at his/her "contribs" they are up to no good. user:reds0xfan 2 mar 2007
[edit] Request for Mediation
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for the super fast action. As always you are a star. Alun 06:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Eoganan is back as User:69.157.100.203 [5] and possibly User:65.92.92.95 who may be a meatpuppet.[6] Alun 08:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also User:69.157.108.162 contribs who is also User:Pan-ethnic contribs. The IP edits Pan-ethnic's user page, it's the same IP as Eoganan, and Pan-ethnic reverts Eoganan's edits. I have been freely reverting these edits. I am assuming that reverting the edits of a user evading a block cannot break the three revert rule (I have heard this before), am I correct in that assumption? Alun 13:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
I am NOT Eoganan and I am pissed off that I cant even edit on here. I have already filed a complaint to other admins with the block on my IP. Just because I have facts and knowledge that is the TRUTH and stops the destructive and extremist views of other users like Wobble is not reason for me to banned. Neither is the fact that I know Eoganan (James) and you mistaking him for me just because I know him. I am not Eoganan and if you dont like it, you can go fuck yourself. You know I'm right. Not eoganan 08:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Narrow gauge railways in Saxony
Hi Gwernol, you have changed article name "List of narrow gauges in Saxony" (linked to de:Liste der Schmalspurbahnen in Sachsen) to "Narrow gauge railways in Saxony" (currently re-linked by anonymous user to de:Sächsische Schmalspurbahnen). I suggest to keep the current stub as a list, I suggest to change its name to "List of narrow gauge railways in Saxony" and link it to de:Liste der Schmalspurbahnen in Sachsen. I consider the list helpful, it is easier to understand for users with elementary level of English and also easier to translate to other languages (I would like to make a Czech version some day). Regards JanSuchy 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spamstar of Glory
The Spamstar of Glory | ||
To Gwernol for diligence in the tireless battle against Spam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV Message
I noticed the NPOV policy messages you put on User_talk:Stevo6969. I would like to use the messages myself for times when I notice similar unhelpful contributions. The question is, what do you type into a user's talk page so that this message will appear? Mrug2 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry
Sorry about the Bob Saget edit. Someone else was using my computer and was not aware of the finer points of Wikipedia. 128.211.177.36 02:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring
Do I appear to be in an edit war on the article of Iran? I don't believe I have broken the 3RR on it. I hope you gave the same warning to Pejman too? Usergreatpower 17:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC) I just checked and no you haven't given him the same warning. Why? Usergreatpower 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bus routes
How do I create proper Infoboxes and can you help me with my bus routes and not delete them.CourtneyBonnick 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LFC editing summary
Yeah, I can't help it sometimes when things piss me off, and this is an example of it, an example that always seems to happen. People keep messing with that opening all the time, adding and taking things off, and it takes the piss so much! OMFG! People need to make the ultimate one, then leave it alone. The latest pathetic retarded change of many is that someone's took off about Liverpool F.C. and the rest of the English clubs were banned from UEFA Club Competition, with LFC's being a bit more than the rest though. Goodbye! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mazito (talk • contribs).
[edit] Vermont revert
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I thought that 159.105.61.207's edit was spam too, but I checked both links and the one they changed from www.travel-vermont.com to www.vermontvacation.com are both the same. I just thought you would want to know... :) -- Whereizben - Chat with me 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The View
I did receive your comment about The View. I don't agree with your statement. I can cite that if you need to. [7] Also, you can watch the video on youtube at [8] This information is not a matter of opinion, but it is factual and I believe that we should quote her in The View. 1312020wikicop 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I will go ahead and do that but without the last phrase, something to the extent of "Rosie O'Donnell has stated that 'radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America.'"
Thanks, 1312020wikicop 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How am I ruining the George Bush's talk page?
Seriously, all I did was tell them what is going on, if you are pro-bush and do not want to face the cold hard facts then that's your problem buddy, now if you excuse me I'll put back what I said, now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.224.10 (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] an AfD repost...or a memory glitch re: Tanya Foxx article
-
- Bad memory glitch for me??? The article creator has a history of NN articles which were either AfD'd or Speedy D'd. I was sure this one went through the "long road". Was it a speedy? If neither then I guess I need another cup of coffee to perk my memory up. The article is definitely a {prod} if anything. Like the creators other articles it shades WP:BIO and WP:NN pretty thinly. 156.34.142.110 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
While on the topic of reposts...this article, Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time has been around before and, I believe, deleted after an AfDdue to the "copyvio-ness" of reprinting a published list. I say it's a repost....but with my earlier mem lapse....I thought I'd better check with you to see if I was right. Pondering deeply I almost think this article has been re-posted/deleted before. But, I could be wrong. Thanks for your time. 156.34.142.110 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think the copyvio part comes into play as it's just a copy/paste of Rolling Stone's already published list. The previous version of the article actually veered away from the actual list and turned into a POV push for all the "notables" who didn't make the list....And the edit war that went along with it. I have no problem with the article, I just wanted to make sure rules were being adhered to. Thanks for looking into it. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Euromasters
Hi, I agree that the album listing indicates notability. It wasn't there when I tagged the article. It's amazing what sort of information comes to light when an article is tagged! Cheers. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Seema Luthra
In this edit summary, you state: (The article does make an assertion of notability. Please take this to AfD).
