User talk:Hall Monitor/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of inactive discussion. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Contents

CfD

Hi, I noticed you marked Category:Unpop Archivists and Category:Unpop Art Movement for deletion but never added them to WP:CFD. I've removed the tags for now. If you definitely wanted to delete these categories, please make sure you list them at CFD in addition to adding the cfd tag. Thanks! --Kbdank71 18:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duke Snider

Mr. Monitor, I noticed that you added the following link to Duke's page:

"Best Competitor, Second to None (http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/04/14/sections/sports/sports/article_480859.php) by Steve Bisheff of the Orange County Register"

If you go to the link you have to register. So, unless you work for the OCR, can you copy the text of the article to WikiSource, then link it to the article? Thanks. WikiDon 11:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Registration on the Orange County Register website is free. What are the legalities of copying article text to WikiSource which is potentially copyrighted? Hall Monitor 20:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Constantine Maroulis article

Several times now you have removed links I have posted to the article about Constantine Maroulis, citing them as "spam". They are not spam, and I encourage you to read the discussion page at that article so you are better informed as to the situation. Thanks. --Bonavox 00:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Given that you have a personal connection with the websites you are adding to the Constantine Maroulis article, it is not unreasonable to cite the additions as link spamming. If you disagree with me, please submit your comments on the respective discussion page, as will I. Hall Monitor 04:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blocking of AOL-ip's

Hi!

We don't "tolerate" AOL vandalism, but the way the AOL-proxies work, there is a considerable danger of blocking wrong users if we extend any block on an AOL-IP for more than 15 minutes. So we try not to do it.

Regarding the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism: The way we try to keep that page small and handable is to remove listings that has been handled by an admin, so I'm removing your listing again now. Shanes 28 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)

There's a big note about it on the Block-User page (the page admins access to block an IP), but you have to be an admin to get to it. The text reads:
Read this part!
Some ISPs use proxy servers so that a large number of users share a single IP. Blocking such an IP can affect a very large number of innocent users. The tables to the right give the IP ranges for AOL and NTL, two such ISPs.
Please keep blocks in these ranges to 15 minutes or less. Admins and developers will generally clear such blocks promptly, because of the large collateral damage.
I know it sucks, but it's all we can do against AOL-vandals. Sorry. Shanes 28 June 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Invitation to Talk/Discussion Page

As an "innocent AOL user" I'd like to invite you to contribute to the discussion on the talk page of Doug Stanhope, Talk:Doug_Stanhope. Just a quick question regarding edits. Thanks for your attention.

Hello, User:152.163.100.73. If you would like to engage in meaningful conversation, please start by creating an actual user account on Wikipedia rather than making edits from an anonymous pool of AOL IP addresses. Please note that the contribution history of this IP address is tainted with several incidents of vandalism. [1] Hall Monitor 29 June 2005 18:13 (UTC)
I don't know how to check the contribution history of this AOL IP address, please post a link or explain where to find this information and I will take proper note as requested. I'd rather not create a user account if addresses can be checked up on like that.
Suit yourself. Hall Monitor 30 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)

RE: Butch and Phil Hartman

If you are interested, I will forward you the email I recieved from Butch Hartman. I know for a FACT they aren't related. You should check your facts.

Hello, 68.160.192.44. My past experiences with anonymous contributors of Wikipedia have been unreliable and untrustworthy. If you will review the Butch Hartman article you will see that I too had removed the brother-relationship mention between the Hartmans. IMDb appears to be contradicting itself somewhat, but both make mention that they are born from the same parents (the Hartmanns). Please do not expect me to engage further in any sort of dialogue until you create an account and log in. Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
Hello, I have created a user account Methelfilms and logged in. I am telling you that I went to Butch Hartman's website and asked him. He responded very quicky and let me know that he ISN'T Phil Hartman's brother. If you would like, I can forward the email to you. Methelfilms 1 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)
If you would like, you may click on the "E-mail this user" option on your left-hand side. My preference would be to include the response from Mr. Hartman in full, with mail headers, on both of the respective talk pages. Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
I emailed you relevent information. I don't think Butch Hartman nor my email address should be made public on the talk pages. If you still don't believe me, feel free to email Mr. Hartman via his website. I was just trying to correct a mistake on a website. Methelfilms 1 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)
Thank you for your valiant efforts towards the improvement of the article. Sorry for initially doubting your good faith, but there has been a string of AOL users vandalising articles which I've created or contributed to, as you can probably deduce by glancing over my talk page. Also note that earlier in the month I also removed the mention of the relationship between Phil and Butch, see: here. I've sent a long, interrogative email to Mr. Hartman inquiring about other aspects of his family tree and history so that we may clean up his article in its entirety once and for all. Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)
No problem. I happen to be a huge Phil Hartman fan, and I knew when I saw that Butch Hartman connection, it was incorrect. Thank you for making me register, because I've been correcting stuff on wikipedia for a while. Good to have a user name. Hopefully, Mr. Hartman won't get too peeved at all our inquiries. Methelfilms 1 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)
I was dropping off a thank you note when I just saw this thing. And considering Phil Hartman was born with two n's in his last name, they aren't. Of course this debate is out of date and this comment is pointles.. Redwolf24 21:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Redwolf24. We managed to resolve this issue and have ironed out the Butch Hartman article to reflect an accurate family history. Hall Monitor 22:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Bcat/Bank

Hey, I noticed that you opened an account. You need to also adjust the Total amount in circulation to reflect your account's amount. Cheers, hydnjo talk 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Andy Milonakis

You can request a page be protected from editing at WP:RFP. Good luck · Katefan0(scribble) 18:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully I have either...

Cleared things up entirely, or obfuscated things even more by butting in on the Britney Spears argument. Thankfully it is not mine, but yours to decide which. Bobo192|Edits

Who's RFA

Thank you for your vote of support on my RFA. ∞Who?¿? 22:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Emily Browning

Hi thanks for the fix on Emily Browning. I couldn't really tell if it was a new entry, a test or vandalism. I usually fix and research such things, but was in a hurry and to be safe rv'd. Thanks ∞Who?¿? 22:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, too, for reverting vandalism on my user page. Unfortunately, my page has become a recent target as a result of spotting and cleaning vandalism on other pages. Hall Monitor 23:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that wasn't me this time, Y0u, did that. But I have now added your page to my watchlist, so if it happens in the future, I will try to catch it. Salut. ∞Who?¿? 23:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Britney Spears

I don't know what's up everyone's butt, but a soubrette isn't a vocal class or fach like the traditional lines of soprano, mezzo or alto. The classification deals with the tone, pitch, and volume of a voice. In short it is more a style than a true fach. Britney's voice is soft, mellow and sweet. One listen to her song Everytime and you can hear why she fits the profile of a soubrette perfectly. The lines of vocal classification are blurry. Being a soubrette doesn't mean you are totally incapable of vocal altitude, just where the voice prefers to be. For example, Blu Cantrell is considered an alto. The alto's high note is considered to be the F or G above High C (under Soprano C). OK. She can (and has demonstrated in Waste My Time) the ability to execute a pitch well in whistle register. The high (or low note) of a person is individualized. The vocal fach is a guideline, not a militaristic maximum. Ileana Cotrubaş, a great operatic example of a soubrette in the classical sense. She however was capable of coloratura. So Britney can (and is) both a lyric soprano and a soubrette. Many, many people are capable of sing more than one vocal fach (Pharrell Williams: countertenor and baritone), Usher (baritone and tenor), Mariah (alto, mezzo, soprano, even tenor if she really wanted). So yes, you can classify her EASILY as a lyric soprano, but because she fits the profile of a soubrette so well, that is why she should be classified as a soubrette. Antares33712 23:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

PS: The highest note I ever heard from Britney is a G5 in ("Toxic", the background wailing). That is IT. Maybe an A5 in her show Chaotic when she mimicks the opera singer. But no extensive coloratura and she is a good five or six steps away from even the bottom fringes of whistle singer.

PPS: I have been studying voice for seven years. I'm not crazy Antares33712 23:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

re: Bank of Wikipedia

You asked why the "Bank of Wikipedia" was banned. There are several places we have to direct you. First, this was an unsanctioned attempt to create a m:role account. MediaWiki considered and ultimately rejected the use of role accounts. Second, there are credible allegations that this was the creation of user:Iasson, a banned user (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson). In general, any account created by a banned user during the ban or as an attempt to circumvent the ban is to be immediately and permanently shut down. Third, evidence indicates that this initiative is associated with the Willy on Wheels vandal (which may or may not be related to the second point - the Willy on Wheels vandal has never been definitively identified). See Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Willy on Wheels for further information. I hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Christina's Vocal Profile

The notes she can hit is the source by itself.It's hard to understand why it should be deleted. In this case,Christina's highest/lowest note(C#7/Eb3) was shown in sample clips I added.Someone who can play piano/or have music tuner program can tell that the note is not that fake.If you know the highest/lowest note,you know vocal range too.It's common sense.I think we should remove this section only when there is no sample clip to prove what the note really is. Maxim04

Yes, I understand, but this is in direct violation of Wikipedia's official policy, Wikipedia:No original research. If you will review the edit history of the Christina Aguilera article, you will plainly see that not everyone agrees with the her exact vocal range. Until a credible and external source can be cited this section should be removed. Hall Monitor 17:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.I understand now ^-^

About the vocal profile of Christina Aguilera. I noticed that you removed the profile due to the WP:CITE and WP:NOR rules. But while looking at the diff between Maxim's edit and your reversion, there was a URL citing where the profile came from. Is this source acceptable for the article? If not, why? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

It is all a matter of what is and is not a credible source of information. In the case of the Christina Aguilera article, her vocal profile and range is hotly contested, being constantly manipulated an octave or two every day. Generally speaking, how trustworthy is any information you obtain from GeoCities and how is it authoritative? Hall Monitor 15:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Removal of vocal profile(s)

Hell kill 'em all. Everything is subject to the interpretation of someone else, and quite frankly I am so sick of a batch of ignorant mofos constantly dictating what is right and not. In Britney's profile, we are arguing over whether she hits a C#3 or a Db3. ITS THE SAME DAMN PITCH!!!!. My goodness people. Let us get it together. I would like to see a greater consistency on what statistics we are reporting. Minnie is well regarded for her five octave range. But is 4.3 here because her highest recorded note is an F#7. That wasn't her HIGHEST pitch she was capable of. But somebody decided that was her highest pitch. Adam Lopez has pitched higher than the damn E7 in Stay With Me. It was a good idea, but there will always be some ignorant jackass who will subject it to his interpretation. Antares33712 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Many of us share your frustration, believe me. If someone could just WP:CITE a credible outside source which documents what her vocal range is, we would no longer be subject to such problems. Until such a source can be cited, we should avoid any original research as per official Wikipedia policy. Hall Monitor 21:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Some of the info in the Riperton article came from her liner notes to her Petals legacy album. PS: There used to be a site called freehostz.com that had the info on a lot of the higher range of notes. Antares33712 22:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Angela Jia Kim

Hi. I don't have the birthday (Angela Jia Kim). I was just hoping it would be added by the original writer. Kojangee

Dropping off a thank you note

Thanks for your support vote at my RfA. I hope to not disappoint. Redwolf24 21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

On the vocal profiles

Is there any way we can create a page to have a consensus on what we are reporting as far as vocal statistics. The reason I ask is, I thought about it over the weekend, and I believe we may be approaching this from a multitude of different angles. My reason for debate for example, on the Minnie profile, it says highest and lowest note. Those are the highest and lowest recorded notes, so far anyway. We don't know what she hit in the shower! Is that her TOTAL range? No, her published range is five (5.5 per her Petals legacy album). I think if we stuck to the highest recorded note, lowest recorded note, and a vocal range per record label website (if possible), a lot of the bickering would stop. Maybe not with Britney, but most....

Antares33712 15:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you do a search on Minnie or Mariah, it will say five octave range. Using http://www.music.msn.com/artist/?artist=16117745, and http://www.music.msn.com/artist/?artist=16074698 as examples, we can easily derive the range. But if you see, D3 - F#7 does not equal five octaves. That is because the low and high notes listed are only for recorded notes. So when someone says her range is 4.3 octaves (D3-F#7), I go and try to correct that, since I know (have known for a long time), since she is well-known for having a five-octave range. The range is only recorded, so I would rather we have protected the section and discuss range changes first. The most edits come from the least knowledgable. It part isn't fair. Antares33712 16:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I wish I could find the owner of the notes and Octaves site (it was on freehostz and geocities). Granted, geocities isn't the most reliable of web server hosts, but the site did have consistently reliable information (by music enthusiasts anyway). You will forever have opinion-ated derivations in Britney or Christina. Most (including myself) with a tuner can verify a few of the pitches listed and see the accuracy. It doesn't stop the idiots that fight over a C# vs. a D-flat, but it allows the semi-educated a way to see how the singers rank. I think if we could come to a consensus about what the statistics are (not just for a particular singer, but over all), the level of creduous edits will sharply decrease) Antares33712 19:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the congrats. While I'm not well-versed in the matter, I've offered my thoughts on the matter (actually I asked questions). --Dmcdevit·t 23:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

As far as Carrie Underwood's vocal range - how about e-mailing Kelli Doolen or someone at DownTown Country and asking them? Find e-mail addys at www.nsuok.edu and "directory."

Thanks Hall Moniter

Thanks about the warning to Mcphail. -- SWD316 16:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Carried away on VfD?

