User talk:Andypandy.UK/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You are the WikiGod of reverting vandalism!
Well, after seeing a certain "elBARTO" vandalize my page, and seeing you get it back to the way it is, it's safe to say you are one of the WikiGods!! w00t!!!The Runescape Junkie 11:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
DVD+R/W's RfA
 |
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future. |
Thanks.
Thanks for keeping an eye on my talk page and tagging an unsigned edit. I've left three (rather specific and detailed) warnings to this user to stop using netspeak and all caps (three is my limit). Cheers. — Nathan (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. It was greatly appreciated. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 07:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your time
Thank you very much for your contributions to my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. Although you did not choose to support the request, I can assure you that I have taken your advice to heart and will be a better administrator for it. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage!
It's much appreciated. Thanks again... -- gtdp (T)/(C) 14:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Question?
Hi Andy! How do I add pictures to a page? loulou 02:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks!
 |
Thanks for voting! Hello Andypandy.UK/Archive 2, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care. |
--Pilot|guy 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 19th.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 25 | 19 June 2006 | |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion of reading the whole context
Possibly you'd look less like "oh no, badword, badword" if you bothered to read the whole discussion instead of just noticing my suggestion to him to get a brain? He was (clearly) trolling since his second comment. And really, if you can't spot where he was trolling, you might want to leave such "let's all behave" comments unsaid. I'm assuming good faith, but certainly not enough time spent trying to analyze the situation. Taza insane 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
mandatory edit summary box
aaaah!!! America! Night! Sleep! Tuesday morning! Work! .....but yeah - click on my preferences - editing tab - check "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" - Save. Then if you enter a blank edit summary, it'll reload the page and say, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANNA LEAVE A BLANK EDIT SUMMARY? Enjoy. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Andypandy.UK! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 15:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
==COMPO bags==
Hi, thanks for fixing what you believed was a mistake on my behalf (I was wondering if someone might try that!). Just a little tip, if that had been the case, as you no doubt found out when changing it, the link would have been in red. But thanks none the less, certainly done in the right spirit. --Wisden17 16:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Hello Andypandy.UK, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
TazaInsane
I noticed that you asked this person to calm down regarding their blatantly inflamatory comments on the Talk:Neverwinter Nights page. I have to admit that they definately got under my skin, and when they started calling me a troll (strange considering they were the one who came into a conversation, accused me of being ignorant and then failed to support the statement) I should have stopped responding. I have now refrained from talking to this person, clearly they have no intention of contributing or being contructive at all. I dont assume that I am perfect, or that my knowledge is complete... but at the very least I would have expected such claims of lacking knowledge to be substanciated with fact. Now they are claiming knowledge of my banning from the Bioware forums (which was due to my "tone", not for trolling).... the urge to respond is great, but I see no point so will leave it alone. Enigmatical 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just someone
This user has been blocked indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet, as per your request on WP:AIV. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
My (Mtz206) RfA
 |
Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and I'll do my best to live up to your expectations. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC) |
Gilberto Photo
Nice Gilberto Silva pic! Where did you take it? GilbertoSilvaFan 00:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk page
If I were to only respond to people on their talk page, the conversation would then get fragmented and difficult for others to follow. This could be detrimental if I needed to seek a third party opinion on the conversation.
Also, BTW, thanks for your RFA support :) -- Where 16:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is sometimes necessary to seek an outside opinion, however, in which case it would make it easier for others to read it. I also like to keep my talk page easy to read for nostalgic purposes. But, that's just me. -- Where 16:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 26th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Cigarette spammer
Sorry about that. I got myself distracted and involved with more than 1 vandal at the same time. Sometime I tend to do, and when another distraction comes by, I at times forget to go back. Time for a brief break :) - Longhair 10:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
RE: User:VP Clan
Having reverted the page a few times, I had a closer look at the links: it seems it's just a vanity page- they link to it as a Wikipedia article! I'm not sure whether, being a user page, we should turn a blind eye here, but I'd appreciate your input here!
EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was just on RC patrol and saw it, it was obvious vandalism so I just reverted it. Vandalism is vandalism, the page it's on doesn't matter.--Andeh 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree the vandalism should be reverted (and indeed did revert it twice), but the user's contributions seem to me to consist entirely of vanity edits to preserve their user page, which has little to do with Wikipedia or their contributions to it; they're just using it as an "article" of a non-notable subject!
EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 16:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:USER was the page I was thinking of, but couldn't remember it when I needed it earlier, so thanks! I'll look into it, but it certainly seems un-Wiki like!
EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I've added a friendly warning to their talk page too.
EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Shock site
Hey -- sorry I let that message get by me before. In response, no I think AfD is a bad idea. The phenomenon of a shock site is documented enough to be a reasonable encyclopedia topic, and there have been four AfD's on List of shock sites before it was merged to Shock site that you should look over; see Talk:List of shock sites for the links. They were bitter battles that amounted to nothing useful... and the article is in better shape now than it was during those debates. Mangojuicetalk 23:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Let me expand on that. I think the article could be edited some more (I for one am well aware that it's got a long way to go before it becomes a good article), but deletion would be bad. We used to have people posting articles on every shock site on the 'net, but now they focus on the one article. The article is more compliant with respect to WP:V and WP:NPOV than it used to be. Notability of individual sites may be a concern, but if we're requiring a reliable source for each one, that's a standard of notability as well; see the discussion on WP:MEME... basically, memes (and shock sites are a type of meme) being notable is almost irrelevant next to them being verifiable. You're right that the page is a troll magnet. The problem is, it's better to keep a troll magnet around than to just let the trolls go wherever they want. Mangojuicetalk 04:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
signature
It was my signature that I edited. Please do not revert. --Anon 64 02:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Stop the reverts. OK? --Blue Tie 19:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, dear Andy!
My dear Andy, I simply wanted to thank you for your kind words on my talk page - and to tell you that your first judgement was correct, I am not an admin! ;) Your most generous offer to nominate me is also much apreciatted, as I have seen your opinions at RfA and you strike me as both a thoughtful and a demanding editor, who wishes top-notch quality in a candidate before lending his support. But, just to let you know, hun - I've declined a nomination just today, for the motives I express there. I may choose to go for it in a few days, but my real life goes first; and I need to wait for a while before considering the idea. This being said, I am very glad that you decided to approach me with your kind offer. It means so much to me, that I care little about adminship - being gifted the beautiful gesture you've given me today is a treasure in itself. Big hug, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection of eon8
No problem. :) Once the timer-thingy ends and everybody is still alive, this will be entirely forgotten. --Merovingian {T C @} 00:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
That's Okay
I'm sorry but you are mistaken, I was editing the "nonsense" that another user made.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedxxsilence (talk • contribs)
I understand, a simple mistake. I just hate it when people abuse this site. You were doing your job, no harm done. Keep up the good work!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedxxsilence (talk • contribs)
Lindsay Lohan
Hello! Just to let you know, with every respect, Ms. Lohan is a US actress and the spelling in the US is "modeled". That was part of a reversion of a few edits, by the way. Thanks for understanding. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- No problem; I'm still trying to learn UK spellings for some UK-based articles I've done. In fact, if you see anything that needs changing in Karen Dotrice, feel free to let me know. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reason you don't have email enabled? Petros471 13:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well I was going to ask you how long you thought it would be before you'd be ready for a RFA (I'm getting fed up of seeing you posting to AIV without being able to actually do any blocking ;). I know you said not that long ago in an oppose for another RFA that you didn't think you'd be ready, so I was curious as to how long you thought it would be till you would be. As having email enabled is a requirement for being an admin, I was checking. Even as a non-admin sometimes people want to contact you about stuff privately. Petros471 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. No, your email is only shown when you email others (i.e. if you sent someone an email from Wikipedia, or if you reply to an email sent to you through Wikipedia.) It's hidden from public view by a webform (just click on my email link to see what it looks like.) That gives you the option to ignore any spam (I've not received any yet) and/or hate mail (yep, had some of that!) without revealing your address. Petros471 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing I guess. As I said though, I've never received any actual spam (only the odd nasty one from someone I've threatened to block, but those are the minority, most are "why did you delete x" or "please unblock y" type). If it does become a problem you can always use your email client/provider to block a particular email address and/or set up a filter for the username (it's tagged with the address). Petros471 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. No, your email is only shown when you email others (i.e. if you sent someone an email from Wikipedia, or if you reply to an email sent to you through Wikipedia.) It's hidden from public view by a webform (just click on my email link to see what it looks like.) That gives you the option to ignore any spam (I've not received any yet) and/or hate mail (yep, had some of that!) without revealing your address. Petros471 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Re:Email Scenario
Aye, obviously check the contribs. Hopefully the block log will say who the user is a suspected sock of (so you can compare), if not like you say check the blocking admin's contribs/block log at around the same time to see. I ask that one because I have had a few people email me for real with similar situation. Obviously common sense is needed when deciding what to do... It is quite common in situations when a batch of socks are being blocked at once for an innocent new account to be blocked at the same time by mistake along with the load of real socks. I've made that mistake myself (AFAIK only once!), so it does crop up. Petros471 21:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- PS> You should have got a reply to your test one as well, making 2 from me. Petros471 21:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeh, correct enough. When I ask those sort of things I'm not looking for a 'model answer', just that you've got a bit of sense and don't say anything too stupid. You didn't! You're probably right, which is why the couple I've received are probably legitimate (i.e. mistakenly blocked people). One of them turned out to be a uni prof who then did a few minor (but good) edits to maths articles. Petros471 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Cheating in Counter-Strike
According to WP:EL
Wikipedia is not a web directory; no page should consist solely of a collection of external links. Wikipedia always prefers internal links over external links. However, adding a certain number of relevant external links is of valuable service to our readers.
