User talk:Hadal/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of User talk:Hadal spanning the 1st of November til January 31st. I most likely won't reply to anything posted here, so if you want to address something in this archive please post a new section to my talk page. -- Hadal 03:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Tony Blair[edit]

I was reverting the vandalism to the above article when I got an edit conflict and found that you'd already done it: I don't mind, but I was just wondering why you marked the reversion as 'minor'. I thought that vandalism was quite serious. Just curious, and please reply on my talk page,--Honeycake

Needing a hand.[edit]

Hello there. It's good to see that the guy who helped me take my first steps in the Wikipedia is still active and well. :) You see, I am in need of help from someone with good grammar and experience with editing articles, it's nothing too time-consuming (I think). My pet article Children of Bodom has progressed very well and I think that it has now become a good article with a fair share of content, but I would like someone skilled to review it. Do you have time to do that? If you don't I won't be offended! Cheers. --Sn0wflake 20:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mouldy Sandwich[edit]

Mouldy bread.jpg I, maestrosync, award you this Mouldy Sandwich. Eat it with honour!

Liberal Democratic Party of Australia[edit]

Thanks for dropping by the LDP and pouring cold water on the warriors. (I'm new here, and I must admit I was hoping for something a little less... petty to be my first edit war, but oh well.) Now for the fun part: convincing dogs and cats to get along coming up with a consensus article... J.K. [[]] 17:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(sighs) Speaking of petty... the protection of the LDP article has only served to delay, rather than cool down, the cats and dogs edit warriors. It was lifted about ten hours ago, and we've had as many reverts since, including four from the same logged-in user and more from anonymous users. I'm going to slap together a draft compromise version and put it on a subpage; would you consider reprotecting the page until we (please, gods) get consensus on it? J.K. [[]] 07:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No worries. To be honest, the various Requests for mediation/comment/arbitration etc pages give me bigger headaches than the edit wars that cause them; at least the mature editors among us can get to work now, which is the important part... J.K. [[]] 04:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) = PartyWagon?[edit]

Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but do you think those two are one and the same? Destroying the Community Portal so close together time wise. -- user:zanimum

Yeah.. I jumped to the same conclusion. ;) Even if he isn't the same person, he certainly knows enough about the project. "Anti Tim Starling Day" indeed. I say we block him the next time he tries to deface a page. -- Hadal 19:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
BTW, PartyWagon's now serving 500 days. -- user:zanimum


Thanks for the help! Hey, no one was in a hurry, so no problem. I will keep improving this and all other articles for which I am "responsible" for, so I will hopefully have more noteworthy contributions to be proof-read every once in a while. Of course I will make sure to bother people alternately, so don't worry, you won't hear any requests from me in the immediate future. :P

Cheers!--Sn0wflake 04:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Sorry to bother you, but I must tell you, as an admin, that someone has created an account to pretend to be me. I am User:Honeycake and this user is User:Gabriiel Webber. His/her only edit is to the sandbox, and I had a long edit war over the {{sandbox}} notice just an hour or so previously, so I imagine it was that anon who did it. Their IP is Please block the Gabriiel Webber account in case it does something really awful. Reply on my talk page,--Honeycake 18:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou very much.--Honeycake 19:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock[edit]

Hey Hadal, Sorry about the Alfred Hitchcock thing, if you even remember correcting that now. It won't happen again, I was trying to prove a point to my friend who did not believe in Wikipedia. Thank you for keeping wikipedia at least somewhat reliable.

Hi; I've replied at User talk: -- Hadal 04:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New submissions[edit]


I think that you erased my changes. I just created a user account, but don't want to add my changes again, unless I can. I appologize if this is the wrong way to talk.


I've replied at User talk:Kwik. -- Hadal 05:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


You might want to check out what I put on his talk page, then the latest Matrix scheme re-POV-vert, then his contributions list. Smells like trouble brewing. Hope I'm wrong. Sigh. --Gary D 08:44, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Update: maybe I am indeed wrong. He's now re-editing Matrix scheme, and it looks like he may at least be trying. --Gary D 08:47, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


I nominated Turquoise yesterday as a Wikipedia:Featured article candidate - it is absolutely excellent, very well done. So far it is recieving majority support - one objection lies in lack of source of a picture. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 13:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer)[edit]

User: is still at it on Madonna (entertainer). Could you slap them, short-term block, temporarily protect (not really useful, the user is vandalising other pages too) or at least take over reverting for a bit? I think I've used up my reverts on that article for today. Thanks. --fvw* 07:22, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

I am posting credible, actual information on the Madonna page, quit erasing it! I will make the trivia section amazing! I am an avid Madonna fan and want to contribute to the page, I have all of her sales estimates, chart feats, etc... I really want to post!!! (comment posted by User:MadonnaFan)

See my replies at User talk:MadonnaFan and User talk: -- Hadal 08:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism of "Sailor Moon" article[edit]