Hi Brookie. To a degree, I can appreciate why you may have been inclined to nominate some of the possible copyvios posted by an anonymous editor (vandal) yesterday -- but may I ask why you opted to list Terry Ellis, Dawn Robinson, and Cindy Herron for deletion as well? In the case of Dawn Robinson for instance, why would you feel that an African-American female vocalist who has her own solo album released by Atlantic Records, has been a member of En Vogue and Lucy Pearl, worked with Dr. Dre on his Aftermath label, and ocassionally partakes in modeling is a non-notable individual? Hall Monitor 17:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Brookie here - thanks for the note - obviously it seems my views on these nominations was perhaps a bit hasty but they were made in good faith - the good things about the system is - they are either accepted or not! :) A curate's egg 07:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Brookie for your expeditious reply. If you would, please read over the "Things to consider" section over at WP:VFD. By observing the established guidelines and policies, you can avoid these mistakes in the future and establish some wonderful relationships at the same time! Thanks! Hall Monitor 16:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again -I'll pay it a visit! Kind regards A curate's egg 16:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Artistopia

This user, though warned by you to stop adding spam for internal "Artistopia" sites to various music artists' entries, has continued to do so. The user's contributions show no other edits other than adding Artistopia links. I'm going to try to give the user one more talk page suggestion that he or she stop doing so, and instead contribute in a more substantial manner... and, given that the user doesn't do so, can you block them? jglc | t | c 16:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Limitations on deletion proposals

Hey, thanks for the info. I'll do some digging and see what I can find. -Seth Mahoney 19:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

You Tweaked my link on Holloway article

Thank you. I am still somewhat new at this. =) Xaa 22:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Wendy Hiller is laden in POV

Congratulations.  :) I randomly selected you from a list of contributors to the Wendy Hiller article. The biography is excellent, but heavily laden in POV. Would you be interested in working together to help correct this? Hall Monitor 22:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, I see what you mean, but why do you need help? You seem pretty capable. Are you saying you don't know much about her? Or do you just want to present a united front? Deb 22:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
All of the above-- by no means am I an expert on Hiller, and there appear to be several editors who are actively engaging in reinserting POV corrections. Any help you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated.  :) Hall Monitor 22:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I fiddled a bit. Did it help at all? Deb 19:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it looks wonderful! Thanks for all of your help, Deb. Hall Monitor 20:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Canderson7's RFA

Thanks for supporting my RFA, I really appreciate it! --Canderson7 17:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Eric Gilder VfD

Hi, I noticed you voted keep in the VfD for Eric Gilder (professor). Just wanted to direct your attention to the VfD's for the other related pages:

  • Four Freedoms Federation - (talk) - (VfD)
  • Province of the Carolanas - (talk) - (VfD)
  • John Lilburne Research Institute - (talk) - (VfD)

They are all vanity/non-notable/hoax/original research by the same user (MPLX), and rapidly speeding toward deletion. Just thought you may want to reconsider your vote on this page. --JW1805 20:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, are you suggesting that the Eric Gilder article is a hoax? Hall Monitor 15:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Well not technically a hoax, since the guy probably does really exist. But he isn't notable (fails the "professor test" at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies). This article is part of a series of articles created by the same user that are about to be deleted, I just wanted to point that out.
See also: Radio Tiananmen --JW1805 17:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 12:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleting part of a quote as vandalism

I noticed that you told User:220.93.58.66 that removing part of this quote [2] was vandalism User talk:220.93.58.66. If this is true perhaps you can help me with User:Gamaliel. He keeps deleting part of a quote at Roy Lichtenstein. Thank You.--198.93.113.49 19:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

kmccoy's RFA

Hey! Thanks a lot for your support on my RFA. :) kmccoy (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC for User:ComCat

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ComCat: I agree that the usual approach would be to discuss the errant VfD's with the user in question (and, indeed, I've done that before). But in this case, a quick review of User talk:ComCat and Special:Contributions/ComCat will show that a number of users have discussed the issue with ComCat over a period of months (indeed, these go back to 2004) with no response, so clearly the next step (the RFC) was in order.

As an aside, the section you wrote for Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ComCat is supposed to be for a summary, discussion itself should happen on the Talk page. Considering moving some of your entry there. -- Kaszeta 20:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove VfD headers

Regarding Cyrus Farivar, please do not remove VfD headers while there is an open discussion. [3] Once the discussion has been closed, the user who completes the discussion summary will then remove the header with the result of the debate. Hall Monitor 00:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Please do not ignore edit summaries while parading around self rightously. -GregNorc (talk) 00:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • As the manual says, Be Bold. I was, don't scold me for it. Why invite more argument when there is no need? I'm removing it AGAIN. If you don't like that, fine. The discussion is already over, leaving the banner is just leading to more votes which are not even being counted. -GregNorc (talk) 00:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say he wasn't ignoring the edit summary, but rather acknowledging that while your explanation for the VfD header deletion was on the talk page, that didn't make it right. There's a process, and circumventing it doesn't do anyone any good. Jason 00:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a major difference between being WP:BOLD and circumventing process. Please allow for an admin to appropriately close the VfD discussion before pulling the VfD header from the article. While you are quoting guidelines, you should also refer to WP:CIVIL, which is an official policy. Thanks! Hall Monitor 16:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Chuck Munson

Likes like User:Ruy Lopez has decided to edit-war on Chuck's behalf. Check it out. --Calton | Talk 11:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

The mop is mine!
The mop is mine!

Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion talk 07:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations.  :) Hall Monitor 16:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cher as gay icon

Is it a matter of dispute that Cher is a gay icon? It shouldn't be a problem to find a source, and I will in a moment, but it just seems a little... peculiar... to insist on citing a "reputable source" for this bit of common knowledge, when there's so many other bits of unsubstantiated trivia right in the very same article. Anyway, I'm off to fix that oversight.

--

What is the definition of a "valid, credible" source? Google turns up hundreds of pages of results for "cher" "gay icon," which to me is the most credible indication of all that popular culture esteems her as a gay icon, but I'm assuming this won't be sufficient to avoid a revert. Is there anything else that's needed? Sources of the sort I put on the Mr. Clean article?

I'm assuming I shouldn't delete the rest of the article pending verification, though I must admit I don't see why not...

IP 66.173.44.202 00:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If a figure is to be placed into a purely subjective category such as Category:Gay icons then we should absolutely give context within the article demonstrating why that figure is believed to be such an icon. Perhaps it seems obvious to some people why she may appear to be one now, but consideration should be given to those who are reading this article one hundred years from now. If a number of independent credible sources cannot validate such status today, then the category should be removed and other areas of the article should be focused on. Hall Monitor 16:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good point. IP 66.173.44.202 20:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Only someone who has never been to a female impersonator show, nor a Cher concert, nor read the Wikipedia, nor done a Google search would require citations to show that Cher is a gay icon. See ([4])

Do you need any more citations? 4.232.138.116 09:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

BaronLarf's RFA

Thanks for you support on my recent RFA. Please let me know if I can help with any administrative responsibilities, or if you have any problems with the way I use the admin tools. Cheers. --BaronLarf 00:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Not an admin?

Holy smokes - who would've thunk it? I imagine I'm at the end of a long line of folks who would volunteer to nominate you. -- BD2412 talk 23:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

AIV

24.91.163.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), has vandalised the George W. Bush article thrice today, with warnings. Hall Monitor 23:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Appears to have stopped now, sorry about the slow response, it would appear most admins have taken the night off. --fvw* 01:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

The last edit you reverted, although suspicious because it came from an unregistered IP and was not explained in the edit summary, did not appear to me to be vandalism. That section of the article was quite wordy with a lot of extraneous info. I told the user I'd support him/her if they wanted to revert to their edited version as long as they could offer some rationale in the talk page. Dystopos 23:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable; it worries me whenever large chunks of an article are deleted without so much as a one-liner explanation in the edit summary. If you are in favor of these changes, I will not revert any subsequent removals by this anon IP. Hall Monitor 23:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The user's re-write seemed lucid, factual and NPOV. I'm planning (if I have time) to look at what other information was cast aside and restore the bulk of the edit. Maybe someone else will get around to it before I have a chance. Just as a note of caution, accusations of vandalism are fairly serious and narrowly-defined. The policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith is an important part of the community. Thanks again for your watchful eye. Dystopos 23:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
You're right -- I'm going to address this by creating my own template when large amounts of information are removed from an article without any explanation. The template {{test2a}} contains verbiage which inherently does not assume good WP:FAITH. Hall Monitor 23:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I've looked into your concerns about Vega007 (talk · contribs), but I don't see anything that would warrant a block. That's not to say that there aren't any problems, but it seems that those would be better addressed by talk page comments and/or an RfC. Keep reminding this user that he is expected to interact civilly with other people, and do warn him if he does something that clearly qualifies as vandalism. Perhaps he'll see the light, and if not, I'm afraid someone would have to initiate an RfM or RfC. --MarkSweep 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hall Monitor's RFA

  • You're quite welcome (and I might as well congratulate you in advance)! --Merovingian (t) (c) 20:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • No problem. Congratulations! You have it in the bag now. Excellent work planning ahead when you made this account. The name is perfect. Acetic Acid 21:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Congrats and kudos! ≈ jossi ≈ 02:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your adminship, and thanks for supporting mine. :) Coffee 06:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


Congratulations!

Image:What it looks like.png
The Wikipedia interface after receiving administrative privileges.

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Congratulations - you really knocked it out of the park! I know you'll keep up your good work here. -- BD2412 talk 17:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting Pages

You'll get a different answer from different admins. Wikipolicy is that page protection is bad, so that pages should be protected only when absolutely necessary (to stop immediate vandalism or a major revert war) and/or when requested to do so by editors on both sides of a disagreemnt in an article who want a "time out" to work out differences.

Unprotection is even more of an art, much more so than bureaucracy, which is pretty dull except when there is a heated disagreement. My opinion is:

  • If the article was protected because of constant vandalism, try unprotecting after 24 hours, but be ready to reprotect for another 24 hours if it resumes.
  • If unprotection is requested by one of the editors on an article after a content dispute, see what the requester's reasoning is. If the request is from only one of the editors, ask (on the article's talk page) whether it is generally agreed the page should be unprotected.
  • If unprotection hasn't been requested but you see there has been no discussion for a week or so, propose unprotection on the talk page of the article. Say "without objection, I intend to unprotect this article in (whenever, "soon," 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours) and then do it if there's no flak.

IMO, you will rarely go wrong as an admin if, before you take a possible disputed action, you are confident you can defend it as though you were actually being paid to do this. ;-) -- Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism on Ann Coulter Page

Dear Hall Monitor, The very last thing I wanted to see is a edit war, but that seems to going on , on the Ann Coulter page, and no matter how much I and the other NPOV editors others try to mediate it, with pleasant conversations and even humour, mixed with gentle pursuation to go back to a NPOV, some particular "editors" are determined to be page~bullys, and totaly flaunt the Wiki rules, of neutrality and brazenly have their way no matter what!, As it is totaly childish behaviour and it is turning the page into a cosmic joke, I'm asking you as the Hall Monitor to Page Protect it if you could for a day or so if you agree it warrants it?... for what else can be done!? We appreciate your help and for your time looking into this, and look forward to some wisdom on this from a NPOV hall monitor admin like you. thanks, Cathy (Cathytreks 15:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

Thank you Cathy for contacting me. Is this regarding the inclusion of the Time Magazine cover? I have reviewed the edits to the Ann Coulter article, and in my opinion the dispute is pretty much a non-issue. Could you please provide me with the specific diffs you are concerned about? Hall Monitor 19:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh thank you for coming by today and looking into it, but yeah the Ann Coulter page thing was really getting out of hand over much ado about nothing ...just to think a cover picture from time magazine of her would be the cause of so much pettyness and bickering, well...I just cant believe it myself sometimes, anyway, may cooler heads prevail into the future, well see ya later and thanks again. Shalom! (Cathytreks 21:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

Barbara Schwarz and 3RR

Please take a look at the recent edits by 195.3.113.139 (talk · contribs), 195.3.113.141 (talk · contribs), 195.3.113.142 (talk · contribs), 195.3.113.152 (talk · contribs), and 195.3.113.154 (talk · contribs); all of these IP addresses appear to be the same person. How would you suggest handling this situation? Hall Monitor 17:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I followed your links and I like the approach you took at User talk:195.3.113.139. Since the user's IP rotates and this IP appears to have had the most use by the same user it follows as a good location to discuss the user's actions. I agree that all these IPs are in use by the same user as indicated by identical edits on the same article.
You have set an initial foundation giving notice to the user that his initial edits are being interpreted in good WP:FAITH and informing the user of proper process in an open source editing environment. Should the user continue acting badly, you are now justified in elevating to vandalism warnings for future disruptions. Should it continue after that you are no longer dealing with a difference of opinion, but a vandal, and can act accordingly - no need to wait for three reverts before blocking a returning vandal.
The only variation on this would be if the user chooses to discuss their edits on the talk page. If that occurs you have to return to WP:FAITH and deal with them as a valid user who needs to learn compromise. Multiple reverts in this situation becomes a WP:3RR violation and results in a warning, then a 24 hour block.
That's what I would do. - Tεxτurε 18:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Trollderella

Hello. You wrote in part, A fundamental principle and important guideline here on Wikipedia is to always assume good WP:FAITH whenever possible. The whenever possible part is gravely mistaken. As Jimbo Wales wrote, Our social policies are not a suicide pact. They are in place to help us write the encyclopedia [5]. (He wrote that in a strangely reminiscent case, in which various people were falling all over themselves trying to figure out if User:The Recycling Troll was, in fact, a troll.) Allowing "troll" usernames makes Wikipedia a more troll-friendly place. To the extent that you can do anything about it, please help Wikipedia steer away from troll-friendliness. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comments, HM, as I have said before, I have relatively little time to spend on this project, and want to spend that time writing articles, rather than arguing over usernames. Appreciate your support, Trollderella 17:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This little skirmish reminded me of someone else while perusing old WP:RFA archives, specifically a contributor named User:ClockworkTroll (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ClockworkTroll). This user eventually was promoted to administrator and made over 1800 positive edits [6] before changing his name on his own accord. Imagine, if you will, how radically different things may have been if we threatened an WP:RFC over a name change just one month after he began contributing to the project in good faith. That said, please take into consideration the amount of time I spend here each week, judiciously pouring over the RCs and diffs of the now 2500+ articles on my watchlist to help steer this project in the right direction. Let us judge a book by its contents, not its cover. Hall Monitor 17:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

50 Cent reversion

May I ask why you reverted my edits to the 50 Cent article? I was in the process of removing vandalism by 205.188.116.130 and providing reputable sources, such as Rolling Stone magazine. [7] It seems fairly well documented that Curtis James Jackson ("50 Cent") attended Andrew Jackson High School and not Stuyvesant. Hall Monitor 19:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I did not intentionally revert your edtits, so please feel free to put them back in just put them back in- I can't revert my revert as the page has been edited since then. Edit flukes happen from time to time, sorry. -JCarriker 19:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't worry about it, it happens to everyone. Hall Monitor 19:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

haha I saw that IP I blocked. "some admins will block you for just one vandalism"... i.e. Me :P By the way I see you're from Washington :) I'm from KingCo. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Only minutes of editing and miles apart.  :) I really do wish there were a better way to address the problems of AOL vandalism, it is one of our biggest nuisances to deal with, in my opinion. Hall Monitor 23:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism help

Greetings! I see that you too have noticed the vandalism on the Gene Simmons page--I've reverted it twice, but I'm a newbie and I'm not sure how to go about stopping anon user 210.11.188.16 (s/he already has warnings on his user page). Thanks! GinaDana 00:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. As Aaron mentioned above, the best place to report active vandalism is WP:AIV, as it is monitored by a multitude of Wikipedia administrators, myself included. Hopefully the next round of contributions from User:210.11.188.16 will be positive ones.  :) Hall Monitor 16:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

AOL proxy block

01:07, 26 August 2005 Hall Monitor blocked "User:152.163.100.10" with an expiry time of 24 hours (persistent vandalism)
  • Please do not block IPs listed on Special:Blockip as AOL proxies for more than 15 minutes. This generally has no effect except to lock out innocent users. JRM · Talk 21:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for catching this. Perhaps Wikipedia should consider leveraging some sort of an agreement with the AOL abuse department to deal with this widespread problem more effectively. Hall Monitor 21:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh yes. But I'm not holding my breath for technical solutions to the problem, so until then, we'll just have to be careful ourselves. The IP blocks handed out by the autoblocker are actually far more annoying, as you can't even see what's going wrong until someone complains. JRM · Talk 21:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandals

Hi there Hall moniter, I thought I would let someone who could deal with vandals know there were new vandal accounts created today named

  • User:!!!!!!!!! Jesus was always a Jew. He was never Christian.
  • User:!!!!!!!!! The first Chistians were Jesus's disciples, not Jesus.
  • User:!!!!!!WIKIPEDIA SUCKS!!!!!!

