User talk:RexNL

	Leave a message
	Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Please post new messages at the bottom of this page (or use the "leave a message" button) and sign your comments by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). Thank you.

Wow

You are a reverting machine! --Doug (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting, but I'm not a machine... :-) RexNL 17:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to be as quick as one this evening. --David.Mestel 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Vand Question

I did a bit of RC patrolling this evening, and I wondered about something. When is the slate wiped clean for IPs, so when should you start again with the first warning? --David.Mestel 18:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If it's a shared IP address (indicated on the talk page), then it's likely that many different users are using that specific address. If you think that a user is experimenting with Wikipedia for the first time, you may give him/her a first-level warning. But since you never really know if you're dealing with a new user in these cases, you have to use your intuition.

For static IP addresses (one user per address), it's easier. Then you're dealing with the same user the whole time, so you only have to use the first warning once (the first time). RexNL 18:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Barnstar.,

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Hi RexNL, Thanks you for looking the article for vandalism. Right now, There are many people who vandalize the article. So, Thanks a lot. I appreciate that you did good job to fight with vandalism. Daniel5127, 00:57, 4 May 2006(UTC)

This is the barn-star for you. Because You always do good work to fight with vandalism. Ahh, You said that you sent me message, but you didn't. Please Leave the message about Sandbox on My talk Page. Don't forget. Thanks. Daniel5127, 00:58, 4 May 2006(UTC)

Hi Daniel, thanks for the barnstar! Much appreciated. RexNL 09:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome!! Also Thanks for message in my talk page..^^ Daniel5127, 05:34, 5 May 2006(UTC)

Meredy

Sockpuppet adding links again Special:Contributions/71.126.44.221. Arniep 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I reverted the changes and warned the user. Next time, you may want to use WP:AIV instead, because I'm not always here. Thanks again, RexNL 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a page?

I've noted that the webcasting page has lots of commercial links on it again. How do you revert it?

Help:Reverting contains information how you revert a page. RexNL 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

Take a look at Solar eclipse...I want to get rid of two more. You think the page has calmed down enough to give me a minute window to try again? --HappyCamper 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. RexNL 17:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a great job whacking the vandals on Solar eclipse :-) Stephen B Streater 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... but it's a pity that it is necessary. RexNL 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If any experienced editor with 1000 edits say - whatever I have ;-) - could block any anonymous IP from editing for 8 days, then the vandals would get bored pretty quickly. The loss of a few IP clones editing for a week would be much less damaging than the incessant junk on eg Solar, Newton and Haydn. Stephen B Streater 18:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then the policy needs to be changed. I don't expect it to happen in the short term. RexNL 18:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of time is in the long term. Stephen B Streater 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. :-) RexNL 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darfur Conflict Mistake

Wha? My apologies; this was certainly not my intention. I'm using a public mac at the moment, and my patience is fading fast. I'm hoping that my edits will still be used, though. That particular paragraph had some rather glaring gramatical errors... it was painful to read.

No worries, I fixed it and your edits are still integrated in the article. This is a known problem and is related to the article size. RexNL 21:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

206.169.23.30

I think we should block him for good. He has so many vandal warnings and has been blocked temporarily so many times. Area code 563 was also vandalised, by him. General Eisenhower 22:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shared IP address, which means that legitimate users may be affected by the block. We usually don't block IP addresses for good, except for open proxies. RexNL 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viperidae

You've obviously made a lot of useful contributions to Wikipedia, but I think it's ironic that someone who has received an anti-vandalism award should go about vandalizing articles that they do not normally contribute to. It would be more polite of you to argue the point, instead of taking unilateral action and expecting me to obediently follow suit with the rest. In case you haven't already noticed, most of the Wikipedia snake articles use scientific names already; that's just the way snake people like it. --Jwinius 16:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly not my intention to "vandalize", and I still believe my edits can be justified. The common name Viper now redirects to the scientific name Viperidae, while in most taxonomic articles it is the other way around. I don't think snakes should be an exception to that rule. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and WP:TOL#Article_titles_and_common_names. RexNL 18:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "Viper" should be the title of the disambiguation page itself. In it, there should be an entry with a link saying something like "If you mean viper as in snake, see Viperidae". The scientific articles on this subject that I'm familiar with may occasionally use the term viper, but only as a kind of literary freedom after the species name and taxonomic classification has been made absolutely clear. As stated on the Viperidae page, the term viper by itself is anything but precise, which is why I feel it shouldn't be used for the title. I simply wish there to be no doubt about what the subject is of this page. For this, only the term Viperidae will suffice. This is essentially the reason why I feel so strongly about the entire issue. --Jwinius 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I understand your point of view, but I don't agree that viper should be a disambiguation page. "Viper" almost always refers to the snake, and therefore the term should redirect to the article about the Viperidae (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Confusion). A separate page viper (disambiguation) will serve as a guide page instead. The reason why I renamed the article Viperidae to Viper is that I consider the terms to be synonymous. This view is supported by other reference sources^[1]. In that case, the name of the article should be the common name instead of the scientific name (see the links in my previous message). However, I understand that for a precise definition, the scientific name can sometimes be more appropriate. Let's just leave it the way it is then. I don't want this to be a big issue. RexNL 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism,

