User talk:Gwernol

Hello. Welcome to my Talk page. Feel free to leave a comment at the bottom of the page. Please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end. Thanks, Gwernol.

Archives

• /Archive 1 April 2005 through early March 2006
• /Archive 2 March 2006
• /Archive 3 April 2006
• /Archive 4 First half of May 2006
• /Archive 5 Second half of May 2006
• /Archive 6 First half of June 2006
• /Archive 7 Second half of June 2006
• /Archive 8 First half of July 2006
• /Archive 9 Second half of July 2006
• /Archive 10 First half of August 2006
• /Archive 11 Second half of August 2006
• /Archive 12 First half of September 2006
• /Archive 13 Second half of September 2006
• /Archive 14 First half of October 2006
• /Archive 15 Second half of October 2006
• /Archive 16 First half of November 2006
• /Archive 17 Second half of November 2006
• /Archive 18 December 2006

Congratulations...

...on the first edit of 2007! (that's 2007 UTC time, of course) – Gurch 00:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship List

Hi Gwernol. As I looked through another user's userpages. I am just curious about Adminship List, because I decided to make my new pages for listing adminship like person who succeded his/her adminship, or didn't succeed his/her adminship. May I ask Where did you find this?: Username S O N S % Ending 1 Savidan 80 1 0 99% 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2 BostonMA 76 27 11 74% 09:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 3 Yao Ziyuan 12 4 0 75% 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 4 Nilfanion 7 0 0 100% 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Please, Respond in my user page. Cheers!! Daniel5127 <Talk> 01:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. I was referring to this:

	Username	S	O	N	S %	Ending
1	Savidan	80	1	0	99%	01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
2	BostonMA	76	27	11	74%	09:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
3	Yao Ziyuan	12	4	0	75%	17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
4	Nilfanion	7	0	0	100%	00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel5127 <Talk> 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

See User:Dragons flight/RFA summary – Gurch 11:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

User block

Re your recent block of 12.45.169.249 (talk · contribs). The last edit was bad spamming, and at first the group of edits prior to that (on cars) seemed to be spam, and I reverted them all. I then discovered that the URL being added - http://www.analogstereo.com/ has been added to many car articles by a number of different people, and I was going to remove tham all. After looking some more, I then decided to revert my reverts as it seemed that it's probably an ok URL to add in that it provides free downloads of manuals. Let me know what you think. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I wish to join the Welcoming Committee, can you help me? Rasillon 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ps: I love age of empires, best game of all time.

Message Removal

Gwernol,

It was brought to my attention that you came by and deleted a post on my user talk page because you thought it was spam. While I appreciate the intention, I'm going to have to ask you not to do that again. I saw the post and left it up. If I thought it was spam, I would have removed it myself.

Thanks, Clint (Clint 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Having issues with User:24.63.203.132

I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles, so I apologize if I've broken some rules trying to deal with this person. I've noticed that you've banned this user before, so this is why I'm asking you for help. This user is repetitively editing this article] to put incorrect information in it, specifically adding it (an article about an alien) into the "Fictional Scots" category and stating that the Alien has a Scottish accent, as well as saying that a character has retractable claws when there is proof that he does not. I've repetitively tried to have a discussion with this person on the talk page and also by leaving invisible comments next to the lines they keep editing, but I've been ignored. The last straw was when I added a dispute tag to the page and it was immediately deleted by them. It's pretty much an edit war, and I have no idea how to settle this. Thank you for your help. Miriam The Bat 01:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

email

sent to you just now Tvoz | talk 02:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

a civil Warning

You blocked one of my trolling accounts which is a little unfortunate. Please don't do it again. I know your ip address and i will release it on the vandal community if you ever block me again. Yours sincerely JINX

Thank you for your help

it was much needed. Dropal 06:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as fast as User:Dropal

However, I also am here, first, to thank you for your help/intervention.

Also, I'm impressed by how quiclky yo intervened!!!

2nd, I have created the article in question as a retort to Jewish Bolshevism, and I will source it as soon as possible.

Now regarding civility, its only appropriate to respond in kind!

I had only asked for the reason regarding the Vandalism tag.

The title "don't be childish" started it all.