I thought you could check it out to see what the deal is with them.

SWD316 (talk to me)

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:12, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Trollderella?

I don't neccessarily agree with the unilateral name change- I did at first but that was because my memory of wikipedia policy in this particular instance wasn't so great. However, I wasn't trying to make a comment on that one way or the other- just a friednly request to think about what the word troll means to most editors at VfD. Given the user's fairly radical inclusionism, (an opinion that she's totally justified to have), it seemes needlessly provocative. However, I've said my piece, and respect your right to disagree with me.--Scimitar parley 19:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

I, Extraordinary Machine, hereby present The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar to Hall Monitor, for his/her honourable dedication to catching and revert article vandalism within minutes (and sometimes even less). You have gone to great lengths to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, and you should be applauded for your efforts. Extraordinary Machine 23:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA

Thanks for supporting my request for administrator powers, which has been successful. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page. Especially if you think I have in any way misused these powers- I want Wikipedia to be the best it can be, and I need to know if others are concerned about my actions. Thanks again. Scimitar parley 16:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Article deletion note

You voted previously to keep the article Rogers Cadenhead. You may have changed your mind now that the author has admitted to writing the article himself “as an experiment.” He himself says, “I am somewhat eager to see this vote end with my deletion.” Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_29#Rogers_Cadenhead --Quasipalm 17:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback regarding the Cadenhead article. My judgement is based upon the merits of the article and not the subject's personal desires. The article appears to be suitable enough to remain on Wikipedia, so it is somewhat puzzling why he now suddenly wishes it to be deleted. Hall Monitor 17:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Glitch in Wikipedia

In reply: Are you refering how what you removed in your last edit appears to be what the anon editor was trying to delete? --ZeWrestler Talk 17:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy77

Hi. I removed the test3 and test4 from BigDaddy's talk page. He seemed to be suffering from conservaburnout, and he did acknoledge that what he did was wrong over at the pump. I though giving him a clean slate and a welcome was the right thing to do - if you disagree, please repost whatever templates you want, and I apologize for wasting your time. Hipocrite 20:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem, everyone deserves a second chance. Hall Monitor 20:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


Barnstar

I frequently patrol the Recent Changes section and Ive always seen your name there. Keep up the good work!

I Journalist, awards Hall Monitor this Barnstar for his Tireless Contributions to Wikipedia. Keep it up
I Journalist, awards
Hall Monitor this Barnstar for his Tireless Contributions to Wikipedia. Keep it up

Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

Vandalism of Anne Rice

I admit that I forgot to log in, but what vandalism are you referring to exactly? I have never vandalised an article in my life. Don't go around altering people's contributions and assuming it is vandalism if you have no bloody clue what you're talking about. RE: "Anne Rice" and "Poppy Z Brite" changes (which I was about to correct anyhow.) Pacian 22:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for relaxing and taking a deep breath darling, but you threatened to ban my IP from access without even taking a moment to perhaps research the facts yourself; you just ASSUMED it was vandalism. I really don't bother with citations on information that just seems logical, especially WP/C which I think looks cluttersome; I did city Ms. Brite's weblog as the source of information about her status, and there is discussion of Anne Rice's status on the forumz of her own website. I'd continue to discuss this but I have to run out the door, so if there is any more problems just leave me a note. Pacian 22:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I see now that you are referring to this edit. Again, I am politely requesting that you WP:CITE your source(s) for this edit so that I and others can verify your contributions. No immediate assumptions were made here. Understand that from my perspective, an anonymous IP added a piece of questionable information to a frequently-vandalised article-- information which I was unable to verify through a Google news search. Web forums are generally not a credible source of reliable information. Hall Monitor 22:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
In the interest of Wikipedia, I have reverted your contribution again to the Anne Rice article until you or another editor WP:CITE a credible reference for this edit. To minimise any inconvenience this may cause, I've left a note on the talk page as well to help expedite the sourcing process, if possible. Your understanding in this situation is appreciated. Kind regards, Hall Monitor 16:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I know that you are trying to do your best to protect wikipedia and make sure things are up to speed, but I IMPLORE you to please take a moment to make sure that what you're doing is correct. We had a conflict before RE: my un-logged-in edits to Anne Rice. I now see that you also reverted edits that I made (again while not logged in) to the article at Lee Eddy; this was a minor correction to the title of her online blog which is not "House of Enjoyment" but "Place of Enjoyment." Had you taken a very brief moment to click on the link to her blog listed within the very text of the article you would have seen that the correction was accurate as reflected in the heading of the blog in question, but you jumped the gun and made an incorrect revert. I'm glad you're trying to do a good job, but please, don't risk accuracy in order to stay one jump ahead of the breadline. Thanks! Pacian 08:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Pacian for contacting me. If you don't mind, please provide diffs for the edits and rollbacks you are referring to so we are on the same page. As you are aware, accuracy and the integrity of Wikipedia is a major concern of mine and I would like to research this further if an error was made to prevent a reoccurance in the future. While on the subject of Anne Rice, I posted a message on the discussion page (Talk:Anne_Rice#Rice_home_damaged_by_Hurricane_Katrina?) but no one responded. Were you ever able to locate a credible source for your earlier edits regarding the effects of Hurricane Katrina on Rice's home? Hall Monitor 16:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Go to Lee Eddy; click on history; you have made one edit to that page, which is listed in the history. You did a reversion. Check it against the version before that one, and the current version, and you will see that you made a very simple reversion where previously I had changed the text "LadeeLeroy's House of Enjoyment" to "LadeeLeroy's PLACE of Enjoyment." You did this without verifying the information or if the change was correct. I don't need to post the diffs, nor did I really need to come back and respond to this, you could have done this very easily on your own if you had really wanted to. RE: Anne Rice, she made the commentary on her own weblog, but she has since removed it and replaced it with a very heavily reprinted essay on New Orleans, so the point is rather moot now which is why I never brought it up again. Pacian 21:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Stu Megan

Hi Hall Monitor, You recently deleted Stu Megan. This article has been on WP:PFD for several days, and all votes have been to keep, as the editors felt that sufficient notability had been asserted. Can you please consider undeleting the article, so that the PFD discussion can continue for the normal period? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pburka (talk • contribs) 00:03, 2 September 2005

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. For whatever reason, the article was missing it's {{vfd}} header. It has now been replaced and undeleted while being discussed. Hall Monitor 00:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Pburka 00:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Special:Ancientpages

I moved Wikipedia:Special:Ancientpages to Wikipedia:Special:Unedited for the longest time to make the title more accurately reflect the content. Not sure if I screwed something up in so doing (something that would require an admin to fix). Hey, you're an admin... Tell me if I've gone crazy here. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 05:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No harm was done. For whatever reason, the Special:Ancientpages redirect must be followed manually, but the move has been reversed. You may want to discuss the possibility of a name change at Wikipedia talk:Special:Ancientpages. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - good work! -- BD2412 talk 19:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Sophia Loren sex symbol deletion

I wish to invite you to visit the talk page for Sophia Loren to explain your rationale for removing Loren from the Sex Symbols category. Although an editior has since added one, there is really no need to cite a source with reference to Loren being a sex symbol. It's a cultural given, just as it's a given with Marilyn Monroe, Gina Lollobridgida, Brigitte Bardot, and others. WP:CITE does not apply. OTOH I do agree with your removal of Loren from the Gay Icons category as I think the criteria for inclusion is far too loose.23skidoo 16:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Although it may be a given that this figure is a sex symbol to us now, this is meaningless to someone reading this article decades from now, or to someone from another country who is unfamiliar with American pop culture. Consider that what may seem obvious today will not be to an interested reader one hundred years from now. Can any sources be provided which refer to Sophia Loren as a sex symbol? Hall Monitor 17:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
No one will be reading this decades from now. Get real - this is the internet! ;-) Seriously, this is not something that will be meaningless because Sophia Loren is considered to be a major figure in cinema. Now if someone wanted to post that Kathy Bates was considered a sex symbol, then I think a citation is necessary. But with Sophia Loren it is just common sense. If you really want me to provide sources, better set aside a server because I can probably give you hundreds. 23skidoo 17:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Two or three would probably be more than sufficient.  ;-) Hall Monitor 17:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Loren was a major sex symbol of the 60s. If she doesn't belong in this category, then you might as well rip out the others of her age such as Marilyn Monroe. Obviously she's not a sex symbol now, but she was and she's definitely earned her place in the category. This category is also not exclusive to American pop culture. There are a number of Brits and other nationalities in there such as Geri Halliwell and Kylie Minogue (Australia) and even guys from other countries like Jude Law and Colin Farrell. It may be prudent to seperate the ladies from the men, and if the category becomes too large, perhaps by decade (but we would want to limit overlap). K1Bond007 19:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
No, I was not joking, and my comments were well-intentioned. As 23skidoo will be selecting a few choice references for inclusion, I consider this matter to be resolved. My apologies for being such a stickler for facts, but my interests are vested in the long-term integrity of Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 19:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, my comment was meant to be sarcastic. I can in fact find any number of sources to support the contention, but I decline to do so on the grounds that it is unnecessary. Besides another editor of the article appears to have already cited a source. 23skidoo 19:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools#Navigation_popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is paste the following into User:Hall Monitor/Archive1/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupAdminLinks=true;

Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin 01:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandal in progress

I saw that you had a previous run in with a poster who vandalized the Danny Glover article. He is the same person who has been vandalizing the Ray Nagin article. When you reverted him you appear to have inadvertently reverted to another of his sock puppet accounts the first time, then reverted back to the mainstream version. Since then he has been describing his posts as reverting to 'Hall Monitor's better version', deliberately trying to conceal the fact that it is his POV version he is really reverting to. I also caught him turning redirect articles into POV platforms. There is no reason to start injecting Katrina content into First Responder as he did.--Gorgonzilla 03:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyway my comments in WP:VIP:

Vandal calling himself 'Long John Silver', keeps reverting entire article to a highly POV version mostly consisting of conspiracy theories found on blogs. The vandal appears to come from behing a NAT box and so the IP address changes, often with each post. The vandal has also converted certain redirect articles into his own personal platform for a highly POV article. See [8]. The same poster has also repeatedly violated WP:NPA in the talk for Able Danger under the names 'Honest Abe' and 'Swamp Fox' calling those with contrary views 'liars' and 'National Socialists'.

   * 138.162.0.38/28
   * 209.247.222.92/28

Oh more charming edits, 209.247.222.87 adding 'white power' to the MLK article. [9] And using the N. word on the Danny Glover article. [10]

HM-Good work on reverting the mess on the Ray Nagin page. I'm going to take off for awhile and go back to bed. Hopefully I can sleep for awhile. Later Davidpdx 9/15/05 9:30 (UTC)

ulayiti's RfA

Hi Hall Monitor, and thanks for your support of my RfA. I'm an administrator now, and I hope that I'll live up to the community's expectations as one. Your vote of confidence is much appreciated. - ulayiti (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Agee article

I wasn't sure why you reverted my edit of TDC's edit of my edit of TDC's edit of Agee. There is surely a process of Wiki negotiation going on here which has been productive in terms of generating a more complex article.

It is surely important to note that Mitrokhin and other ex-KGB types have tried to maximize their $$$$ value by making their stories and documents as important as possible. It is really imporant to note in passing that these sources are no more neutral than anything else which emanates from CIA channels. They are 'interested' witnesses.

What I have done is corrall all that material into one paragraph, and then to juxtapose it with those other things we can know objectively about.

Agee article

I wasn't sure why you reverted my edit of TDC's edit of my edit of TDC's edit of Agee. There is surely a process of Wiki negotiation going on here which has been productive in terms of generating a more complex article.

It is surely important to note that Mitrokhin and other ex-KGB types have tried to maximize their $$$$ value by making their stories and documents as important as possible. It is really imporant to note in passing that these sources are no more neutral than anything else which emanates from CIA channels. They are 'interested' witnesses.

What I have done is corrall all that material into one paragraph, and then to juxtapose it with those other things we can know objectively about.

Agee article changes

I wasn't sure why you reverted my edit of TDC's edit of my edit of TDC's edit of Philip Agee. There is surely a process of Wiki negotiation going on here which has been productive in terms of generating a more complex article.

It is surely important to note that Mitrokhin and other ex-KGB types have tried to maximize their $$$$ value by making their stories and documents as important as possible. It is really imporant to note in passing that these sources are no more neutral than anything else which emanates from CIA channels. They are 'interested' witnesses.