You know, I think if this 219.93.174.* (dynamic IP address) user vandalizes the Sailor Moon article again, it should be protected for 24 hours, in addition to the vandal being banned. Denelson83 07:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

External Link to vandalism site[edit]

You caused vandalism to the vandalism page by calling a revelent link "Spam" There are presently no external links on the vandalism page. The link is certainly not spam. It is relevant and is about vandalism. I went back and fixed the link you deleted. (Posted by User:Closeinch2)

Heh. See my rather long reply at Talk:Vandalism#Closeinch's link(s). -- Hadal 05:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hi, I'm a little concerned about User:CMON (talk) edits. I came accross them in the sandbox where they changed the header line. I then checked their contributions, and looked in detail at their changes to Lleyton Hewitt. It seemed so drastically changed, I thought I ought to do something, but I'm not sure what. So, I asked you, as an admin. Please reply on my talk page,--Honeycake18:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 20:21, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I want my name red again[edit]

Pardon me, but is it possible that you could delete my user page? Someone put a malevolent remark into it. Denelson83 06:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I had a good conversation with JoeM by email. He still needs watching, but I no longer expect him to resort to vandalism. Please lift the ban. Jimbo Wales 09:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) - this message was posted by an imposter, probably JoeM himself; see Special:Contributions/Jimmy Wales.

Sigh. Jimbo, you're too trusting. The guy has just come back with a new name and started his one-man war on the world again tonight. RickK 09:30, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

We can wait and see. Jimbo Wales 09:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
JoeM still says that he is unable to log in. Has he been unblocked yet? Jimbo Wales 09:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nice try JoeM. If I weren't doing the dishes I'd have caught you sooner. -- Hadal 10:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, Hadal. I wondered why there were two accounts for Jimbo, I was going to ask him why. That'll teach me not to follow links like that in future - someone should really protect the user pages of hardbanned users. Good thing I didn't follow "Jimmy"'s advice and unban JoeM. I did forward the email to the real Jimbo, though. - Mark 02:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:[edit]

Hi! I noticed from your userpage that you are an admin, and is intereested in taking care of vandalism. What is user is doing is not the most clear and obvious vandalism, but if you take a CLOSER look at he is doing, the very most of his edits DO NOT benefit Wikipedia in any way. Actually they create a lot of mess around here IMHO. Noone apart from myself REALLY seems to notice what he is actually doing, and I cant revert all his edit. Its happening too fast now and there is just too many. The reason I mention this to you is that I dont really know what to do about it myself, I am mostly a reader and not a writer here in the Wikipedia. Stereotek 12:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:[edit]

Greetings and thank you for your persistant efforts to keep this wonderful resource undamaged and at hand. I attend Union County Magnet High School, one of those few high school's whose wiki page has survived the deletion process because of notability (in our case, legal prescidents set about school choice). I am one of three users who have been keeping up that page, largely to fix the damage caused by anonymous users logged onto computers at our school. I don't think that is an IP used at our school, but it has caused significant vandalism to our page. Out of curiosity, I recently browsed through's contributions and found a variety of articles damaged (and a few improved) by that anonymous user. I noticed that you were one of the many people to fix some of the damage caused by (I fixed the vandalism on other pages that had been missed). I wondered if it'd make sense for Wikipedia to have an internal page to compile lists of frequent offenders where various concerned citizens of the wiki (or people with too much time on their hands) can browse through their 'contributions' and repair any vandalism, or if this already exists. REwhite 04:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Thank you for reverting my userpage! I consider it a badge of honor to join the ranks of the resented, LOL. But even more thanks for your endless hard work reverting the vandalism of literally thousands of imbeciles. Peace, Antandrus 03:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the osama picture since it was a vandalisim example.[edit]

I dont think you really want to place a fake picture of 2 men (Osama and Bush) having their business rather naked. I removed that picture. I had no intendtion of vandalising.:P Seems like the page is fixed :P (posted by User:

This is why it's always best to include an edit summary. While I later realised the image had been vandalised, by the time you removed it someone else had already restored the original image. You kept seeing the vandalised version of the image because it was in your cache; if you had done a forced reload (Ctrl + R in IE), you'd have seen the image you kept removing was actually legitimate. Myself and two other users were reverting your edits; if you had looked at the page history, you'd have seen that. Again: If you had written an edit summary, this misunderstanding would have been avoided. -- Hadal 04:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Could you have a look at my recent comment on Talk:Ashkenazi? I believe that recent edits to the article are, to put it politely, bad. I have added a disputed tag. I would like to make sure that at least a couple of other people agree with me before I revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:27, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Reversion deletion[edit]

Hey Hadal. I added this image and then updated it.

