User talk:Gwernol/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

I know you and I had a rocky introduction and for that I am sorry. I cleaned up the programming that I was intending to put in because, I am in no way programming savy. However I feel that the user Izanbardprince has been putting opinion into the article that I was working on. Could you please look into this? Thank you.

                                    --Imgi12

I've been following this person around and am trying to unmangle the articles he is degrading with his right-wing propaganda disguised as citing conservatives, I apologize that it has escalated this far, you can just look at his contrib list to get the picture.

I've reported him on the vandalism page as well, as well as put my comments in on the arbitration request he filled out. Izanbardprince 02:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that before but it's easy to get a bit steamed by people like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.120.209 (talk • contribs) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let me try clicking the + sign tab.

In the slave trade triangle article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_trade , there is mention that the slave trade started circa 1500. Yet Columbus's voyage was 1492. Only 8 years? 128.195.84.154 03:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see your sig in RC Patrol all the time, usually right after you've beaten me in an edit conflict. I was following up on an IP edit and noticed this. It looks like you reverted a blanking, but accidently restored some vandalism. Not a big deal, and already fixed (ironically, by another IP edit); I just wanted to mention it. I had the same thing happen recently, and when I went back throgh the article carefully, I found a couple of "embedded" vandalisms that had been layered in. That seems to happen fairly often when we don't catch nonsense right away; it gets buried by successive edits. Anyway, keep up the good work...maybe one of these days you will lose an edit conflict to me.  : ) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just had to delete more of his nonsense from Gasification. Take a look at User talk:59.163.25.48 and you can see that he has been warned time and time again ... I think more is needed than just another warning. Regards, mbeychok 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

...you thought you saw it all. Here's an odd bit of editing [1]. It carries over from rather lengthy discussions in the article's talk page, the image's page, the image's IfD, and on the Admin's notice board[2]. This comprises pages of reading, but the important part is that I'm pretty sure the edits I removed really didn't belong there. In fact, they looked rather vindictive to me. Thoughts? Rklawton 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more specifically about the editorial comments added to the image caption than about anything else. I probably muddied up that point by including all the other stuff. There's a pretty noisy dispute in Commons about the image itself, and that dispute probably motivated the caption edit. However, my primary concern was the nature of the edit itself. It appeared to me to be extraordinarily unprofessional, but I understand if you'd rather stay out of it. Its probably moot since the editor hasn't restored the offending comments anyway. Cheers, Rklawton 01:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an editor on

07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• sorry to but in but I agree with Wahkeenah on this. Scott Mitchell's wiki entry was just edited for a bunch of weasel words and such. The editors only cause of being here seems to be to promote his employer. Anything that sheds anything but a positive light on his pages get reverted by possibly this user or the "close-knit" circle. This includes blanking the Scott Mitchell talk page. RedBirdI55 16:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! --

12:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I mentioned you here and thought you might want to comment. I wonder if we are being spoofed or the victims of a

13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I didn't think it looked like Maru's work. Take care, --

Guinnog

14:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

PS, I just noticed the edit summary, LOL. Nice one! --

Guinnog

14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I just deleted vandalism by this user and was going to post a warning, but I noted that you had already given a "This is your last warning." So if you needed another instance, you now have it! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Hawk&diff=86763045&oldid=86762922 KevinWho 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I am also very concerned about providing proper references for this information. I am working on acquiring references for all of this information, if you look at the Bohemian Club article you will notice that I have already added references for many of the members.

--PEAR 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to take another long break from Wikipedia. This place is rediculous. You wouldn't ask for these sort of references if someone wrote "Bush is the greatest guy and he's done lots of good things for America & the world.", but if anyone writes anything against the dictatorship it's quickly removed.

