User talk:Kralizec!/Archive 2008
| File:Usa-wpa-graphic.jpg | Kralizec! has started a 90 day contract with a new employer, so he will have limited and intermittent Wikipedia access until things settle down. |
| 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 |
|---|
Paki90
Hello Kralizec, I have noticed that you have taken an interest in User:Paki90. I have just flagged two of his images as copyvios. Quick look at some of the other images related to my area of interest aviation and I suspect that they may be a lot more copyvios. Is their a method of marking all the users uploads as suspicious or do we have to disprove each one individually? Any advice appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - I realized a bulk of the images were easily accessible on Flickr and I was feeling a little obsessive-compulsive. 98.204.112.111 (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for Hearty Welcome
I appreciated your welcome comment and helpful tips. Thanks! Kcren (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello!
Excuse me, but did you take off the list of languages on Seven Wonders of the Ancient World?
It doesn't matter, because I'm putting them back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ky-Guy (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 January 2008
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
Karachi
Re:your message - you are most welcome, but thank you for going to the trouble of deleting all those dodgy images. I managed to get some obvious copyvio ones deleted a fortnight or so ago but the uploader seemed not to understand and instead insinuated I was somehow anti-Karachi even though it was his images that were causing the problem. :)
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For devoting so much time to deal with a lot of copyvio/dodgy images uploaded by a particular user. :) Green Giant (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)
 Issue XXII (December 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New A-Class articles: | |
| ||
| ||
Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:
Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated. | ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
User_talk:68.198.8.150
I have some criticism about your recent block.'
- You shouldn't place a {{ISP|[[Optimum Online]]|host=ool-44c60896.dyn.optonline.net}} on this page. I use this service and the dymanic ip doesn't renew for 5 days.
- A 1 minute block I think is too little.
Yours Truly,
Compwhiz II 02:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm Sorry. I didn't see the age of the prev warnings. Compwhiz II 02:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I see your just as Stuborn as everyone else!
So whats your deal?
Jerome R. Corsi is a staff reporter for WND. He received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including his latest best-seller, "The Late Great USA."
Corsi has also co-authored Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders (with Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist), published in August 2006. This book heavily criticizes President George W. Bush for deficiency in enforcing border protection laws and for furthering plans to create a North American Union.
Jerome R. Corsi is NOT an "arm chair" theorist! Corsi is a Harvard alumnus. Corsi is a well respect Journalist and Commentator. Why must you insist on trivializing his legitimate political research as "conspiracy theory"?
Source: Jerome R. Corsi own WIKI - why don't you go and edit that to fit your own political views? If you will cite politicians as legitimate "sources" for information, why not Harvard journalists that are independent and work toward the public good!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoTheorem088 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message [1]. If you are not familiar with Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability, it states in part that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Edits should be sourced and cited to reliable, third-party, published sources. The sentence cited to the International Herald Tribune's article The amero conspiracy meets all of these criteria.
- For future reference, this should probably be discussed on the article's talk page so that other interested editors may participate in the discussion. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:EchoTheorem088)
TheOnlyJason
Calling Barack Obama the "negro" senator is a content dispute? From someone who has multiple warnings? ([2] [3] You know what, I'm stopping the diff collection. You have wasted even more of my time than the vandalism did. I see that someone has blocked him for 48 hrs.indefinitely. Thanks for nothing, R. Baley (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Striking and add: please be more careful at AIV in the future. thanks, R. Baley (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm baffled too, but you don't have to be so mean about it. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to issue a trout slapping here. I'm not sure if you realized it, but when you rejected this AIV report, you were calling this a content dispute. -- tariqabjotu 03:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
My mistake; it would appear that I erred on the side of assuming too much good faith. My first screw-up as an admin ... if only it were my last as well. Sorry. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Kralizec, sorry about the post I initially placed. Everybody makes a miscalculation every now and then, and I was too harsh. Thanks for the work you do. Sincerely, R. Baley (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Contested Deletion
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eric Violette. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kallahan (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
DuPage County, Illinois
Hey. Thank you. I am new at this Wikipedia editing, but I am learning fast. Thanks. DPCBOSS (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)DPC BOSS
old fart that I am
No reason you should have noticed. I don't keept track of other editors, to be honest ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, back when I was admin-ed, it was basically "do you want to be an admin - OK!" ... I probably couldn't pass the current system, which seems tougher than my last job interview. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'll admit that my last job interview was 21 years ago, so I supposed that was a bad example - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
INCORRECT WARNING
As i said in the page i have done zero changes on strangelet in the past week, all i want is the info to be there if some people are editing better so lets do it, please remove your innacurate warning, from my page. i have not edited and i only repost once a day strangelets and ice-9 which is within policies, and again, what is rude is to erase all info instead of putting altenrative info. All i want is the info not to be censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talk • contribs) 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message [4] on my talk page. If you are not familiar with the three-revert rule, it states in part,
| “ | An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. | ” |
- At 07:48 on 11 January 2008, I left a message Please be careful not to violate the 3RR rule on Large Hadron Collider on your talk page [5]. Your reverts to the Large Hadron Collider article in the preceding 24 hours are as follows:
- Thank you for heeding my warning. I feel that you have the potential to be an excellent contributor to this article, and I am glad to see that you chose to stop reverting before being blocked for disruptive editing. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Homocion)
proposed deletion of Eddie Gordon page on Wikipedia
The link that this goes to on the Wikipedia Page is also the same person under my DJ alias Phuture Digital namely myself Eddie Gordon so its not an infringement but a copy from my Wikipedia page placed on my own company's website as I own www.music2mix.com also.
It there any rules about duplication I have removed the copy from my own website but that seems a little unnecessary really.
Please assist
Thank you
Eddie Gordon Richmond5252 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)richmond5252
Can you please undelete the Eddie Gordon page now its not duplicated elsewhere? The page is a biog of a man who has made an impact on millions of lives in a positive way. Thank you Richmond5252 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond5252 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for replacing it, thank you very much. Could you advice how to categorize the article please? Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond5252 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 January 2008
Again thank you for your help with the categorization and tips. I will spend some time on the page and Wikipedia to tutor myself with the correct procedures to ensure that I upgrade from Start. Your time is very appreciated. Richmond5252 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request by Habhab38
See User talk:Habhab38. I am considering unblocking him. He seems contrite, and the block served its purpose: it got his attention. COntinuing the block at this point seems punitive. If he continues, we can always reinstate it. What do you think, since you blocked him? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind. Mangojuice declined it, saying it was only 31 hours so he could wait it out. I am not in a mind to openly disagree with Mangojuice on this one, but since you were the original blocker, I defer to you to unblock if you choose. I still think he has probably learned his lesson, but I will leave it to you to handle from here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Italian cruiser Garibaldi
Excuse me, i've separated Garibaldi in Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1936) and Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1961) as today because i think is better separate. Excuse for my english, i wrote Garibaldi in italian language and in italian language are separated good bye--Gaetano56 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Can i separate Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1936) and Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1961)? I think the ship are different. In italian language after discussion were separated--Gaetano56 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we can separate the ships because there are too many differences. Light cruise didn't have pennant and guided cruise had pennant. All the gun were changed completely.....In it:wiki were separated, but in en: wiki i don't know.... Greetengs--Gaetano56 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Appreciation
Thanks for the message, which was unexpected but greatly, greatly appreciated; and to be sure, if there's fault to be assigned in our back-and-forth, it's shared. As a relatively new contributor, I appreciate the example you've set in continuing to contribute to articles over which you've had disputes as well as doing the odds-and-ends on other articles, extremely necessary work that oftentimes doesn't get the credit it deserves. Hope to see you around the pages again soon. --Kallahan (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Re:Deleting Doug
Well, I just used this script for help. jj137 ♠ 18:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, but it helps.
jj137 ♠ 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Piece of the action
Thanks very much indeed for the offer. The drive is now officially closed though there's nothing to stop you tagging unofficially if you wish :) We have another drive coming up in a couple of moments and input then would be a great help. If that incidentally could be closely coordinated between Milhist and Maritime, some very productive cross-tagging can take place! I entirely understand that you have plenty on your plate and that makes your kind offer all the more appreciated. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
FBOP Corporation
You're welcome. When I noticed the revised Top 50 list, I had to start the FBOP article and finally kill the ABN AMRO North America listing in the template after it was absorbed by Bank of America in October. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: spelling
Wow. major my bad on that one. I thought I had checked all of those, but apparently not. My apologies. (runs under table...) Thingg⊕⊗ 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Huggle
Check Template:Uw-huggle, everything's explained there. Snowolf How can I help? 12:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Almirante Condell frigate
Excuse me for my english, but I,ve copied the contents of Chilean frigate Almirante Condell (FF-06) page and pasted it into another with the name Chilean frigate Almirante Condell (PFG-06) because she was the same ship, because Chilean frigate Almirante Condell (FF-06) will be the new frigate Type 23 and not the Leander class frigate. Excuse me if sometimes i mistake.
Many greetings --Gaetano56 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Dispute over new article "Ice-9 fusion"
Would you care to help with WP:Articles_for_deletion/Ice-nine_fusion? Ice-nine_fusion seems to have been created as a competitor to the strangelet page.Dark Formal (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thank-spam
Re: Nega-work
Ah, no problem! :-) Kirill 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A belated thank you
...for pointing me at Gimp. Now, if I could only stop using it occasionally, like, to sleep. . .Maralia (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
a thank you note
|
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | |
| Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been outstanding, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia
Thank you for your welcome message. It will be a pleasure to continue to add constructive and hopefully useful contributions to this incredibly informative web site. BrettFairbairn (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding vandals
Thanks for the heads up. I didn't know how that got reported, but I'll definitely use the guide you've suggested now and in the future. -- Kallahan (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Ships
Thanks for the advice on WikiProject. I have joined a project and also have taken the opportunity to set up a user page - I hope you do not mind me using the layout of your user page as a starting point for my own effort. BrettFairbairn (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
continued vandalism by 24.176.13.139
I noticed that you placed a six hour block on this IP on the 13th. Someone using it has continued to vandalize articles (here and here) in a pattern that seems consistent with the previous vandalism. I realize that this is just an anonymous IP, but might I suggest a longer block? so sayeth Lucky Number 49 Yell at me! 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message on my talk page [6]. I would be disinclined to re-block 24.176.13.139 (talk · contribs) due to the fact that since my previous block expired on January 13th, this IP has received zero warnings, let alone the required sequence of properly escalated warnings. Also please note that as per Wikipedia's official blocking policy, "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." Considering this IP did not vandalize another article until six days after their six hour block expired, I would say that this short block was quite successful. I should also note that applying long blocks to DHCP addresses such as this are an exercise in futility as changing IP addresses is as simple as clicking "release IP" and then "renew IP lease." --Kralizec! (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Lucky number 49)
- Okay, no problem. Thanks for your time :) so sayeth Lucky Number 49 Yell at me! 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks! PauliGunther
Super Tuesday
- My mistake was only counting the states in the Democratic section, as I was forgetting that two of the twenty-four were Republican-only.