I accidentally reverted to the earlier version, and then I reverted it right back. Can someone delete the reversions... I mean are they taking up space unnecessarily or are there still just two files? RoyBoy 21:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Showdown of Plankton & The Shadow[edit]

Hi! I wanted to let you know that this article, "The Showdown of Plankton & The Shadow", which I put on the "Vfd" page and has showed a consensus to delete, hasn't been deleted yet. I would have contacted RickK since he's familiar with the situation of "cartoon vandals", but he's apparently taking a vacation. Please delete this article. Thank you. Marcus2 22:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IGN Vestibule[edit]

I merged all of the various IGN articles into the main one, and set them to redirect. IGN Vestibule is still protected, would you mind unprotecting it or editing it to redirect to IGN? - Lifefeed 14:52, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

a series of self-promo(?) WP edits bordering on abuse[edit]

Hi Hadal,

thanks for your swift response recently to the vandalism of the Hobbit (computer) article. I currently seek expert advice on whether a particular series of apparently self-promo edits is abusive and how it should be treated. Kindly look at the ASCII art talk page when you have time. BACbKA 22:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. No need to apologize for the delay due to having not enough time to volunteer :-) The {{spam}} template is great, I've seeded the said IP's talk page with it, and I will now remove the remaining 2 instances of the link as well. BACbKA 11:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandalism revert...[edit]

it's much appreciated... -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your message about commercial content to my ip address[edit]

Dear Hadal,

Thanks for your note and I see that you have changed all the additions that I had made in good faith to this resource and I am disappointed quite by this. The problem is that my company has been able to address the important issue of Unemployment with a new and innovative product - Unemployment Score, and since it would be so useful to so many, a friend of mine suggested adding it here. We have enough ways to promote our Unemployment Score but my interest was not to sell but to create awareness about this tool and solution that predicts unemployment risk. There are so many links throughout Wiki for other companies and their products so I saw nothing wrong in mentioning our product which we are truly proud of.

You are the moderator so you have the right to filter. But if our product i.e Unemployment Score doesn't deserve a write-up against 'unemployment' then I don't know what to say.




Here we go again: another charge of vandalism. What 'vandalism' are you referring to? I'm sure it doesn't fit the definition. Perhaps I used a colorful metaphor that disturbed you. I changed the metaphor, if that's what you're talking about. In any case, that's not vandalism. respond ASAP(Decius)

Hadal, what's going on here? I've been watching Decius's work at List of Dacian words and, while he is a bit full of himself, he also seems to have a truly massive knowledge of most of the relevant languages and seems to me a very valuable contributor. He doesn't strike me as a vandal at all. Even though I suspect that if we left him entirely alone he'd publish his own conjectures as fact, he isn't going to be entirely alone, several people are watching that article, and his behavior in this respect is no different than 20 other editors I could name. Or is this about something else entirely? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:49, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Beats me: Decius' message above marks the first time I've encountered this user. I haven't charged him/her with anything. See my reply at User talk:Decius#Re: Vandalism. Methinks Decius received one of the eight billion warnings I've given to anon vandals whilst he was logged out. -- Hadal 06:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hadal, I apologise very much for any harsh words or accusations I made against you. I have a bad temper sometimes. I understand now what happened. Thank you. (Decius)

List of stars[edit]

Well, I was thinking about it, and the Category Stars page is getting long, longer with each new star, so that the articles that aren't about a particular star are getting lost there. So separating out the stars into "List of stars" seemed to be a bright idea. I'll stop and let you think about it. 05:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we wish to have a category for all stars, regardless of type, then there'll be a list of them in one place. OFcourse that could be that we choose not to do that, but Category Stars does that now, so just moving it keeps it as status quo. It also clears up the main category, so you can format it some other way, instead of a dump of stars. Putting stars by type is a good idea, but probably stars by constellation would be better for an amateur stargazer? In any case, either way, a lot of new categories would be required. 23:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Although thinking about it, should there be a sub-cat under constellation stars for the stars that actually mark the outline of the constellation?

User:JoeM: much more dangerous than we thought?[edit]

This is very disturbing, but not very suprising. Go to this link: [1]. It is a website I stumbled upon with instructions on how to make explosives (don't ask how I found this- I honestly don't know). Look at the name of the author of the third passage from the top: how to build a powerful pipe bomb. I hope to God that this is not the same JoeM we know and love! --NoPetrol 07:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I don't think it is User:JoeM. The writing style is different and the instuctions are not dominated by personal opinions or suggestions that the finished product be used against followers of a particular religion, which I would expect to find if such an article were written by Wikipedia's JoeM. --NoPetrol 21:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The sandbox[edit]

User:DrZoidberg left a message on the village pump about changing the name of the sandbox to something obscure about playdough factories. But, further down, he suggested a sandbox namespace, where users could create test pages on this Wikipedia that would be deleted automatically by an admin watching for them. Or, come to think of it, a namespace isn't necessary: we could just make the article Sandbox:Main for example to start with, alter the Template:Sandbox to say that new pages can be created under Sandbox:''whatever'' and, of course, Template:Test. I didn't make any pages like that, and won't until you reply, but I think it's a good idea.--[[User:Honeycake|Honeycake (please reply on my talkpage!!)]] 17:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD[edit]

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Editing templates[edit]

I apologize for making rash edits to site-wide templates. I will edit global pages more conservatively in the future. Vacuum | tcw


Thank you for the note on spelling. I will go reread the appropriate guidelines and stuff. I guess I sometimes just make changes without thinking, but will be more observant from now on. Sometimes I make changes to keep spelling consistant in an article. I'll make sure to do the appropriate thing from now on and leave spellings alone. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --DanielCD 23:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grayling etc.[edit]

Hey, Hadal! I'm sorry about stepping on your work at Grayling. For some reason I had mixed up who you were and thought that the original author was no longer active. (Obviously, you haven't disappeared!) I would prefer that taxonomic articles be under their systematic names so as to avoid this kind of problems, but for now we have to use English common names where they exist.