What I have done is corrall all that material into one paragraph, and then to juxtapose it with those other things we can know objectively about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.235.78 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 September 2005

Thank you for contacting me, it just so happens that I was in the process of drafting a message to you as well, while in the process of managing four other Wikipedia-related tasks at the same time.  :) As per WP:NPOV, please try to avoid point of view from bleeding into your edits. Specific examples include "The CIA, naturally, hasda different point of view." [11] By dropping the "naturally" this sentence becomes more neutral. There was also a small spelling error ("hasda"), but minor grammar wasn't my primary concern and in my opinion generally does not warrant a wholesale reversion. Further down the article you added another paragraph which I felt was leaning a bit too heavily towards personal opinion: "It is worth noting that Agee, even before the collapse of the USSR, kept his distance from Eastern Europe. It is striking, too, given the serious allegations of treason made against him, that he has traveled freely in Western Europe, and the United States government has never since the 1970s sought his arrest and extradition." Drop out the "It is worth noting" and "It is striking, too" and it becomes more neutral as well. I hope this answers your question and I do apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused you. If you run into any other issues please let me know, I am here to help. Hall Monitor 17:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked anon 206.176.119.180

Hi - noticed you blocked the anon User:206.176.119.180 for 72 hours. It's a noble idea, but I think it'd be more effective to block them for a shorter period of time; according to ARIN, that's a school in South Dakota, and they probably won't be posting tomorrow anyway. Maybe a 3-hour block would work better? Just a thought. - jredmond 16:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Three hours is too short in my opinion, as another Wikipedia administrator already blocked the IP for 24 hours due to rampant and persistent vandalism. If these vandals want attention, let them draw the attention of their school's technology department and not our readers. If you disagree and feel this is too severe, I will not reverse any changes you make to the temporary block. Hall Monitor 16:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Name

I am listed under CORDINA surname RENZO. I used to own a website which no longer exists. Maltesedog 19:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What is this regarding? Hall Monitor 19:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Never mind, I see this is related to the question I asked earlier on the Massimo Ellul discussion for deletion. My conditional vote for this person still stands, so long as everything within the article is factual and can be verified through credible references. Hall Monitor 19:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Nugent edit

Just thought I'd let you know: Replaced "wife" with "bison" is my favorite Wikipedia edit summary ever. Jgm 01:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

A delayed response, I know, but thank you for a much-needed laugh Monday morning. Hall Monitor 23:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Canadian in Washington?

:O I'm from New Westminster, B.C. and I live in King County. You're the only Canadian-Washingtonian I've seen. Now let's start up a two member cabal and VfD all things that are unfair to Canadians living in Washington. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan.  :D Hall Monitor 23:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Janelle Pierzina

I'm not sure if you know or not, but just in case, I thought I would mention the vote-for-deletion has restarted from scratch at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janelle Pierzina 2. This is because some complained about discounting of some "keep" votes, which caused the last AFD to result in a "re-direct". So, I hope you choose to revote. --rob 14:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed the second deletion discussion, you may read my latest comments here. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: 81.26.239.50

You gave User:81.26.239.50 a final warning, but he is still doing it. And User:GraemeL gave him another "please stop." Mean what you say. WikiDon 19:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

No response? WikiDon 20:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure what sort of response time you were expecting, but 52 weeks out of the year I like to relax by taking weekends off away from the console. You did not receive an immediate reply because you contacted me during one of those weekends. Generally speaking, I do not block people if they have ceased their offensive activities while I'm online, which was the case in the instance of 81.26.239.50. Should this particular person relapse into vandal-like activities while I am around, rest assured they will be dealt with accordingly. Please also be aware that channels exist for the purpose of reporting such problems, such as WP:VIP, WP:AIV, and WP:AN/I, all of which are monitored by a host of administrators rather than one person. In the future, please make a note that a concerted effort on your part to show politeness and respect when sparking up a new conversation would be greatly appreciated, as your implication that I do not mean what I say was not well received. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

209.215.160.95, 102, 103, 114, 117, 120

I've added the full(?) list of sockpuppets to the user pages, and linked to the new category. I already have a section under WP:VIP for him, but I'm not sure if anyone was looking at it. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Owen. I have also followed up at WP:VIP and added a couple of the other user accounts and IP addresses that this person employs and escalated the issue to severe at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#Jorn_Barger_vandal. Hall Monitor 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

On Notifying and Blocking

I hope I have answered your question on issuing a block at User:Cecropia#Admin_advice:_Threatening_a_Block. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 22:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

3RR Troll

Please block the 3RR trolling sockpuppet 66.43.173.74, as he and 209.x are sockpuppets of Long John Silver. Thanks.Voice of All (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will do my best to keep a watchful eye on this user as well as WP:AN/3RR where this matter is being discussed. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Warez

Since I recently voted on your RFA I would appreciate an outside admin opinion as to whether or not i've been "controlling" and "arbitrarily deleting content" from the Warez article. I have been accused of these things by an anonymous contributor on the talk page. See Talk:Warez#Criticism_on_Alkivar and Talk:Warez#My_reply_to_"Someone" for my reply. Thanks in advance...  ALKIVAR™ 19:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have poured over the links you provided and saw no evident problem with your edits. I have left a comment at Talk:Warez requesting that the anonymous contributor cite any specific concerns he may have regarding your edits and provide diffs for review so we may bring this matter to a close. Hall Monitor 23:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Advice needed

Is there a way I can contact you in private? Need advice on dealing with a user preventing changes to a bio page, claiming NPOV issues when I caught this person had deleted facts not favorable to a different bio page. Thanks --Pelladon 04:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If you need to reach me privately, you may do so by selecting the "E-mail this user" link here on my user page. Hall Monitor 20:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The unreferenced Marika Rökk

Hi, what references exactly would you like to see added to the Marika Rökk biography? The IMDb? Rökk's birth certificate, proving that she was actually born in Cairo? Her daughter's birth certificate, showing that she was her biological daughter? Any random film encyclopaedia in one slim volume where all those data are in turn "unreferenced" because they have been copied from some older source? Is this part of a new Wikipedia fad?

My questions may sound (a) cynical and (b) rhetorical, but I assure you they are neither. All the best, <KF> 19:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello KF and thank you for contacting me regarding the {{unreferenced}} tag which was recently placed atop the Marika Rökk article, your questions are welcomed. One of the cardinal rules and official policies of Wikipedia is no original research, and along with that is WP:CITE, which suggests that editors should cite sources for their edits wherever possible. This is a longstanding tradition and not a fad, I assure you.  :) As far as what sort of references to add, a birth certificate is not necessary, but a link to IMDb and any other sources used to create the article would be sufficient. This allows future editors to check the work of the article for any factual inaccuracies and possibly build from the reference material supplied. I hope this answers your questions, should you run into any other issues please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Popped by RfA lately?

Ola, HM, I've nominated R. fiend for adminship. If you're familiar with the quality of his contributions, I'd appreciate you're input in this RfA. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 00:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Bmicomp's RfA

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

hi, I thank you for your support to my adminship. Please monitor me too. And, I am seriously requesting you to do so. --Bhadani 10:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on receiving your adminship. I will gladly add your user page(s) to my watchlist as well. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Osioni resolved

Thank you for the explanation, only that I was nearly through the biography under the second Martin Sheehan photo. I see you had a fast method to transfer text out on its own and hope you can help one last time, save me retexting: Problem now resolved, have successfully moved the text.Osioni 21:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC) I'll leave the personality portrait away, having woven some of its points into the main text. With appreciation and greetingsOsioni 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Warez Again

I would appreciate it if you would read the discussions section of the Warez page before reverting it in future. There are numerous complaints listed against Alkivar at this point, mine not the least of them. I've posted a complete list of problems his edits are riddled with, not the least of which is deleting factual information and references and replacing them with bias. For instance, while he contends that warez is a threat to open source software (which is is technically not, as the unwritten rules of warez state that freeware is not to be "released"), he has deleted a reference to GPL-VIOLATIONS.org which details factual GPL Violations such as those he attempts to attribute to warez groups (most actual infringement against open source software comes from fraudulent companies, etc).

I've spent over a year researching warez groups for a paper on underground/online culture. The best resource has been Eric Goldman's (Marquette University) series of papers. These papers cover the history of the warez scene, yet information from them has been repeatedly deleted by Alkivar. He has falsely stated (and I would suggest that it's with an agenda, though he claims to be a former "warez scene member") that the phrase "warez" stems from "warehouses" - nowhere, in any online or offline reference, other than Alkivar's own writing, is this noted. I've not seen a single reference, and through my research, which includes interviews with people in online underground communities, this has never ONCE been stated.

His history edits are not a history of "warez", which can be considered a culture unto itself or a subculture of the 'net, but rather a history of copyright infringement, and there is an obvious and identifiable bias at work in his postings.

That he writes grammatically correct, catchy prose does not eliminate the fact that the page has changed for the worse since his edits came into play. They hinder the idea of Wikipedia being a source of information rather than a soapbox.

I'd gladly take this issue to arbitration if he agrees to it, but his attitude to another posters response in the discussion section was infantile at best.

Please cite sources

You have made a large number of edits to a wide range of articles today, but have not provided any source for your data. If you would, please WP:CITE source(s) for your changes in the future or they may be reverted. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't link to the charts because half of each chart is not visible to those who are not subscribed to billboard.com. Xinger 16:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
That is a problem. If you could atleast state the source in plain text and provide a date when the information was captured that would be very helpful. These figures are frequently vandalised as-is, unfortunately. Hall Monitor 16:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

User:164.116.193.227

164.116.193.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) just vandalized a few more...fyi. AdamRock 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC) ...thanks. :) AdamRock 20:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please maintain civility towards others

Regarding this comment which you left recently for User:65.148.103.13: Please be WP:CIVIL when making requests of others and extend new users the common courtesy that they deserve. As expressed in WP:bite, new contributors are prospective members and are our most valuable resource. Hall Monitor 22:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I must be on a different planet. I simply ask:
  1. Is publicaly a word?
    I couldn't find it in my dictionary.
  2. Cite your source for Tommy Lasorda Jr. material, or it comes out.
    Is the unreasonable? Asking for source for material? I thought it was resonable. I was being very friendly, I said "HOWDY!" I am missing something here. WikiDon 22:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, your tone is objectionable. Please try to be more polite when making requests of others. Hall Monitor 22:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
There is NO tone what so ever. There is no inflection in my voice. Okay, I ask you, is there a word publicaly? I can't find one single source outside of a disgruntled Glenn Burke who says that Tommy Lasorda Jr. was gay and dies of AIDS. I would like to find ONE reputable source. Can you help me? WikiDon 22:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Next time I'll just copy+paste this:
==Please cite sources==
You have made a large number of edits to a wide range of articles today, but have not provided any source for your data. If you would, please WP:CITE source(s) for your changes in the future or they may be reverted. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDon (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 September 2005
That will be fine. With regards to the Tommy Lasorda article, I have cited 5 references which allege that the cause of his son's death stemmed from AIDS. A google search for the two [12] returns approximately 12,500 hits. When someone of Lasorda's stature wants to keep something a family secret, it becomes very difficult to concretely validate, but it is still something which has received a great deal of press and is deserving of attention within the article. Hall Monitor 23:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hall (if that really is your name), I Yahoo!ed and Googled: "'tommy lasroda' AIDS -burke" and got 12 hits. [13], and 24 hits [14] I looked at every one of them, garbage. Mainly bulletin boards and abunch of unrealted charity events listing AIDS charities with the T.L. Jr. Foundation, and the like. And Wiki hits. Not ONE good hit. I did try.

  1. I don't mean to have TONE with you but, if you read this sentence:
"According to former Dodger Glenn Burke, the first major league player to acknowledge his homosexuality, Lasorda could not accept his son's sexual orientation. He and his wife live in Fullerton, California."
It makes the reader think that Gleen Burke and his wife live in Fullerton, CA.

Yours with a business like tone and no other, WikiDon 23:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, {{sofixit}}.  ;-) Hall Monitor 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up anytime. --Doc (?) 19:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Bartcop

Just to drop by and ask you to please site your sources on BartCop's identity, or it will continue to be deleted. Besides, LMAO, you may even be identifying the WRONG person as BartCop. Thanks! Lone Odessan 15:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me and welcome to Wikipedia as well, as it appears you are a relative newcomer to the project. The overall integrity of the Wikipedia project is a great concern of mine as well, but if you do not mind my asking, what is your personal connection to Terry Coppage and the nature of your interest in the Bartcop article? The reason I ask this is because on several occassions you have removed his real name with remarks such as "BartCop wishes to remain anonymous", "HE WISHES TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS, THANK YOU", and "Removed real name again, as he wishes to remain anonymous". The last one I have quoted is worthy of note because you yourself acknowledge that his real name is Terry Coppage. Additionally, Coppage's site is advertised with the slogan "BartCop - The Political Humor of Terry Coppage" on a multitude of web directories. There are also a number of blogs and articles online that also refer to him by his real name and alias simultaneously. There is even a book review written by Coppage at Amazon.com, signed with his full name and email address bartcop@mindspring.com [15]. Is there any particular reason you wish to censor his identity from Wikipedia? Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response, and for the welcome to Wikipedia. I am relatively new to the WikiWorld, as such I admit that I have plenty to learn about this new milieu I find myself in, however, so far and to the best of my ability to discern, the link you provide to a book review by a netizen on amazon.com doesn't prove that BartCop is who you say he is. I can type an email addy into a review on the same website that I can link to that would "prove" that I am Lothar, King Of The Hill People, but does that in and of itself proof make? My previous edits to remove the name you put forth speak for themselves, I believe. BartCop, whomever he is, doesn't identify himself on any of his 1600+ web entries on his site, www.bartcop.com, and in fact he has gone to lengths (described on same site) to avoid any mention of his identity. Agree with you, however, on the slogan "BartCop - The Political Humor of Terry Coppage" being out there on the net. My personal desire to keep his identity off of Wiki reflects his apparent preference of anonymity, that's all. I'm forced to inquire of you the opposite now.... is there any particular reason that you wish to continue to paste a name (correct or not....you have not sited undeniable proof, just some online blurbs, really.... why not a WHOIS inquiry or to attempt to contact him at the e-mail addy found in your example from amazon.com?) to the BartCop article on Wikipedia? Thanks, in advance, Lone Odessan 02:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Here, thought I'd help you - - Here's a WHOIS search. Thanks for your understanding...
Registrant:
Computer Tyme Hosting
754 Glenview Dr. #201
San Bruno, CA 94066
US
Domain name: BARTCOP.COM
Administrative Contact:
Perkel, Marc
754 Glenview Dr. #201
San Bruno, CA 94066
US
+1.6508733064
Technical Contact:
Perkel, Marc
754 Glenview Dr. #201
San Bruno, CA 94066
US
+1.6508733064
Looks like Marc Perkel is the name "of record".....
Would you also agree that this: [[16]] is vandalism? Can nothing be done to prevent this anon user OR sockpuppet, whichever, from popping in and vandalizing legitimate edits? Isn't the user guilty of the "3RR" rule? Curious..... Lone Odessan 07:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, the Bartcop article fell off my radar yesterday. I am in the process of polling WHOWAS data on this domain to see how these records may have changed since the 1990s. Domain registry information has become practically useless over the last few years. In any case, I will do my best to keep a closer eye on this article for the time being. Hall Monitor 16:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Update: As you may already be aware, Tony Sidaway has provided an additional reference, a copy of a Salon.com article from June 2002, which further corroborates that Bartcop is indeed Terry Coppage. It is not uncommon today for domain name registrars to masquerade contact information of their clients, so any contact information gleaned from these databases is generally meaningless. Such is not the case in this instance, as Marc Perkel is apparently "an eccentric computer programmer who ran against incumbent John Ashcroft in the 2000 Missouri Republican Senate primary, garnering 10 percent of the vote with almost no campaigning" [17] and responsible for providing Terry Coppage with the financial assistance necessary to start the Bartcop site. I am glad that we could bring this issue to a close and should you have any other comments or questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating me