--PEAR 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Go on. --

00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I got this on my talk page today:

Please remember to subst

---

Hello, HalfShadow, I would like to remind you to

22:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)'

I've been doing it the second way ({{test2}}) since pretty much forever and before now nobody's said to do it any certain way to me. As I can't verify whether this guy is an admin or not, I thought I'd ask one. Does it matter which I use? HalfShadow 01:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to verify whether it was procedure or not. Like I said, nobody'd said anything about it before now and I've been here a few months. If I'm supposed to be doing it that way, that's all I need to know. HalfShadow 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I use AWB for several purposes. One of the default automatic options is to convert the article to unicode. I just use the default; I am not looking to change fractions, etc. What I have found in that the AWB defaults seem to implement MoS so I do not question them. Could you perhaps take this up with the AWB owner/maintainer? Thanks Hmains 03:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[Unique statement of excitement]! [Your username name, not subst:ed properly], [statement of gratitude] for [your specific vote] in [link to request for adminship], which passed with a final tally of [final tally][percent in parentheses (optional)]. I plan to [statement of intentions regarding admin tools] and [statement acknowledging oppose votes as helpful]. If you [type of desire for help] or want to provide any [type of feedback], feel free to [link to talk page or e-mail]. [Statement of gratitude, again (optional)] [signature of new admin]

Because people often complain that RfA thank-you messages are impersonal, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to create your own. -- tariqabjotu 03:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Got to admit it was pretty funny through...124.188.240.40 03:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

you make no sence im really confused about you u really dont ? —The preceding

) .

North America

Good afternoon, it appears that the article "North America" has been vandalized. I would fix it but I'm not sure how. It appears that you were a recent editor, so I thought you could help.

Thanks.

Dear

- it was only error, sorry. 192.107.75.158 06:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Won't do it then. I only struck out one anon with a comment, didn't delete anything - I suspect him to be a sock puppet of a certain user who's known to use sockpuppets and he provided no reason for his vote. Amoruso 13:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Support I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Gwernol, for your support in my rtinp23 14:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I knew it! you didn't know that i'm chikinpotato11 i just signed out--74.130.7.136 22:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Wikipedia Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. Kingjeff 23:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Gubbio seems to be a fairly new user, why don't you trying working it out with him instead of deleting it everytime. What he is claiming is deeply rooted in the Umbrian culture. Deleting it may be seen as attacking the culture. Help him come to a rephrasing that works for both of you.--Caligvla 07:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Gubbio is a new user, ok, but he/she shouldn't do reverts of grammatically and syntactically wrong sentences. If he wants to impose his/her point of view, he could try at least to write in correct english, since this is the english language wiki. The talk page on Umbria gives all the details about this. The fact that the things written are only partially true, and for sure all of them questionable, is of primary concern, moreover. I think that, if you can, you should block that page. --Cantalamessa 12:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You did break 3rr but I'm warning you instead, please stop reverting. Thanks

^{wat's sup}

01:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Chekk the New York Yankees. Thats the reason why I vandalised the BOSTON red sox!! —The preceding

) .

Spam

I don't know what I did that you think is spam on the Digital Video Recorder page. I haven't added any links. 24.154.173.50 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you certain you blocked him? He's still vandalizing pages. -WarthogDemon 08:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Disregard. Didn't notice until now that you blocked the user a full week ago. My bad. ^^;

Why was my IP just blocked?Sharpnova 16:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, I see. Some racist vandalism. I'm not surprised. I live amongst low lives. I'm glad I wasn't logged in when they did it.

Hi Gwernol, I got your Talk msg and saw that you removed the link I added on the Rolex page. I had been discussing this link with Atlant and Exeunt on the Rolex discussion page and Exeunt (who had deleted the link before) allowed me to repost it on. On the discussion page it is under the heading "Rolex linkspam". Thank you. 66.92.0.17 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't deny —The preceding

) .

Domestic Violence

Dear Gwerndol, - Thanks very much for reverting the vandalization of the DV entry and by User:207.81.18.33 for giving a warning to this vandal.