The article read, and still reads, in its entirety:
"Seema Luthra is an Indian Congress party candidate for Delhi."
According to WP:BIO, notability of politicians is established as follows:
- Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.
- Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
- Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
So how and where does the article assert notability?
--Butseriouslyfolks 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I think you may have misread the article. It does not claim that this person is a candidate for the Indian Congress Party. It claims that this person is a candidate from the Indian Congress Party. The cited news article states that she lost the election. ("Trounced" is the word used in the cited article.) I strongly believe that we are required to refer to WP:N in making speedy determinations. Note that WP:N is incorporated into the language of the deletion template itself:
- "it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." (Note the linked page.)
Otherwise, what are we using as a guide other than our subjective interpretation of the contributor's subjective assessment of whether the subject is notable? Why is the fact that Johnny is "brave" any less notable than the fact that this person is a candidate? All it takes to become a candidate is signatures from 10-20 people. Bravery is something you have to be born with. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Colleges
Hi there; I am, of course, aware of the standard warning re anonymous vandalism, six-month blocks and communication with Principals as related to vandalism from multiple ISP sites identified as schools and colleges. Do we actually ever do this? Because you must by now have been vandalised by everey student in North America! And yes, I do recall your saying that it flushes the vandals out of the woodwork. But it must be annoying for you.--Anthony.bradbury 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Block
Re. User:Chimpanda. You might want to check the logs as I don't think the indefblock happened - Alison☺ 00:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just as a follow up to this, I've just realised by looking at Chimpanda's indef tag on my talk page, the users a sock of User:Lolhat who I indef blocked earlier today. Cheers for the block Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Zionist disinformation agent"
Does that pay well? Because I reverted the ridiculous claims on the Borat page the earlier this week, so I sure wanna get in on this action :) WookMuff 01:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, the pay is wonderful. I actually am Sacha Baron Cohen. I'm an anti-semitic, pro-Zionist, Jewish, anti-Zionist, pro-Nazi, German, Arab, Pro-Semitic Double agent of the Iranian-US-Israeli world conspiracy against everyone. We rule the world, cause all the naughty things that happen all in the cause of taking over the world. I'm also a Gnome of Zurich. :-) Gwernol 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Forget Zionist disinformation agent, I now wanna be a gnome of zurich... thats where the REAL money is! WookMuff 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, you can't be a gnome of Zurich, we are a very exclusive group of secret rulers of the world. Most of the rabbles that secretly rule the world let anyone join, but we're very picky. Now, please excuse me, I have to get back to counting all my money and conspiring the take over the world /pinky and the brain. Gwernol 01:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Man, I thought all you had to do was give the gnome some of your treasure... lied to again "ZORK II!!!" (ala "KHAAAAAAAAAN") WookMuff 01:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] unblocking problem
Thanks man, I'm unblocked now! I don't know what was wrong, but thanks for your assistance! --GoIrish24 02:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry
Sorry man, I was just experimenting... Cheers dude! --Domo Arigato, Mrs. Robato 03:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Advice, please
Gwernol, when I go for RfA it is, I suspect, virtually certain that Someone will pick up on the obvious fact that I have virtually no involvement in image manipulation; largely because for the articles which I have submitted, very few or no images are available. Questions; do you think this will be a problem, and should I make a pre-emptive declaration about it in my optional statement? I am also low in template work, but I see that as a specialist field which I have not attempted to enter.--Anthony.bradbury 11:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. As you know, apart from article-writing, which I continue to do, my main areas of expertise and interest are vandal-fighting in all its aspects, and in newby-helping. (Also spend time in AfD and RfA). I will take your advice and make an appropriate declarative statement along these lines when/if I am nominated for RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 12:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 67.83.153.55
Hi Gwernol,
You blocked this user a month ago for persistent spamming on the Google Pack article. The user is back and has continued in the same fashion with all edits being to spam the same article. Could a longer block be instituted? Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverting my talk page?
