User talk:Dreaded Walrus

189.81.206.43

keep cool and work the huggle-user. this ip ll be blocked after level 4 (level 3 on his disk) but if well roll back him every time the huggleboys haven t a chance ;), --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hah. He's got the level 4 warning now, though in such blatant cases like this (and it's a dynamic IP. This happens regularly) I don't see why they even need to wait for the level 4, really... Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, i ve seen your top reactions. level 4, well iv learned it by one story on es.WP. the admin on the vm there said "level 3? forget it". so i ve a nice spamwar, 8 days ;), best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And he's blocked. 31 hours. It won't stop him though. He's on a dynamic IP. See 189.81.205.136 and 189.81.132.199, who you've reverted in the past it seems. I just feel sorry for whichever poor guy has Copyright, Google, and Orkut on their watchlists. :P Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

hehe, yeah. rangeblock is right but that is not my problem ;). it s after migthnight in hamburg. sleep well and best regards, --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your revert

Heh, that was my bad. I didn't see the difference between "Rogue" and "Rouge". Thanks for correcting me. Xclamation point 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Fighting Vandalism

Your record on WP is impressive. LoveWikis (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Campbell Article

Just a heads up, the same CoI editor from before is trying to reinstate the contentious statements everyone agreed on removing last year. There's polls on the issue, in the talk page, if you want to get involved. [1] [2] --88.108.243.214 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, but I just can't be bothered with all that stuff any more. I took it off my watchlist over a year ago now, I think. It's just sapping time and attention from elsewhere, and when that happens with an article, I just remove it from my watchlist and forget about it. Occasionally it becomes too much effort to maintain an article. That doesn't apply to this article so much, as the edits aren't so much vandalism as a content dispute, but it's a content dispute that saps time from other activities, and I just don't have the time for that any more - indeed, my edits on Wikipedia in general have been cut back massively, from ~10 edits a day every day for six months+, to a few edits in a day, if any.

Still, thanks for the notification, just make sure you don't violate WP:CANVASS. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: As there seems to be a discussion between such a small number of editors, all of which are quite involved in the topic, perhaps it would be worth filling out a request for comment? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"statements everyone agreed on removing last year"? In fact, last year everyone agreed on keeping them, until this user waded in and decided to start the argument again. This is merely another of the countless malicious attacks made on this entry, and will be defended until such times as ACTUAL consensus is reached. Since the editor in question has made only the most superficial contribution to the debate, that seems unlikely to happen. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

For catching this, yikes! Lol! -- Banjeboi 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No probs! I actually had to read through it a few times! At first I thought it might just be me not making sense of it due to lack of sleep. Then I thought it was vandalism (indeed, the first two diffs I checked on the history page were the anon's and the redlinked user's :-p), and finally I decided to check yours, and saw it was a simple mix-up. Good cleanup though guy. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fr. Chico Monteiro

Is there some reason for deleting his name from the "List of People from Goa"? --Dommartin99 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)