My own take is that Wikipedia should strive for accuracy and precision first, while accomodating common usage through redirects and explanation in article text. (I wish FishBase would avoid using also-generic terms like grayling as quasi-official common names for species—and they generally do—but sometimes conflicts occur.) I suppose in the case of Grayling we could have Grayling (genus) and Grayling (species), with Grayling being the disambig page (now at Grayling (disambiguation)), but I would not want to privilege the imprecise generic usage over the precise specific usage by having it be the unqualified Grayling article. Does that make sense? —Tkinias 19:05, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grayling etc.[edit]

Hey, Hadal! I'm sorry about stepping on your work at Grayling. For some reason I had mixed up who you were and thought that the original author was no longer active. (Obviously, you haven't disappeared!) I would prefer that taxonomic articles be under their systematic names so as to avoid this kind of problems, but for now we have to use English common names where they exist.

My own take is that Wikipedia should strive for accuracy and precision first, while accomodating common usage through redirects and explanation in article text. (I wish FishBase would avoid using also-generic terms like grayling as quasi-official common names for species—and they generally do—but sometimes conflicts occur.) I suppose in the case of Grayling we could have Grayling (genus) and Grayling (species), with Grayling being the disambig page (now at Grayling (disambiguation)), but I would not want to privilege the imprecise generic usage over the precise specific usage by having it be the unqualified Grayling article. Does that make sense?

In re ITIS references, I'm keeping them simply because User:Ram-Man wanted them, and it didn't seem like something worth disputing. I don't personally find the ITIS pages very helpful most of the time—and almost always defer to FishBase if their classifications differ—but I didn't see it as too big a deal. (Besides, I don't want to get into hot water with the anti-anti-Americanists, if you know what I mean.) I'm thinking about adding NCBI as a more useful link, since it also links other resources, but that's another issue altogether...

As far as reduplicating FishBase goes, I think that Wikipedia articles can be made quite a bit more friendly to the nonspecialist than FishBase entries are, and they can also add in much more information (e.g., info for aquarium hobbyists that FishBase normally ignores). I know of no reference that discusses fish in the wild (like FishBase), in the aquarium (like the hobbyists' texts), as sport, and possibly in the kitchen; we can be the one. This doesn't mean, IMO, making Wikipedia less useful to casual readers. Since they can still find things easily, they might learn something about the systematics that they might not otherwise have learnt. —Tkinias 19:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Greetings again. I made the moves I mentioned above, so that Thymallus is now at Grayling (genus) and T. thymallus at Grayling (species), with unqualified Grayling being the disambig page (also giving ships, places, and surnames). How's that work for you? —Tkinias 02:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention whitefish, because User:Stan_Shebs wants the article to be under Coregonus—but with whitefish being disambig rather than a species page. I think we may need to do that, since "whitefish" has so many other meanings...

I haven't looked over the lanternfish page too closely, but I would probably just tweak the formatting a bit to fit with the "standard"... I've done enough editing in my life that I sometimes find it easier to edit and reformat tahn to create new work... *grin* Overall, it looks like good work at first glance. —Tkinias


- Hadal, the "vandal" respond was not directed at you, but to this stockingman... I'm new to wikipedia, and since I saw related links at other places I added mine. It took me awhile to understand why it keeps changing back, but now I know how to look at it. Did I add my link in places not related to the theme of the site or something that would be considered "spam"? If I did, please point that out, I will fix it. There are plenty of readers who find us through wikipedia and my site is a valuable resource. I don't make money with it, so I don't see why it should be regarded as spam. Let me know what I can do to prevent this from happening, and let stockingman know that he's too quick to judge others.

