User talk:Kralizec!/Archive 2009: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:04, 19 August 2009

Please either start a new section or add your message to the bottom of this page. Unless otherwise specified, I will generally respond on your talk page.

User talk:Kralizec!	→ 2005	→ 2006	→ 2007	→ 2008	→ 2009	→ 2010	→ 2021	← present

Talkback sink

Please drop all {{talkback}} type messages (aka "I have responded to your message on my own talk page") in this section. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Call me Bubba's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Kotra's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Zvika's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Wpwatchdog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

@PatPeter and Friendly note regarding talk page messages:

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Marek69's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at DFS454's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Glasscity09's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at LadyofShalott's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at KeltieMartinFan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

recent edit of Seven Wonders of the Ancient World article

Kralizec!: my apologies for the recent vandalism of this page, it was done by a younger member of our household and I will ensure it does not happen again.

Swardy (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orly

In addition, thanks for being "not a jerk" in your response to mine under that deletion review... (don't misunderstand that I think you are usually a jerk - it's just that some other people have some less useful and more unnecessarily harsh response styles :) Luminifer (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good day,

Could you please send me a copy of my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalium (seems to be deleted). At 5148351@gmail.com.

Thanks in advance, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkervali (talk • contribs) 09:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage! Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I've never actually been vandalized on any of my pages, so this is a very new experience for me! Also the vandalism was very distracting... Again thanks!!!! Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 18:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages?

Thanks for weighing in on topics regarding the actions of an edit-warrior and a heavy-handed administrator.

My (recent past) hands aren't clean regarding Wikipedia procedures, but my factual, rhetorical and logical intents have been clear throughout.

The edit war appears over, even if there's a warrior still looking for a fight. As for the administrator, he and I have been e-mailing amicably throughout the weekend to resolve his concerns.

162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all the more now! :)

I coulda done better from the start, i.e. didn't throw the first punch, but then more of a French Resistance type in response than a Gandhi disciple. (All of this now feels like the first days of e-mail years ago, when any poorly written message launched a series of flames.)

If I can be of any assistance to you in the future, don't hesistate to contact me here.

162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith?

User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion.

In the discussion it was asked for a "reliable" (according to Wikipedia Policies) source, supporting that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4, because the current article claims the contrary in this section: Aktion_T4#T4_and_euthanasia.
There are a lot of sources, but at least one "reliable" source was provided in this post:Talk:Action_T4#propaganda_pro_euthanasia_.3D_crime_apology. This source (Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, No.241, pages 39-47) states that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4
Like the mentioned section of the article, also User:Ratel claims euthanasia has nothing to do with Aktion T4, and he is involved in the mentioned dicussion.
Therefore: why is he allowed to archive exactly all the discussion including the post providing the demanded source?
Note that User:Ratel posted his first attempt to autoarchive the discussion some hours after the post providing the demanded source.

comment made by 190.25.102.181 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 67.188.47.4 vandalism

You removed this IP address and the reason said they were insufficiently warned. If you look on the talk page, they were warned a total of eight times, 4 times on July 29 which resulted in a temporary ban, since the ban they were warned on August 3, August 6 twice, and August 11. The edits are blatant vandalism mostly. They obviously are not going to stop. If 8 warning arent enough, how many notices are enough? Ejfetters (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I hereby award you, Kralizec!, the Barnstar of Integrity for your patience and fairness in dealing with unregistered user 67.188.47.4. I respect assertion to follow rules, because I believe they are created for very specific reasons. Thank you for being an Administrator of the English Wikipedia. :) Dillard 421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thanks for the offer of activating the rollback function for me. Yes please switch on, I tend to do a number of undos on the many pages I am watching. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inuit18 is sockpuppet

You just blocked User:Inuit18 for 30 hours, he is a sockpuppet of banned User:Šāhzādé (a.k.a User:Draco of Utopia, User:Germany2008, User:Anoshirawan...), just compare his edit summary, behaviour and articles worked on. If you file Check User it will confirm, he is a racist cursing at people of other race and all his edits are racist.--119.73.4.166 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

You had mentioned once that you had an interest in helping at WP:SPI. We are rather short-staffed there at the moment. Are you still interested? MBisanz ^talk 05:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to train you. I won't be around much and will best be reached via email, but I could help you learn the ropes and all. Do you ever use IRC? MBisanz ^talk 05:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went ahead and added you to the trainee list. Feel free to look around and see how things work. If you use Firefox, you can click the (direct link) to use the IRC functions. Feel free to email me when you are ready to tackle a specific case. MBisanz ^talk 05:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

94.192.38.247‎

There is a third unblock request on the IP's talk page. I have said for the user to be careful with it, but they ain't listening. Wanna take it or should it be left for someone else? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know that an admin couldn't do more than one unblock request per user, per block. My apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to comment at WP:AN#IP user repeatedly removing WHOIS template from talk page. Hans Adler 12:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is because Bushfire is just to do with Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.112.226 (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion disorder sockpuppet again...

Hi Kralizec!, we were recently corresponding about some trouble with user:alpinist on conversion disorder. He is now using a new sockpuppet called user:RAkanaan which is the name of a psychiatrist at the Maudsley who has contacted me with concerns that his name was being used on wikipedia in this way. Are you able to check / block this account? Many thanks. --PaulWicks (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Diffs, here is the most recent one from user:RAkanaan [1] and from anonymous IP that was identified as an SP [2]. Does that help? Cheers, --PaulWicks (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the issue of it being a sock, more that he is impersonating a psychiatrist with an interest in conversion disorder who is not pleased that his name is being used in this way. Is there other recourse for that? --PaulWicks (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP

I've requested that another administrator have their say on this request, as I feel you were too hasty with your initial judgement and did not read the nomination properly. Thanks, DJ 18:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

banned Inuit18 continues disruptive editing

Inuit18 continues with Disruptive editing even though he/she was banned for it less than 3 days ago. If we look at the user's contribution history [3] we can clearly see that the account was created for vandalalism purpose only because we cannot see an constructive edits. Giving warnings is pretty useless because all the user does is remove the warnings. Your assistance will be really appreciated. (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

you are clearly lying here. All of my edits since my ban had a reason which I wrote for you and other users in the talk pages. except for a mistake I made on the Kabul province article which I removed something that was sourced and I put it back when you wrote your reason on the Talk page my other edits are just and constructive since I have provided sources and reasons for my edits. --Inuit18 (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Storm shadow dispute

I've tried reasoning with him he doesn't stop with the speculation he doesn't understand look here User talk:74.196.212.138 he thinks he has a valid reason over what he thinks The Movie Master 1 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please move-protect paypal

Will you please move-protect the PayPal page?Btilm (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 144: / Line 144: @@
 I've tried reasoning with him he doesn't stop with the speculation he doesn't understand look here [[User talk:74.196.212.138]] he thinks he has a valid reason over what he thinks [[User:The Movie Master 1|The Movie Master 1]] ([[User talk:The Movie Master 1|talk]]) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
+== please move-protect paypal ==
+Will you please move-protect the [[PayPal]] page?[[User:Btilm|Btilm]] ([[User talk:Btilm|talk]]) 01:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)