3rd - what remedy does on have against such ABUSIVE LANGUAGE? Is there a way to deal with it? 4th - Who, and Why, was My TalkPage Deleted? --Ludvikus 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Civility to Be Maintained

OK, I understand that now. I have learned my Wikipedianism by trial and error.

As a Wikipedian, I have an obligation, to keep my cool, even if the other has insulted me.

I wiil do that in the future.

Now as to Wiki interests. It may be that I am an extremely valuable writer WP. But to keep being so it is essential that my reputation be intact. That reputation is reflected by what others say of me - and this available to other Users who visit my Talk page for a comment, often in disagreement.

It is not to Wikipedia's interest to have a reference such as "don't be childish" available to others to read, especially as it is groundless.

Accordingly, can you tell me if this person User:Dropal a WP Administrator? --Ludvikus 07:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Altering/Deleting Another's Talk/Discussion Page

I'm not as unversed in Wikipedianism as you might think.

I am able to tell that User:Dropal, an admitted ex-vandal, deliberately vandalized my Talk page.

Because our discussion was on each other pages, and he had used the slanderous "don't be childish" on my talk page, I decided to defend my Wikipedia reputation by blockquoting my remarks on his talk page. He reponded not merely by remarking on my talk page, but also by deleting the block quote I had made of my side of the dispute, which was on his page.

Now if that's not vandalism, what is?

This I have never experienced before. No one has ever DELETED a portion of my Talk page while making a comment on.

You can very easily see this Vandalism yourself - I know you are quick, and believe you are knowledgable as to the "history" of Wwiki pages. This User:Dropal I believe is a danger to the integrity of Wikipedia. It is not a mere personal score I wish to settle.

So for the sake of Wikipedia, please, please, look into the matter I raise here - he has VANDALIZED my TALKPAGE.

Yours truly,, and Happy New Year, --Ludvikus 07:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jesserrro3

um i was trying to print something out and i wanted to remove information that i didn't need. so i just went to edit and deleted it and it said i vandalized this website. i didn't know i just want to get rid of the things so i don't have to print out 5 pages when i could only use 3

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.

Do it! :) - crz crztalk 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A trade magazine. Only known to professionals in that sub-industry. Much like "magic the gathering magazine" should not be used to justify the notability of a magic player. In our general encyclopedia, general notability is required. - crz crztalk 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, Could you please tell me how to archive all the messages I recieve on my talk page. Shakirfan 16:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Manson external links

Hello Gwernol

Please do not remove the external link to "http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/" on the "Charles Manson" article.

This link is to what is superficially a blog. It is in fact the source of some very interesting and newly available secondary sources.

The author of this "Blog" is also in possession of some primary sources relevant to the 1969 prosecution of Charles Manson and his "Family" and is in the process of analysing and publishing his research.

The author is fairly well known amongst scholars of the case.

The link deserves to stay.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barland (talk • contribs).

what was wrong with the smileys?

I trying to make WP a more harmonious place. By giving Majorly a more pronounced air of benevolence, this would enable him/her to continue with his/her duties without as much opposition from other Wikipedians. Blueaster 18:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(here's a smiley for you even though you might not appreciate it :) )

i thought that we don't own our userpages... and besides, although it isn't a guideline on WP (yet), my actions were done according to the golden rule, doing unto others only as I would have done unto me. I would love to find my user page filled with smileys from another user any day. Blueaster 19:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on my userpage

Thanks! Metamagician3000 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Er Opps

Sorry, was attempting to learn the coding used on the portals thought i was deleting said things on my own wiki. 208.13.165.219 18:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

???

Which Fair Use image am I using? I don't know which... Pikminlover ^Meep!↑ 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User:63.203.93.11

Yeah I goofed I hit the wrong button but as soon as I did I realized which button I pressed and I fixed. (I have a js for helping block users) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:216.56.60.211

Not sure if this is the right way to do it, but the user at IP 216.56.60.211 has been defacing the Andersonville, Georgia article with something about oompa loompas in the "Demographic" column. I'd revert it but I'm not sure how to do it properly and saw that you blocked his IP for a week so I'm sending this to you. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soporific (talk • contribs).