I appreciate the confidence you have shown by nominating me for adminship, but I felt it was better to withdraw. My "extreme inclusionism" is an irredeamable flaw in many too people's eyes. Not being able to speedy delete junk CAT:CSD is annoying but there are plenty of others who can do it instead of me, and it saves me an edit :) Kappa 21:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks also for nominating me for adminship. I happily accept the nomination. Cheers! 23skidoo 00:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 21:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 23:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Monitor-- Thanks you for your comments concerning my RfA. Well, you didn't really leave much to respond to, so all I can say is, thanks for your time. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 02:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection request

I can't tell why Image:Beatles-singles-the-long-and-winding-road-1.jpg is protected (no history of vandalism on the page that I can see), but I need to do a blank save on it to get rid of a pesky disambig false positive from its template. Can you unprotect it? Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 15:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Per your request, this image is now unprotected. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - the false positive is fixed. -- BD2412 talk 19:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

moved from userpage

please excuse me if I am doing this wrong, but I got a message that this site has blocked something I proposed regarding the hole in the ozone layer at the south pole. My e-mail return address is LA WILLIS25 at aol if you will please reply.

i also got some strange from characters such as evil monkey?!1! if this is some sort of automatic reply bedeviling this site i will not expect a detailed reply; however, my edit seemed to cite suficient authorities such as the Encyclopedia Brittannica and Bill Nyes the Science Guy; if that is insufficient authority; please advise;

as to whether this is irrelevant, if whether the hole in the ozone layer is a naturally occurring phenomenae or manmade ir irrellevant, please explain

205.188.116.7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.7 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 October 2005

Pop singer fancruft

I'm at my wit's end in trying to deal with the glut of heavily biased and infactual articles on Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, and several other pop singers. The editors' actions in making all of these articles have gone unchecked, and are establishing bad precedents that are steadily decreasing NPOV coverage of music in the WIkipedia. I have talked to one of them until I was blue in the face (and had wasted an entire Friday evening) to no avail; he thinks I'm "jealous" of "his" articles. What can be done about this, or is the matter truly a lost cause? --FuriousFreddy 04:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can cite some specifics regarding these two articles, I would be more than glad to assist you in toning down any sort of promotional text within either one. Not long after I finally registered here I took on the task of requiring sources for vocal profiles within articles, a feat that many thought unimaginable. If you would like, I would also be glad to help communicate the nature of GFDL and show that no one single editor is in possession of an article on Wikipedia. Surely, if we can take on more exhaustingly politicised articles like Barbara Schwartz we can handle this. Don't lose hope.  :) Hall Monitor 16:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I Need Your Help

I seen the reverts from many of the articles we had contributed. These annoying vandals keep adding their opinions, jokes, underlines, the whole nine yards. I been trying to give the warning but to no avail. Since your more experience in the situation. Could you block these vandals from rewriting Wiki-editors articles. These are some of the articles that are considered usual targets of vandals:

I appreciate the help. And thanks for your support and keep making good articles. LILVOKA

User:DickyRobert

Possible sockpuppet? User:60.34.94.68 and User:60.34.145.70 also show similar patterns.

User continually reverts List of warez groups article back to his version, regardless of the fact that other users have made edits, and that multiple people in the AfD process specifically wanted things like usernames, site names, irc channels and website spam removed. Even to go so far as to remove html comments specifically asking for users to provide references in order to add to the list.

I dont particularly care about the personal attacks on me, frankly that doesn't matter, its the going against consensus that is irritating... See user's contribs or article history and make up your own mind...

Figured i'd crosspost this from WP:ANI to you as you had attempted to assist in the article clean up.  ALKIVAR™ 07:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible mistake?

You just sent me the following note: Currently, you are editing anonymously. You can continue to do so. You are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, but doing so will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 70.19.37.106). There are many benefits for logging in to Wikipedia.

However, I have been editing under my original username (Rms125a@hotmail.com) and it was not until the second I logged off that your message appeared. Perhaps you made a mistake!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.37.106 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 October 2005

No, it was not a mistake. An edit which you recently made [18] came up on my watchlist and I welcomed what I thought to be a new user to Wikipedia, which I've been known to do on occassion.  :-) Hall Monitor 22:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Black Entertainment Television

A user moved the article to an improper title, and another moved it back by doing a copy-and-paste edit. Can you restore the article with the full history to Black Entertainment Television, where it belongs? Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 02:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that this was resolved while I was away. If it happens again, the article can be protected from page moves. Hall Monitor 16:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

May I?

Hi! You seem to want to protect me from myself..... see following....

Someone (probably you, from IP address 69.92.202.194) requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org. The password for user "Lone Odessan" is now "XXXXXXX". You should log in and change your password now.
If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

....the 2 paragraphs above this line were mailed to me as I forgot my password to Wiki, but proceeded to edit my OWN userpage.....and I even put the following in the notes-box-window beside the edit I made:

(cur) (last) 19:09, 6 October 2005 69.92.202.194 (Restoring MY user page to what the USER wants it to be - - -NOT offensive.....just you're NOT the user. Thanks!)

Am I in the wrong or can I not edit my own userpage? Thanks, again, in advance.... Lone Odessan 19:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The edits were made by User:69.92.202.194, apparently while you were not logged in, so I understandably mistook the blanking of a valid discussion page to be vandalism. If you don't mind my asking, why would you want to remove that element of the conversation after all the time and effort put into resolving this dispute? Hall Monitor 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ninja birthday

HM,
I was under the impression that there was no verifiable information about AK himself, thus making his date and place of birth not something that should go in a cat. Correct me? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I have made a point of not voting during the second Ashida Kim deletion nomination, there is a very long list of publicly verifiable information about Radford W. Davis, a.k.a. Ashida Kim. Samuel Browning of Bushido should not have second guessed himself, he was on the right track. Unfortunately I will be out of town this weekend, but I will be adding a few additional links before I go. Hall Monitor 00:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It's not Radford W. Davis that I thought was unverified, but the facts around his being AK. I'm pretty unfussed, except for how much I like saying "ninja"! - brenneman(t)(c) 00:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Hall Monitor. Excellent work on Ashida Kim's page. Made my day! Cool fact about Arthur Jones on your page too!Kenpo Tom 00:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Amit K. Saiya

I'm a bit concerned about Amit K. Saiya - authored by User:Dr Amit K Saiya, who has also written Harmonie Research Foundation. Both articles hint of vanity, but I'd like a second opinion.  BD2412 talk 03:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Please accept my humble apologies for overlooking this comment for so long, I just now noticed it. It appears someone has nominated Amit K. Saiya for deletion already, and the same should be done for the research foundation as it is completely non-verifiable. Google only returns one match for this foundation, a link to my talk page. [19] Hall Monitor 22:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

moved from userpage

Hi Hall Monitor, thank you for your input to the Stephen John Sutton entry. I appreciate the need to have more sources of information for this entry, but getting information from and about Stephen is really part of the core problems with his case. It is extraordinarily difficult to find English speaking people in Argentina to visit him in the prison in Argentina. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) have fallen short on their duties to provide consular assistance to him and are very guarded in their release of information to his family in Australia. Also, being that Stephen in in Argentina, it's hard to get any press coverage on his case. The Stephen John Sutton entry is my first Wikipedia article. I am very happy to have any assistance from experienced Wikipedians in helping flesh out the entry. Cheers, --Diana Elgar 00:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

User: 204.113.91.11

Please see my Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/204.113.91.11. I am not sure how to handle this user. The person continues publish what she believes to be my real name to the discussion pages of Barbara Schwarz. Also numerous threats of legal action (both civil and criminal complaints) against myself and wikipedia have been made. This person was recently blocked for 1 week, but immediately returned to start her attacks and vandalism again.

I would appreciate your advice on how to handle this situation. No editor should be publicly "outed" and harassed in the discussion pages. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and not real familiar with the procedures. I was hoping you could substantiate my claims in the RfC or act directly to prevent this from continually happening. Vivaldi 06:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank You From The Cabal

Which of course we all know doesn't exist ;-). Please let me know if I can help out with anything in the future from my new admin status. Karmafist 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

A big thank you for your help and support, I look forward to meeting you in more productive contexts, Yours, Trollderella 23:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

63.197.187.30

[20] You beat me to the punch.  :) I had blocked him 3 minutes prior to you, but became sidetracked before I could deliver the wonderful news to our contributor. Hall Monitor 23:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah right, well done. I wish someone would code up "already blocked" warnings for special:blockip, we already check whether the username exists so it shouldn't be that hard.. Oh well, we can dream. --fvw* 23:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of which, does a forum exist for requesting new features? With nearly 5,000 articles now on my watchlist, it would be extremely useful to be able to filter by anonymous IP the same way we can on WP:RC. Taking it another step further, it would also be wonderful to be able to filter by users who have blank user pages on both. Hall Monitor 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's Wikipedia:Feature request and the mediawiki bugzilla (severity: enhancement), but generally if you want something done you'd better do it yourself. --fvw* 00:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I should have guessed. In any case, I have posted my request at Wikipedia:Feature_request#Hide_logged_in_users_from_Watchlist. Best regards, Hall Monitor 00:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep in mind that it's probably better not to RC patrol from your watchlist though, as reloading your watchlist eats huge amounts of server power whereas reloading WP:RC is relatively cheap. --fvw* 00:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my RfA!

Image:WikiThanks.png Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Glad you thought I was worthy of nomination too! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

RE:

Thanks for the comment about my signature. Leave a message on my talk page if you want to know how to do that to your own. --☺Adam1213☺|talk 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocking of User:66.26.83.157

Not to second guess your judgement, but I noticed you blocked User:66.26.83.157 for 48 hours for vandalism. Both of his edits go George W. Bush seemed like a newbie test rather than malicious vandalism to me, and he even reverted his own test at Enemy of God. He has been warned on his talk page, and I think your 48 hour block was a bit overboard for a simple newbie test. The newbies of today are the worthwhile contributors of tomorrow, and I think we are scaring them off by taking such a harsh line on blocking. Again, this is just my opinion, you're the admin and if you feel differently then that is your decision. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

While I am always one who tries to assume good WP:FAITH whenever possible, the last two edits by this IP address were a dead giveaway that the edits were malintended, and not mere tests. [21] [22] "He was arrested for driving under the influence|being a lsalsd" was not something I interpreted as a mistake. As you may be aware, the George W. Bush is the most vandalised article on Wikipedia, with approximately 90% of all the edits towards that article being vandalism-related. Also note that each and every section (not just the header) of the George W. Bush article contains the following text: "Anyone who vandalizes the page may be blocked for 24 hours or more without further warning." There is simply no excuse for the actions of this particular editor. Hall Monitor 21:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the reasoning is that he is a returning vandal since GB was vandalized repeatedly by different IPs. My question would be: why 48 hours? The vandal will likely change IPs after finding himself blocked and the block may affect innocent users. I would think that a day or less block would be better. - Tεxτurε 21:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
If another sysop would like to change the expiration time of this particular block, please feel free to do so. Hall Monitor 21:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that warnings about vandalism had been added to every section, and yes, I knew GWB was the most vandalized article, but still 48 hours seems a bit much when it isn't even a blanking or malicious negativity (i.e. redirecting to Hitler). P.S. your last edit answers this, but I typed this and you conflicted me when I went to submit, and I didn't want to be rude by not replying. Thanks for your prompt and courteous responses. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me in any case; in the future I will apply a 24-hour block for first-time vandals of this article to limit the effect this may have on potentially innocent users in the event the IP is shared. Hall Monitor 21:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RfA

Yes, indeed it is normal for us to make mistakes. That is just part of being human. But I will make sure I learn from all my mistakes, so they need never be repeated.  Denelson83  22:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush

Howdy. I think I can put something together that could be used for any page to analyze the history. I left comments on the GWB Talk Page to make sure I have the specs correct. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 22:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious first, how you locked George Bush but the page got anon edits immediately. Was it tagged as locked without actually being locked?
Also, the idea that I suggested about locking pages in general against anon edits I don't think should just get lost in the talk shuffle. It's a good idea. It would save time for admins and it would make it more likely that the incidental browser gets the page rather than vandalism. Where should it be brought it up? Marskell 00:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes that was a bit strange, when I have a moment I will have to review the protection logs on this article; hopefully it was a human error and not a glitch.
New features can be requested at Wikipedia:Feature_request, but a suggested I made on the 12th of October is still pending a response. Once Durin or RobyWayne have an opportunity to compile some visuals I am going to bring this before the developers once again for consideration. It appears that User:Kizzle had brought up the concept of "semi-protection" (editing restricted only to registered accounts which have existed for a specified number of days, the same way page moves are restricted) at the Wikipedia:Village pump once before, and it received a good deal of support from the other admins, but in the end only a developer can add these features. Hall Monitor 16:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush stats request

Caught me at a bad time; beginning of the weekend for me, and my computer use drops through the floor on weekends. I might get to this next week. --Durin 23:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

List of units using the B-26 Marauder during World War II

I've been working on getting this up to be Featured List material ... wanna give this a once over and see if theres anything you think I should improve upon?  ALKIVAR™ 07:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ron Washington