- Why is this such a big issue that it belongs in a section on my talk page? It's fixed now, isn't it? Write me when there's a real fire. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Super Tuesday
Kralizec!
I'm writing to request permission to use your Super Tuesday map to illustrate a blog entry about the events of Feb. 5. There's no commercial aspect to my blog; I have a banner of Google ads there, but haven't earned any money from them; the blog is primarily a sounding board for my viewpoints on a variety of topics. It doesn't get very much traffic, but it tries to look good. Your map would certainly help in that respect.
If you look at it, you'll see that I'm diligent -- almost maniacal -- about extending photo and image credit where credit is due. Use of your map would result in the same.
My blog is culchavox.blogspot.com.
Thanks for your time.
Best,
Michael Ross
CULCHAVOX
Enlightening, annoying and enraging since 2004
Super Tuesday
Kralizec!
I'm writing to request permission to use your Super Tuesday map to illustrate a blog entry about the events of Feb. 5. There's no commercial aspect to my blog; I have a banner of Google ads there, but haven't earned any money from them; the blog is primarily a sounding board for my viewpoints on a variety of topics. It doesn't get very much traffic, but it tries to look good. Your map would certainly help in that respect.
If you look at it, you'll see that I'm diligent -- almost maniacal -- about extending photo and image credit where credit is due. Use of your map would result in the same.
My blog is culchavox.blogspot.com. My e-mail is michaeler@gmail.com
Thanks for your time.
Best,
Michael Ross
CULCHAVOX
Enlightening, annoying and enraging since 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.45.250 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 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) 00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The map image
Krailzec!
Per your approval, the map image is live on my blog: culchavox.blogspot.com.
Thanks again.
Culchavox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Culchavox (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The map
That's the identical .png image I copy pasted from the Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Culchavox (talk • contribs) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: WikiProject Military history banner tags
I was going though the unassessed military history articles and at a glance the pages looked like stubs. On a second look, it seems that disambiguation 'DAB' would be more appropriate per the assessment instructions. I apologize for my mistake and will go back and correct it. Ndunruh (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyrightn Violation?
Is this your image?
http://www.3cat24.cat/noticia/252236/mon/Que-es-el-superdimarts
Copyright violation? --Cameta (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, the licence that you have used with this image is not legal, in my opinion. As you state it is a derivative work of Image:Map of USA.png which is released under the GFDL and therefore your picture should also have this license. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
hdt83
Hi, the pupose here is to discuss the actions of hdt83. It appears that he is acting as several users who are all Admins. When I try to edit a post (correcting errors) he not only changes it back to his old post then he blocks me. It appears that he is also Gogo Dodo among others. Please look into this as it hurts wiki. Think about what happens when one person can have access to 5 or more admin accounts and changes correct posts to his only incorrect versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.59.241 (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The source for the statement that a NA currency union is a conspiracy theory given is the article on IHT.com, which actually states:
The North American Union is a supranational organization, modeled on the European Union, that will soon fuse Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a single economic and political unit. The details are still being worked out by the countries' leaders, but the NAU's central governing body will have the power to nullify the laws of its member states. Goods and people will flow among the three countries unimpeded, aided by a network of continent-girdling superhighways. The US and Canadian dollars, along with the peso, will be phased out and replaced by a common North American currency called the amero.
And:
The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics.
The conspiracy theory is that there is a supranational organization being formed from Canada, the United States, and Mexico that would subvert national sovereignties. The currency union is only one component of this supposed organization, which would also implement unimpeded trade and expand continental road frameworks (given the opportunity). The current opening sentence excessively emphasizes one possible means of implementing the currency union (through a secret conspiracy) without any consideration of the purely academic discussion on the pros and cons of the matter. Kelvinc (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. Cheers. Kelvinc (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ship infobox debate
Hi Kralizec! There's been a discussion going on at Wikiships for a while now on fields for the new ship class infobox. Your input would be very much appreciated if you can find the time. The relevant thread is here]. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Removal of content from Super Tuesday
My removal was intended, as you well know from my summary line. It was perfectly legit and above board. The content I removed was trivial and idiotic and adds NOTHING to the article or to the understanding of Super Tuesday. 216.231.46.147 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- More: Why don't you THINK about the article and what it is for and who is likely to want to look at it? Does "Tuesday of Destiny" increase ANYONE'S understanding of the subject? No, it doesn't. It HINDERS it, because it drives the actual content about what it is and what happened on it further down below a mountain of cruft. It's TRIVIA. It harms Wikipedia. If you READ some of those links, you will see that they are MAKING FUN of the bogus names that have been stuck on this event. 216.231.46.147 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm an idiot
Thanks for catching that. --Kallahan (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
I work for the NPIA and have not vandalised anything, in fact most of what is written on the NPIA page is my work.
If you look at my history, there are only two pages I have added to or have any interest in adding to, one being the NPIA, the other SOCA.
I certainly don't need people from America and god knows where telling me about my own country England or my agency the NPIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamford (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message on my talk page [7]. Here are a couple of points for your consideration:
- Regardless of whom your employer is, you need to follow Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines when editing articles.
- Edits such as this and this are clear examples of vandalism and will be treated accordingly.
- If you work for the NPIA, you should also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guideline on Conflicts of interest.
- Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Bamford)
2020 Summit Australia
I wish to start a new article with the above name. It relates to a significant government initiative described in the Australian government's recent media release[8]
Could you please set this heading up that I can "GO" or "SEARCH" , or tell me how to do it. --jcosco (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hardly a conflict of interest, the NPIA page is extremely neutral. I can only think that it is because I am British and not American that I am being treated in this way.
The NPIA page merely shows the functions of the agency in relation to it's work, it's not controversialor baised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamford (talk • contribs) 11:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Norman Hotel
How embarrassing - I have never eaten there (yet). In fact I had to google the name to find where it is - and as soon as I saw an image of the building realised that I go past it nearly every day on my way to work (I live on the south-side and work in the city centre). The 'never eaten there' sitaution is set to change very soon, as I particularly enjoy a delicious steak. Thanks for the recommendation. BrettFairbairn (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reported this editor's obnoxious behavior towards several editors and articles at ANI. Would appreciate it if you could look through it. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Despite being informed the incident report, and acknowledging its existence at the reliable sources noticeboard, this editor doesn't appear to have any intention of responding. The incident report was archived recently, but I've taken it out and put it back on the ANI as no action has been taken. This issue is with the editors behaviour and way of interacting with other editors, so I request that you, or another administrator please take appropriate action against the editor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
your warning
I notice that you have this in one of your boxes "This user prefers the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle." If this is so, why would you give me the warning that you did concerning my edits? I did discuss my edits on the talk page of that article and did not revert more than three times. So why would you warn me about edit warring? I believe my edits to be sound. Because there were three editors who didn't, really doesn't amount to more than the fact that, well, three editors didn't agree with them. It doesn't make what they claim in the article any more factual and it doesn't make me an edit warrior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elodoth (talk • contribs) 07:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Sorry. I forgot to sign... Elodoth (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Milhist coordinators election has started
- The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Note
You left me,
- Hello. I noticed that your addition [9] to the Eighth Wonder of the World article is unsourced. In order to keep the article from spiraling out of control with WP:OR, several of us have it on our watchlists and generally trim un-sourced additions on sight. If you could source your addition via a citation template, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, duh, but editing I realized someone already added it with a ref. Reverted my edit & then added a link to the church.
dino (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit assistance
Hi Kralizec! I was informed that the Religion in China article was protected, and I understand it is because of the edit war between a few editors. However, I was in the process of doing some minor fix on some facts on the article and re-formatting the image sizes. But my edit was lost as result of the on-going edit war and now the page is protected. I was wondering is there anyway that you could fix some minor edits for me while the article remains protected.--TheLeopard (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
RE: Edits to Bowling Green State University
oops yeah I removed tags and didn't put the reason on the talks page. Sorry it was late, I gues I forgot.--Bhockey10 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyright tags on photos
Hi,
I need to know how to add copyright tags to the photos I have uploaded. I have permission to use a few of the pictures. All of the other ones, I took with my camera.
I don't want these to be deleted, as I have taken a lot of time to edit pages, and add my images.
Please let me know what I can do. If it makes it easier, I would like to make them Public Domain.
Thank You!
Aaron M. Lang (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
RE: Image licenses
Thank You!
If you have any say in it, I am going to take care of this within the next hour. I'd like to keep these up!
Aaron M. Lang (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
RE: Image licenses 1
Hello again,
is there any way to mass edit what I have uploaded, or must I go through every picture I've uploaded, and add the tag..?
Aaron M. Lang (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
RE: Logos
I understand that logos may only be used in certain articles, etc. That is the case, here. I was contacted by the original author of article Palm Beach County Fire-Rescue, and was appreciative of me uploading and posting pictures, as well as the logos. For clarification, it is ok to have these logos up for that article..?
Aaron M. Lang (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
RE: Image licenses
Adding the (hangon) tag...
I got a few of these pictures off of Palm Beach County Fire-Rescue's website. They are set at a "public domain" level. These are ok to use, correct?
Aaron M. Lang (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
re:Much belated
Hi Kralizec!, and thanks for your congratulations. No worries about missing the RfA, it's no big deal really. I was actually thinking about putting the mop badge on my user page, but I just hadn't gotten around to doing it yet. So thanks for that too :) I'll be sure to ask any questions I might have, if and when they arise. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow editor. This is a reply to the revisions I made on diff=194392824&oldid=194392735 in the article Wonders of the World. I have reviewed the changes. While I do not agree with the removal of the links, the statement about the Pyramids as the last standing ancient wonder of the world is correct. Thanks for your time and notification. Mkdwtalk 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
North American currency union
Ahhh... sorry about that. I was reading about currency unions generally when I noticed the ref error. I didn't check the history. - Borofkin (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Wonders of the World
Ye gods - thank goodness you reverted that disaster. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work on Super Tuesday II
I don't think I could improve upon it at this point. I'll keep my eye on it and tell you if I can think of anything! --Kallahan (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Marion Giant 1999
Best not to take the "get a girlfriend" bait. I think at this point it qualifies as feeding the trolls. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was meant as friendly advice rather than an admonishment. He tells you to get a girlfriend, you tell him you're happily married. He switches tack to making fun of you for neglecting your wife. You come back with something else - I don't know, maybe you edit Wikipedia while your wife's working an evening shift, or something - and then he comes back with something else ("she works the evening shift because she hates to be around you!") and before long you notice that you're devoting a bunch of time and effort to defending yourself from the personal attacks of an idiot. How you deal with him is entirely up to you, and I don't think you're doing it badly; it's just that responding to that sort of thing is a trap that I've fallen into before.
- I do agree, though, that as much good cop as possible is wise; I think he probably has the potential to become a useful contributor if he agrees to pursue his goals within the context of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
manual of style
You cited the manual of style, but the manual of style is huge. Where in the manual of style does it cover pictures for an article of this type?