Category

I totally agree with your request to delete the Manifestation of God category. Can it just be speedily deleted? The user who started the category, continues to add it to other articles. -- Jeff3000 02:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. -- Jeff3000 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick Lachey

Hey, sorry, didn't mean to upset the delicate order of Wikipedia--I just noticed that someone else had apparently made that edit, and I wanted to make it all proper and wikified, so I linked the name of Lachey's (now apparently alleged) mistress/girlfriend. No harm no foul, I hope.--Phil, aka the renegade editor of the Nick Lachey article, which i swear I don't read every day.

Hello Gwernol

I am glad to be back at wikipedia again, after being rudely blocked for a month for little to no reason. I assure you I will do exactly what I did before being blocked, that is, only contribute to wikipedia. I write this to you, because I want you to know that I think your actions were irresponsible, and only furthered my theory that many wikipedia admins are pompous and overzealous. I don't want to offend you in any way, because I know you would be prone to blocking me if I did. I want you to at least understand my point of view, being that you acted irresponsibly. If you don't want to listen to me, I understand. If you never want to speak to me again, I understand. I just feel I was mistreated, and that if you are as responsible as you think you are, you would at least try to make it right. Again, no offense should be taken from this, I just want to talk.

With all due respect, Sportsguru9999 06:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the vandalism revert on my user page...the user in question is certainly making life interesting for us today. Hope I haven't inflamed the situation with that user by being a bit eager to tag (I Prodded (tag then removed by author), then AFD'd the original article, so I may be the source of the frustration...). Kind Regards, Chrisd87 12:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICCF national member federations

Hi Gwernol, if you have time could you take a look at this and let me know whether or not you think I'm nuts? I'm somewhat at a loss to understand why the discussion is going this way. I would like to hear what you think. Thanks. Accurizer 15:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

I am learning. I have eight confirmed kills, er. . .AfD within the past two days. Ronbo76 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried the prod's and got beat up by two editors who then went back and wikified the page as I originally suggested. The AfD method seems to be working real nice for me because consenus usually is quick!!! :) Ronbo76

abortion

Re: Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Abortion. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

   Taking your edit one part at a time:

       Noone wants to get an abortion.

   That is your opinion; can you cite a reliable source for this? You need a nationally published survey showing this is true

       No one is "in favor of abortion"

   Again, what evidence can you present that this is anything but your opinion?

       however it is the womans right to choose what happens to her body, and getting an abortion is a lot like getting an F in birth control

   Purely your interpretation

       and where abortion is well tolerated it is commonly used as a method of birth control.

   Again without evidence from an independent source, this is just your opinion. Gwernol 04:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Response follows: First off, it is absurd to even think that anyone wants an abortion, ie, gets pregnant just so that they can get an abortion. Second, it is equally absurd to think that anyone is in favor of abortion, ie, thinks that anyone should get pregnant just so that they can get an abortion. Third any woman who gives up her choice over what happens to her body is clearly doing so against her will. Fourth while there are many other reasons for getting an abortion that are spelled out in the article (medical for example), getting an F in birth control is a clear way of describing what really happens. Fifth, it is documented that in certain countries which I don't remember at the moment however I think that one is Japan, where abortion is well tolerated that a lot of women have many abortions, dozens even, and they do so because they are using abortion as a means of birth control simply because they do not want to bother with any other form. See - all facts, and by the way why would a male have an opinion on abortion anyway - as soon as a male gets pregnant is the soonest they are entitled to voice an opinion on abortion. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.125.109.5 (talk • contribs).

Your personal Talk Page

If someone posts content on my talk page, is it considered vandalism to delete it after I have read it? One of the other admins had put a ton of info. One about an image I uploaded. i added the tags required. two a large welcome message, and info on reading the 5 pillars. Which I did. It made my talk page too full, and I read the info. It wasn't stuff anyone would want to read? I notice that the admisn gaes do nto go one for hundreds of pages, so I am assuming you all delete items off of it? Thank you. i am new to this. --Wer2chosen 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, but the link to archive was broken. Do you knwo the correct one?--Wer2chosen 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I still do not quite understand why i cannot delete itmes from my talk page. It seems to me that it is my wiki email, and once I have read and dealt with it. I delete it so my inbox dosn't become unwieldly. The archiving process seems to be a chore. I will go with the flow though. When in Rome!--Wer2chosen 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Venture Capital

Hi there, you removed a large section of text from the article on Venture Capital on 2 November. I'm a venture capitalist, and while I wouldn't claim it was perfect, it seems broadly accurate, and it strikes me that it's unnecessary to remove it entirely. Would you be willing to add the text back again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.84.6.9 (talk • contribs).