- excuse me??? who are you to call me a vandalist? I am expecting a more inteligent answer from you, since this is a public-service website, not your own private one. If you erase something I created here, I expect you to at least explain your criteria. (Posted by

If you edit like a vandal, people will tend to label you a vandal. If you'd rather not be labelled a vandal, don't edit like one. (Note that ff you're not User:Strokingman, you might want to point out where I called you a vandal.) -- Hadal 20:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Darn, you got to his vandalism before I did. :p --Slowking Man 06:17, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hadal, why do you and "Gary D" keep erasing my website link from wikipedia articles...? My site is a valuable resource to Hypnotherapists and NLP practitioners, and it is not for profit. I don't offer any products or services on it, and advertising income is donated to charity. Can you explain yourself? I didn't know it's you till I learned to check who did changes in articles... my website is

The Contest[edit]

Hi Hadal! Yours is the only name i remember from Danny's contest page (and your turqoise article too), so, here is a question. I cant find the page of the contest back and i didnt ear any news. Are the results out somewhere? Do you know something? muriel@pt 13:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the news. So, they are being lazy... Maybe we should make a peaceful demonstration and invade Danny's page in protest :) Good luck to you ! muriel@pt 09:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Andy Kaufman lives! (I think we have all been tricked big time.)[edit]

Can you please do me a favor? Do you administrators have the ability to see the IP address of a registered user? If so, can you please tell me if the IP address of User:Paektu is similar to that of User:JoeM (which I know is If they are similar, then I am the biggest fool on Wikipedia. --NoPetrol 03:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've just figured this out: JoeM's full name is Joseph feakin' McCarthy. --NoPetrol 01:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Carl Chun/Vampire Squid[edit]

Hi Gregory,

Would you by any chance know where I could find a print version or high-resolution digital version of Chun's picture of the Vampire Squid that appears on the Wikipedia page? Any help would be most appreciated.


Josh Seipp

I've replied at User talk:Josh seipp. -- Hadal 14:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you like my Princeton joke?

Thank you[edit]

Dear Hadal Thank you for noting the addition re:copyvio feedback on recent pages that were marked for copyvios by User:Vague Rantwith almost insane regularity. Thank you and keep well

Thanks for reverting my Talk page[edit]

Thanks for reverting the damage that vandal did to my Talk page. That was quick work. P Ingerson 19:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Epsilon3, God of HTTP VC++ Programming, Says...[edit]

Cry HAVOC and let slip the dogs of war!

nice work on the stocking page[edit]

I'm new. What should I do if someone like this keeps it up? How do you report them?


[[User:GregNorc|-GregNorc (talk) ]]

Should I list them at vandalism in progress...[edit]

Even if it was only once incident, and I fixed it?

Or on the RC patrol page?

Also, I'm not an admin. Do I have the authority to use the "test" templates? I've been using them, but I noticed most of the people using them are admins.

Little to no Evidence[edit]

There has been little to no evidence of your person, of late. I demand you expose yourself.

Methylsoy 06:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Catholics and Their Propensity to Large Groups on the Eve of Christ's Birth[edit]

If you are at mass, you should return and speak with me. It is written.

Methylsoy 06:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom[edit]

I just reverted an edit by which involved deleting the whole of the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article (this post. I saw that you had inserted two warnings into the user's talk page already, so I thought I should let you know. Thanks for your work against vandals, and happy Christmas! Smoddy | Talk 21:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hi Hadal,

thanks for the tip last time about the test... and spam... templates; I've been using them successfully since then several times, especially at the anonymous IP's talk pages.

This time I came here to solicit your expert vandal-/troll-suppressing opinion about the activities of User:ExplorerCDT . Some of his edits seem unbased at best and maybe maliciously wrong; also his user page mentions some "tests" he's made apparently to check the community cleaning response time and other things smelling of pranks/bad faith editing to me. Initially assuming good faith attempts to VfD one of his dubious articles were met with nasty personal attacks and generally hostile attitude, further arousing suspicions. If you have time, please look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Current_position_re_User:ExplorerCDT for a starting point for more info. In any case, if you have a "grey list" of users to watch, please consider adding this one there.


BACbKA 09:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your reversion of "Argument from poor design"[edit]

Hi; could you explain this revert? You did it manually, which is why I ask; I'm assuming it was a mistake, but thought it best to be sure. Is there something wrong with the text I was restoring? -- Hadal 04:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry -- apparently I was reverting the vandalism at the same time and you were faster than me. The text is all right, of course. Sam Hocevar 04:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What to do about a spammer?[edit]

Danniboy has been spamming articles with links to He's been particularly persistent on the Hypnosis article, reinserting the link at least four times -- that is, if one gives him the benefit of the doubt that he is unrelated to the more than ten anonymous IPs who have reinserted that link into the article after it's been removed. Now he's moved up to threatening me, telling me not to call his insistent reinsertion "spam" or revert it because "Just remember, I can do the same to you..." A look at his edits shows that all of his article edits are about getting linked, including this one, which either identifies Danniboy as NLP Weekly's editor or this as a big potential copyvio. What can we do about this? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My sincere appologies to both of you, Antaeus and Hadal. I did not mean to sound threatning, just frustrated. However, I will look for my content contributions to Wikipedia in the last few months and send it to you for review. Again, I appologize, have a great new year. - Danniboy

Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia ??[edit]

Dear Sir,

I am very disapointed. I find out that you have removed my post concerning Occam's razor. I have just read : "unless you're Sharon Kaye or have permission to post her work, please don't". I have asked permission to Sharon Kaye before posting this unique good answer on the web to my central question "why a razor ?".