Also, I made many improvements, and you reverted all of them without considering them individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmithsonian (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensil (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Travel wonders
I have reverted DavidWBrooks' removal of a notable and long-established section from Wonders of the World. Nowhere could I find support for the removal in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The reason he gave was not a valid one. For more information, see the talk page. Wordsmithsonian (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, and question
Many thanks for your message of welcome.
I've added some text to my user-page, but wasn't able to add an image (though I uploaded it as below). It seems to be way oversize, but, being new to this, I don't know how to resize it.
It's a photo, taken by me, of a model that I built of HMS Edinburgh, so there are no copyright issues. If you can tell me how to add this to my userpage I would be most grateful!
Kind regards, Vvmodel
- Per your request [10], I added the image to your user page with the following syntax:
- [[Image:Desk_D97.jpeg|thumb|right|A model I built of the [[Type 42 destroyer|Type 42]] destroyer [[HMS Edinburgh (D97)|HMS ''Edinburgh'' (D97)]].]]
- For more assistance on using images, you may find the Wikipedia guideline on Images and especially the Picture tutorial helpful. Have fun! --Kralizec! (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Vvmodel)
Very many thanks for sorting this - I'll do the tutorial that you recommend.
Regards,
Vvmodel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvmodel (talk • contribs) 12:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Nice Work
Thank you very much, I've been meaning to try and fix up the page and know it is gonna take a long time, but I've got nothing else to do for spring break so I might as well do it now haha. If you want to help in any way (e.g. formating, refrences, etc.) that'd be greatly appreciated. Rik (talk) 20:44, 03 March 2008 (UTC)
You are to be commended to expend such vast amounts of efforts just to document his behavior in such detail! — Coren (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks very much Kralizek! I really appreciate that. It's always nice to get some recognition for your work :)
Unfortunately, I may not be able to devote quite as much time as I'd like to the project in coming months, but I'm still hoping to get a bit done here and there :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oklahoma City
Thanks a lot, I found that photo last night and saw that there were no old photos on the page and had to add it. I figured everyone would be mad or either like it. Thanks--CPacker (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 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) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Backlog
Hi, there is a backlog at the SSP page and i was just hoping you can take a look at this case i made, [11]. Seems no one has yet looked into it and the user has used yet another I.P. as a vandalism-only account. One of the users IPs has just vandalized multiple page again and i am seriously getting tired of having to revert all of his mess everyday. Please look into it. -- LaNicoya •Talk• 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know anyone who could be of help? I doubt checkuser is needed since the vandalism pattern and mo is exactly the same. - LaNicoya •Talk• 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Tenshi G
I changed the block to indef, as that account is clearly an abusive, WP:3RR-evading sock of Gouryella Tenchi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blueboy96 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Your block of 151.49.52.138
Why did you block this IP? Apart from one problem with Talk:Sandbox, which is easily explained as a mistake, s/he's only been playing where s/he's entitled to. Am I wrong? -- Zsero (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message [12] on my talk page. 151.49.52.138 (talk · contribs) was blocked as per an WP:AIV request [13], specifically regarding this edit. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Zsero)
- That request was improper. Yes, it was very uncivil of the IP editor to react in that way to receiving an improper warning, but blocking seems a bit drastic, especially without any proper warning about civility. It appears to me that the user was acting in good faith, and got angry when hit by such an unexpected warning. (You will note that my own warning about the IP's edits to Talk:Sandbox was much milder, recognising the user's probable GF.) -- Zsero (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- At 15:02 the IP was given a {{uw-vandalism4im}} "last warning" message. Then at 15:11 the IP replaced the warning editor's talk page with "fuck you." For continued vandalism after their "last warning", I blocked the IP. This is perfectly consistent with our official policy on blocking. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Zsero)
- So if I just slap a 4im warning on a first-time offender, I can then go to AIV and get them blocked? What I usually see at AIV is that you have to have gone through the levels, maybe skipping one in particularly blatant cases, but if you go from a mild warning for a GF edit to Defcon 10 the user will not be blocked even if the warning was for an actual bad-faith edit. In this case, I see no evidence of bad-faith editing by the user until after receiving the 4im warning. If I were this user I'd feel pretty angry at whoever had given me such a warning too, though I'd like to think I wouldn't lash out quite as uncivilly. I think it was uncivil of Wisdom to be templating this IP without ever explaining what they did wrong (which is far from obvious), and their incivility in return is understandable though of course unjustified. I think they should be unblocked, and all warnings removed and replaced with a civil explanation of what they did wrong. -- Zsero (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- At 15:02 the IP was given a {{uw-vandalism4im}} "last warning" message. Then at 15:11 the IP replaced the warning editor's talk page with "fuck you." For continued vandalism after their "last warning", I blocked the IP. This is perfectly consistent with our official policy on blocking. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Zsero)
- Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but it seems like you are implying that it is improper to use template warnings with anonymous editors. The facts of this incident strike me as being quite simple:
- the IP vandalizes a page and receives a {{uw-vandalism1}} warning
- the IP ignores the warning, vandalizes again, and is issued a second warning
- the IP ignores your warning, vandalizes again, and gets a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning that clearly states "If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Template:X2, you will be blocked"
- the IP ignores this final warning and most incivility replaces an editor's entire talk page with "fuck you"
- the IP is blocked for 31 hours
- The warnings given by Enigmaman, you, and Wisdom89 appear to be fully in order with each telling the IP the name of the vandalized page. Everything was done by the book, with the IP ignoring three levels of warnings before eventually being blocked for continued vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Zsero)
- Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but it seems like you are implying that it is improper to use template warnings with anonymous editors. The facts of this incident strike me as being quite simple:
Nothing wrong with templating anon editors, where it should be obvious to them what they've done wrong. In this case, I don't see any deliberate vandalism, just good-faith edits. Wisdom89 is upset about people deleting the top line from the sandbox. Yes, they shouldn't do that, but the instruction not to is easily missed. It's not clear to me that this user was ever told this in a civil manner. Putting myself in his/her shoes, it looks like s/he was trying to do the right thing, playing where s/he was told to play, and along comes somebody and gives him/her a "final warning" over "vandalism", without any explanation of what it is that s/he's doing wrong. -- Zsero (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should make it clearer: this user's edits were almost all in the sandbox. Even the edits I warned him/her about were in Talk:Sandbox, which s/he could easily have mistaken in good faith for the actual sandbox. -- Zsero (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Block of BlonddudeGoneDark
Hope you didn't block User:BlonddudeGoneDark on account of my mistaken AIV report -- I jumped the gun when I saw some edits that looked like BLP violations but were on articles about fictional characters. He has made a few disruptive edits since being unblocked after the first block, but also some constructive ones. Jfire (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi There
A while ago you blocked me, then i was under a different name and i was a vandal, I have moved on from my destructive past and i was wondering if you would accept an apology.
Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Vandal
This user, who was recently blocked after some pretty troubling vandalism/attacks, looks like he/she could be the same as this user, whom you had recently blocked. I suspect that because one of the changes the IP vandal made, immediately before being blocked, was this diff. Food for thought anyway. Jonneroo (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message [14] on my talk page. 68.88.232.38 (talk · contribs) is actually just one of the many IP socks of banned editor Mariam83 (talk · contribs). Every few weeks she goes on an IP-jumping vandalism spree (see the massive list at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83) in an attempt to vent her impotent rage at being permanently banned from Wikipedia. While I feel sorry for her, the attacks are quite easily dealt with via WP:RBI. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Jonneroo)
- Wow. Thanks for the reply, and I'm sorry you're having to deal with this. Jonneroo (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
|
The Surreal Barnstar | |
| Ha Pensil (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
RE: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
I would suggest locking the article until this is resolved, I have clearly stated and even put a sub article explaining the point where people refer to him as "legal" and the current Chief Justice as "illegal". These edits are simply emotional based and have no meaning or purpose on wikipedia.
Fahadzkhan (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I had created a talk page in that article asking those people who edit the article claiming him to be the "true/legal" CJ to explain their position but its been a week and no one has come forward.
Time for you to either lock the article or BAN those people that edit the article with those meaningless edits. Fahadzkhan (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: AIV report
Well, I am using Huggle, and it apparently sets up a queue of suspected vandal edits to send to users for review. I was away from my computer for around a half an hour, so the vandal may have stopped editing and after I came back, huggle sent me all the backlog edits it had found, and that is why I warned him so late. I do not know this for sure, but it makes sense. Huggle has a feature to purge the queue, and I forgot to use it before I restarted editing. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will do my best not to make any more questionable AIV reports. J.delanoygabsadds 20:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
your talk page
I don't mean to be telling you what to do on your talk page, but if I were you, I would archive this soon. It is like 118 KB long. J.delanoygabsadds 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk page question
I noticed (though no real big deal) that on Scorpio h2o's talk page, you had put it back to the one edit where he had taken off all of his warnings. I was always under the impression that for recent warnings, users were not allowed to take them off, so if someone else had to put on a warning, they could know if the user was previously warned, and coupld put down the approiate tag. If that is different, sorry about that, and I will keep that in mind for future reference. Thanks :) Whammies Were Here 21:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, ill keep that in mind, thanks :) Whammies Were Here 22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Oklahoma City bombing
I apologize for taking so long to get back to you, my wireless keyboard died and I couldn't log on to my computer. I was able to get a new one and have taken a look at the article. I'm assuming good faith on the editors' recent changes (even though I think they all may be the same user based on their contributions and similar names/user pages). The source that I had added for information about the makeup of the bomb was from the biography and retelling of McVeigh to the author of "American Terrorist" and was published several years after the bombing. Based on the recent edits, I agree that it is also WP:SYN. Because of this, I reverted the article back to what it was as I believe that the coverage of the bomb goes into too much detail, and I didn't consider the "talkleft" website a reliable source (I tried to use the Internet Archive for accessing the statement within the article but to no avail). If a more reliable source is provided along with with brief coverage in comparison to what was added, I think it would be fine to include the information. Again, sorry for the delay, and let me know if anything else with the article appears to be out of place. Keep up the good work with reverting vandalism on the article, you have beaten me to the punch many times. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Matt Diaz
It has been brought to my attention that someone, whether it be you or a third party feels that my edit to the Matt Diaz article is vandalism. I do not know if you are a baseball fan or not, however, that is not relevant to the edit to the article. He clearly pronounces his last name incorrectly, which is why myself (and others) feel that it was a sensible edit to this article. In no way whatsoever, do I intend to vandalize or put forth damaging information towards any article (or for the record any other) and I feel strongly that this threatening message to ban my IP address from editing is quite unjust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.50.183 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
RE: Kudos on Amero page
I had seen Carr's work on his page, and decided that links would be appropriate. I use NetworkSolutions.com quite often to see if a website is legit or not. Thanks for the kind words! Unidyne (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy unblock for User:Aaronjhill please
Could you unblock User:Aaronjhill please?