Gwernol, my response to your kind reply is at: talk (I'm not sure if you are automatically notified of this).

Countdown timer

Thanks for taking a look at Countdown timer. I appreciate your quick notice of the issues! Philippe Beaudette 00:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lennon

I'm really sorry, but it's because I work on articles in depth, and I make changes that would take longer to explain than the time it takes to do it. Most editors make one small change, but I go through everything with a fine tooth-comb. I have been asked to leave a summary very often, but I get so involved I forget, or my itchy mouse-finger clicks before I know it. andreasegde 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, and thanks a lot. I will do it, but I don't expect my summaries to be intelligible. :))andreasegde 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do you post?

04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Dear Gwernol,

It is not clear where to post on this page. It says on the bottom and this is the bottom. No offense but you are a difficult one to talk to. I really don't understand what I did to offend. I don't understand what all this talk of vandalism is. What is this? Why are you so angry at me? What's going on? Who is this? Why are you violating me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistysong8 (talk • contribs)

Image link trouble

Gwernol, I've been trying to post a link to an image in the page "Brady Quinn", but I keep getting messages that say it's spam, however, it's not. Here is the image's link, if you need to check the image: http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l44/GoIrish24/IMG_0069.jpg Please help me out with this! Thanks, GoIrish24

Not sure I agree with your analysis of my contributions to Wikipedia as I HAD been making editorial decisions about where I made internal links, and was not adding them un-neccessarily, in my humble opinion. I was enjoying my minor contribution to Wikipedia as a step towards being more bold in the future - did you read my talk page before you left your disapproving comments? hadrians 05:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA Nomination

Hello there again Gwernol. How was the skiing while editing? I just had another editor Arjun01 indicate that they would like to nominate me for administrator. My first reaction is it has not been long enough since my last nomination, however I feel bad not accepting another users nomination of myself (un-solicited) as it shows they have faith in my editing ability. Do you have any reccomendations on the appropriate course of action to take here? Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was an indepth edtitor review. I very much aprreciate that. I will take your reccomendation and not accept my nomination until later. Your advice is respected and much appreciated. Thanks again! By the way, if you run across any mistakes I make, feel free to leave me a reminder. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you an administrator?-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

BBQ Teddy Bear

Dear Gwernol,

I know for a fact that the two users, user: Leben4life, and user: BBQ Teddy Bear are sockpuppets of user: Ockenbock. I have seen a person using both of these accounts being used in the same IP range of the Boulder Valley School District, which was recently blocked for users using the computers to vandalize each others user pages. Just saying, please block these two users. Thank you,

--Toni.Cipriani 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

YO Gwernol sorry for my outburst I know that you are not bad I was just mad OK? Anyhow It was probably for my better good.

Hope Have a wonderful day and possibly a better future for you and me.

YO!

- Patelco 02:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Narrow gauge, & narrow-gauge

Thanks for you comments. I was using the hyphen in a conventional manner when the term is used adjectivally. This is fairly normal practice, for ease of reading.

Birdhurst 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon user

I see you have had some problems with this user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.157.107.88&diff=prev&oldid=98775031

He is making edits everywhere without discussing them, deleting cited information or often just changing it arbitrarily. I think he is very destructive of Wiki content. I and others are tired of correcting his undiscussed and uncited changes to multiple articles. Veritas et Severitas 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I make a rather long comment here, but this user's behaviour is far worse than just this IP would suggest. This user has used a few IP numbers, and has made personal attacks with several of them. They have been blocked a few times for these attacks, and for using different IP addresses to evade blocks. I am leaving a list here of some of their behaviour. I'm quite supprised they have not been blocked recently, they have received several "final warnings" recently, but because they remove them from their talk page they are not evident unless an admin checks the page history. This person's edit history is quite similar for all of the IP addresses used.