Hi Having reviewed the comments on the AFD for this article I have now recast my vote as a Keep. Eddie.willers 00:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

167.206.112.86

I had blocked 167.206.112.86 indefinitely myself in the past, but then unblocked it as per request of User:Kyla. Whereas all anonymous edits are trash, there seems to be at least one (sort of) legitimate user at this IP, which is supposedly the IP of Kyla's school. --Pjacobi 16:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Adminship for User:sfoskett

You've made a number of great improvements to Wikipedia, and I believe that administrative privileges would only enhance your ability to contribute. So if you do not mind, I have taken the initiative to nominate you for adminship.  :-) Now go do something about it. Hall Monitor 21:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • By the way, should you wish to accept, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate#What_to_do_if_you_are_nominated: as there have been some slight changes to the WP:RFA process. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi Stephen. It has been almost a week since I drafted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sfoskett but you still have not responded to your nomination. Are you not interested in receiving adminship? If not, please let me know and I will cancel this nomination. You are a valuable contributor to Wikipedia who I believe would find benefit in the privileges granted to administrators, but the first step towards receiving them is signing your acceptance.  :) If you have any questions regarding this process, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page or via e-mail. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've finally added my comments to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sfoskett. I was mulling it over. Part of me doesn't want to be an admin, but in general I decided it would be worth it. Thanks for the notice! --SFoskett 15:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for giving the nomination serious thought and consideration, I am glad you accepted. I wish you the best of luck. Hall Monitor 16:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant page vandalism by 66.229.134.210

Hiya, Hall Monitor. It looks like anon user 66.229.134.210 is back to vandalizing Kobe Bryant now that his temp block has expired. Could you step in? Thanks. -->Chemical Halo 17:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that no one noticed this problem over the weekend, IP address 66.229.134.210 has now been blocked for a second time. If racist vandalism of this sort persists, please do not hesitate to add the Kobe Bryant article to WP:VIP, an extra pair of eyes on this wouldn't hurt. Hall Monitor 16:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The Game Article

I'm wondering if the article writer who keeps posting comments on The Game posting is BigFase 100 of The Black Wall Street Records, Inc. or a vandal? The person keeps reverting and leaving disturbing messages on the screen. Could you do something about that person? Because this person chooses to be unknown. Thanks LILVOKA 23:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as this editor has opted not to create an account or log in, it has been difficult to converse as their IP address keeps changing. Posting personal messages of any kind in an article, such as Big Fase 100 has been doing, is both disruptive and a form of vandalism. In any case, a response has been made at Talk:The_Game_(rapper)#FINAL_WARNING which suggests referring to WP:IFD should the article contain images which are in violation of copyright or fair use. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

my non-linking of edgar allen poe

Hiyas Hall Monitor :)

Just wanted to clarify why I didn't link Edgar Allen Poe's article in the warning I gave to the anon. I don't like to give a potential vandal easy access back to the article they were vandalizing. I'll use the test-1n etc templates for initial vandalisms or if a lot of time has passed between warnings on their pages, but otherwise they get a plain test with the article name hopefully in the edit summary (so I can keep track of the timestamps).

I know it probably doesn't slow them down much, but I like the idea that they have to at least cut and paste it back into the search box. :) /evil. Thanks for looking out for one of Baltimore's Favorite Sons. --Syrthiss 20:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

the wub's RfA

Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub "?!" 14:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you!
Thank you!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd(?!?) 17:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Test Templates

Hi there! I saw your edit on the user page of an anon IP that we both left {{test}} messages for, and I noticed that you pasted a full URL to the edit in question, followed by a {{test3}}. Something you may not be aware of is that some helpful soul created -n templates that take the article name as a variable. Eg, you can now, for all the test templates, do something like this: {{subst:test3-n|Abraham Lincoln}} and it'll write a message telling the user that the warning is in regards to that specific article. Hope you find this useful! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite useful indeed. I will add this to my repertoire of templates immediately.  :) Hall Monitor 17:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

George Alexander debate

No problem... I was just erring on the side of caution. Some of these AfD debates have been getting nasty, particularly on contentious topics like schools, so I just want to make sure I'm not adding to the problem. I will say though that you are one of the users who understand that debate and disagreement over POV does not equate a personal attack, so it was probably not even necessary for me to bring it up, but I've been trying to be more careful since I raised some hackles over the past few weeks.--Isotope23 15:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Linking to lyrics websites

Incidentally I wonder if Wikipedia:Websites would be relevant to this discussion at all, since the SIQ meets several of the qualifications listed. Please see my user page at your convenience to discuss this. BronzeWarrior 21:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi BronzeWarrior, please accept my apologies for my delayed response-- Although Yamla already covered this, I just wanted to add that I agree with his interpretation that Wikipedia:Websites is more or less intended as a guideline for determining if a particular website is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia:External links is the best guide to determine how and when to add external links to individual articles. In my own opinion, and please note that this is not an official policy, it is not necessary to add links to a lyrics database for each individual musician in existence, unless the article makes a written reference to a particular song's lyrics. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Juon

H.M. I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. I've tried to disambiguify the entry Juon because it auto-redirects to the entry for the movie Ju-on, and I think these changes may have been rolled back by an overzealous editor. This auto-redirect is a disservice to other people whose names may come up under a search for Juon, such as noted composer Paul Juon. Please advise me how to make this change permanent. BronzeWarrior 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, it has been corrected.  ;-) Hall Monitor 00:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Much obliged H.M., much obliged. :) BronzeWarrior 02:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Thanks for your kind words. I've now accepted the nomination, and added the article here — hope that is the right way to do it. -- Egil 08:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:WisenthalOWU.jpg

Regarding your recent upload, Image:WisenthalOWU.jpg, who are the people photographed in this image, and who took the photograph? Hall Monitor 20:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The information that you asked has been recorded at the upload on the site that uses it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonwies (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 October 2005 [23]
Well, yes, that is partially true. There are several reasons I asked;
  1. There is no description of the image at the image page, Image:WisenthalOWU.jpg, it simply says "Taken by user:Simonwies in 2001" in the summary, nothing else.
  2. Following the article which links to this image, it says in the caption: "Former Wesleyan President David Warren, Simon Wiesenthal and in 1991 at a reception for his honorary degree".
  3. Not including the fifth person whose face is obstructed by the gentleman on the far left, there are four people who appear in this photograph. The description provided within the article does not indicate which of the two are David Warren and Simon Wiesenthal.
  4. Strangely, the image is titled WisenthalOWU.jpg rather than WiesenthalOWU.jpg.
  5. Going back to my first bullet point, the image summary states "Taken by user:Simonwies". Are you Simon Wiesenthal, a friend, or a fan?
Please get back to me regarding these concerns at your earliest convenience. Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Provide what exactly you want me to provide? (a) Who is taken by? (already provides as you noticed) (b) List of all people in the photograph? Simonwies 20:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It is rather unclear who is in the photograph and who the photographer actually is. At your convenience, please respond to all of my concerns noted above when you have a chance. Thanks, Hall Monitor 21:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't have the time to write essays here. Provide exactly what it is that you want to see: (1) Who took the photograph? (I answered that question already...Taken by user:Simonwies looks pretty clear to me) (2) Who is the photograph? (I will provide that information). (c) Anything else specific? Simonwies 21:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • With the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, I have removed this image from the article until you can thoroughly address these concerns. Please respond in full when you have the time. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't overstep your authority or I will address the issue with another administrator. Follow the guidelines. They specify that whoever uploads it should specify (1) Who took the picture (anybody who can read english can understand that already from the image page (2) who is in it (I just added that information. (3) Whether I am a fan is irrelevant to you and the guidelines here. Please respond or I will address it with somebody else Simonwies 21:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you feel that I have been unreasonable or overstepped my bounds in any way, please do not hesitate to bring this before another administrator or mediator on Wikipedia for third party intervention. A more effective use of your time would be to provide the information requested, but should you wish to take the route of escalation, a full list of administrators is available at Wikipedia:List of administrators (WP:LA). Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want...I answered each of your concerns by adding more information on the image page...what else do you want from me? Simonwies 21:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, this admin thinks the image looks fishy too. Simonwies should provide more information about the circumstances of how the image came to be taken, where, and what date. Fawcett5 21:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Image appears to be a copyvio from here [24]. Fawcett5 21:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That was exactly what I was afraid of. I did my best to assume good faith but did not want to see Wikipedia held liable for a potential copyright violation while this was being resolved. User:Simonwies is also a potential {{UsernameBlock}} candidate as well, as I had initially thought this person to be Simon Wiesenthal. Hall Monitor 21:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that would be a clever trick, since he is dead. Cheers, Fawcett5 22:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Laugh. OK, I will take this as a sign that I need to take the weekend off.  ;-) Hall Monitor 22:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops...

Could you, perchance, undo my ill-thought out move of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/archive 01 - I was trying to keep the original history in the archived version. Didn't work out.  BD2412 talk 02:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Please disregard - it's done. :-)  BD2412 talk 03:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you place

{{Current Holiday}} on The Halloween page i was about to but while i was doing it you "reinstated {{vprotect}}" --Alan Frize 19:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Consider it done. Hall Monitor 19:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for being so prompt.--Alan Frize 19:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

A big pixelated wikithanks for the Barnstar! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 23:25
A big pixelated wikithanks for the Barnstar! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 23:25

afd helper

I have built a script to speed up voting on AFDs and am looking for feedback. Please have a go! jnothman talk 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

James Reed

For your convenience I have added the references for James Reed. I assure you I only used authenticated sources in creating any NFL player's profile that I have added to Wikipedia; reputable sites like NFL.com who would have no reason to be inaccurate or misleading. BronzeWarrior 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally do I need to provide a reference or source for every article I create? I would not add material to Wikipedia spuriously and to be honest I'm starting to feel a twinge of irritation at being "checked up on." There certainly aren't any self-promotional links in creating entries for NFL players. BronzeWarrior 08:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you BronzeWarrior, the stub looks great! Generally speaking, yes, citing a referance for each and every article you create is a good habit to get into. There are two official Wikipedia policies which cover this, WP:V and WP:NOR. The first asks that only verifiable content be contributed, the second that the content contributed not be "original research". In addition to these two policies, there is also WP:CITE, a widely accepted style guide on how to cite sources during your contributions. Please don't feel irritated by this, these policies exist as a system of checks and balances in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. We all make honest mistakes from time to time, and by providing sources for your edits you allow other editors to peer check your work, or in some rare cases pick up on conflicting sources of information. Keep up the great work, and if you have any other questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

PRueda29 RFA

Thanks for you support! I really appreciate it. BTW, have you considered archiving parts of, or all of your talk page? PRueda29 21:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you so very much for nominating the third of my rather contentious requests for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on receiving your adminship, I know you will continue to do great things here. Hall Monitor 16:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Chart done

Chart's done. You can view it at Image:HallMonitorEditSummaryUsage.png. When you're done with the chart, you can feel free to delete it. I won't be attributing it anywhere else. I'm amazed at how prolific you've been. >10,000 edits since May? Wow! --Durin 20:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Durin for both the chart and the sound advice which you gave Jacqui Schedler. I've added her to my list of prospective admins.  :) Hall Monitor 20:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
If you steal her I will ruthlessly hunt you down! Just kidding :) I don't care who nominates someone, so long as the nominee is qualified. Feel free to pillage my list of people I am watching if you like. I don't care. In fact, there's a rather good editor located on another list on that page, ones I've reviewed and didn't want to nominate under my standards. All the best, --Durin 20:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to User:Durin/My_guidelines_for_admin_nomination#Editors_I_am_currently_watching, I see some good potential there.  :) Hall Monitor 22:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Outright theft

I admit it. I'm sorry... I stole the This user speaks Canadian English at a native level, `eh. tag (and the box it was in) right off your page. I hope that's not too big of an offence. (Seriously, if that's not cool just let me know.) --Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 04:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, all of my contributions are licensed under GFDL and CC-SA licenses. Hall Monitor 16:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Wetzler

Hi. Please check this one out. Seems to be a prank by a student I know, but in light of the newbie voter's statements, I'd rather avoid the appearance of bias. BD2412 T 20:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

At the very least, this article does appear to be a vanity page of sorts; the name "Ernie Wetzler" returns a mere 11 hits on Google. [25] It may be a prank, but in any case it should be deleted for not meeting the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO, I've left a comment suggesting that the article be removed. Hall Monitor 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup

Hi, HM! Thanks for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson 16:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Hi. When you protect a page, you're supposed to list it on Wikipedia:Protected page. Otherwise, people don't notice that it's been protected. Since it's been a couple of days, I'm going to unprotect it now. Let's hope the rampant vandalism doesn't return. But then, it's probably the most vandalized page on the 'pedia, we can't just keep it permanently protected. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, little to nothing was gained from this article being unprotected. This article exemplifies precisely why Wikipedia needs to institute some sort of semi-protection measure, such as the one discussed previously at Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_35#Semi-protection_again. If you will review the edit history since you removed protection on November 13, 2005 at 7:20, you will see that over 95% of the changes to the article were either vandalism or the removal of vandalism. We as administrators need something more effective than {{vprotect}} for high traffic articles such as these. I respectfully disagree that we cannot keep this article permanently protected; some degree of protection is needed, obviously, but on that same token we should not limiting editors who are in good standing. Will you join me in my proposal for a semi-protection capability? Hall Monitor 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not even going to try to read that page till the tiny font is fixed. You have the same problem on this page. What's going on? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The tiny fonts issue appears to have been resolved. I am not aware of what the specific details were, but the problem had something to do with people using signatures containing HTML code. Hall Monitor 17:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you're around...

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes? Much obliged. android79 20:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The user Remington and the Rattlesnakes has been blocked for a second time for violating WP:3RR. Hall Monitor 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! It could use another revert, as well. android79 20:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Dubya

Thanks for thinking about me! I'm off to join the fray. - Lucky 6.9 22:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


checking contribs

Hi Hall Monitor!

As a matter of fact I almost always do check user contribs... sometimes I forget though, as I did in this case. Thanks for checking Ligeti and fixing the vandalism! Antandrus (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

January 2006 Seattle meetup

Redwolf24 mentioned on Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle3 that you might be interested. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There's a problem with unknown Wiki-users

There are people continously deleting, adding rhetoric and putting in malicious messages (devoted with their bias) on the following and it's pretty annoying for "good writers" to revert and add "facts" to the articles. Here's the articles taken in to consideration:

Thank you for your help and good luck. LILVOKA

Follow-up: I decided to protect the 50 Cent, G-Unit, and The Game articles due to the continous rewrites and vandalism. If there's a problem with this let me know. I will remove the protection from the articles after a decision is imposed on how to deal with vandals with opinionated agenda. Thanks for you support and I will reply back soon! LILVOKA.