Kind regards,

My Wikidness 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article exists purely to provide a commercial link to the owner's business. Can it be recommended for deletion? 81.129.175.66 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if you read fully the additon I made to the piece you chose to block. Then again, as a Brit you share a history of not reading what we colonists write. My addition was not vandalism of redundancy but was an expansion on a prior thought. Perhaps if you had learned from your British ancestors over 231 years ago you would realize that we petulant children here in the colonies do not take lightly the oppression, be it taxation or literary, of the British. The IP address is 208.58.177.214, remove the block. WHile appreciate your efforts I feel that your zealous reading led to an error on your part. Kindest Regards. Peter —The preceding

) .

For reference, the addition being referenced is this. Obviously the IP will not be unblocked. Gwernol 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that I did not edit that page. I edited a section on the Declaration of ind. page that focused attention on the influence on that document on Ho Chi Minh. Also, my response was not a personal attack but a cultural attack. Reading and comprehension are essential and I only ask that you be a bit more diligent. —The preceding

) .

UK heritage stations

Template:UK heritage stations seems to have disappeared and User:Mackensen has changed all the FR and WHR station info boxes to the generic UK Railway Stations Infobox. Any ideas why?? Stewart 18:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - that explains the how. I had trawled through the templates for deletion pages for the last month and had not seen any notification. I would have appreciated a notification appearing before what appears to have been a summary deletion. Stewart 18:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposal originated with Captain scarlet (talk), who nominated it for speedy deletion. I was on CSD patrol at the time. Noting that the templates were duplicates of each other (save formatting), I did the replacements and deleted the less-used template. I apologize for the confusion. Mackensen (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In October, you removed a list of software from the article

23:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my citation on

23:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on "The Dam Builders in the Age of Steam" - I reckon I can order the rest of the series from the library. CiaranG 08:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

198.178.132.253 this user vandalized Wright-Patterson Air Force Base adding in "IT IS THE HOME FOR ALIENS! THEY KEEP THEM FROZEN UNDERGROUND!" i saw that you gave him a final warning for vandalizing pages in september and he has done it NUMBEROUS times since then, i think it is time he gets blocked from editing on wikipedia.

Hi Gwernol, not sure if you knew there is a template for a vandal who reverts him or her self. It is {{

10:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"indef blocked"

Please cease and wiki-stalking me. This is disruptive, and if you continue you will be blocked for

15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol wrote:

Hi Gurch, I wanted to let you know that I've removed the {{

AfD. Thanks, Gwernol

14:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all – the article looks fine now. Thanks for improving it – Gurch 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

HI, the creator of

20:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how am I supposed to edit this page?

Hello Gwernol, I was not experimenting with the wikipedia Penis article page, I intended to add that video. The Penis article has a link that says that there is media available for Penis at the Commons. I click it, and there is a video of a very important function of the penis there. I edit the Penis article page and add the link to the See Also section so as not to disrupt the article itself. You reverted the edit and left me a message to go play in the sandbox. What did I do wrong? —The preceding

) . Sorry, Infofreak 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That is fine with me Gwernol, I understand that if it is not appropriate for the article, revert or remove it. But next time, why don't you just say that you think that it is not appropriate for the article instead of this experimenting with the page BS. Grow some balls. Infofreak 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe yad see it wasnt vandalism(!)MarkMaple-Machinist, Pilot,Jumper 22:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I won;t do it again. I never have before. Moreso I hate when I see headings left like that. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 00:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for vandalizing those pages, I will stop immediately. I love this site and all the information it has. I am surprised at how quick vandalism is removed...Good Work! I just hate FDR and despise the admiration he recieves from everyone, Ronald Reagan was the best president and FDR is a loser, except for his heroic leadership in WWII he was a terrible president, Almost as bad as Jimmy Carter. Anyway I don't know why I am writing this all down, but I wanted to tell you that you need not worry about me anymore. I joined to remove some vandalism myself, but found that it had already been deleted...No unawkward way to end this message so I'll just stop typing. WikiDaily