IPs used without personal attacks:

69.157.122.195

69.157.126.95

65.92.92.170 block

69.157.126.241 warn warn warn warn block block due to sockpuppetry

IP's used with personal attacks:

69.157.105.101 diff diff diff block for personal attack and sockpuppetry

69.157.102.5 diff diff diff diff diff block sockpuppetry

69.157.102.196 diff appology block

69.157.117.116 diff diff diff diff warn

69.157.120.37 diff

65.92.92.125 diff diff

69.157.107.88 diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff

Vandalism of my user page with IP 69.157.107.88: diff diff diff diff diff diff

Warns for this (main) IP 69.157.107.88: warn warn warn warn warn warn warn

Is this Epf?. Veritas et Severitas thinks it might be, and so do I. Of course no one wants to accuse anyone wrongly, but there are reasons for being suspicious. There are similarities in the pages and arguments this user uses to the pages and arguments User:Epf has used. Indeed this user appeared shortly after Epf mysteriously stopped editing, the first personal attacks from him that came my way were just after myself and Epf had had a rather bad disagreement on the English people talk page, in which neither of us were particularly civil it must be said. I suspected this user to be Epf at the time, but I decided that it was best to assume good faith. Now several other editors think it may also be Epf. There is an edit from the Welsh people article from 20 August 2006, some months before the anonymous editor above claims was his first time on wikipedia.diff, Here is their edit history they have the a similar edit history to Epf and started editing with this address on 6th August 2006. The above anonymous user claims his first time was on 26 October 2006.diff He also made a very minor edit to one of Epf's talk page contributions, which is very odd.diff And he also seems to have asked User:Eoganan to revert an edit to the English people article when he could not break the three revert rule.diff Epf and Eoganan also have had contact with each other.diff I am very suspicious, I wonder if there is any way to find out if they are the same person? Having said all that, I have just seen something of interest at User:Eoganan's talk page, he was editing under the IP address 69.157.126.241, which is the above address from August of last year,User talk:Eoganan and he is accused of sockpuppetry, this address is very similar to the anonymous user's address that I am reporting here (they mostly start with 69.157). So I don't really know the relationship between these three people, User:Epf, User:Eoganan and the anonymous IP. Is there any way of finding out? Alun 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

hahahah, Wobbs, u have got to be trippin. I admit I am Eoganan but are you really foolish enough to think Im Epf ? Maybe we has some things in common but that guys just wrong on alot of his issues and ive seen his arguments with you and others which is why I started attacking both him and you and others. Not that it matters that im Eoganan since most peopel already know ive used different IP accounts and that one before. It doensmt mean much comin from u since your a vandal and opinion pusher yaself, so leave it alone alone before ya get whats comin to you. Eoganan, IP #'s, yeah im the same user and your the same user. (This is acutally awesome because Ive been accused of Epf before with Eoganan on the Scottish peoples article which pissed off that user so bad !!!! hahahahah) 69.157.107.154 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the look

Not sure if you came across this via my posting or on your own, but thank you for removing this [1]. If you didn't come across it from reading my comment on AN/I, could you please have a look at this comment, [2] disruption seems a clear intent here.--Crossmr 05:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote summaries

Sigh. Fine. Joel Jimenez 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:mistysong8

Gwernol, I'd like you to look at this web page. http://www.hawking.org.uk/info/iindex.html On behalf of my sister. Thanks. Kevin Holmstead Kevh2000 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my talk page - I kept hitting "save" and getting the database lock message, grr. Cheers, FreplySpang 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

BBQ Teddy Bear

Just a couple of things to prove BBQ Teddy Bear is a sockpuppet of Ockenbock-

• His page was vandalized by user: Cloony Da Baloony. This user only vandalized other sockpuppets.
• BBQ Teddy Bear was created on a BVSD IP Address. Addresses in that range were used by Ockenbock to talk to his sockpuppets.
• People at the IP address range of the BVSD told me they witnessed BBQ Teddy Bear being used as a sockpuppet account of Ockenbock.

Thanks! --Toni.Cipriani 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing

Sorry for not mentioning this before, but I just realized this: BBQ Teddy Bear's page was vandalized by user: Fukkie, who is a sockpuppet of Ockenbock.

Thanks again:

--Toni.Cipriani 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message.

In the mean time, while people are still voting on whether or not to keep the Category:Films which explore libertarian themes, I'll continue to update it. I'm not personally convinced it is as ambiguous as might first be assumed.

Respectfully,
Allixpeeke 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)