Need a favor (again)

This must be the umpteenth time, but I rather errantly moved User:Darren.bowles to User:Darren.Bowles because he was signing with the latter, but I later discovered he was still logging in with the former - can you undo my move? Cheers! BD2412 T 20:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Consider it done. Remind me again why I'm not drafting your RFA proposal right now? Hall Monitor 20:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
As teh l33t folks say, thx! (and because I'm waiting until December, which is now only nine days away). Cheers! BD2412 T 22:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ianblair23's RfA

G'day Hall Monitor,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

65.116.102.4 is now blocked

The vandal using IP address 65.116.102.4 has been blocked now for a second time. For future reference, three final warnings are more than sufficient to impose a temporary restriction from editing upon someone who is engaging in rampant vandalism.  ;-) Hall Monitor 20:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the user had more than 3 warnings, which is enough for blockage, but I was attempting to put in further record of the vandalism going on. I just wanted to make sure we keep an extensive logs for vandals, so it will make it easier to realize the vandal's past attacks and history. Either case, thanks again for blocking the guy.--LifeStar 20:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
That is fair and understandable. When any given IP address begins to show a sizeable track record of vandalism with a history of blocks, you may also place the {{repeat vandal}} template atop the talk page so other administrators may review a complete list of contributions and blocks in real-time. Hall Monitor 20:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

GWB vandalism

Hi there. You've recently begun something of a determined course of action to have this article protected. Admins have repeatedly unprotected it quite quickly; I was wondering if you were aware of this. It's fundamentally wrong to have our highest profile articles protected, in the same way we never protect the main page article. Most vandalism on GWB is removed in well under a minute, and those in #wikipedia-en-vandalism practically scramble to be the first to revert. Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:Semi protection instead? -Splashtalk 19:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. Yes, I am aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Semi protection, and have commented there earlier this morning. [26] There have been several recent cases where this page, the most highly vandalised and watched page on Wikipedia, remained vandalised for over one hour and fourty minutes, as originally pointed out by Rhobite in October. [27] As is noted on the Semi-protection policy talk page, the George W. Bush article is now being vandalised to such an extreme that, on average, the article is effectively in a vandalised state 8% of any given time. [28] [29] So, while vandalism may be reverted within 1–2 minutes, it is rather moot when the article is being attacked every other minute. The decision to temporarily protect this page was made [30] while the article was in the process of being simultaneously attacked from multiple IP addresses, meeting my interpretation of Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Uses first line item. The statement that "Admins have repeatedly unprotected it quite quickly" is open for debate after a review of the protection log, but please do note that I specifically requested that someone "please remove and protect from moves only when appropriate" after reluctantly placing this under {{vprotect}}. I believe we both agree that this article needs to be open to well-intentioned editors, but on that same token we are equally beholden to our readers to present them with a something more professional than "George Bush is a son of a bitch", or much, much worse. If you have any suggestions on how to better deal with distributed vandalism attacks such as the one made earlier today, please let me know. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

User 69.177.20.114

I believe this IP merits a permanent ban, given the repetition of temporary bans and this person's inability to learn therefrom. RadioKirk 03:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The block log reveals that this IP address has only been blocked twice in the past, so a hard ban would unjustified and too severe. If the vandal returns after the current two week block, it will be reblocked for a period of 6 weeks or greater. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
What, no Three Strikes and You're Out policy? I think it's time to convene a Congressional hearing... [wink ;)] RadioKirk 20:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

For being always there to guard the hall, I, Nlu, award you this Barnstar of Diligence.
For being always there to guard the hall, I, Nlu, award you this Barnstar of Diligence.

--Nlu 23:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

User 198.234.224.6

This IP is the IP of the State of Ohio Network schools, meaning that the block that you put on it (The 4 month one) will be nindering good Wikipedians, such as myself, from editing there. I'm not exactly sure what I want you to do, as I'm not very good at asking favors of people... so I guess I just wanted to bring it to your attention.

unsigned2

Hey, thanks for the unsigned tag on my talk page. Hard to keep track of who wrote what in my "vandal fan-club" section :) Especially if you aren't on enough to get your new messages when they come in. «»Who?¿?meta 22:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

OK to unprotect Andy Milonakis?

Hi. I see on Talk:Andy Milonakis that you protected it on 6 September 2005, with the intention of leaving it protected for a week. Any reason why we couldn't unprotect it now? I'll do so in seven or eight hours unless I hear from you. Thanks, FreplySpang (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. FreplySpang (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of this while I was out of town. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What's up with Chuck?

Why is it that everyone feels the need to vandalize the Chuck Norris article? Is he really even that interesting?Dlayiga 21:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Cnwb's RfA

Hall Monitor,

Thanks so very much for supporting my Request for Admin. The final result was 38/0/0. I'm looking forward to spending my summer holidays shut away in a darkened room, drinking G&Ts and playing with my new tools ;-) Please accept this Tim Tam as a token of my gratitude. Cnwb 22:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The nomination for deleting The BlackWallstreet East article

I suggested that this article should face a vfd copyright violation. The article should either be merged with BlackWallstreet East Records article or The Game article MostWanted05 is the person who created the article. And he's been responsible for many of the possible reverts to adding open opinion and rhetoric to this article. The user may possibly delete the vfd or copyright tags and possibly retaliate against anyone else. The person who chooses to be user:86.134.208.138 is also known asMostWanted05. Thanks. LILVOKA 7 December 2005 (UTC) 14:33

BD2412's RFA

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people (ahem!) voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. Hall Monitor, your support is particularly meaningful to me, because I know what a damn fine admin you are, and will be privileged to be part of any group of which you are a member. I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 04:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations in advance and good luck with all those thank you letters.  :-) Hall Monitor 17:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Frits Philips

Hi, in the article Frits Philips the cleanup-verify tag was added. I do understand the reason for this, however I have a few questions about it. I am born in Eindhoven, much of the information is from the local newspaper. Since Frits was very popular his 100th birthday -and his recent death many articles were printed in the paper "Eindhovens Dagblad"[31]. I tried to add as many checkable sources with ISBN numbers. What is needed to give the article 'verified' status? What sections need verification or a source citation? Felsir 08:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, it is good to have at least two independent sources cited within every article on Wikipedia. This assists other editors by allowing them to verify the accuracy of the text and allow them to expand the article further as well. What you did was perfect, so I've gone ahead and removed the {{cleanup-verify}} tag. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

(Semi-)(un-)protection

The trouble with protecting GWB against vandalism is that it implies we are merely waiting for the vandals to go away. This is something that just isn't going to happen for, literally, years. There is either no point in short term protection because it changes nothing in the long-term and excludes possible good edits in the meantime, or the point in short-term protection is that it comes to be de-facto permanent. In the same way we don't protect the featured article of the day (even when it's Cheese), in order that we show people what we're about, we shouldn't perma-protect GWB.

I'm fully behind semi-protection. In fact I wrote/am to blame for the current version of the proposal. I'm just reluctant to support (actually, I would oppose) the very instruction-creepy initial proposal, and a proposal that simply stands no chance of getting any of community, developer or Jimbo support. I think the current simple, straightforward proposal will do fine. -Splashtalk 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC) (you're welcome for the revet!)

For the most part, I believe that we are on the same page, especially with regard to semi-protection and its proposal. What we disagree upon is when it is appropriate to enable page protection. It is my opinion that when any given page is being repeatedly violated by multiple IP addresses within a five or ten minute time span it should be temporarily vprotected to deter the vandals. Unfortunately, its the only tool we have right now for page protection other than the rollback function. Hall Monitor 20:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks

Sincere thanks for your vote and wonderful comments on RfA.--File Éireann 20:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

DRE

Daily repeated edits show what IP I am editing from and also have the template with which I want to label it. You'll note that the contributions include one at 134.250.72.176 and then whichever IP. Much like my reverted edits as 134.250.72.176 were an attempt for clear label practices, so too are these for the purposes of labeling.

134.250.72.122 22:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

a.k.a. The former 134.250.72.176 talk

Reverting

Damn you should archive this took me forever to get it to load so I could revert it lol KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Chuck Norris protected

I'm a bit concerned about you protecting Chuck Norris. I've been monitoring it for a while now, and while the vandalisms are frequent, they don't seem to be too frequent for those of us watching it to deal with it. There are only about 10 vandalisms per day on average, and they rarely last more than a minute or two before getting reverted. Additionally, this particular target is not likely in my opinion to have its vandalism level subside, and I therefore think that protecting it with only this level of vandalism is a bit overkill and will essentially prevent additions for months to come, some of which are being discussed on the talk page and are good contributions. You are clearly a more senior and knowledable wikipedian, so I am going to defer to your judgement on this completely, but I just wanted to suggest to you that it might not be in the best interests of the article to protect it. Thanks for considering. -Lanoitarus 05:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • There's something surreally funny about this whole concept - you'd think Chuck Norris could protect himself, after all. BD2412 T 12:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think i just died laughing. -Lanoitarus 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hopefully the novelty of the Chuck Norris fact generator has worn off some. He may now resume his roundhouse kicking. Hall Monitor 17:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You would think so, but this stupid thing has been around for at least a month, and its still around. It just keeps finding its way into new circles. -Lanoitarus 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

\

Image Tagging Image:Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie weight loss.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie weight loss.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. DES (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me regarding this issue. I believe there was a fair use provision for this photograph, so if I can relocate the source and the fair use context I will reupload the image. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your user page is protected

Hall Monitor, I protected your userpage... Since it seems to be a constant vandal magnet, and since your an admin who is perfectly capable of editing your own protected user page (and you should be the only one editing it anyways). I Hope you dont mind... if you do feel free to unprotect it.  ALKIVAR™ 07:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is fine. I have never understood why someone would want to disrupt a user page, but there is no sense it making it a honey pot for vandals. Hall Monitor 17:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Vandals dont realise we prefer them vandalising our userpages than actual articles ;). Hey a question, can you delete vandalism from the history of my userpage, since there are over 450 its a bit too time consuming. :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Del pic

Hi, could you please delete this picture Image:Danniiminogue1.jpg. It was uploaded by the latest George W. Bush vandal. Izehar (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Consider it done, two minutes ago. Hall Monitor 18:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Oops, sorry for not using the link form. It should have been Image:Danniiminogue1.jpg. Izehar (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Not a problem. All has been taken care of. Hall Monitor 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Kate Winslet needs you ...

Your attendance is requested in Talk:Kate Winslet. Thanks. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar (formerly the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar) may be awarded to those who show great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia.

Hence I hereby award you this barnstar although it does not do juistice to your efforts. Boldy locking George W. Bush also has my further gratitude. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Celebrity autographs

Looks like you are on the case with the celebrityautographs.com spammer. Thanks, I was reverting each of those by hand.  :) --Yamla 23:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The spammer just didn't listen and had to be blocked, unfortunately. Reverting by hand? It sounds like someone needs administrator privileges.  :-) Hall Monitor 23:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

German magazine category

Hi, User:Lectonar put {mag stub} on my Das Neue Blatt page (in Category:German magazines), and now I notice there is one on Bunte too (same category). The magazine stub converts a bunch of spam or something (I think) for an expatriate society unrelated to either topic. Could you check it out for me? Gilliamjf 13:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Stanley Williams

Thank you, that page desperately needed protection, constant edit conflicts and no way to keep up with the vandals. CarbonCopy 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The "stacked vandalism" had become serious enough of a problem that the rollback tool was proving to be ineffective. A proposal has been made for semi-protection for situations such as this one, please refer to Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and the respective talk page if you have not already. Hall Monitor 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

SoLando's RFA

Image:WikiThanks.png Hi Hall Monitor, thank you for voting in support of my RFA; the result was (28-0-0 ). I hope that I am able to fulfil the expectations of an admin. If you see me mess up anywhere, have any concerns, please don't hesitate to tell me! Take care. SoLando (Talk) 10:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

User:204.10.222.251

Hi. Regarding User:204.10.222.251, I have unblocked the user. This is the first edit in weeks and is of the most basic "user test" kind: adding "Media:example.ogg" to an article. Nothing deleted. No profanity or attacks. This is a user test and cannot be immediately assumed to be the same user. Please don't bite the newbies. - Tεxτurε 18:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That is your call, note that I was not the original blocker so please do not accuse me of biting newbies. Hall Monitor 18:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I really didn't want you to take this harshly. "Please don't bite the newbies" is from Wikipedia and was meant as a reminder and not a rebuke. You revoked the original blocker's 24 hours and extended to 6 weeks without reviewing the block. I'd suggest (and take it only as such) that any extension of a block should be accompanied by a review of the block. - Tεxτurε 18:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This IP address has a long history of vandalism, there is no reason to believe that this was a newbie test. Hall Monitor 18:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not have reversed a 24 hour block but a 6 week block for adding "Media:example.ogg" as the only edit performed in weeks seemed excessive. A returning vandal is unlikely to add example text from Wikipedia tutorials this late in his knowledge of Wikipedia. - Tεxτurε 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

To demonstrate, here are the past 18 edits from 204.10.222.251, beginning with the most recent: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] Hall Monitor 18:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Did you see this one? [50] I am the one who removed the link. It seemed a potentially legitimate addition but could have been an advertisement. I removed it as an unecessary commercial link but not because it was vandalism. I don't think it was the same person. - Tεxτurε 18:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, other than the commercial link, all contributions have been vandalism, blatant or otherwise. I am going to reinstate this block and request that the user contact me via email if they wish to have it lifted. Hall Monitor 18:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not reinstate the block. While I can understand the reasoning behind a one-day block, even though I do not agree with it, six weeks is way overboard. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for taking our comments into account. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, with that history i'd have made it indefinate. Guess i'm "too harsh" though.  ALKIVAR™ 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

user 129.7.35.213

User 129.7.35.213, whom you blocked earlier this month, is back in business with pov edits accompanied by highly abusive language in the comments and talk page of Islamist terrorism. Could you take a look? Thanks --Lee Hunter 19:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:What it looks like.png