Has it come to it that i have to ask every writer of an article if i can edit?

Goonmaster 19:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are talking about. RexNL 19:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont understand why accuse?Goonmaster 19:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of vandalism, did I? I have never edited your talk page... - RexNL 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it that every time i log in i get a message from you telling me to stop vandalising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonmaster (talk • contribs)

No idea. I have never seen you vandalizing, and I've never given you a warning. RexNL 19:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you are referring to this. I saw this anonymous user editing multiple user pages, so I reverted his/her edits. Maybe this was you, but weren't logged in. RexNL 20:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(GOLLY!!)!! Your after resetting all my work!! Goonmaster 20:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please behave. Your changes have been saved and can now been seen again. RexNL 20:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Goonmaster 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

Excuse my effort to try and make Wikipedia more informative. What exactly is unhelpful about adding the fact that a language is one of the languages recorded on the voyager record. There are only 55 of them, I think that it should be a considerable honor for speakers of those languages to have their languages recorded on what will become the first man-made object to leave the solar system, and that this honor should be noted on that language's page. Please respond to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.37.105 (talk • contribs)

I responded at User talk:63.201.37.105. RexNL 07:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for reverting vandalism to my userpage.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Srikeit. RexNL 07:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened

here [2] but looks like the vandal reverted himself. Keep up the good work :) - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 01:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit you are linking to, I reverted the vandal's changes. He didn't revert them himself, or maybe I'm looking at the wrong edit... :-) RexNL 07:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

for saving all the bands pages that 24.8.179.172 ruined with his emo-loving ways!

You're welcome. There seeems to be an unusual amount of Emo-related vandalism on Wikipedia. See for instance the history of Emo, Emo (music), and Emo (slang) (semi-protected). RexNL 07:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70.90.107.65

Hi, this a High School ip. If it can be permanently blocked, it should be, because the students here love to screw things up (we've had physical property damage here, besides this online vandalism). I think it would be good for wikipedia to block this address permanently so that false edits don't have to be repeatedly reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.107.65 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the message. We normally do not block IP addresses permanently, unless they are open proxies. Shared IP addresses can be used by many different users, including legitimate editors. Therefore, blocks are kept relatively short. If vandalism from this IP address persists, more serious measures may be taken, including a longer block. See also Wikipedia:Abuse reports. RexNL 13:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

school computer

i have received a message telling me not to vandalize on this computer, however it is a school computer and i did not personally vandalize the page, nor do i know what page was vandalized. i use this website quite a bit, and do most my constructiveediting from this computer, and would not want to be blocked from edits. the message i recieved said that if it is done again, this IP will be blocked from edits. in short, please do not block this computer, its a high school computer that i use for most of my edits on wikipedia, and my edits are constructive only. Itsgotbigteeth69 17:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your school is presumably using a shared IP address, which means that multiple users, including you, are all contributing using the same external address. Somebody else in your school's computer network may have been vandalizing a page at the same time you were editing Wikipedia in good faith. The message sent to the vandal was not meant for you, but still shows up under your "new messages" because of the shared connection. If you did not vandalize anything, then please ignore the message and keep on editing. If you create a user account (like you did), you won't get shared messages anymore. Sometimes shared IP addresses have to be blocked temporarily, to prevent further vandalism. I hope you understand that this is inevitable. RexNL 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint against 86.144.153.166 (Xeiqu)

Hello, This user deleted links to Rayman 4 pictures in the Rayman Raving Rabbids article, he also reverted links to a Rayman board into links to another one. I hope you will prevent him from destroying our encyclopedia. Thank you, Agash. NB: You can check history here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rayman_Raving_Rabbids&action=history

I think the links to http://www.raymanpc.com should be removed as well, as it is a non-notable community. Linking to that website 4 times in 1 article is inappropriate. RexNL 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by un-notable? Even if I feel sorry for multiple links posted to it, I am not responsible for them, but I do not think the tiny official community should be on right to have a link wherehas the largest unofficial one would not be allowed to have one. I am fist of all a Rayman contributor, you may notice that I tried to get this page the best as possible by adding what people had forgotten to insert, but I still wonder by you kept links to the "official board".