Hadal, as the anon user continues to vandalize Holocaust, would it be worth protecting the page? Slim 05:16, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, Hadal. Slim 05:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Hadal, FYI, IP address, who I see you've had to deal with elsewhere, has just vandalized my user page. See here Nice people around tonight! Slim 05:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust addendum[edit]

"before making any further edits, and please cease adding inflammatory material without so much as a source to back it up"

I challenge you to point out the lack of citation of sources in the comment I posted, which I will paste below in it's entirety: -

In March 1933, international Jewish organizations declared an international boycott of German goods. Newspapers around the world reported the declaration of war upon Germany. A front-page headline in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced "Judea Declares War on Germany."

The hostilities of the Jewish community, especially with the focal point of the Jewish Commisars of Russia impended them as a direct threat to all Christendom in Europe. During the Commisars regime in Russia in excess of 105,000,000 (105 million) people were killed purely on the basis that they were Christian at the hands of the Jewish Commisar 'red brigades'.

I quoted the exact newspaper, and as for the death toll of the Commisars, it's a well established historical fact, even more founded than the Holocaust figures. Just because factual information disagrees with the information posted doesn't instantly mean it's anti-semetic inflammatory subject material.

temporary page protection for Rape?[edit]

I wonder if you'd consider giving temporary page protection to Rape. There was some heavy debate on whether the section on Rape and sexual torture should include a link to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, and the user who kept pushing to remove the link made a Slashdot post telling half the story and informing his audience that he didn't get his way because every page has "hardcore guys with an agenda" monitoring contributions. So naturally we've already had two anons swoop in this morning to remove that link without any talk page or edit summary efforts to communicate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Income Tax Theories[edit]

I am wondering where it would be appropriate to create a page regarding Theories on The Legality of The United States Income Tax System. I do not believe this should be listed as a nut case Conspiracy. There is factual evedince that this may have some basis. It should at least be mentioned here. --Ednast 04:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just in case you're not logging in anymore, I've replied (two days ago) at User talk:Ednast. -- Hadal 05:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Munich Massacre[edit]

Hadal, we just had an edit conflict at Munich Massacre. I was reverting the latest anon IP edit, then when I saved, I saw your name underneath mine in the history, so I may have reverted your edit too. I was trying to get rid of the addition of Arab Palestinian throughout the text. In case you were trying to get rid of "terrorist" in the photo cutline, I may have inadvertently reverted that. I don't mind using "terrorist" myself, but have no objection to you changing it back to "militant". I've tended to use the word "kidnapper" throughout this article to avoid having to choose between the other two. I've also left a note on the Talk page. Sorry about the confusion. Slim 04:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why did you take off my links?[edit]

So much for wikipedia being maintained by the community... I guess it's just another front where a powerful few control all the information. I posted links on RELEVANT pages to my site These links linked directly to the page related to that community. My site is a community site where we have HAND AGGREGATED 3000 links to websites in our region. Obviously you spent 0 time looking at the site because if you did you would see it's not commercial. All the sites listed are listed there for FREE. The only money involved is the basic google adds we run to cover the costs of hosting our site. We're not getting rich over here trust me.

I didn't write an automated script to spam your site, I went in by hand and added relevant EXTERNAL LINKS in the relevant category. I'm not sure why you bother having an external links section if you don't want relevant external links in it.

Anyway if you take 1 second and actually look around the site you'll see that we're not selling anything, you can't advertise on the site, purchase a listing or anything else.

I just got back last month from the blogging and society conference and some wikipedia folks where they were talking it up. I guess I know what my topics for conversation will be at the next conference I attend with them. Getting their "maintainers" under control.

I also think it's interesting that you don't want any commercial links yet the site is filled with them. Take the photoshop page:

It is basically an advertisement for photoshop. Encyclopedia's don't usually make statements like: "Photoshop is generally considered one of the best (if not the best) image editing programs for raster graphics".

It also links to very noncommercial sites like: (couldn't actually find any content around all the ads) YES !!!! No content at all only expensive images

Obviously I could go on and on listing overtly commercial ventures listed in wikipedia. What I would ask is that you reconsider adding my relevant community site back into the directory so that people who actual visit the region can find the information about the region they need.

I've replied at User talk: -- Hadal 05:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Received msg about "editing" and didn't realize I had used it improperly, thought I had used sandbox, etc. Will in future. My apologies. R


Hi Hadal, it looks like he's trying to cover-up, see [2], where he edited a statement of yours. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_inappropriate_image-loading. I could use some help finding the correct policy/justification for a long-term block. Lupo 12:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this is how you send messsages[edit]

If this isn't sorry for causing you troubles again, thanks for fixing the AFL/National Labor Party page, I'm a bit of a n00b at the Wikipedia, but I think it's a great project.