I have also responded to that provocative but well-hidden statement (see

). Suggest we find a different form of words for the offending paragraph. === Vernon White (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, do you see this as vandalism? I wasn't sure. He has had all his warnings.--

22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A wholly different question. A user recently applied, clearly as an act of vandalism, for

23:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - mis-capitalised.--

Anthony.bradbury

23:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that you blocked my son from editing some details on your Thomas the Tank Engine pages. My son has Aspergers Syndrome, and his knowledge of this subject is encyclopaedic - mainly thanks to the Wikipedia site. I can assure you that none of the edits he made were false, although the reason for blocking him was given as "persistently posting false information" or similar - I can't remember the exact wording, as the block is now lifted. I would like you to consider, that the information that he posted was taken from other parts of the Wikipedia website, and he did not post anything with any intention of malice. He was in fact, extremely upset at your action. Please think more carefully in future before taking such drastic steps. And if you had actually looked at the edits he has made more carefully, you would have seen that there was no false information added to the site whatsoever. 81.152.177.105 23:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

For future information, an example of the false edits made by this IP is this one. The Thomas the Tank Engine have been under repeated attack by editors adding false information like this to the articles. Gwernol 00:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You state that Season 11 does not exist - no, this is because it is currently in production. Unfortunately, all references to it on this site have recently been removed, whether by yourself, I don't know. If so, any evidence that he has to back up his information has been removed. All I can reiterate, is that the Season 11 information he had, was obtained from Wikipedia. I think that you will agree that all his other edits hardly warrant blocking him from editing. Please refrain such such over-zealousness.

hey buddy cud u take away all my warning my pet lizard (sister) posted all that!

Thanks for your time

Sorry about my sister —The preceding

) .

Hi, I thought you might be interested to know that I just wrote a new

10:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

, and has even removed hidden comments warning against this action. You have warned him before about this.

His latest ploy was to remove the CFD notification from Category:Fictional heroines so that other users would not know a CFD was underway. This is beyond vandalism. Having reverted the cat change once, I have since asked for the cat page to be sprot'ted, as this will hopefully allow sufficient time for the CFD to run its course. (Currently the CFD has 5/5 'delete' votes!)

Not specifically asking you to do anything, but thought you'd like to know the current situation.

EdJogg 13:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol,

I didn't realize I was breaching the format rules...thanks for fixing the edit.

I'll keep the rules in mind next time.

Regards,

Herkdrvr

For clearing my Userpage, it's much appreciated. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for being disputatious, but I do think that there are golf courses that use oiled sand for greens. User:Samois98

I edited that page because someone else had vandalised it. Someone had randomly stuck the words 'ur mom' in it so i got rid of that. Doesn't seem like I 'vandalised' it to me.

If clearly and consistently defining love is such a difficult task, why is it defined in the opening line of the entry? —The preceding

) .

Hi, perhaps you can help. You appear to have deleted a page. Im a bit confused.

I received a post complimenting my addition to deborah cooper and requesting the singers bio be expanded and 'wikified'. granted this is new to me but i AM trying

- the block may have been as i used a template, my first time, when i didn't see it in my contributions nor search, I thought i forgot to hit submit, so i recreated it. It was not intended to be malicious at all. I am not familiar with previous entries or if it the same person.

Per the request in seeking further information on the Artist Deborah Cooper I found her Manager, who is well known in the industry and created a page. It was not to advertise, it was to enhance the previous article, add a significant contributor to entertainment, dance music and AIDS fundraising. I just found he had significant effect on getting industry legends to perform at events to raise fund and awareness. This seems like the type of interesting persons to be included. And as you know research turns up even more information

I provided sources, material. example; checking the references of society of singers , a 501 (c) 3 registered charities newsletter, available online verifies his association, contributor status a "major", his work with celine dion and other artists. The Centaur music page refers to his professional relationships with singer;

I have other pieces, info people I would like to contribute and expand upon however such seemingly caviler deletions causes me concern as to the purpose contributing further, and obfuscates the purpose of this site to me. Seems more an esoteric club now rather than source or encyclopedia. if specific sections cause concern, identifying same would be helpful.