Incorrect Revert

RexNL: I do not think you should have reverted my edit to The Contrabandista/The Chieftain. As explained at the top of Talk:The Contrabandista/The Chieftain, there was a legitimate reason for this. Marc Shepherd 18:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will revert my changes. But please be careful not to delete the categories next time. Thanks, RexNL 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet

This user was blocked for using sock puppets. He has returned again with a new set of puppets. Now he has the nerve to vandalise in the Wiki Req for Chk page itself. He has changed my message like this I am not sure what to do. Anwar saadat 18:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to revert the vandalism and to explain the situation on WP:LTA and/or WP:AN/I. RexNL 19:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. One more query: He has uploaded 40+ images without copyrights. I tagged them and placed a notice on his talk page - see Benzee (talk · contribs) He has blanked them all and also removed the tags from the images. I tried to revert but he wouldn't budge. Should I ignore or enforce? Anwar saadat 19:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate the images at WP:IFD. Then the community will decide whether the images have to be deleted. Also explain the situation there, just like you did on my talk page. I think that's the best option to make note of the unlicensed images while avoiding an edit war. RexNL 19:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, that's a lot of images. Can you not just post a warning in his page not to blank notices and untag images? Anwar saadat 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he replaces one tag by another. He claims the images fall under the fair use principle because they are movie stills. If you disagree with that reasoning, you have to nominate them for deletion. Here you can find a list of images Benzee uploaded. RexNL 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther

Hi RexNL, nice to meet you. You wrote: "Luther's later writings on the Jews displayed a special contempt, they were later used, in the twentieth century, by the Nazis to justify the Final Solution". However, Dr. Paul Halsall states, Luther's hatred of Jews, was not some affectation of old age, but was present very early on [[3]]. Doright 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doright, I didn't actively contribute to the article about Martin Luther. All I did recently was reverting this change by an anonymous user. I suggest that you discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. Then other contributors, with presumably more knowledge about Martin Luther than myself, will review your comments. Also, feel free to edit the article yourself if you think that it contains factual errors, or otherwise can be improved. Thank you very much, RexNL 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It seems that SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) restored the introduction of the article. See [4]. RexNL 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RexNL, indeed you are correct . . . my mistake . . . nevertheless, hello. :) Doright 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint Filed Against Xeiqu

Hi, it's Xeiqu here. I'm not at all sure how this complaint system works in Wikipedia, but I saw your name in the talk about the compaint and so came to you.

Check out the complaint filer's talk page for details of what is really going on. There is solid html evidence there too; and evidence to the contrary for the filer.

I believe that the complaint filer is a member of an obscure Rayman fan-community, by the name of 'Pirate Community'. Due to a lack of members, they have recently taken to advertising anywhere possible. The Rayman 4 page on wikipedia is obviously a lucrative spot.

I have often removed the blatant advertising of this site from this and other articles, mostly claiming to be the 'Ultimate Rayman Community'.

It is for this reason that the complaint was filed against me: if I am stopped from editing articles, they believe that their spam will no longer be removed.

Every accusation made in the complaint was completely devoid of truth. You can see more details in their talk page. Among other things, my reason for removing the screenshot was completely clear and added to the comments in the history page, but they chose to pretend that they were oblivious to this.

It would be greatly appreciated if the complaint against me is removed, if it be within your power to do so. I would also like to file a counter-complaint alongside this.