He seems to have been blocked for trying to add accurate technical information to the article Haplogroup I1a (Y-DNA). In no way does that constitute vandalsm.
If people wanted to question the appropriateness of material he was adding, it should have been raised in a friendly way on his talk page, or on the article talk page. (He's only been editing here for two days, after all!)
Slamming him with four unexplained vandalism warnings and a block, without any explanation, is not appropriate. Jheald (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- PS. This talk page is getting very long. Have you thought of archiving? Jheald (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- This was mentioned in the context of an ANI post, which may be found here. On the surface, most of the editor's contributions to the article look OK, though obviously the editor's reaction to being reverted (as with this edit) factors as well. Thanks for your quick response, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - didn't want things to swirl into a drama-party without inviting everyone. Crisis averted, then - thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree I've had an error of judgment here, and it's something I'm not proud of at all. I give my deepest apologies, this is most rare, I can assure you.Steve Crossin (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this is the first time I've ever made a severe error of judgment, you can even check my record. I do a lot of anti-vandal patrol (maybe too much), however, when I make a mistake, I will ackgnowlege my error, and apologise. I'd love to stay and chat, but theres more vandalism for me to clean up. I hope my dubious report to AIV won't make you skeptical of my future reports to AIV, as I said before, this is extremely rare. Steve Crossin (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Please block the above as well. KnightLago (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
My natural response to the situation: "Fuck it". I have better things to do. I will participate when all this craziness is gone. Thanks for communicating! DrAjitParkash (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Anon IP
It should be noted that, the IP you asked to stop vandalizing Jumanji656's page -- 142.163.159.219 -- is in fact that user. He was removing something that made him look bad on his own user page, while signed out. Logical Defense (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
"Diff" issues
Sorry, but you were of no help at all. First, what you said doesn't seem to have anything to do with making links on a talk page. Second, I have no idea what "radio buttons" are, and descriptions in the rest of your instructions make me doubt you mean "cur" and "last," which are all I can see there. Ted Watson (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- My browser is Internet Explorer, a version recent enough that I can open tabs, not just a whole new broswer. Ted Watson (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is only one thing there that might be called a button; there is a black dot in it in the top two entries. Ted Watson (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I repeat, my browser is Internet Explorer. Ted Watson (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is only one thing there that might be called a button; there is a black dot in it in the top two entries. Ted Watson (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you have just semi-protected the Shamrock, Texas page. I don't know if you have been following the growing edit war, or are just responding to a user's plea for help, but I question whether this should be done.
First, there is no vandalism occuring (despite the accusations) -- this is an edit war. By blocking the anonymous IP, you have given the other side of the party free reign to do what she wants to the article. I think that in this situation, this is not fair.
What is happening is that one part (the IP) has added some information on the growing crime rate in the town. They have fully referenced it with more than one reliable source. The other party keeps deleting this data, along with its references, and labeling it as vandalism. Now I need to say that I am not quite sure how to progress on this one. In fact, recently today I have asked another user to come and help moderate this dispute and review the data. The sources are reliable (at least some are newspapers and such) but yet could use some looking over. I do know however, that blind deletion is uncalled for.
The reason again why I disagree with this page being protected only against unregistered IP's is due to you now giving an unfair advantage to the one party. Respectfully, Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 00:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank-you. This data might be deemed non-acceptable in the end, but I think that the IP should be shown respect here, and at least be shown how their information is not acceptable. I mean, there's no discussion whatsoever on the Talk page of either the User IP or the article itself. However, I am not sure that it isn't acceptable, even if the wording is changed to be more of a npov. Cheers, Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 00:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, thank-you for your time. I realize that you did this work and spent extra time on it because I asked you to, and your response shows itself to be well informed and a sufficient explanation. You came to a conclusion that I was attempting to work out, but did so in a much better way than I could have. This anonymous IP now has something more to consider than just "stop vandalizing," and I think they deserved this more developed response. Thanks again, Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 02:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not at all that familiar with your "system" of politics here so, please forgive me if I "cross over" some imaginary "line" that is not very clearly drawn for me to see. My question is as follows:
In the "Harassment will not be tolerated" statement that was sent me, I had put forth my OPINION that, just pehaps, the representatives of local media in Shamrock Texas would be forced to resort to hiring individuals to aid us in the correction of the vandalism of our city references as shown on you site.
Could some kind-hearted individual PLEASE take the time to explain to me just exactly how this can be considered any more "harrassing" than the constant deletion of information that is extremely pertinent to our community and that has been verified by many numerous governmental and media sources?
I'm NOT trying to be a "pain" but, the information sincerely is a "part of the community" and, as do many who live here, we feel that it is our only "claim to fame" in the world. (The Rick Roach drug conspiracy was the first and only time Shamrock was ever mentioned in the New York Times.)
Why can these vital (and documented) facts not be left to stand? Are you so selective that you only want your own version of the "facts" available? If that is the case, I need to approach our town council about having you remove the Shamrock Texas page altogether.
Can someone please explain this to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.143.152 (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
A threat to "hitr" another person?
If you'll go back and re-read the topic in which I was accused of sending a "threat" by "threatening to hitr" someone, you'l notice that the actual line reads "do we have to hitr people". The INTENDED line was "do we have to HIRE some people" but, do to the small keys on my keyboard, I mis-typed the "tr" in the place of the "re". Has this never happened before? Am I now tried and convicted of threatening physical violence because of a slip of the finger? (That's a kinda humorous, kinda serious question as I've noticed that there does appear to be entirely too much "tension" involved here...) I've given up on ever having the facts published here. We'll be happy to use your "fantasy pages" to refer to the facts as they stand. Don't worry. There will be no further interuptions of these stories with anything true from me. It was a mistake to try.--216.167.143.152 (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Concerning your posting on my talk page entitled "No perrsonal attacks," you are no less guilty of a personal attack against me than I am against editors Edokter and Ckatz, except that my complaints about them are justified by what they in fact did and yours about me are not. I will not be told that reporting improper behavior by other editors to the encyclopedia's detriment is a violation of rules and is not to be so much as acknowledged. I further repeat that your absurd, indefensible and unconscionable suggestion that I had not read the replies to which I had in fact responded, making you a subject of my complaint, invalidates your right to be the administrator handling this situation at all. I demand that the situation be dealt with on the basis of its reality and will entertain no further discussion of my behavior until theirs has been dealt with in a completely valid manner (this was the original problem, that those two editors refused to discuss my posting defending my edits that we were having a dispute over—the posting which launched the talk page thread on them—on its own, very calmly posted, logical and factual terms, i.e., in a valid manner). If by claiming they committed misconduct I am automatically in violation of Wiki rules, then by the same token your claiming that I have committed misconduct does the same for you. You can't have it both ways. Obviously, that is ridiculous, so deal with my original complaint. NOW! Ted Watson (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC) There was something I had every intention going in of saying in the above that I failed to, and its absence had a very negative impact on my overall comments here, and for that I apologize. This was it: "My behavior that you and others have faulted—and which I do not concede was at all dubious—was in response/reaction to that of the two editors named, and any claims of subsequent dubiousness or worse on my part have no impact whatsoever on the validity of my complaint of theirs, and therefore is no grounds whatsoever for refusing to deal with said complaint." This should have preceded my statement of refusing further discussion my own behavior until theirs has been dealt with. Again, my apologies for failing to put it in. Ted Watson (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank You!
|
The TomStar81 Spelling Award | |
| Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Kralizec! has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Montana class battleship, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
sub saharan africa
yes i think you are right ,but i have been trying to assume good faith,because in the past i have jumped the gun and assumed bad faith first,so im trying to turn over a new leaf--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
North American Union Discussion
What you fail to realize is that unlike you, there are millions of "american" people who are brainwashed and they will allow this to happen and are allowing it to happen. You and i may take a stand against this hypocrisy by our government, but the millions and millions of "americans" who have become so complacent in their thinking, so assimilated to the corporate media and their agendas, and who have been distracted with so much entertainment advertising and consumerism, would allow for this to happen! Period - not the end of this discussion. You have no freedoms anymore. You have no rights anymore. They have burned the constitution up with all sorts of acts and legislation that the "american" people have just sat back and let pass through. If you have ever looked through the patriot act, you would find that all they have to do is say you are somehow linked to "terrorism", and all of your "rights" and "freedom" cease to exist anymore. All of this is carefully construed planning by past and current administrations; not to mention the real powers that be in this country which are the private centralized international bankers, who control and run the Federal Reserve Bank. These people have socialized this society, and molded it into what they want it to be, so they have free rein to do as they please with it. The people of this country do not even realize the subliminal messaging and mind control that goes on through their TV's. The tube and the media's news coverage portrayed on that tube, has deterred the people away from what is going on behind the scenes. This is not a conspiracy theory that I am talking about, I am talking about the facts of what is taking place in this country. Take for example yours, as well as most other "americans", view of Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. Most people if asked would say he is a dictator, a terrible president, and that he needs to be removed. Why is that? Its because people know little about him, his ideologies, etcetera, and so forth. They just believe what the agented corporate media has told them about him. Which the media is owned by corporations that are linked to this current administration that date back, so why wouldn't they comply with what it wants? The lack of critical thinking, the ignorance, compliance with out questioning, and conformity, of the "american" people is what does not put a period to this discussion. You can not tell me that I am conspiring up some sort of theory in the things I am saying either. Look at congress; they are holding hearings on steroids in major league baseball! Jesus christ, where have we gotten to when the people who are supposed to be governing and creating our legislation, ARE TAKING OVER INVESTIGATIONS ABOUT STEROIDS IN A FUCKING GAME!! It is not even the people that have become so askew to the unawareness of what is going on in our world, it is even the policy makers! When a game (super bowl), that once played has no barrings on reality and the world we live in, is viewed, talked about, publicized, and has more time spent deciphering what strategies to use, than is spend deciphering through acts or legislation passed by congress that do bare meaning on our lives; how can you tell me we haven't become so distracted by entertainment, that our government could not be signing treaties to unify this continent? I think this discussion is beyond far from over; it has only begun. And until the people of this country WAKE UP to realize that they are building concentration camps to house 15 million people in, that private central bankers are running the country, that our money is not backed by anything and is completely worthless, that recessions happen because they are created by the Federal Reserve Bank on purpose, that racism is a tool used in destroying a country because the best way to destroy a people is to turn people against each other, that fear which runs ramped and untamed through our culture to control the mindsets of people is your only god, and that intellectuals who have come and gone were eliminated, purposely, to alleviate the threat of massive dissonant uprising, I am talking about JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Lennon, the government trying to silence Zach de la Rocha, and trying to silence and wrongful imprisonment of Mumia Abu-Jamal; when we as an entire nation come to the realization of these processes then this discussion can end, and you can put your period on it.