One is hard pressed not to find any entertainers reference not to appear promoting in some way, im afraid to even look up donald trump, but i am trying to promote in depth information in my contributions

I used a few established wiki pages of similar people like michael ovitz to base the layout and info on. Im unsure how person, living or dead write up wont sound like it is somewhat promoting ..look at what he/she did.. however I was provided facts and references.

I appreciate your taking the time to review this message. I sincerely request it be undeleted ( sorry not familiar with wiki terms)

Starburster 01:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Which tool do you use? You seem to do it well. I've tried VP, don't like it, and found Lupin's filter to be best. Any thoughts? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a message of hate. I was trying to state something. And how was that a final warning? I never made any other edits of "hatred and bigotry". I don't mean to push it, I'm just trying to help. -71.224.24.99 03:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not hate. Its my point of view, of course, but there's nothing wrong about it. Why block me? Just because you caught me this one time? Many users before me have done the same thing, they didn't get blocked. How is it a message of hate? It's so hard to be Christian nowadays. Its all about not offending and not pushing views. How bout if I just say I believe in Jesus. Is that offending? Am I pushing my view on you? I don't think so. I am saying what I believe. Just think about this rhetorical question, if you say "Ice Cream is the the best!" Are you pushing your view, your opinion on me? "That's POV! MUST CENSOR!" How are people going to know if its just written down? If its all textbook. They'll never learn the love of Christians. Can I not say this, and give an explanation of why I believe this? Block me if you will, I've said what I have to say. I just hope someone finds salvation out of this arguement. -71.224.24.99

Did you leave a message at my talk? I'm not seeing it. --Yancyfry 04:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. I see what happened. That guy is ok, by the way. He's nice, its just he really gets into things. I'm christian, too, I'm not going to do what he did. I calmed him down, and told him he shouldn't do that.

Thanks for taking care of that, I'd just reported them to

16:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please see Wikipedia's no vandalism policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you 62.64.211.238 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy is: Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
• The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

She has talked in interviews about her same-sex activity. She brought it into the public domain herself. The progress of the open public self-identification of bisexuals/homosexuals clearly relevant to public life. You get the policy wrong and vandalise.One more revert and you will be blocked. 62.64.211.238 16:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for awarding me the The Railroad Star for my British railway history work. It's very nice to know the work is apreciated. I should also point out that I'm far from done... only the pre-1830 stuff is anything like complete. Thanks once again. Tompw 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have been removing the bisexual tag from Michelle Rodriguez's article. I thought you might want to know that people keep adding it to Kristanna Loken also. Even though it seems pretty obvious that they are, in fact, bisexual, it seems that we should hold ourselves to a pretty high standard of proof before adding this kind of category to the biography of a living person.

Unfortunately, I've already reverted the Loken article a few times today, and I don't want to get into a battle of whether or not I have violated 3RR policy. So, I'm leaving it alone unless you or someone else wants to change it. Chicken Wing 20:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact the standard of proof should be the same as e.g. "category: former members of the girl guides": homosexuality/bisexuality is an "issue" for swamp creatures. Wikipedia, being a part of the civilized world, should not bow to such types, but treat it as any other fact. Pretty obvious. I'd say. 80.225.1.87 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the many many times you've returned my userpage to its intended condition. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You may not be aware, but

01:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't know that DKF is destined for editor of the year, but I didn't want him to retire hurt, either, at least not unless he earns it again. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of my changes were factual. Other people are allowed to change things on wikipedia. You need a wiki-life.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldxxxteeth (talk • contribs)