None of this applies to Cheating in Counter-Strike even remotely. The article is >60 kb and you'd need hundreds of external links to get even close to "dwarfing" the actual article.
Don't get Wikilaywering on me. I've worked on this Article a lot longer than you. This particular link has been added a couple times already by various people. (As such it had to be removed occasionally because it was found to be linked several times) You're just fighting windmills there.
External sources are important in order to verify information given in an article, per WP:V. As such it does not matter whether it is a commercial link or not - Being able to verify does not mean being able to do so for free. In addition, the article hints that there is a commercial aspect at cheating, and this particular, "commercial" link only illustrates that. As such, it is important to link to the site for the integrity of the article.
To sum it up: Just leave it in. There's other things that need more attention than stupid cheatsite links. 84.75.130.173 18:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- That article looks pretty bad for link spam, so you're quite right to try and clear some out. Sometimes it's easier to clear the lot and just add a couple of links to a directory (like dmoz) and any official sites. What particular link is the dispute over- your latest revert covered a few? Petros471 21:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Spamming EL-wise would mean it is linked purely as an advertisement in an otherwise unrelated article BUY V1AGR4!. Spamming contentwise would mean the article itself serves as an advertisement. V1AGR4 IS GREAT! Neither is the case. It is, just like all others, a valid and valuable external link. It has been added several times by several people in a good faith attempt to increase the number of quality external links in the article, and there is absolutely no excuse for removing it. Remember, removal of content for no reason is Vandalism. Before I move around and remove "commercial links" from all articles in Wikipedia in a pure and blatant violation of WP:POINT tell me one good reason why this link should not be there. 84.75.130.173 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Listen to people who know better than you: Revert your changes. People add these links because that is how a wiki works: If something's missing, it's added. If something's wrong, it's changed. Moving around and removing content that you - for some reason - do not like is not the way things are done. The whole thing has a history that you know nothing about, and the decision to allow inclusion of links such as the one you removed has been agreed on by everyone who has worked on the article for any longer amount of time. What you do is you chose to vandalize an Article, without bothering to look up the talk pages, to seek contact or to see if there has been any special argument regarding the changes that you want to make. That is NOT the right course of action. 84.75.130.173 06:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
See, you give away that you oppose the inclusion of cheat sites in Wikipedia, not this particular link. I originally was also very sceptical about this. But eventually it comes down to WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. Ahem. As I pointed out, if you had cared to read the talk page, you would know about the more detailed ramifications of this non-issue. If you require further assistance with this particular issue/application of policy, may I forward you to Talk:Cheating_in_Counter-Strike where you are invited to question my reasoning - I should be able to answer briefly and clearly now, providing a sum-up of the situation on the talk page may help prevent future misunderstandings of this nature. 84.75.130.173 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I Was NOT Vandalising Pages
I intended to reverse vandalism not commit any myself. When I deleted the contents of the page I was removing a copy of an article completely unrelated (I cannot remember what it was now, but is was something quite offensive sodemy, anal sex or something of the like. However, the page was restored by the antivandlism bot so I deleted it angain. The table of populations certainly wasn't what I deleted. I only intend to prevent offense.
--87.113.27.110 20:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
RFA thanks
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Where (talk • contribs)
- Strangest RfA thanks I've seen/received..--Andeh 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Reduced image size from 842px to 450px.--Andeh 22:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks I didn't know how to revert the page, thanks for showing me and apologising!
--87.113.27.110 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
4 hours sleep?