Hi Gwernol. I'm puzzled by your reversion of something Middle Eastern left on my talk page.[9] Can you explain? There's some whacked-out stuff there, including fan mail from Kiyosaki the crank – but I like to think it's a free-speech zone in the broadest sense.
I reverted your revert, with I must admit a rather snappish edit summary. It's now occurred to me that perhaps Middle Eastern was in violation of policy, maybe for 'campaigning' on talk pages or something. If this is the case, go ahead and revert it back, but can you please also leave a note explaining the relevant policy? And please also accept my apologies for my snippy edit summary. Cheers. [10]--G-Dett 15:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What are the two steps I've missed?
And why couldn't you have just fixed it for me, instead of deleting it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs).
[edit] User:Middle Eastern
It's not an anonymizing service, it's simply his IP, the one he used before, and the one he used for a number of other socks. He wrote the unblock list in February, pretending to be someone else, and claiming that the IP was "shared by 10 houses". Now he's claiming it's an anonymizer. Neither story was true. Jayjg (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hoponpop69
you recently warned hoponpop69 for his conduct in the dicussion part of the blink 182 article, could i please also refer you to that same articles history, where he uses insults in the edit summary. Olir 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] wondering if..
you could take a look at developments on User:MiddleEastern's page. there was a sense that perhaps the whole thing was a big misunderstanding and as you were the first admin to check it out, I thought it would be good for you to swing by if you have a chance. Tiamut 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:UW future?
Hi Gwernol,
Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri 10:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfA
Gwernol, I am slightly embarrassed to ask this. You will, I know, recall that you were kind enough to undertake a semi-formal edit review for me, whih as I understand it you found essentially satisfactory. You were also kind enough to say that on my return from holiday, which happened on March 4th, you would consider nominating me for RfA. I know that you have yourself been on wikibreak, because I am one of the editors living on your userpage reverting mindless edits. I really dislike the concept of self-nomination, although I know it is widespread. I also quite dislike canvassing for nomination, and do so only becausae of your previous spontaneous offer. If you now find reason to withdraw this offer I will absolutely understand.--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Gwernol, I've decided to nominate Anthony (sorry!), I've emailed you about it anyway Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding your block on 204.185.75.130
Why is the User_talk:204.185.75.130 user talk page semi-protected? I feel that it is unnecessary to protect that user page. Thanks in advance! --Spixels 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protect conflict
Woops D: We both protected that troll's userpage at the same time, but I did indef. Should we even reinstate the expiry?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfA
Gwernol, however it goes, I would like now to express my deep and heartfelt thanks, without waiting for the result, for your truly supportive comment. Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 00:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Last yime I made a really stupid answer to a supplementary question, late at night, and there was no way home. This time I hope to convince the community that I have a positive value.--Anthony.bradbury 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Range block of the FSU vandal
Hi Gwernol. I'm seriously considering a range block on the FSU vandal, based on all known IP addresses and limiting the subnet mask as tight as possible to prevent collateral damage. It was Anthony above who precipitated that :) Too many editors are wasting their time reverting them and a month-long range block would stop them. Needless to say, I'll bring this up on WP:ANI first, but I'd love your input, seeing as you're bearing the worst of this (today again!). I'm a newbie admin now so be gentle! - Alison☺ 00:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Gwernol, interested to see your changes one Harry Potter-will probably notify my friends. I didn't realise how much trouble vandalism caused, I'm very sorry. I'm only leaving a message, beacuse I'm a member of the Corris railway too.
[edit] Request to delete redundant article
In an attempt to increase the information about railway suppliers, I recently created the Union Switch and Signal article. Somehow, the already-existing Union Switch & Signal article didn't show up in my Wikipedia search. By chance, I later found the older article. Since I was the only contributor to the new article, I moved all of its text to the original article. I then deleted all that text in my article and left a note explaining what I had done. I would appreciate it if you could delete the redundant article. Thanks. Truthanado 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've made Union Switch and Signal redirect to Union Switch & Signal. There were actually a couple of articles that linked to Union Switch and Signal, but I've now altered them so that they link directly to Union Switch & Signal. Signalhead 15:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Many Thanks Truthanado 16:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is for your amazing anti-vandalism work! I have seen your name many times in my recent changes patrol. Keep up the great work:) James, La gloria è a dio 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Impersonator
I'll let you figured out what you'd like to do about it, but I wanted to let you know that ColdDiablo is currently transcribing your userpage. Not sure if (s)he thinks (s)he's an admin, but (s)he also left a block notice (not in your name) at User talk:Warofdreams. ShadowHalo 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What?