I made a change on the Lebanese_Arabic page by adding a link to my translation of the Bible into Lebanese as well as providing a link to Lebanese Spell-checker for MS Word. You deleted it even though there is no spam about that but a valid contribution to the corpus of Lebanese Language material that is out there. YOU ARE AN INFORMATION DICTATOR. My email is: [email protected] —The preceding

14:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

No problem. I detest vandals and have no tolerance for them whatsoever. They should all be banned immediately and all users should have accounts. I reported your vandal to AIV too. Rlevse 16:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The vandal you encountered yesterday has returned to the Blackpool F.C. article. Any chance you could add some protection to the page? - Dudesleeper 19:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. I don't want to sign up with you but I gave you a very valid bit of information. It included a translation of the Bible into the Lebanese Language and a spell-checker for MSWord. Still you call it vandalism. It is obvious, you are being paid to twist the truth and ignore information as you please. Wikipedia is not what it claims. My personal email appeared earlier in the page.

Are you from New York? Are you well steeped in the history and contemporary culture of hardcore music? In my opinion, you should probably stop hanging around your computer all day waiting to make chagnes to Wikipedia articles. Lighten up. Get a hobby. I politely request that you step off my balls. —The preceding

) .

That's Right

That's right you leave my changes in that article. —The preceding

) .

He's blocked for 3 hours, and I've restored his talk page warnings for future reference. Is there a template I can use that advises users not to blank warnings from their talk pages? Rklawton 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a change to the sexuality page a few minitues ago. I added that the Koran allows for up to four mistresses, and that a man is allowed to have sex with them. This is true. Look, I have just started to edit pages, so maybe I did something wrong and thats why I "vandalized." I am a student of Arab history, and any Muslim would agree with what I am saying.

Wives, yes (based on Mohammed's life), mistresses, no. Even the multiple wives part is dodgy since the husband must love them equally, and some might argue that this is an impossibility. Lastly, it's permitted only under dire circumstances. Adultery, on the other hand, is punishable by death. Rklawton 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to let you know the creator of the article also put up this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concordia_College_and_University,_Inc. -WarthogDemon 02:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The vandal tag removal conversation is a bit tough to follow. If the matter should come up for a vote/poll again, would you let me know where? Rklawton 02:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol, I was editing comics page and added a link which has cartoons only related with science and medicine and it is open to public for free use of these cartoons. On the web this was one of the few cartoon pages that dedicated to only science and medicine. If it doesn't fit there could you please suggest another field? Thanks [User: Daniorerio]

I think your user box section needs a badge to reflect your admin rights. :) Will (Talk - contribs) 05:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cornwall is regarded as part of England by everyone except some Cornish nationalists and Wikipedia should reflect the world as it is, not the world as activists would like it to be. Choalbaton 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to your comment "I removed your edit because you had added an unnecessarily inflammatory comment to the article. I have no particular opinion about whether the category peninsulas in England or peninsulas in the United Kingdom is better, but adding the hidden comment was unnecessary and disruptive. Gwernol 13:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)"

It was not, it was intended to prevent further problems. You removed a factually correct edit without any explanation, which is discourteous. Please treat fellow editors with more respect. It is an abuse of admin privileges to use roll back on an edit which is not vandalism. Choalbaton 14:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

When I made my edit I had no thought in my head except getting the article in the right place and preventing future problems, but you accused me of being "imflammatory" without making any enquiries. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and try harder to observe it in future. At the moment I consider that you are not meeting the standards expected of an administrator. Choalbaton 14:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this user is a sock of the well-known Johnny the Vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see the deleted history of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Johnny the Vandal for more information). I also think that if this account is blocked, it will likely use the {{unblock}} tag and claim to be Hephaestos (talk · contribs). Therefore, I suggest that you block the account and lock the talk page to prevent spurious unblock requests. 128.2.251.45 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again; could I draw your attention to

01:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if it had been a first-time vandal I would have used a {{