I've replied at User talk: (and noted it here in case your IP changes). -- Hadal 06:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Undiscussed page moves[edit]

Please do not move major articles such as Christianity without discussion. I have reversed your move, and will reverse any further moves you make if they are not discussed and agreed upon first. Please show some consideration for other users, and the project in general. Thank you. -- Hadal 06:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Word Christianity is sure not owned by any one group or faith, and the move included the approperate redirection, simple retitling the page traditional christianity appeared to be in order. I am taking the matter directly to Wikipeda. Not all religions who believe in Christ start after his death in 33AD. And not all christians are gentiles either, and our Hebrew lineage should be addressed properly. I have attempted to adress this issue several times, with the response that Mormonism and Messianic Jews are not Christians, and no approperate space should be given to us. -posted by User:VChapman (moved from my user page)
You're talking to an atheist here. I have limited interest in your theological activism beyond stopping you from mucking around with well-established articles. If your move of Christianity to Traditional Christianity was meant to prove a point or intentionally go against consensus, that's all the more reason you should read up on our policies and guidelines before editing again. I ask you again: Please propose any article moves on the articles' respective talk pages (and allow a reasonable time period for discussion) before moving them. This way you'll not only be following proper wikiquette, but you'll not have wasted your time and the time of whomever cleans up after you. -- Hadal 02:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Possed Question:

What whould you suggest, to hope clarify to the readers about the history of christianity? Mormonism, re-established in 1830's claims to re-establish the house of Joseph, and a belief in God or not, does not preclude to records in Genesis. I would like to suggest the reading of Genesis 49, the whole chapter. (Its not very long), and to compare it to 1st Nephi in the Book of Mormon. I am not attempting to create a false image or to undo a beautiful web page. The Christianity page is by far one of the best pages I've seen on this or many other sites. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints site in wikipedi is also very well put together. The changes to the Abrahamic Religion concerning Mormonism were removed, although the section I added on lineage was cleaned up and retained. My concern also extends to Messianic Judiasm, of which I am not, that would be the House of Judah, not Joseph. The new Messianic Jewish movement started around 1960 in the United States. I changed the automatic redirect under Hebrew Christianity from an automatic redirect to a very simply navigational page to either Messianic Judiasm, or Mormonism, nothing more or less, but the had also been removed. Is it possible to minimally add that page back in? I know you stated you were an atheist, but I can assure you that if you read the section on the exhaultation on the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints page, keep in memory the Mormon's are from the house of Joseph as stated in 1st Nephi in the Book of Mormon, and compare it to Genesis chapter 49, I believe I have merit to request the following navigational aids be added before these pages. As fact of Mormonism being a small religious group, our numbers almost exactly equal that of the Tribe of Judah(Judaism). 13.3Million Jewish, 12.5Million Mormon. Two tribes of Jacob(Israel), both very closly intertwinded in Genesis. Judah was blessed with having fathers and sons of fathers bow to him, Joseph was blesses by Judah as having the sun, moon and stars bow to him. If Judah(Judaism) was essential to the time leading upto Christ, then Joseph(Mormonism is critical to the time after that) Teh blessing Jacob gave in Genesis 49 started with Judah and clearly ended with Joseph.

Please write me back, Vinnie

I goofed[edit]

I'm hoping you can help me. I just restored User talk:Arminius (141 deleted edits) but I didn't delete the current version first to merge. Now the 141 edits seem to have disappeared. They aren't showing in the history and when I click on "Show 141 deleted edits" I'm told there is no edit history for that page. Did I just do something that can't be undone? SWAdair | Talk 07:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Ack! Never mind. Cache issue. They are there. Whew! SWAdair | Talk 07:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I wish to complain about a paragraph in this topic.

"Adherents of this position claim that there never was a Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews, and that many other minorities were persecuted as severely or worse than the Jews, particularly Ukranians under Stalin (the latter persecutions are often attributed to Jews). Many people who hold this position further claim that Jews and/or Zionists know that the Holocaust never occurred, yet that they nonetheless disingenuously use the Holocaust to further their political agenda. These views are not accepted as credible by mainstream historians."

Now I do not deny the Holocaust nor the extent of the suffering at the hands of the Nazis. But what I do have a problem is the insinuation that we who believe that the Holodomor had just as many victims as the Holocaust(which is clearly up for debate. The exact numbers for both tragedies is not known), are in fact belittling the impact or the scope of the Holocaust. While no doubt, many people seek to belittle the impact of the Holocaust by noting the numbers of other purges throughout history because of their anti-Jewish beliefs, I and many others, are not among this group. So we take issue with such a statement on Wikipedia.

I´m new here so I don´t know how this works but I see that my name did not show up. I am DM123.

Selective warnings[edit]

Thank you for your warning. I assume you warn Rhobite/Radicalsubversiv (sockpuppets) of them throwing around the word vandalism. If not, keep your selective warnings to yourself. If so, I thank you and will keep it in mind. Ollieplatt 07:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ollie, you yourself improperly accused User:Davenbelle of vandalism on the Howard Dean page. Khanartist 07:22, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
Yes I think that's what Hadal was talking about in the first place. Keep up. Ollieplatt 07:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My apologies to Hadal for cluttering his talk page. Khanartist 07:41, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Area code[edit]

Perhaps I am a naive Brit but what was wrong with Area code maps that you have just chopped out of Area code?