What are you talking about? I Didn't vandalize the Wesley Clark page! I got rid of the vandalism on that page!! The vandalism included things like "he was getting raped by Vietnamese soldiers", which I got rid of! The right person who did this is still probably still at large. I have found the IP and it is 24.211.162.129 68.102.104.55 02:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Warning
I am sorry, but I think you misunderstood the situation at Turkey: it is not an edit-war, it is vandalism. I have already filed a report at requests for page protection. There is a user who is single-handedly vandalizing both Turkey and Armenia (the latter was protected by User:Khoikhoi for the same reason) and User:El C protected Turkey two days ago for the same reason, and me and a bunch of editors have been busy reverting this user who keeps resurrecting himself repeatedly.. There is no content dispute in reality.. Baristarim 01:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
PS (I accidentally pasted this to your user page instead of your talk page, sorry about that!) Baristarim 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". That user has indicated in his summaries [11] that he is making his edits per WP:POINT. That article is a Featured Article and a user who has used up 50+ or so accounts to get his point through in many articles by placing an irrelevant paragraph on top of the page, before anything else, is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia and that of one of its best articles. I am not going, nor should any Wikipedian, sit on his hands and let that happen. All I am saying is that it is vandalism if the edits are done per POINT by a user who has resurrected himself fifty times already without a legitimate content dispute taking place. Please see the article history to see what I mean (and that of Armenia). Baristarim 02:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cowlyd & Eigiau
Hi Gwernol, Sorry, but your editing of Cowlyd & Eigiau Tramways is not correct. You have removed a chunk of the "Eigiau Tramway" and erroneously called it the "Cowlyd Tramway". This needs to be reverted - it was correct as it was. For detail on the Cowlyd Tramway, there is quite a bit on this under Llyn Cowlyd. By the way, the tramways are such an integral part of the story of the lakes/dams that I think they also deserve some mention in the main article, not just a "see also". I'm well busy right now, so will let you carry on. Hogyn Lleol 11:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gwernol, I have now removed the tramway content of "Llyn Cowlyd" to "Cowlyd Tramway", a separate article, and have moved what _was_ under "Cowlyd Tramway" to "Eigiau Tramway", making it correct. Your content of "Eigiau Tramway" I have now put under "Cedryn Tramway" as I think the two need to be differentiated. All three might still need a bit of tidying - I'll have another look tomorrow - but at least it's all in the right place now. It would be great if you have any more detail on any of them ..... Regards, Hogyn Lleol 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use images
You've deleted an image on my Talkpage with the summary "Fair use images may not be placed on user talk pages." I'm sure you're right— why not?— but how did you ever come to find such a rule out? You can see that I'd be no good as an Administrator: I just don't have that kind of leisure, to be pursuing infractions. I have quite enough to do just cleaning off anonymous scribbles. --Wetman 12:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gwernol , its ur mate droop. Sorry about the Vandilism , I didn't realise these were made public and it manly my brother mucking on my account. Sorry , I will never do it again. Don't block my account.
[edit] Dinofang
I've requested this user be blocked for putting fake barnstars on people's pages, and for general vandalism. After the work you put in reverting the guy's vandalism, i figured you'd be best placed to add something on WP:AIV to make sure another vandal bites the dust, as it were. Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Your work is appreciated, especially your revisions against vandals, cheers Lakers 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Yo dude!
Sup man! Hows it goin these days, blocking people. You make this page horrible. Block me go ahead, Ill start vandalzing on my computer, my laptop, my other computer, my cell phone, my other laptop, etc. HA! Take that =] =]...jake says hi. And advises you to fall off a bridge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikieditor is back (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Sorry!
Dear Gwernol,
I am very sorry. Is this not the Wilkipedia? Please respond to me soon.
Sincerely,
Akmak03 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Gwernol, I did not intend to add nonsense to your usertalking page. Upon further review, I have realized that you are correct--this is the "Wikipedia", not the "Wilkipedia". I apologize for this error; however, it was a rather easy one to make. What's more, I was only trying to improve the Wikipedia page by doing what I thought was correction of typographical errors. Thank you for correcting me, though--I feel somewhat sheepishly embarrassed now that I know this is not the "Wilkipedia."