Anthony.bradbury

01:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that only account holders should be enabled to edit wikipedia. But I am fully aware that this is not the majority view, or the the view of those whose opinion counts.--

Anthony.bradbury

01:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry not to have answered before. My circadian differs from yours! I suppose that the only advantage would be that, in the case of multiple users using a single IP you could block by username, allowing other users to go on editing. But I know that they could just make fresh accounts, and yes, I do understand that status quo is the consensus. It's just that as a committed vandal hunter it annoys me!--

13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol, thanks for your message. Indeed I was trying to delete that discussion topic I started. I should have put a reason for doing so. Basically, I regret writing it and want to check my facts before introducing my idea again.

I tried proposing that it be deleted before (see history), and gave my reason for the proposal, hoping that someone more in the know would help me out and take care of it for me, but I merely got chided. Then I went to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion" and posted this query (with subsequent response from SUIT below it):

---

Deleting a topic section on an article's Discussion page

Might someone tell me how to delete a topic I started on an article's discussion page? I don't want the article itself deleted of course, I just want a topic section that I started to be deleted because I think it's wrong and misinformative and I want to take it back. I dropped "subst:prod|..." (with the proper brackets) into the section but was only mocked by Nigelj for doing so. How do I delete an article's discussion topic? Thanks for your help.

Hi again. For clarity, suppose for instance I wanted this very discussion topic section (i.e., "Deleting a topic section on an article's Discussion page") deleted. How would I go about that? Thanks a bunch.

What are you talking about?--SUIT 05:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. I'll tell you: You select it and press "backspace".--SUIT 05:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I just took the advice for face value, and went ahead and deleted it. I suppose I should have left the same reason I did eariler though. Altogether, I'm afraid that this is really starting to give me a headache, and i know that if I try deleting it again I'm just going to get another random person leaving me a message telling me i've done wrong somehow.

Might you be able to delete what I had deleted earlier for me?

Thanks for your time. —The preceding

) .

Well, thanks for the advice. While I suppose you're right, I still think that this wikipedia thing's seriously sinister business, in a Foucauldian/panoptic/all seeing/all knowing way. It traps you very easily. And you're essentially helpless as long as there's a permanent tracking history. You can never remove yourself from this place should you feel you want to. Someone out there is laughing -- bwaahahaha -- in that evil way. For instance, this message I'm writing you right now is accessible for all time, to anyone, forever.

And my apologies for overwriting someone else's stuff earlier. That was an accident actually. But ironically, you were able to get it back without any problems!! (there's just no erasing anything).

---

2.Re:

G,

1st thanks for your note back too me. It was much clearer than the one received this morning by W support people. Which also looks like another auto response. My personal email is [email protected] and any help PLEASE feel free to contact me and or change copy help I would love very much. I shall work on the photo copyright thing.

For example I shall take off the original of Madonna and replace it with the actual magazine cover. Which is public. That is as on photographer’s pages such as Richard Avedon etc.

As for the text I shall send your ideas onto the person who wrote the text. I had them look at a number of other known photographers W pages to give them sort of a template to work from. The use my generic profile and then asked me some questions before I posted that. I shall attempt to make it more generic. But I am open to your ideas later today after I re-post that. Ahhhh……

I really thank you for you help and that it seems much more understandable. Best always, Curtis13:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)~

---

3. G

Well my friend seems pissed aboutre-write. For which I promised to do a portrait. Ahwell. They changed text. Which is a culmination of bios from my 8 books and my web sites bio as well as others. Photo of Dennis Hopper & I is a snap in the studio W can use free. Madonna’s Island cover is her 1st cover & I am fine about public domain. That tag thing I just don’t get at all. But I hope this works. Thanks G, Curtis

1. Gwernol,

Hello. I am the Portrait photographer Curtis Knapp...

I have messed up my page.. Curtis Knapp.

I have written W support. I got an answer only a scientist could understand.