This does pertain to the improving of the article and is why i put it in the "discussion" of the article. what i was saying is that your section in the article needs to have a counter response to it because what you state in your section does not consider the other side of your argument. Would you like for me to add a section to the article stating what i said in the discussion, but starting out as "What some people fail to realize", instead of "What you fail to realize"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiffler84b (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 March 2008
- Why did you copy-and-paste the exact same forum-type message into my talk page [15] as you did on the North American Union talk page [16]? Saying the same thing more than once still does not make this urban legend a reality. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Image source problem with Image:Holy Kabbah.jpg
Well i have taken this and the other image by my own sony cyber shot and if you want any source for it then kindly guide me through what should i do?how can i a edit the Image details like source!!Because i just can't figure it out!!Thanks!! Paki90 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
I try to fix vandalism when I see it. I was looking at the article on the Arab World, and someone had wrote "giggity alright", a quote from Quagmire of Family Guy. I removed that. Why people think they need to deface articles is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.42.194 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
problem with helperbot at AIV
There's a problem with the helperbot at AIV, it seems all bot reported reports are not being removed by the bot and there is no "bot reported" header. I tried to fix it but it's not working. Momusufan (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It's already fixed, seems Cluebot Messed it up. Momusufan (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
149.101.1.116
FYI, since that IP address is a US government address you should send a note to the Foundation that you blocked it. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Stoopid user error
Thanks for fixing my dumb mistake [17]. It appears that I clicked the "internal link" button rather than the "redirect" one on the editing toolbar. :-( --Kralizec! (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, and glad to know that i didn't take out some special redirect tag by mistake :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Arab World edits
Hi,
Just stopped by to say thanks for the heads up. I wasn't aware of the three revert rule.
I'm currently in the process of trying to resolve the issue with the help of another editor. Hopefully this will settle the matter.
Causteau (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Another gruntlord sock
Hi. Gruntlord6e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 12:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 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) 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yamato
hey do you know any thing about say iwoa vs yamato i think the yamato would win but parsec is winning the argument ... what do you think?..--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
Not sure how best to put this, but I feel your behavior in our dispute has been markedly better than my own. At the time, I was frustrated both on and off the wiki, but that doesn't excuse my lashing out at other editors. Countless times I've reminded others to keep cool heads and assume good faith in the midst of strong disagreements, and here I've caught myself falling into that trap. I don't believe this is standard, for me. Perhaps I need to step back a bit. At any rate, you've done a fine job remaining perfectly amicable and fair in spite of brusque treatment from me. My prior apology on my talk page was meant sincerely, but feels incomplete. Sorry for... that, and thank you for a small but important reminder of the wiki spirit. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
References required for wp:blps.
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Kuljit Takhar. Thank you. [18] -- Jeandré, 2008-04-05t14:33z
- Re Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars: sorry, but I was "simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template" because several users had ignored wp:v and wp:blp on that article. I'll try not to template regulars in the future again.
- As for reverting the complete blankings; the lead of wp:blp states: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material" (my emphasis) and "blank[ing] all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully. When the subject is of ambiguous notability, such edits should not be regarded as vandalism in the first instance, and recent changes patrollers should bear in mind that they may be dealing with the subject." There were absolutely no references at all, so "Living people" was unreferenced and wp:v states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged [...] must be attributed to a reliable, published source [...] or it may be removed". Blanking a completely unsourced article is such a challenge.
- Re Epicnarcissist, I didn't know that that user had a history of vandalism. That said, the blanking of an unsourced BLP was not vandalism and did not deserve a warning since it was actually following wp:v and wp:blp - two of the most important policies on WP (with only NPOV and NOR being as important). "deleted by author" could also have been the author that is the subject of the article. That unreferenced article was so bad that it was eventually escalated to WP:OTRS because regular editors kept ignoring wp:v and wp:blp by putting back the unsourced info.
- More quotes from wp:blp: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person [...] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to applicable laws in the United States and to our content policies: [...] Verifiability", "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles" (my emphasis) , and "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability". -- Jeandré, 2008-04-05t20:39z
Super Tuesday III, 2008
Looks great! Btw, do you think Mini-Tuesday should be changed to Super Tuesday II, 2004? I have the latter redirecting to the former at the moment. Wasn't sure what you thought on consistency. --Kallahan (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm... that may be. Your call. I won't come down one way or another. --Kallahan (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletions of speculations on private identity
I have tried to edit out speculations about my private identity posted at a very public place - the Administrator's bulletin board/incidents. If you have read the AfD debate and subsequent postings on the issue, you know that there have been some very heated disagreements. It is potentially harmful to post such speculations about specific individuals' personal identities at such a place and, since there is no issue at stake for which such details are necessary, unjustifiable. I have requested user:The Rationalist, who was responsible for posting these things, to kindly delete them. Provided he agrees to do so, I presume there is no objection to their being deleted. If he does not agree to do so voluntarily, I will have to ask for administrative intervention to have them removed as potentially harmful. I hope that you will agree that, just as you choose to keep your private identity anonymous within this setting, others too have the right to do so. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")
The following is a copy of a note that I left at The Rationalist's "talk" page.
From "R Physicist" to The Rationalist: I perhaps should have first contacted you directly about this. I appreciate the support that you gave to my position at the Administrator's Notice Board discussion, but would like to ask you to kindly remove all posted speculations regarding my personal identity. At an earlier stage, when I still maintained a user account "R Physicist" I did post sufficient information about myself to allow someone interested to contact me directly. But at this point, I have chosen to delete my user account and would appreciate it if there were no residual speculations posted regarding my identity at such a public site. The fact that I am well enough qualified in my area to have taken the positions on scientific content that I did is not at this point being put into doubt by anyone, so there is no useful purpose in making further references to or speculations about my personal identity. In order to minimize the likelihood of possible mischief resulting, I would like to ask you therefore to kindly respect my preference for retaining a reasonable degree of privacy for all concerned, by removing all references to personal identities from your postings. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")
With reference to the above
I have now received another warning, accusing me of vandalism, by a user who has reverted an edit that I made at the same Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion. But this time it was my own subsection heading that I had reverted to its original location! This was undone by the User:Xdenizen who sent the warning attached below.
I have the impression that there might be some sort of manipulation going on behind this, and this user is perhaps not acting alone, but on behalf of one of the more contentious participants in the debate.
I can understand that one may not be entitled to alter another user's contributions (even though they may be violating one's rights to privacy); but am I not even entitled to move a section heading that I myself had introduced originally, in order to locate it back to its original position? Since this was not done by an administrator, I presume that such an threat, and revert action, has no more validity than if I had done the same to this user. (Indeed, one could say that it is he who is, without authorization, reverting an edit of material that I had originally contributed.) Am I right? And if so, may I go ahead and restore the subsection header to its original location without any fear of some further repercussions? 24.202.238.172 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(I enclose my reply to this user below , which I posted at his talk page.24.202.238.172 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC))
Please justify your action and warning.
April 2008
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you will be blocked from editing. X Marx The Spot (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Thanks for your reply. I meanwhile contacted [[User:Xdenizen and he/she seems to have apologized "if it was a misunderstanding". The confusion was because he/she had seen your previous warning to me, and assumed that even the subsequent edit that I had made, consisting of restoring a subsection heading to its original place, could be grounds for issuing such a warning. What seems at fault is the entire system of "warnings", as well as the "denunciations" which are, in the present conditions, perfectly designed to create an atmosphere of intimidation and mutual resentment. Someone has compared it to a TV "survival" show, in which it is unclear who will bump whom off the island first. But if you read my "Conclusions", you probably know that this is by now how I view it. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your last reply. I earlier looked up your "user" page, and had already realized that you were very probably a reasonable, balanced and thoughtful person, and that it would not be hard to discuss this question with you. Your responses, and comments, confirm that.
- Unfortunately, the shroud of anonymity behind which most users hide their identity means that one cannot have any confidence, when dealing with them, that this is always the case. And experience has proved to me now, that it very often isn't. When I originally created the user account "R Physicist", I had already made several editorial postings - all within my own area of expertise - and had no troubles with them. I have the impression, in fact, that a large portion of the actually valuable postings at Wikipedia are made by people with no special need to create an alternate "persona" by giving themselves an invented name and user account. I mainly created the account because I had found a posted article, within my field, that non only misrepresented the subject, but the misinformation was being further propogated through links introduced into quite well written articles, including some that I had contributed to. The complete fiasco that followed, which can be pieced together only partially from what is posted at the "Article for deletion" site, and the ABB, convinced me, as I have stated, that Wikipedia, with its conventions of anonymity couched behind "alternate" personae, could only lead to trouble, and I wanted nothing more of it. I only decided, as one last experiment, to see if there might be some other reaction to the events of the AfD debate, by making this ABB posting to draw other "insiders'" attention to this extremely disagreeable event. The results of what followed are all clearly posted, and several (though not all) of the most disagreeable "dramatis personae" have made their appearance on the scene, trying to justify their conduct. It is true that many others expressed various degrees of indignation; but this was mainly about the fact that I had, by making such a posting, been "banned" from the scene, quite arbitrarily, by a pair of "adminstrators", within the remarkable time of 29 mins.
- I have since looked at the discussions, and saw several people of good will, and sound reason, making remarks, but this was almost equally balanced by those who felt that all this absurdity was in order, and it was myself, who now no longer had a "user" identity, that should be blamed for all that happened.
- My conclusions are posted now, and I have little to add. I don't think I'll be contributing any further to Wikipedia, and I doubt that I will be consulting it very much either, since I will have no confidence, given the process, that what is posted is in any way reliable. What is most in question, however, is: what aspects of human character does the Wikipedia environment encourage and engender? As a "virtual" environment, it is just about the opposite of where I would like to be. But who needs a "virtual environment'? People are best off just being themselves. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
please email my deleted article to me
please email me my deleted article noothergodbesidegod@gmail.com thanks James —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMartinJM (talk • contribs) 04:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't receive my deleted article!!!
I didn't receive it! could you please send it again??? noothergodbesidegod@gmail.com thanks alot James --JamesMartinJM (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Change by 207.42.225.66 on 1 April 2008 to Seven Wonders of the Ancient World
The reason I changed this article was to remove the line "Jackasses started the seven wonders of the ancient world. It"
I did not feel as though removing the line would constitute a violation of Wikipedia policy.
Bethertere (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message
However, it is clear now why this was done and I do not object. See may talk page. The Rationalist (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Secular Humanist Userbox
Thanks you for your note. I apreciate the recognition.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I like your flag layout. Especially the way you have by Region in foreign countries. I may have to do that on my page. I could add Quebec.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
24.27.151.226
Sorry, I'd been told that people could not revert other people's changes on their own talk page. I thought only the user page itself is completely under the control of the user. And I've seen several instances where vandals have taken warnings off their user talk page, only to have them restored by vandal fighters. After all, to block a vandal, AIV demands the vandal be warned 3 times before the block; if the vandal erases the warnings, it makes it a lot harder to know when to go to AIV, and harder for AIV to know that the terms for blocking have been met.