Surely that's not healthly! Petros471 07:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I know! My room was 30 degrees last night, but still managed to sleep somehow... Petros471 11:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
300th edit userbox
Thanks for leaving the userbox on my page, i'm constantly updating it now :) Just changed it to 500 :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Draicone (talk • contribs)
Vandalism on Aylesbury Grammar School
Aylesbury Grammar School is an article to watch for vandalism, I see you've been editing it. I had to revert to one of your edits because of somebody from the school itself vandalising it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Draicone (talk • contribs)
Ajax class battleships
Hi there: I know, and support, Wikipedia's policy of open access to editors to all articles. But the article to which you have just added a ship-stub, Ajax class battleships, I was actually in process of typing when you stuck the stub tag on. I don't mind enthusiasm, but please keep an eye on the history of the article you edit, which includes the times of additions. I had inserted an underconstruction template, which you ignored. I have deleted your stub comment.--Anthony.bradbury 19:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes, I know that. But my point is that I was actually typing it in when you added your stub, causing an edit conflict that made me lose a part of my text. Please be more careful.--Anthony.bradbury 20:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sure, not difficult. I'm really just saying give me time to finish the article before you stub it. Working in sandbox or on userpage should not really be necessary (finished now, do as you please).--Anthony.bradbury 21:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi again: incidentally, if you're interested, I am currently working through all the battleships from Warrior onwards. If you call up the article "List of battleships of the Royal Navy" and select part three "Steam-powered ironclad battleships 1860-1905" you will see that from Warrior to Ajax there are articles. Most of them are written by me. Hence my excitement at your intervention. Friends?--Anthony.bradbury 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Sad News
See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#This_is_a_Wikipedia_first... It could be true. Might not be, but we're not going to treat that user as a vandal at the moment. Petros471 22:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I really don't know if I believe it or not. There is evidence both ways. Looks like Where has blocked that user though, and an IP troll has appeared. Seems a bit fishy, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Petros471 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeh, don't feel bad about it. I think the talk is mostly along the lines of wait and see if HRE returns to editing or not. If it is a troll 'joke' then I think HRE is going to be *very* careful about his password in future (as we should all be!) If it is true then obviously it's very sad. I think it is quite possible that a user might request a note about their imminent death be posted, but yeh going around lots of talk pages I'm not sure... Petros471 22:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
hey
I understand where you're coming from with the warning on my talk page, but in my defense that dude repeatedly wrote "SatanisGod" on the page that encouraged me to do that. I will admit to feeding trolls, but not to biting newbies. Still, you are right, I should avoid corrupting wikipedia. ReverendG 23:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, I apologized, quit with the lectures. Perhaps there should be a rule about biting semi-newbies, as seems to be your fancy. I agreed that wikipedia policy is important, as you will find as you look at my previous comment. ReverendG 06:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 3rd.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Hand puppets
Be bold 
. I'm fairly brutal when I see them; smoe would prob be appropriate on most articles, but you let one or two decent ones get listed, next thing you know every discount online schlock vendor wants to be on there....Bridesmill 07:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for keeping an eye on my user talk page~ ^_^ --WinHunter (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
your comment to me
Actually, that was pretty civil. I mean that sincerely and thank you. 66.218.22.61 09:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Spam Control
Hi, you left a comment on my board about making sure I read the rules of "removing External Links and Spam Control"
Just to let you know, Ive read all the WP sites here, and I am also an active member in Spam Control along with all the various other projects that WP needs. My page may not be all descriptive and fancy like many on here, but I certainly dont just go to a page and rip it to pieces for the hell of it. I am sure the two of us have very different visions when it comes to editing and I never remove external links unless they don't belong on a page. WP is not a Yahoo Open Directory, and part of what makes WP is being accountable for everything on an article, including what it links to. And sad to say, most of the external links people put on the articles just do not belong. --Ownlyanangel 09:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:ESP/UPA note
Greetings, Andypandy.UK. The judges would like to announce that the winner for the Esperanza User Page Contest has been chosen. Congratulations to Fir0002 for winning the contest. The winning entry can be found here.
If you'd like to participate in the contest again, check by the contest page in a few days and sign up. See you around. fetofs Hello! 12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
My RFA
 |
Thank you for your neutral vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. Even though you didn't support me, I appreciate your involvement. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! Mangojuicetalk 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
Spam Control....useless links
Fine, we disagree. I will just let you attack some other person who looks at your site....and if you dont think your links dont have spam in them, then bring it up with Wikipedia because youre site is on the list. Spam doesnt always mean what you think, it also denotes useless links....such as WEB DIRECTORIES. The fact that your page has 2 directores is just preposterous...especially when, if you read WP, the rules are clear that this isnt a web directory. So if you would just remove those 2 open directory links, the spam tag will permanently leave your page....thats all Im asking, than I can move on and you can move on.--Ownlyanangel 07:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
again...
Im not attacking you at all. Im just saying that you are skipping around the subject entirely. The 2 links that were so carefully chosen do not belong on the site. They are open directory sites, thats not what Wikipedia is about. If you dont believe me, look up the info on WP: SM, and you will see that there is a subsection about directories and how WP is not a link farm. Why would your site be listed as a spam site if it didnt have a site or two that didt belong? --Ownlyanangel 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: report
Hi, you removed a user i reported. It was'nt 100% about spam, he also vandalised my user page twice and was warned he was also uncivil in his vandalism and towards me, he also recieved lots of differnt warnings. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, i will readd it in a few minutes; PS: He has also started being uncivil to other users now (see his talk page here) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I couldnt be angry at you. You where just doing what you thought was right. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops
Apologies. Bit slow on the rules.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Clickatell (talk • contribs)
Welcoming new users
If they have an inapropate username, should I warn them or just leave them be? Laurence 1
