User talk:Hall Monitor

Please note: Comments left by anonymous editors may be removed without warning. Please create an account or log in if you wish to engage in a meaningful discussion.

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)
    • I am being civil. -GregNorc (talk) 15:05, August 6, 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!

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])

• Slant Point: Elvis Replaces Cher as Top Gay Icon
• HRC | Cher: Last of the Gay Icons?
• Cher (entertainer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• MuchMusic Message Board: Listed's top 20 gay icons

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. -- BDAbramson ^talk 23:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• BAM! Ya been nominated. Now go do something about it! Cheers! -- BDAbramson ^talk 20:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

AIV

24.91.163.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 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!

File: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. -- BDAbramson ^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

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}