I've replied at User talk:RHaworth. -- Hadal 07:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Thanks man.--Boothy443 06:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wacky Vandalism of Christian[edit]

I made an entry on Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#Christian. If you can know anything else, please add it there. What else can be done?--Pharos 06:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

message from you[edit]

Hi, I received two messages from you about desisting from deformatting an Ireland article. There seems to be some confusion. I have never edited in any way, much less read or visited the article in question. Apparently my IP address is being confused with someone else's. I suppose I will have to create a user account to avoid this. -- Eduardo

Yup; I'm sorry you had to read that, as it was not meant for you. Creating a user account is indeed the best way to avoid confusions with other editors, but you also get many other features anonymous users don't (like the ability to upload images, and your own user page and talk page, to name just two). -- Hadal 06:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deep sea fish pics[edit]

Hi Hadal,

Thanks for that gentle chiding about the fish pics. Thanks also for getting me the source of those pics, which I will have a lot of fun time browsing through. I will pay more attention in the future regarding the licensing of anything I post here.

Thanks, sisya

united states[edit]

hahaha, good job hadal. i had no malicious intent in what i did to 'united states.' i was simply showing a friend why not to abuse wikipedia, and you finished the lesson perfectly. actually i have the utmost respect for wikipedia, and tho i remain anonymous usually, i dont want my intentions to be misunderstood.[edit]

please see [3]. Xtra 07:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reversion of my user page. Oh, and I love the banner on yours :). Lacrimosus 08:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :)[edit]

Oh wow, someone on Wikipedia actually knew my birthday! I was hoping to keep it quiet ;) Thanks so much mate. :-D And thanks also for reminding me to update my user page, I wouldn't have remembered otherwise... hehe - Mark 11:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My thanks, too. Seems you are the "Happy Birthday Bandit", Hadal. *grins* - UtherSRG 16:29, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)


Hello Hadal,

I understand (sorry bit of wikipedia newbie here) that you removed the link to from the external links section of the Sybian entry. I certainly understand and appreciate your job to keep vandalism from affecting the wiki. However, in this case I am going to ask you to reconsider. is a free site. It is specifically focused on movies featuring the Sybian. Anyone who is browsing the Sybian section of Wikipedia certainly has an interest. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. In that case how many words for a movie? This is a site which reviews pay sites as well as links to free information/movies. Sybian-Movies is being updated almost every weekend (as I can spare the time) and continues to grow. Many of the visitors who came from wikipedia bookmarked the site, telling me that I was serving their needs.

You can email me at (replace .a.t. with @) and I would be more than happy to discuss. Regards

I did not remove your link; see this diff. However, I do agree with its removal. The Sybian article really needs only one link: The one it already has; to the manufacturer's website). See m:When should I link externally. I suggest you list your site at dmoz or some other open-content directory. Wikipedia is not such a directory. -- Hadal 12:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your revert on Islamophobia[edit]

Hi. Can we please discuss the revert on the discussion page of Islamophobia? Thanks. 13:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Die nigger die"[edit]

While I appreciate your intent in reverting the anonymous, racist vandalism on my user page, in the future, please leave it. IMO, it was not your place to do so. It is highly presumptuous for another to edit comments left on someone's personal page or their discussion page -- regardless of their content. deeceevoice 13:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My, my. Sensitive, aren't we? If the above qualifies as a "harrangue," then I'd hate to see how you react to heated debate. I don't see personal pages as fair game for editing by others. Whatever remarks are left for me by other Wiki users are for me -- and not for general comment or alteration. At least that's the way I see it. And keep in mind I did mention that I appreciated your intent. Get a grip. deeceevoice 16:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Further, as you've stated, it is not Wiki policy. And as I've stated, I was expressing my opinion. (That's still allowed on Wikipedia, isn't it?) Wassamatta u? All huffy and puffy because I told you to leave my user page be. Got a couple of tips fuyyah: 1. Advice from someone given to unwarranted sarcasm to "get along with others" doesn't mean shyt. 2. Administrator, get over yourself. deeceevoice 18:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While this has been fairly amusing—as far as wacky, baseless complaints go—I think I'll let this user have the last word if he (she?) desires it. For Deeceevoice's own sake, I hope that my advice (to respect wikiquette) is at least carefully considered. In the words of a long-departed (though no less missed) user: May Deeceevoice have peace profound. -- Hadal 19:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A clarification. My complaint was not that you restored the deleted text; I was addressing your deletion of a message left for me by another user. If some simpleton wants to wish me dead and call me everything but a child of God, then let 'em. Thanks for the restoration of deleted text -- but I've got some helpful advice for you w/regard to your (admitted) sarcasm and the "trying to get along with others" bit: "People in glass houses...." One can't act like a supercilious ass and then presume to lecture others on comportment. They have zero credibility. deeceevoice 12:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)