Many thanks for reading this particularly boring account all the way though. :)

Hi Xeiqu, I removed all links to "community websites" like RaymanPC and RaymanZone from the Rayman-related articles on Wikipedia, as they do not belong to an encyclopedic text. Although everybody has the right to file a complaint about certain edits and/or other users, it doesn't mean that the filer automatically gets full support from the administrators. RexNL 23:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.raymanzone.com is the official Raving Rabbids website, not a 'Community Fansite'. Of course it belongs in the enyclopedia... :|

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism of my user page. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. RexNL 19:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12.220.33.143

Hi, I was just wondering why you were so quick in blocking User:12.220.33.143? It seemed like all the warnings you posted on his talk page were within one minute of each other, not giving him a chance to respond. I agree that his behaviour was clearly vandalistic and not like a newbie testing at all, but maybe you could have given him some more time to realize the consequences of his actions before blocking him? Deepak 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within a few minutes, the user vandalized the Google articles multiple times. He didn't respond to the messages on his talk page, asking him to stop this behaviour. After three warnings, I think a block is fair. I think we shouldn't just wait for the user to stop. RexNL 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right,but there was barely a minute gap between the warnings. Being a newbie, he could have just been repeatedly editing the article without noticing the warnings. Obviously vandalism, but without evidence that he knew he was being warned I would think a final warning would be more appropriate. But of course i defer to your better judgement since you've obviously got more experience at this. Deepak 20:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you certainly have a point, but the thing is that if we just let him play around, he will probably do more damage. Every time a warning is sent, a large orange bar appears in the user's screen, which is very hard to miss. If he doesn't read his talk page messages, the only way to grab his attention is a short block. I will reduce the block to 1 hour, because I think you are right that the block was a bit fast for a "newbie". RexNL 20:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. The one hour block should certainly catch his attention. Deepak 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop following me around!

It's like you follow me around, you know! I revert a page once then later I check my watchlist to find that you've reverted vandalism to the same page. Stop following me... ;-p --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Rome was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 01:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team[reply]

Two Blocks in a Row

Blocked twice -- one right after another. Please be aware that when you block or autoblock a user assigned a proxy by AOL, you will inadvertantly block innocent users. In fact, with the rotating proxy, it is unlikely you will hit your vandal at all. These IP numbers are included on the list for administrators, and should not be blocked for more than 15 minutes at a time. This problem impacts me regularly. Please see User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection. I would appreciate a prompt release of this block as I wouldn't think of screwing up Transvestic fetishism. Relevant information below. Thank you. WBardwin 07:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by FrancisTyers for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Gpscholar". The reason given for Gpscholar's block is: "move warring and screwing up Transvestic fetishism"." Your IP address is 207.200.116.66.

2) Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by RexNL for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Supasteve". The reason given for Supasteve's block is: "vandalism"." Your IP address is 207.200.116.14.

If an administrator blocks a registered user who turns out to be using an AOL proxy (which we cannot see), then the system automatically blocks IP addresses used by the vandal. In case of a rotating AOL proxy, this could be several shared IP addresses. This process is called autoblocking, and happens competely without interaction of the administrator. Please see Wikipedia:Autoblock for more information. I will check the IP address in your previous post to see if they are still blocked. RexNL 08:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Vele dank, Ik waardeer dat. --Alf ^melmac 10:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graag gedaan. :-) RexNL 10:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Gorges Dam Apologies

It seems I deleted half the article by mistake. I was trying to add some stuff but I think I timed out and then the article got messsed up. It probably showed up as an anonymous user editer the article. I have now added what I intended to. Thanks for reverting my error. Zackery the Fence 17:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy editing. RexNL 17:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what did i do?

what did i do? Bugman 20:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to April Fool's Day was unhelpful. RexNL 20:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the gay friendly article

Greetings, I was editing the article gay friendly, when it was reverted. I believe that my actions may have been interpreted as vandalism, but I assure you they were not intended to be. The article is currently under a deletion vote and will be deleted shortly based on the voting trend. Since it will be deleted anyways, I took it upon myself to make a bold move to try to salvage the article. My actions are clearly described both in the talk of the page, and the related deletion vote template. Can I continue my edits? A reply would be most appreciated. Again, sorry for the confusion, I was not intending to vandalize the page, but simply to save it from deletion.--P-Chan 20:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. After closer inspection, I realized that your changes were made in good faith. I only wanted to revert the addition of a link with the text "Best places to ...." (which is POV), but it seems you did more than just that. :-) I reverted my own reversion. RexNL 20:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! I'll get back to the intervention. :) --P-Chan 20:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The G4 article...

Since you are the one that locked the thing, I'll let you know that there is an innacurracy on the page.

The following paragraph is untrue:

"Currently it seems as if the private messaging function has been either permanently done away with entirely or for some unknown reason put on hold till further notice, making it virtually impossible for members to PM each other or to ask a moderator about certain concerns they may wish to bring up or discuss with them, such as a thread deletion or the behavior of other members. This is especially annoying for long-time members who've been there from G4's beginnings and were used to communicating with one another through PMs."