Also I tried to add "My" portraits to pages after they or family requested; Timothy Leary Andy Warhol Chrome Hearts

I asked W about how to do. I got an answer ONLY a computer person could understand. It was day wasted and I ended up feeling stupid.

All I know is W has pics of mine now & I have them not displaied.

At any rate in 2 year old lingo, please what where how am I doing what wrong. If you need to call 917-721-2198. I really want to understand this in simple way. I am getting a mail a month (about) from people who seem to want to use my portraits on the W site. That is how I found out about you to begin with.

Many many thanks, Curtis

PS my profile on my page was NOT written by me but a pro.Wikipedia knapp 05:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to really care about having people add things to the site. It is apparent that you want supreme control. You probably would be a death eater and make muggles hang suspended from the air. You really hate Harry Potter. —The preceding

) .

Thanks Again

Hey Thanks for not immediately blocking me from posting after I vandalized that one page a week ago. I would have thought that if you were discovered vandalizing that you'd immediately be kicked, but I'm glad you gave me a chance, because I read (well, I'm still reading) the guide to editing you sent me a link to and I'm really getting into this stuff. I created my first page and I've been adding tidbits of info to any subject I know about. I was also wondering (I'm sure I can find this info somewhere, but I thought I'd ask you) If Wikipedia has any sort of recognition system for posting? For Example: Editors would get ranked based on the number of creations or the quality of their creations...or would that just encourage rampant creation of bad articles? Also, is there any way to check on editors and how many pages they've made? I'll try to figure this out myself, but if you have the time I'd apreciate a response. Thanks Again! WikiDaily 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Gwernol, this patent nonsense bio article was recreated after being previously deleted. Could you take a look at it please? Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Expected someone would remove my reasons why Bush should not yet be impeached, much as I'd like to see it. Guess it's a fine line between opinion, research, and presenting data. The hardback encyclopedias certainly weren't shy about letting some writers give their viewpoints...actually the thrust of the whole article on why we should impeach is certainly based on an opinion, although it is well enough cited. I was just trying to give some balance, but it's hard to always cite counter-arguments in politics. Anyway, appreciate your letting me know why you did this. Richard Weil 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Richard Weil

why did you delete our Sp-Un-Ka Page?

Chris White (Sp-Un-Ka)

Actually, the revert in question wasn't made by Shadowtool. I have no idea what went wrong there, but somehow I edited a bad version of the page to remove a spam link. Thanks for fixing it, though! Shadow1 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed several edits by user70.28.166.197 that concern me regarding POV violations. How do you approach this without creating an edit war or having the person retaliate in the article or in other articles one edits or creates? The edit by this user in the article named, engraving, is one that I would like to delete or drastically rewrite without the POV now presented. When I looked to see when the edit appeared and by whom, I discovered many topics this person has edited that I think should be changed away from the POV as it exists. What would you recommend? Shouldn’t an administrator act here?

I see that you have put the user on notice, but I do not see any resolution of the issue and, more importantly, see other edits that seem to be after the notice, that ignore the warning. 83d40m 20:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

p.s. checking the dates, it does seem that the edits stopped after your warning -- how should the old edits be tackled? 83d40m 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll tackle some of the others on the list of the user's history. 83d40m 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored a reduced version - it is ridiculous just to remove it. How NPOV is that? Johnbod 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the one who recently removed the pictures on the Child page. I wasn't trying to be an asshole or vandal, it's just the pic of the 9 year old girl and the paintings of those little girls look a bit borderline, and pedophiles may be able to get their sick kicks off of them. I only meant to remove those, by the way; Not the picture of the Indian girls or the little boy. Jonny 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you have a point. Oh well, I guess I won't try anymore, it's just I hate pedophiles for a personal reason. Jonny 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly did i vandalize JzG's page? I would like you to tell me insteadof being rude and warning me. Sportsguru9999 05:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)