To be honest, I don't think this policy should apply to vandals. I don't see how it serves to improve Wikipedia, and I wouldn't do it to anyone besides a vandal. So I'm going to continue reverting talk page warning blanking, under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. But I'll leave our friend 24.27.151.226 alone. --JaGa (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks I got it :)
hi, I have received the email. thanks :) --JamesMartinJM (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: unblock
I used to laugh when I saw a block log where an admin had blocked themselves by accident. So, I suppose it was just a matter of time before I did it myself - karma.--Kubigula (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Pensacola Christian College
I can't speak for the editor who made this edit, but this edit that changed Cathy McMorris-Rodgers back to Cathy McMorris is legit on its face, but only because it reverts from a red link to a blue link. The current version of the article links to Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Perhaps the article should be moved to Cathy McMorris-Rodgers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Good faith edit reverted as vandalism?
Hello. Is there a particular reason you reverted this edit and marked it as vandalism [20]? As Cathy McMorris Rodgers is the correct name for the article in question, bypassing the redirect looks like a perfectly valid, good faith edit. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I had by accident clicked the undo feature when I meant to select another feature. Remeber to always assume good faith! thankyou--NIscroll (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
My last edit
Okay because of you this will be the last edit I will ever make on Wikipedia. I assumed the person vandalised because I read the wrong section of the difference part and you should have viewed my history and then you would have been able to see this was the first occasion I had ever done this as all my other edits are reverting real vandalism and you should understand mistakes do happen Im not perfect but no instead you come wading in all heavy handed and begin your yapping! I am new to the side of Wikipedia which involves reverting vandalism and I have to say as an admin you showed absolutely no respect for me as a new user and how you are an admin I do not now. There is no point in you trying to categorise this comment as admin abuse are whatever you want to categorise it as because A) I don't fucking care and B) your comment will have no meaning, point or effect as again this is my last edit. I always assumed admins were people you could turn to if you had a difficulty on Wikipedia but obviously not.
- On you personally I just want to add that you strike me as one of these people who have become obsessed with the shit ‘power’ of a fucking administrator that you have been granted on a fucking WEBISTE!! I am assuming that you have no social life etc etc (not to dwell too much in this) you harass new users on Wikipedia because you think you know everything but forget you have been editing for quite some time others HAVEN’T! I have tried to contribute to this website which I have a lot of respect for but with pricks like you who have no life I have that very hard to do!
- So please don’t bother writing back on my page or yours with some shit defence story because I will never read it so why would you want to write back? If you delete this comment (feel free) I will assume that you understand I am telling the truth (which I obviously am).
- What will happen now? A lot of people will read this comment and they will be saying to themselves “this boy Is so right” but other people who carry the same traits I outlined above will begin leaving warning templates on my page highlighting some shit rule etc while others will be saying to you “don’t listen to him because I think. . Blah . . . blah. . Blah”
- I hope you have learnt something from this and you understand that this is only a website . . Remember that. . Only a website!!! There is more to life than Wikipedia!!! Personally life is much too short to be sitting on a website talking shit (like me now yes. . . but I am going all out on my last comment) so yes enjoy your life telling people what to do on a website . .your really cool. . . NOT
- What will happen now? A lot of people will read this comment and they will be saying to themselves “this boy Is so right” but other people who carry the same traits I outlined above will begin leaving warning templates on my page highlighting some shit rule etc while others will be saying to you “don’t listen to him because I think. . Blah . . . blah. . Blah”
- So please don’t bother writing back on my page or yours with some shit defence story because I will never read it so why would you want to write back? If you delete this comment (feel free) I will assume that you understand I am telling the truth (which I obviously am).
If you really want to waste your time writing back (because I cannot stress enough how pointless that would be because I will NEVER be logging back into this account when I log out again today) be my guest but hopefully you have taken on board at least some of what I have said and learned something from this??? so I have said enough (although I could go on) use you imagination though! Im sure nobody on here likes you but heh wikipedia is your social life so I am not going to wade in and destroy that on you. enjoy your wikipedia days mr! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NIscroll (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 April 2008
- I have no idea what brought on this rant, but if the user was as sensitive as it appears then perhaps it is for the best that he has retired. I hope that you will not take this to heart Kralizec. Regards LittleOldMe (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Presumably this and this. The user appears to be a bit overly sensitive, which is no crime but can lead to problems on a site such as this. He or she had several accounts, or at least two - Energizer07 and NIscroll. This same message was posted to both those user pages; could they be blanked, because of the personal attacks? --Bonadea (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I am not really sure what exactly NIscroll is responding to here. His reply certainly appears to be way out of proportion to the two messages I left on his talk page. That said, I do however recognize the fact that some people find it much easier to go off on an explosive rant rather than admit they made a mistake, apologize, and move on. Who knows, given enough time to calm down, perhaps he will stop being a drama queen and come back (again) as a productive contributor. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
RE; Final warning about vandalism
Shut up and get off my butt you nosey big pervert or I'll block your fat ass for a million years!!! What I did to DuPage County was NOT vandalism!!! Tclaw (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize
I entered into a revert war with User:Seresin today over a speedy delete tag on Real social dynamics. I did not know that he was an admin; he gave me no indication of it, even in his 3RR warning. I just found out now that he was and I see that I should have paused before simply assuming that he was associated with the article's subject and just disrupting.
I think he needs to apologize as well; leaving my that strongly-worded warning without explaining himself seems unjustifiable. At that point I still believed - as mentioned in my AN/I post - that he was associated with the company and just trying to sneak the article back in under a different capitalization, and that his edit summaries were therefore lies. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandal warnings
Of course I know about warnings. I don't always leave them because it takes me up to 30 seconds to make each edit - as I stated on AN and I don't want to waste time. Also, the vandalism was old, so warnings likely wouldn't do any good. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you're angry with me. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
re IP vandal
seriously, i don't understand the rationale for not blocking. 'insufficiently warned'? perhaps i am not well-enough read on the policy re warnings. is it really the case that for each unique 'incident' of vandalism, the vandal must be warned step by step from general 'friendly' warning all the way up to 'final warning'? if an account has engaged only in vandalism over a long period of time, has been warned at every level under the sun for each of those incidents, then comes back in a month later and vandalizes again - really, have they been insufficiently warned? with a list of warnings a page long, it seems to me that an "only warning" warning is appropriate, and it should be time that this vandal have its privileges revoked. i'm not angry with the decision, merely baffled. why tolerate this behavior over and over and over? Anastrophe (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message on my talk page [21]. To answer your question, yes, warnings are generally restarted each month at level one and increase in severity if the editor persists in vandalizing. While the duration of blocks will often increase each time an editor is blocked, that does not however mean that we should not assume good faith in the interim, especially with IPs which which may be shared between dozens or even hundreds of individuals. Likewise, warnings such as the {{uw-vandalism4im}} you issued to 69.77.143.110 (talk · contribs) are normally only given in the most egregious cases of vandalism, which this is not. Likewise your block request [22] improperly asked for a "permanent block," which is clearly impossible as AIV criteria #3 states "IP addresses cannot be blocked indefinitely." Lastly, as noted in AIV criteria #2, the editor must have vandalized after your warning, which was not the case here. The IP vandalized Gun politics at 12:10, you issued a warning at 12:12 that stated "if you vandalize Wikipedia again...you will be blocked from editing," and the IP apparently listened because that was their last vandalism. Yet despite the fact that the IP apparently took heed of your final warning, at 12:13 you reported the IP anyway.
- I did not realize you were a newer editor; if I had, I would have left this explanation on your talk page straight away. We the Wikipedia community cannot expect new editors to follow the "right way" of doing things if no one bothers to explain how things work, so for that I apologize. Dealing with vandalism can be very frustrating for everyone involved, but blocks are very serious and the proper procedure must be followed to ensure due process. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Anastrophe)
- thanks for your reply. i'm not a new editor, i'm a longtime editor, who is frustrated by how vandals run carefree and roughshod over wikipedia. when an IP address has been used only for vandalism, over a long period of time, i see no value in relentless 'good faith'. looking at this user's history of usage and vandalism and warnings for vandalism - it just seems fatally optimistic to expect that they won't vandalize again. but, the rules are the rules (until they're changed!), so i thank you for the explanation. Anastrophe (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Your comment has been noted.
Your reference to the guideline has been noted. --Lemmey talk 04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am please to inform you all outstanding issues with my signature have been resolved... --Lemmey talk 05:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Fathol
Hi Kralizec, didn't mean to interrupt your handling on User:Fathol at AIV. Feel free to do whatever you think is best. R. Baley (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
CfD Category:Ship disambiguation
Hi Kralizec. You created Category:Disambig-Class Ships articles. Your opinion at CfD Category:Ship disambiguation would be welcome. GregManninLB (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 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) 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
North American Union
Genius, you're allowed to link to fictional topics when they're relevant to the topic at hand. Unless of course you're trying to argue the North American Confederacy is "trivia," but you're not since you clearly have no familiarity with Wikipedia's policies. 96.241.228.238 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- This a warning regarding your impending violation of the three revert rule on North American Union. Reverting to an earlier version of an article more than three times within a 24 hour period will result in a block. Please keep this in mind. Also, repeatedly, knowingly posting false template warnings on other users' talkpages will result in a block. Combined infractions result in longer blocks. 96.241.228.238 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nice try. Feel free to try and wiggle your way out of this on WP:AN/I. 96.241.228.238 (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ukrainian cities in Russian
Some Russian keep adding Ukrainian cities in Russian language. Tell me, what Russian language has to do with Ukrainian cities? Russian is not official language in Ukraine. It has to be stoped. --68.44.228.126 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Some Nacionalists no keep adding cities in English language. See in English Dictionary and this. --80.249.229.48 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Super Tuesday III, 2008
I have nominated Super Tuesday III, 2008, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Tuesday III, 2008. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Potatoswatter (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Refresh my memory
Might have been an oversight; the discussion was pretty heavily focused on warnings. There was some talk about other sorts of content (as you mentioned, unblocks, sock tags, and headers)... issue didn't attract quite the same attention, but from what I recall of the people responding on that point, most seemed to agree there was a more compelling case for keeping those around. Might be a distinct issue from simple warnings. I don't think I've seen a discussion that really focused on exceptions to the "removing warnings" idea, or how/whether to enforce those exceptions, but the idea of having a few things we'd really like kept hardly seems new or unsupported. Particularly with shared IP headers, I've seen plenty of cases where they get restored. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
USS Liberty anon
The anon, who just got back from his 31 hour block, is once again engaging in exactly the same activity that got him blocked before (namely blanking his user page and adding a familiar brand of subtle anti-semite line to the talk page. Is it worth applying for semi-protection on the page to avoid him coming back with a new IP and just doing the same? Narson (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Persecution of Shia Muslims
Why did you remove this redirect from under "See Also" in the article, Persecution of Muslims.