Also, the following paragraphs are biased and not entirely accurate:

"G4 has also been taking to banning and locking out any user that expresses any displeasure towards any shows or the networks directions. They have even been going so far as not letting viewers ask questions about previous hosts or shows saying that it is off topic."

"If any user decides to make a thread of a topic that the moderators don't approve of, they can ban the user without any warning. Even in the rules, it states "G4 reserves the right to alter or delete any post, member name, signature file, image or related content on its boards at any time, without notification."

Why are all my edits beibg reverted plese dont i can offer you knoledge that will benefit you greatly on wiki-Taracka

Block conflict

Seems like we ran into each other here. I've cleared the blocks and instituted your longer one, since this IP has been a persistent problem, but would you mind keeping an eye on it if there's collateral damage? Thanks. Chick Bowen 18:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will keep an eye on it. RexNL 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism!

Thanks for helping with the vandalism on my Talk page. You were faster than I was in reverting it! (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. RexNL 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You protect Ayan Hirsi , but allow people (nestle) to dlete the articles about the slavery they use in africa.....

i didnt' erase anything

I didn't erase anything - i was adding more information - one time it timed out while doing it - you were the one who erased my information 209.155.94.123 16:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that revert, Vandal Proof screwed up. Tachyon01 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. RexNL 20:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DMX (Lighting) Edits

How is the link http://www.ukslc.org/Technical_Articles/Lighting/How_to_set_up_and_address_DMX_lighting.html classed as commercial ?? The site is one that focuses on free information, and is a damn site more useful than the DJ forum that you have linked to??

Could i possibly re-add the link ?

Sorry for that. I re-added the link. RexNL 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I just thought it might be a half decent article to link to, and afterall this site is the free information resource !!

Thank You

Thanks for reverting the vandalisim on my user page. He is also vandalizing Nlu's user page by updating the vandalisim account for no reason. Thanks. Forest

Yes, I saw it. I blocked this IP address temporarily. RexNL 22:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not: Wandennglopez

I sent an email to Max Tegmark, an eminent, world famous physicist who has written two articles for Scientific American, and is widely published. He agreed with just about everything I tried to add to the Many-World's page. I was about to post a copy of his email response to me to the discussion page, when I received this error message. I am not Wandennglopez and have no idea what this this is all about.

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by RexNL for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Wanderinglopez". The reason given for Wanderinglopez's block is: "vandalism". Your IP address is 205.188.116.130."

Hi, autoblocks are an automatic feature of the MediaWiki software. They are not set by administrators. It seems that your IP address was recently used by another vandal (Wanderinglopez). I unblocked your address, so you should be able to edit again. Sorry for the inconvenience. RexNL 10:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add content?

Hello Rex,

You asked me to stop adding my commercial links. How do I properly add content to wikipedia? I wouldn't mind adding to content pages that I have knowledge about, but wouldn't want to contradict anything that has been added so far. What is the proper way of going about being a contributor?

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to learn more about contributing to this project, Wikipedia:Introduction and Help:Contents might be good pages to start. RexNL 10:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bumblebee conservation

Hi Rex,

I see that you've removed (as spam) a link on several pages. I don't see the page as spam, though the one adding it is obviously a newbie who is enthusiastically promoting his site. Please see my note at User talk:86.7.76.220, and comment, if you will. Pollinator 14:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pollinator, thanks for the review. I unblocked this user. (Full reply at User talk:86.7.76.220). RexNL 14:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danke

Thanks for reverting my talk page and taking care of the user. Try to word a warning as nicely as possible and get kicked in the teeth for it. :P --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

You wrote on my user page:

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. RexNL 14:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. RexNL 14:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First, there is nothing at all commercial about any site I have posted external links to. The only sites I have posted links to are educational and information sites in the public domain, and which have no advertising at all or any commercial purpose.

Second, I have not posted any links to my own private websites at all.

Please tell me what you're talking about specifically. Can you give me a link to a site you believe to be "commercial" or for "advertising" or my "private website"?

There are many external links posted on Wikipedia, and I have only linked to relevant free informational sites. I would expect to have the same standards applied to me that are applied to everyone else, and not expect to be "blocked from editing" on charges of having done something that I did not do. Thanks.Huntley Troth 15:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]