Please be patient with me, as I am still learning the rules here. I am a newcomer--please don't bite me. :-D
Akmak03 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User and talk page
Thanks for the reverts. Their original comments were way funnier. 20:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
Gwernol, I've semi protected your userpage for 48 hours as it's been getting serious vandalism and I know your busy at the minute. By all means revert the protection, this is just an immediate measure. Sorry if you feel it's inappropriate. Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mewtwowimmer's RFA
What will happen to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mewtwowimmer 2? Will it just stay there? I was actually going to oppose him becoming an administrator. Squirepants101 00:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tails0600
This RfA was withdrawn two days ago. I've removed your oppose opinion since once an RfA has been withdrawn it should not be added to. Thanks, Gwernol 01:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. It's much appreciated. SteveO 11:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks too :-) Myanw 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Add me to that list! RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Barlow...etc
A number of users have suddenly appeared reverting my edits mechanically user:Henry XXV and user:Kebek Libre I assume that these are socks of the recently blocked User:Stalvione on some sort of revenge mission. User:Paul Barlow : closet homosexual [12] has now appeared. Is there anything that can be done about this? Paul B 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal
I have asked another admin to block this guy, as his sole purpose is messing with things. [13] Wahkeenah 17:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My Chemical Romance
I have a reference but it would look untidy putting a link beside it. How do I spruce it up?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KinkyCheese (talk • contribs).
[edit] John Lennon - Edit
I don't see why you changed the way I edited the John Lennon page.
I changed Murder to - Assassination.
Wikipedia's definition of Assassination is: "Assassination is the murder of a political figure or another important individual"
I feel this is a valid change and see no reason why i am in violation.
Richyhello
- I recall some people at the time calling it "assassination". That's borderline, it might be a bit of hyberbole. That term usually refers to killing a politician or activist. Lennon was an activist, and if the CIA had done it, instead of a lunatic fan, the case for "assassination" would be stronger. Wahkeenah 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vincent van Gogh
Great work on quick reverts. It's worth watch listing as it's always getting vandalism. I know you're not short of barnstars, but you deserve another. Tyrenius 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Great work on Vincent van Gogh just now and generally. Tyrenius 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] User talk:Bob freeman1
I don't know if this edit should be called vandalism. The user seemed to have modified their behavior somewhat after the first three messages, so I think some limited good faith should be assumed. —Doug Bell 03:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Uhm...
[14] Meteoroidtest IS Z.E.R.O., fyi. Z.E.R.O. was formerly known as User:Meteoroid. – Chacor 03:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your revert
Please explain why you have revert my test account's edit? That account was made in order to prevent collateral damage to my edit count. — zero » 03:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for sitting on my userspace with a bazooka! [15], [16], probably more that I've deleted/can't find right now... :) – Riana talk 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA
Gwernol, thank you most sincerely for your support in my successful RfA, and for all of your help and advice in the preparation leading up to it. When you are back from Real Life, I hope that I can occasionally at need seek advice from you?--Anthony.bradbury 10:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comments on my RfB
Perhaps you have noticed, perhaps you haven't, but I responded to your comments on my RfB. Kind regards. Majorly (o rly?) 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hey there, is there any reason why you're not responding? Two others have also responded to your comment, I'd really appreciate it if you'd take a look. Thanks. Majorly (o rly?) 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I responded to the points you brought up. I would really appreciate it if you'd consider your position. Majorly (o rly?) 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't just ignore me; if you don't wish to respond please just say so. Majorly (o rly?) 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- You forget RfA is a discussion. We are meant to discuss it. I am not badgering you, I'm pointing out I have responded to your comments. I don't appreciate you ignoring me. It's necessary because I have explained my reasoning for the things you pointed out. You pulled a lot of things out of context, and I've had to correct you. Thus, you original reasoning is wrong, and now other people are opposing "per" this incorrect reasoning. Also, which supporters have made gross misrepresentations? Majorly (o rly?) 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't just ignore me; if you don't wish to respond please just say so. Majorly (o rly?) 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I responded to the points you brought up. I would really appreciate it if you'd consider your position. Majorly (o rly?) 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Just trying not to have pornographic images on Wikipedia
I received a couple of notices about my vandalism. I think showing nude pictures of women in bondage doesn't belong here. It's starting to look like a porn site. However, I'll stop since the pictures I deleted are restored. 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)~
Your knocking of external links to the Coffeetime Wiki, I didn't think it was an innapropriate link considering the site is dedicated to coffee? If it is inappropriate, I will of course stop wasting my time trying to post it.
I also had a link for the Coffetime Greens club knocked from home roasting...this is a non profit green coffee buying co-operative, run by a group of home roasters...why an earth would this be knocked off?? Surely it's of benefit to those in the UK considering home roasting and looking for a non-commercial source of coffee.
I'm a bit confused.
Daveccoffeetime
[edit] Another harasser (sorry to bother you)
This time using the name User:Tijsia, and again on the Talk page of User:Cleo123. You will notice that I am the one who has notified another Admin, User:AuburnPilot, of the User:Xindiweapon harassment. It just seems to go on and on. Bus stop 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)