What are you trying to hide? There was absolutely no reason for you to remove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Future cardiologist (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay I'm sorry I think I was wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Future cardiologist (talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 May 2008
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.
reply
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Societyfinalclubs
Do you have any objection if I unblock early? I've userfied the article, so edit warring shouldn't be a problem anymore. I know, 12 hours isn't long, but I figure except as an object lesson on what happens when you edit war, it isn't really preventative anymore (since I userfied it, I mean). I'l wait to hear from you, and am happy to defer to your judgement. --barneca (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm getting successfully trolled a lot lately; perhaps assuming too much good faith. You had better instincts last night than I. After a little research, it's clear this is the same joker who wrote the article last year. The "CIA factchecks nationmaster!" meme is a dead giveaway. I'm hoping he just goes away, so I don't have to massage that into an SSP/RFCU. But, we all know that isn't going to happen. --barneca (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm following up on your question about Cornell1895 yesterday, and since I'm not sure if you're wathcing my talk page anymore, I'm copying it here:
- Now that I've had a chance to review all their contributions, I take that back; Mctrain/Societyfinalclubs had several tells, and Cornell1890 shows none of them. The Checkuser doesn't list him, and there's no reason to think Mctrain was running some Checkuser-susceptible, and other Checuser-immune, puppets. Mctrain had socks that were all arguing with each other, so it made me suspicious of people who'd done nothing wrong; I'm glad I followed my instinct in the SSP report not to include people wasn't sure about!
- I don't think you have publicly accused him of that anywhere, but if you did, you might want to retract it. Societyfinalclubs sent him a condolence note, so I might have missed where Cornell was lumped in with them, or it might have been Mctrain yanking our chain some more. --barneca (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed V for you
I upgraded your level 1 warning in User talk:216.125.74.4 to level 4 to match the preceding level 4 warning. No need to start at level 1 again a mere two weeks after a 4. Incidentally, I think WP:ARCHIVE has instructions for getting a bot to archive old stuff in your Talk page for you. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was on RC patrol and my v4 collided with your v1. I replaced your v4 with my v1 rather than give two warnings for the same event, although their v took the time of two editors. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was on RC during that entire period, and looked at the rv (don't remember if I noticed the rv on RC or if I didn't look at the v's tab until the rv was done -- I open a bunch of RC tabs and wade through them). The vandal's name was highlighted by my browser, so I checked later whether a warning was given for the text tinkering. I didn't notice that the person reverting and the one giving the warning were different (not that it matters). -- SEWilco (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose it matters because the v took the time of three editors rather than two. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Mctrain is a legitimate account
Mctrain is a legitimate account that got lumped in with problematic accounts due to using shared IPs from a public library system. I have posted notification for those who have public accounts with the library to open up accounts on their own personal computers. Please keep all suspect accounts closed, including Mctrain. Mctrain will start a new account on his own PC. Thank you very much.Geniejargon (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Geniejargon has been blocked as a Mctrain sock. Edward321 (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Another lost sock?
Thanks for this -- I might not have seen it. He is indeed another sock, although it's actually one of the same ranges as last time -- it was an oversight that he wasn't blocked before. No new farm! Thanks for pointing this out. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
RfA thank-spam
Thanks Kralizec! Much appreciated. Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Requesting second opinion
Pardon the interruption, but since you've recently been active on the AIV page, I'd like to ask you to have a quick look at a case I logged against 86.41.204.126. It's been denied by an admin that, based on a quick look at his contribs, never seems to block anyone. Frankly, I don't think he actually looked at the evidence - this guy (the vandal, not the admin) has a history of making the same changes, ceasing editing for a while, and then later returning to make the same edits again. I think I've provided pretty good evidence, and expect to be filing another report against him in a few hours.
In any event, I'd appreciate a third set of eyes to have a look. Majorclanger (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ta. I've fixed the report slightly (I had botched one of the links), and would also suggest that you look at the recent history of List of Postman Pat episodes - this particular vandal has make the same edits a number of times from multiple IPs, several of which have received blocks. Majorclanger (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch. I should have checked the DNS, but I guess I naively believed that only one person would have the "bright" idea to change dates in kid's TV articles! Majorclanger (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
re: refusing to block User:Markyodoul
I must respectfully disagree with your decision to take rules so literally. This user has other edits they were not warned about. A scan of the user contributions shows this is a vandal only account. I stumbled across this abuser while checking my watchlist, and happened to add the last two warnings (5 total for vandalism, one "NPA" warning for directly calling another editor a "pussy"). I think, in my opinion, that this editor has more than justified a block, and that you are using a technicality to avoid blocking this editor. I hope that you will reconsider your decision in this regard.
I am not trying to make you feel bad, but when I see this kind of response to an obvious vandal, I really get the feeling that there is little use to tracking down vandals, since there really is such a lack of willingness to stop them by some admins. I'm really not trying to dump on you ... I know that there are some grey areas that require a judgement call one way or the other. From where I'm sitting, this was really not a grey area.
Peace and good day. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the message you left on my talk page [23]. Give me a few minutes to review the situation and I will get back to you. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:LonelyBeacon)
- Looking at the contribution history of Markyodoul (talk · contribs), here is what I have found: the editor's last edit was at 14:45 for which MBK004 issued a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning at 14:47. Nearly six hours later you issued a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning at 20:35 then reported the editor to AIV at 20:38.
- This is actually rather troubling as AIV criteria #2 states "the vandal must be active now, and have vandalized after sufficient recent warnings to stop." Yet not only had this editor not vandalized after receiving their final warning (despite your AIV report claiming otherwise), but Markyodoul had never even seen the level four warning because he stopped vandalizing after his level-three warning. Was this all just a mix-up on your part with the timestamps? I hope so, as otherwise it looks like you issued an escalated warning in bad faith, then followed it up with a wildly inaccurate AIV report.
- Please note that I totally agree with you about how frustrating it is to deal with vandalism on Wikipedia, and I find it especially irritating when people revert vandalism but fail to issue a warning. However blocks are not punitive and our community standards state that editors may only be blocked after being sufficiently warned, which Markyodoul clearly has not been. That said, if this user should choose to ignore a properly issued final warning, I would not hesitate to block him in order to protect the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:LonelyBeacon)
- I see your points. Based on your accusation of my bad faith, I will cease all anti-vandalism work here. It is simply too risky for me to be accused of operating in bad faith by an administrator. I promise that this will never happen again. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I noted above, I hope this issue was just a mix-up or misreading of the timestamps involved. I am sorry if you feel that my message was unnecessarily harsh, but blocking is a very serious business and improperly issued warnings and/or AIV reports only serve to damage Wikipedia's reputation by making the rules look arbitrary and randomly enforced. When I have had to write these sorts of messages in the past, I am always delighted if the editor in question says "sorry, looks like I screwed up" and moves on after learning from their mistake. However sometimes they feel unfairly rebuked and quit vandal fighting altogether. I am sorry if you have chosen the later and hope you will reconsider. Regardless I bear you no ill will and wish to thank you for your efforts to date in helping clean up vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:LonelyBeacon)
- You should also be aware, that this user has been blocked by another admin, and that in no way was I communicating with them. I need you to know that in all earnestness, because I do not want to be accused of canvassing other administrators. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note about you not admin-shopping; I appreciate your forthrightness. After a quick discussion regarding this out-of-process block, the blocking admin Kinu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) agreed to an unblock of Markyodoul. Currently Kinu and I have this editor on our watchlists, so if he choses to ignore my unambiguous warning, I am sure he will be blocked in short order. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:LonelyBeacon)
I don't want you to give the impression that I am pouting .... as I weakly implied earlier, the job of an admin is sometimes not easy. I am most concerned that my reputation could be in danger if my reading of wikipedia policy is not in line with those of administrators.
To further explain, from Wikipedia:New admin school/Blocking: Blocks are most often used after a user continues to vandalize despite repeated warnings. Such blocks generally are imposed when a user continues to vandalize after a final warning (corresponding to a level 4 warning template) but this is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. Template warnings are often used but are not required. Single purpose accounts or vandalism-only accounts may warrant blocking with fewer warnings.
This editor has made ten edits over the course of almost a month (April 20-May 17); most in the past few days. All ten have been vandalism, and all ten reverted. My interpretation is that this constitutes a vandal-only account. I have given fourth warnings before, and not reported then to AIV. This account, in my opinion (especially the personal attacks) demonstrated a vandal-only account, and despite the final warning not having been given, more than justified a block. I had already given the level 4 when I reviewed the user contribs, and decided to go to AIV. I have seen many blocks based on less when I have reported them to AIV in the past. I was shocked that so absolute an interpretation of "final warning" being used.
Not being an administrator, I guess I'm not as experienced at determining when an account meets these criteria. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Vandals can be blocked in as little as four edits, but that only works if they are properly warned every time. It frustrates me intensely when editors revert vandalism but fail to issue warnings. How will the vandal ever learn that their behavior will not be tolerated if we do not tell them? Cases like this -where the editor only got three warnings for ten edits- only serve to encourage people and make them think they might just get away with it. In an ideal world where a vandal gets immediate feedback after each vandalizing edit, I think most vandals would just give up and decide it was not worth their time.
- While I am not sure if you have been following any of the brouhaha at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, the Wikipedia community in general and its admins in specific have been taking a lot of flak lately because people (and more than just the disgruntled folks at Wikipedia Review) do not feel that the rules are being consistently and fairly applied to everyone. I am a big believer in the importance of process and I always endeavor to give everyone a fair chance. Does this mean that I never block anyone unless they have received four warnings? Absolutely not, as egregious cases clearly need immediate action in order to protect the project. As an example, despite only having received one warning, yesterday I levied a block against Ambi saba (talk · contribs) when this editor added 30-odd spam links to various articles.
- When it comes to the Markyodoul (talk · contribs) issue, the fact of the matter is that this editor stopped vandalizing after receiving a third level warning. As blocks are not punitive, I cannot in good conscience block an editor who seems to have learned their lesson after warning #3. In my opinion we should have hit this stage after Markyodoul`s third edit on May 15th, but that is not this editor's fault, it is the fault of our fellow vandal fighters who reverted his edits and failed to issue any warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:LonelyBeacon)
FYI: I left a note at User talk:Markyodoul. I didn't read all of the above so I am not sure how this fits in with the discussion, but I did revert a number of vandalism edits by this user today. Mitico (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Secret societies page
Kralizec!,
I know what you mean; why does everyone who edits that page always seem to have such a short edit history, and redlinks to their user and talk pages? I am, unfortunately, giving up completely on that; I'm taking a total wikibreak for a couple of weeks. If things get too weird there, keep in mind that User:Sam Korn has been helping find new socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs, but they evidently aren't all socks.
In the mean time, if you wouldn't mind checking my talk page occasionally and see if there is any Mctrain-related stuff there that needs taking care of, I'd appreciate it. See you in two weeks. --barneca (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
i love jigsaw
as you previously dealt with this editor...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NET_Television_%28Malta%29&diff=prev&oldid=213271318
Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Vandal warning?