Hi - Thought you'd want to know this image is tagged for deletion. I believe it will be OK to keep if you crop out everything but the Wikipedia part. -SCEhardT 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Is this image on WP:IFD? I could not locate the discussion. Hall Monitor 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem! The image is up for speedy deletion under WP:CSD category I-5 since the screenshot of your web browser is considered fair use and the image is not being used in an article. -SCEhardT 23:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Whoah ... wtf are you smoking... Wikipedia is GFDL, all screenshots are considered GFDL as well.  ALKIVAR™ 23:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Correct. However, the screenshot includes the web browser which I do not believe is GFDL. Take a look at Template:Wikipedia-screenshot. Also look at how the images in the Netscape article are tagged. The image will be GFDL if the web browser is cropped out. -SCEhardT 23:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
This is MOZILLA... not Netscape... Mozilla is most definately "open source" released under MPL (Mozilla Public License) and not "copyrighted" if it was no debian cd would include it. (Currently typing this from a Debian box). So again you are wrong. ALKIVAR™ 23:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. I'll have to brush up on my browser screenshot recognition. -SCEhardT 23:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Not a problem, usually you can tell by the logo in the upper right corner of the browser (the page load anim) ... Netscape usually has its ship's wheel and Mozilla usually has its M.  ALKIVAR™ 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Mark Sanders

FYI this article has be recreated under Mark Sanders (elblanco)  J\/\/estbrook       03:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for cleaning up the vandalism on my user page. By the way, have you ever considered archiving your talk page? It took me a while to scroll all the way down here... ;-) Thanks again, David Iberri (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Even though I'm declining the nomination, I really do appreciate being noticed. Thanks again. --Rob 21:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your response to the nomination, I respect and understand your position. As they say on RFA, adminship is no big deal, we regularly promote people with a fraction of your credentials. Should you change your mind, please let me know and we can re-open the nomination. Hall Monitor 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicollette Sheridan

It looks like the double-l version is right, according to a few external sources. Wonder how it lasted that long wrong? Looked like sneaky vandalism at first... CarbonCopy (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Maria Sharapova-US Open 2004.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Maria Sharapova-US Open 2004.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Custom test5 template

You seem to be using a customized version of {{test5}} which has a link URL to the vandal's blocklog, but the link is incorrect (it points to the list of users the vandal has blocked--clearly not the intention). If you point me to the template, I'll be happy to fix it. Owen× ☎ 05:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Freakofnurture says

Archive your talk page, now! He also says thank you for supporting his RFA. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:11, Dec. 17, 2005

Cleanup verify?

Why did you mark René Garcia Préval for cleanup? It is a stub, and doesn't contain any information that isn't well known history. I removed the tag. It instead needs more depth to the article. --MateoP 17:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This article was tagged with the {{cleanup-verify}} template because it did not WP:CITE source(s), similar in nature to the {{unreferenced}} rather than the nearly deprecated {{cleanup}} tag. In the future, please do not remove these tags unless verifiable sources have been cited for the content. Hall Monitor 18:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ianbrown's RfA

Thanks for voting in my recent RfA. I was overwhelmed at the turnout and comments received.

Ian ≡ talk 07:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism blocking

Good afternoon. About an hour ago, you blocked user:216.26.205.9 for 24 hours for vandalism to the George Bush page. Unfortunately, you didn't record your action on the user's Talk page. I came along cleaning up a different batch of vandalism, saw all the warnings and also blocked the user (and because of the time-zone differences in timestamps, thought that it was still on-going). Not knowing about your block, I set mine for only 1 hour. As I'm sure you know, when two blocks are set, the most recent takes precedence. That means that I essentially unblocked the user earlier than you'd intended. I would have deferred to your judgment if I'd seen it. In the future, would you mind tagging the user's page with {{test5}} when you block? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. In practice I make a habit of notifying the IP address they have been blocked for vandalism, so I must have missed that one (or been logged out while leaving the message; Wikipedia has been acting strange today.) Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from the United Federation of Planets

I come in one pecie. Three things:

  1. Please archive this talk page
  2. I hereby invite you to tag along on #wikipedia-en-vandalsim
  3. I kindly ask you accept this barn star for your Vandal Apathy Containment efforts...

--Cool CatTalk|@ 19:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the two RickK Anti-Vandalism barnstars this month. I am unable to reach IRC servers irc.wikimedia.org and browne.wikimedia.org:6667. Are you aware of any alternate Wikimedia servers I could try? Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar (formerly the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar) may be awarded to those who show great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia.

I hereby award you The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your efforts in Vandal Apathy Containment. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

195.93.21.73

Hey Hall Monitor

I am Doktorbuk, and seemingly my use of AOL is causing admins to click their block buttons with ever increasing bravado! I have just been notified - whilst about to edit my user page - that I have been blocked for vandalism. I'm afraid I seem to be a victim of a shared-IP blocking; honestly, I am no vandal! Could you confirm how long this block is set to be? I have a few pages to continue working on - Preston, Lancashire, ward elections and the remaining (numerous!) gaps of UK Railway stations, too.

I await my (3rd, I think) unblocking! It's a good job i know how important it is to keep the vandals at bay! doktorb | words 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me, I'll see to it that the block is removed. Hall Monitor 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem at all, I know how important being an admin is, and how hard it is to work against vandals. The best of luck to you - it's frustrating to see the block page but I know it's never for too long. doktorb | words 20:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice arbitration and civility

Hall monitor, I agree with you about the importance of civility, as stated in your contribution to the Deeceevoice arbitration, but I must say that your faith in the "proper channels" seems too optimistic to me.

I have been editing a number of articles relating to Islam, Iran, and India. I've received threats of bodily harm, been called a liar, a bigot, a Paki, a Bengali, a Jew, an Islamofascist bitch, a Zionist enforcer, etc. I've occasionally notified admins that I know, posted RFCs, even gotten a mediator -- and the usual result is that the nothing happens and the perpetrators merrily carry on their war of insults. Now I just ignore it, try not to be provoked into retaliation, and hope that eventually an admin will notice and stop it. It seems to me that the mechanisms that Wikipedia possesses for curbing incivility are woefully inadequate and sporadically applied. I'm not sure what to propose in their stead, however. We need to start thinking about how to promote civility rather than shutting our eyes to the existing problem. Editors defending Deeceevoice as "just a little more strident than usual" reflect a general breakdown of collegiality. Zora 22:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone ever threatens bodily harm upon you, please let me know immediately and I will see to it that they are permanently blocked. Beyond that, there isn't anything else a Wikipedia administrator can do. When we feed the trolls, we are giving them the attention they're looking for. We need to rise above and deny them of that. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking 216.26.205.9

Thank you for blocking IP 216.26.205.9 from Wikipedia. This moron will probably continue vandalising and a permanent block should be considered.--Dennis Fernkes 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad

Image:Santa.jpg
Tony the Marine

O.K., Hall Monitor, so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 06:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey now, who said I didn't believe in Santa Claus?  :-) Happy holidays to you as well my friend. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Block of 198.234.216.248

From the "great minds think alike" department, you may wish to check that your 2-week block of 198.234.216.248 wasn't cancelled out by my more conservative 3-hour block. Looks like we did the blocks at the same time and I'm not sure what happens when that occurs. Cheers! 23skidoo 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; the best thing to do when there is a block collision is to temporarily unblock and reapply the intended block. I'm not sure which block takes precedent, the shortest one of the last one to be applied. Hall Monitor 17:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say go with the longer block of the two, or the most recent if the lengths are the same. Cheers! 23skidoo 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Tupac

Hey, thanks. It seems like people are always changing the numbers, and they've been changed so much the original correct ones are probably long gone. --Khoikhoi 19:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

William the Silent

Hi, can you take a look at the changes made to William the Silent by 192.204.7.250? I have tried to discuss the changes (addition of the line "HE USED GUERILLA WARFARE") with him User talk:192.204.7.250. Yet he continues to add the line without any proofs (plus personal attack). By 3RR rule, I don't think I can/should continue editing this article. Thanks a lot for your help in advance. Regards, --Hurricane111 19:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I will take a look and review the edits in question. Hall Monitor 19:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar of Illness

Image:TTbarnstar.png

The barnstar of illness, awarded to User:Hall Monitor for his tireless efforts in protecting the Eminem article from haters. Your efforts have been noticed, congratulations as you are the first to receive the barnstar of illness. Themindset 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It is an honour to be the inaugural recipient of this barnstar! Thank you very much, Hall Monitor 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Block of User:64.90.243.201

Thank you for doing this. You should be advised that the IP in question is linked to the Goshen Central School District in Goshen, NY. I know exactly who's constantly vandalizing my user page (some former students who really should know better).

Since it's going to be Christmas vacation as of Friday, a two-week block is only half useful. Can you possibly suspend it as of Saturday and reinstate it 1/3 when school goes back into session? Daniel Case 23:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop blanking talk pages

I've noticed that you have a tendency to blank discussion pages of anonymous IPs when you leave warning messages. Would you mind not doing that any more? Talk pages can be very helpful in evaluating a vandals history and past warnings or discussions. If you are concerned that a specific page is too long, please move and archive the discussions rather than clearing it. Besides that, it always seems a little strange to have an anonymous talk page pop up on my watchlist when it looks as if you're the only editor involved in the conversation.  ;-) Thank you and happy holidays, Hall Monitor 21:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The past history of IPs is useless - we have no way to tell who has been behind the address, and therefore nothing int he history can be relevant. Archiving is a waste of time - you're welcome to do it, but I won't.
Further, leaving a great long list of warnings show how ineffective we are with dealing with vandalism, and it feeds their troll-like behaviour (it's evidence of getting a reaction from us, which is what they crave).
Finally, it often makes finding the latest warnings hard.
So to sum, no, I won't stop blanking talk pages! Dan100 (Talk) 10:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You are incorrect, the past history is NOT useless, and I would greatly appreciate it if in the future you not overwrite comments made by other administrators. If you feel it is difficult to locate the latest warnings, you can help by placing them in order, with the most recent at the bottom of the page, as most others do. Thank you, Hall Monitor 19:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:PP

Please don't forget to list your semi-protections at WP:PP. Especially important while the now-live policy finds its feet. -Splashtalk 17:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I know you are far keener to protect generally than I am, but I would really urge caution with this. It is tempting to slap this on any article that is high-profile, when that would be very damaging to open editing and is not the purpose of the policy. It specifically says that it is not a means to prohibit anonymous editing in general, and spreading this around liberally on high profile articles does just that.
If we semi-protect too freely at first, the option will lose credibility and come to be mistrusted. Please, please, exercise restraint. -Splashtalk 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Your concerns have been noted Splash, thank you. Hall Monitor 18:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


152.163.100.204

The anon just erased an entire article[51], not once but twice [52]

He also vandilized the following: [53] [54] This anon has been warned before (see User_talk:152.163.100.204, which you and many others warned this vandal), please block him. Thank you. Travb 23:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, the user has been temporarily blocked from editing. Unfortunately, it is an AOL IP address, so they will back to vandalising again soon, I am afraid. Feel free to let me know if it happens again. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thank you so much--you brought back my faith in wikipedia! Travb 23:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

He is at it again. [55], depsite explicit warning on the page, he still vandalized it.[56] Travb 07:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The activity appears to have died down for now. Should the vandal make a reappearance, please forward these notifications to WP:AIV as I will be out of town for the holidays. Merry Christmas, Hall Monitor 18:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Gerald Way

I unprotected for now, basically because we had a gap of 2 days with no edits and then a couple of vandalisms and then the tags. That's just not sustained enough. It has to be daily or close to it for SP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, lets keep an eye on it and see if this helps. Hall Monitor 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

IP Range Block

Hi Hall. I got the following message in my talk page in the Tamil Wikipedia. I've known this user contribute routinely to Tamil wiki anonymously (but signing with his name). Can you do something about this? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Message from the anon: someone named "Hall Monitor" has blocked a entire range of IP's, mine included in the english Wikipedia. I dont no why he did it. this is my dynamic IP "220.247.246.202", but all IP's in range is also blocked. I'm from colombo. can you please help?? - Thanks Suren

Thank you for contacting me. A vandal attack was launched this week on the English Wikipedia which originated from the scope of the whole 220.247 network. The block has been removed, and hopefully the vandals have moved on. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thanks Hall Monitor - Suren
Think nothing of it, have a happy and safe holidays! Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your email (IP warnings)

Sorry for the delay; I was temporarily without access to Wikipedia due to moving. Although I disagree with Dan100 that user warnings on IP talk pages are irrelevant, I don't think it's important enough to join the discussion. I have several hundred IP user pages on my watchlist and I'm adding to that constantly; I'll revert any blanking on any of those or any new pages I come across, if necessary. From his last comment in that discussion, it seems he'll respect our decision on any pages we do so on. Sorry if you were counting on my help to sway him. // Pathoschild 05:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving articles on afd

When you move an article that's on afd, could you please create a redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OldTitle to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTitle instead of moving the afd discussion? My bot can account for redirected afd discussions automatically, but it can't detect moved ones, and there isn't really an easy way to make it do so. —Cryptic (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Efforts

While UtherSRG made me laugh, you made me realize what it means to not be a "hater," and as such, I award you the following completely useless award! (I'd give you something more useful like a barnstar, but I think barnstars are fangly and cumbersome and hard to implement, etc. There should be a TEMPLATE for these sorts of things!)

Hall Monitor has earned a Cernen's Plusbox for for living up to his namesake, and not being a dick about it, like most of the hall monitors I knew when I was in school.

09:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar's RfA

Hi Hall Monitor,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Advice please

I, along with several other editors, have been in an edit war with User:Mistress Selina Kyle on the Latex article. Two days ago she was banned for 3RR, and now after doing 3 reverts there is an anonymous IP and a brand new user doing the same reverts.

Interestingly, the anonymous IP has past contributions very closesly resembling the interests of User:Mistress Selina Kyle, up to including the somewhat obscure interest in infoboxes. Also, this IP seems to have vandalised your user page in the past. I was hoping if you had any advice on how I should approach such a situation? Themindset 18:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't me.
And I just looked at those contributions myself: I wasn't even on Wikipedia in November, dunce.
(Hall Monitor's on my watch list like a lot of admins, just so I can keep up with rampant wikipolitics). -_-
--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. --Bhadani 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your RFA support

Hi Hall Monitor/Archive1! I've been on wikibreak for this past week, so here is a belated thank-you for your support in my successful RFA. I see you've had a few of these, so simply: Happy new year (if that's your kind of thing)! jnothman talk 18:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)