Please refrain from blocking vandals. Your efforts have given satisfaction to other editors. This is clearly contrary to some WP guideline & must stop immediately. Trekphiler (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Indef block?
Regarding User:Timtamtamtim, maybe an indefinite block is warranted for a vandalism only SPA. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
North American Union
I would revert that change - the way it is worded it says that officials have simply not mentioned the existence of plans, instead of the stronger denial of plans which is what the original says. The implication is, of course, there are plans that simply have not been acknowledged by officials. Canada Jack (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Kralizec - help
Thanks for the thanks note on my talkpage, Its always nice to catch someone breaking the rules and spamming some links.
I would appreciate if you could examine my notice and try to resolve my dispute with user:Zeuspitar here : Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zeuspitar. He seems to need a simple warning to not engage in incivility and harassment. Maybe you can leave a message on his talk page for me please, every single post since yesterday he is blasting me personally and my traditions.
I feel that he attacks me and my religion and in fact your religion as well personally and everyone else on the basis of his religious affiliation. I feel its unfair. Let me know if you can do that, I appreciate it. Wikidās-ॐ 12:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
instead of compiling bogus user conduct RfCs, Wikidas would do well to listen to criticism and try to improve his own record. Nobody is "attacking his religion". People are trying to hammer simple recognition of WP:ENC into his skull. dab (𒁳) 13:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you revert Match Game for...
There was a source to the edit. Match Game wasn't going to syndication, but might be going to TBS. You should check things before just reverting them. This isn't your site, it's everybody's Wiki. 68.31.184.43 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
I appreciate the protection on my talk page (and those other pages being vandalized). That'll slow things down for a while for our IP-hopping friend. I appreciate the help. Dayewalker (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- And again, thanks for the protection and the help. Dayewalker (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
my RfA - Ta!
Thanks for your wonderful support of my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
As stated in the edit summary to the IP's talk page, I have reverted all the edits from this IP as pretty much everything but the episode synopses (which are copy/pastes) is 'made up'. It probably doesn't mean anything to you one way or the other, I'm just covering my actions. HalfShadow 23:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Naperville, Illinois
I doubt anyone does not know how to pronounce "Naperville". I find the proununciation irrelevant. DPCBOSS (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Arab World Sockpuppet
Thanks for the update. I do unfortunately remember my encounter with Afbibwei (talk · contribs). I suspected he/she might've been up to something, but two dozen sockpuppet accounts? The man/woman was nothing if not dedicated! Causteau (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 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) 01:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
NAU
Sorry i did not see the consensus on the talk page, i just believed it to be valuable information. Sorry if I caused any problems. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Another church-going agnostic!
We should have a special hand sign, or gang-sign to identify to each other. I wuz even born in Toledo (but left and never returned at 6 months of age, to go to Oklahoma City). :) Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I lack denominational loyalty, and take such wisdom as I find about me. I was raised Unitarian by skeptics, read Childhood's End where I learned strong atheism was untenable (for me, anyhow), drank of J. S. Bach and Albert Schweitzer, then hung out with Quakers for some years, but am now come to All Saints Episcopal Church[24] in Pasadena, a place that welcomes all, even agnostics and worse. So, friend, peace be with you! Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Might want to take a look at this user
LailaKes (talk · contribs) has a striking resemblance to Mariam83 (talk · contribs)
The difs: [25],[26], [27], [28], [29] and [30].
Vandalism reverts
No problem, happy to help. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 12:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:Thank you.
No problem. Happy fighting! Oda Mari (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:Nice work!
Thanks, it still needs work but thanks for the comment!--Bhockey10 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry about that, Kralizec. I didn't realize that tracking disambiguation pages was valuable to other task forces. I'm sorry for troubling you...I can go back and revert my edits (there were three on the disambig pages), or have you done so already? Thanks for letting me know what I did was wrong. I don't want to interfere with any of the other WikiProjects.
TFCforever (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please disregard my question. I have gone back and seen that you have reverted two of my edits, and I have reverted the other. It should be all set now. Sorry again for all the trouble. TFCforever (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
DABs
thanks for your comment - the problem fixed itself about 20 seconds after i posted the message and it was a pretty stupid question. im kind of new to creating articles (so far just a few redirects and this was my first new disambiguation) so any q's I have will now be thrown at you as oposed to the disambiguation talk page ! Have fun. congrats on the contract job btw. Machete97 (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"Japan military ship templates"
Hi. Thanks for your message. Yes, "Japan military ship templates" forms an ungrammatical phrase, but hopefully the comment at the top of Japan military ship templates' code will indicate why. Having said that, categories such as "Malagasy military ship templates" might be unlikely ever to be needed, in which case the category's name may as well be "Japanese military ship templates".
As to replacing "navigational boxes" with "templates" (in conjunction with {{template category}} on the category's page), this was with a view of doing the same elsewhere and thereby reducing the number of levels used in the template category hierarchy. It's tantamount to treating navboxes as the default type of template -- the (large) majority of templates used in articles are navboxes -- to yield:
- X templates (containing navbox template pages but non-navbox as well as navbox template subcategories)
- X infobox templates
- X succession templates
- etc
rather than:
- X templates (containing no template pages)
- X navbox templates
- X infobox templates
- X succession templates
- etc
Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- So far as I'm aware, Japanese military ship navigational boxes is empty and, following the above, redirects anything placed in it to Japan military ship templates. I'll start attending to the other "Country military ship navigational boxes" now. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a policy or project page? Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- The page Wikipedia:Silence and consensus comes to mind. I don't understand how giving categories more succinct names constitutes massive hierarchical category changes..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's it, thanks -- that was the other page I meant to link, but had gone blank on the phrase. Is there a flaw in the structure I've yet to notice? Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah okay, yes, beyond "Military ship templates" I suppose the amendments accumulate. Sounds much more than I would've guessed, though. Incidentally, there seems to be only a subtle possible difference between "Military ship templates" and "Navy templates"; perhaps one could be merged into the other? Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Re:Just curious ...
Yes, but it doesn't really allow them to replace the warnings with things like this. ... discospinster talk 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have replied on the ANI page
Just in case your not watching it :). DustiSPEAK!! 04:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial in the sentence I attempted to add, so it should not need to cite any sources or discuss it on a talk page.
What is controversial is whether the existence of the Senate in its present form is acceptable or, if not, what should be done about it, as variously proposed by different political groups and discussed in the article -- but in the bottom half, as if it was of secondary importance.
By deleting the sentence you are expressing the POV that the present situation is acceptable.
However, I do not have the energy to debate these questions, so I'll give in to the forces of evil (that's you, and yes I'm kidding) and leave the article alone. Don't bother replying to this. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Changes at WP:USER
Hello! I recently returned from a few-month Wikibreak and noticed this and this changed at Wikipedia:User page. When you get a chance, would you mind pointing me to the discussion that preceded this? Thanks so much. — Satori Son 15:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Check out User talk:Xenocidic#User_talk:68.13.151.71 and follow the breadcrumbs from there =). –xenocidic (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
admin intervention
I'm confused about how to add warning to an anon IP page. Also, from the template messages page, "Likewise, if a user is in the midst of an obviously bad-faith vandalism spree, there's no need to warn them before temporarily blocking them." Consider this a good faith effort to put an end to a nuisance without a whole lot of spare time to read through nuances of wikipedia law. Ando228 (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Kralizec: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing vandalism by fraternity members for more information about this persistent vandalism campaign by what appear to be members of a college fraternity using many unrelated IP addresses. Based on plenty of evidence over the past several months, this is a situation that calls for something other than routine 1-2-3-4 warnings. As noted at the ANI link above, it's been brought to administrators' attention several times but the response has been limited to individual IP blocks and protection for some of the targeted articles. The scope of the vandalism has not drawn serious administrator intervention despite several requests for assistance:
- —Whoville (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
woops
sorry no i didn't, i must've seen the "gay" and thought it was vandalism. My bad. Jakisbak (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Culture Shock (TV Series)
Hello,
My name is Roye Segal and I am the Executive Producer of "Culture Shock" pilot on the travel channel. As we are current discussions with the network to embark on a 13 episode series based on the pilot episode which you have cited on, we would appreciate it if you would not continue to post the following" "Due to an unfavorable audience response and low ratings of the pilot episode, the show was not picked up as a series" - as this is simply not true. We are in current negotiations with the channel and would like the Wikipedia page to reflect the facts accurately.
You can validate my reference here:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1543878/
and here:
http://www.elephant-tv.com/HOME.html
You can email me directly if you have any questions: roye@elephant-tv.com
Thanks!
123.237.47.141 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Roye
Re: Friendly reminder about talk page messages
I could have sworn I saw something that removing warnings from talk pages was not allowed, but I must have been mistaken. My bad. ParticleMan (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for clearing my User Page though!
Bren202
Do you mind if I increase the block to 24 hours? I was in the middle of filling out the block form when you did yours, and in addition to plain old edit warring, it was removing speedy notices and maliciously adding db-bio to pages in other's userspace. He's been around for a while, and should know better. VanTucky 04:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 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) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Block templates
I see. Thanks for pointing my error out, I must not have noticed. Is there a different template for creating nonsense articles? A non-indefinite one? Cheers, friend :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 20:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Warning vandals
I just got a bit lazy. Sorry.--SilverOrion (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
AIV Question
Re this edit, I wasn't sure what to say about the claim that the user obviously knew what they were doing. They still weren't warned. I'm new with the mop; just trying to confirm correct course of action. Thanks. Frank | talk 02:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for applying the block. Unfortunately I now have to spend an hour reverting all of the changes he made. I let the first round go but he went nuts this last round.--Looper5920 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have the pages written down and can go back and fix his changes to the pages themselves. If you could undo the moves that would be a big help
- One more quick favor? There is just one more page that needs to be reverted when you get the chance....1st Battalion 3rd Marines. Thanks for all of the help. Cheers--Looper5920 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Another thanks
As the title says, thanks for extending the block of that racist troll for a year. What an utter stereotye that ip has been. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Administrator intervention against vandalism
Hey Kralizec!
Actually, the IP has been sufficiently warned. The problem is, the IP removed the warning here (which, like the way I removed his comments, is allowed, but you didn't notice).
Can you please reconsider? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy
In regulation of wikipedia policy you will give user troy a warning on deleting comments from discussion pages of articles. 77.248.185.98 (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. I didn't harass your talk page the way you did to me, nor did I criticise you directly.
- Also, since when did I make edits like this? ~ Troy (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
User troy has deliberately erased a comment made by me on the discussion page of pope shenouda. Therefore, he is in breach with wikipedia policy, and should be reminded not to erase comments he feels is an insult to him. 77.248.185.98 (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
And he may also be reminded that this is not a religious website and certainly not the religious website of the patriarchate of alexandria, and these vandalistic removing acts should be condemned in this encyclopedia where everyone has a right to express his opinion on discussion pages regarding issues 77.248.185.98 (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This issue has been supperbly dealt with. 77.248.185.98 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)