User talk:Gwernol/Archive 24

Its a fair question, and my userpage has been protected at times. I do believe in the philosophy that pages should be unprotected where possible. On a practical matter, it can also be useful to track vandals when they vandalize my page - makes catching sockpuppets particularly easy. The reason I don't revert my own page more often is because its usually been reverted by the time I see the vandalism hit my watchlist. My watchlist is pretty long at this point. Apparently a number of very kind editors have my page on their watchlists and for that I am very grateful. Oh, and please don't call me "master" :-) Best,

Apologizing because it's the right thing to do

Gwernol, Googie Man here. I've considered your arguments about my behavior, and you are completely in the right. First, please accept my apology to you for making your job all the more difficult, when you have enough to contend with to protect the integrity of Wikipedia content. After I finish this note to you, I will go to Another Solipsist's page and apologize and retract everything I said. I'm not doing this for you to reinstate my account, as that's within your discretion. I'm doing this because your argument convinced me I was in the wrong, and that goes a long way with me. Best regards, Googie Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.243.178 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi!

As you are one of the administrators familiar with Brexx (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppetry, I thought I'd bring this to your attention. I suspect RIHANNA RELOADED (talk · contribs) to be another sockpuppet of Brexx due to several things.

I just want to first let you know that I filed an RFCU for this account on May 16 but, due to either an error in my listing or a backlog at checkuser, the request has not yet been processed. I also contacted administrator Yamla (talk · contribs) but he/she seems to have been absent from Wikipedia since May 16. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I can be considered as conducting some sort of inappropriate canvassing by doing this, please let me know and I will await the CU results before taking any further action. If you don't consider this to be inapropriate, I would like it if you could please take a look at the discussion between RIHANNA RELOADED and myself at Talk:Dina Lohan to give me your opinion on what I believe to be RIHANNA's admittal to being the same user as Brexx.

Thanks for your help and please forgive any inappropriateness by me.

Peace!

talk • contribs

) 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Isaafrog

I see you removed my notice from Isaafrog's talk page, stating that Isaafrog did not actually create the page for Image:Nuvola apps display.png. If you look at the page history, you will see Isaafrog actually did create the page, as it is an image hosted on commons, with no local page. XRK (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Equalpanel

A bit more information would be useful here. Who is it a sockpuppet of? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Zzuuzz#Regarding_Checkcloud99 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks to you both for the info. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the post, I didn't realize it was a problem with the COI policy. I keep running into people who ask what a death coach is and so thought wikipedia should have an entry. Would it violate policy to simply say that death coach can also refer to life coaches who specialize in end-of-life and grief coaching? RoseWoodruff (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the images on Carly Jacks

Hey, It's Santros57Q here. I just wanted to say sorry for the images thing on the Carly jacks. Your right. It wont happen again. —Preceding

talk • contribs

) 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

regarding warnings

User Warnings Wikiproject when giving warnings. This makes things neater for admins to see warnings and work efficiently. Thank you. Stupid2 (talk

) 01:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am frightened for my safety, please help

Hello Gwernol, I'm sure you will remember me. I have since behaved myself, done what you asked, but a user has now implied a personal threat to me for what I said to AnotherSolipsist, and I take it very seriously. This is what he said "I am not interested in your ideas. If you keep to your promise of not repeating your behaviour, the personal and legal risks that you posed will not re-appear. I am happy for you to edit in such a situation." He is saying that I posed legal risks to myself, by saying what I did to AS. And I presume then I pose *personal* risk to myself as well. What does that mean? Thank you, Googie man (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Help me out here part II

Hi again Gwernol, I'll bet you rue the day you ever read the name Googie Man. Sorry about that in advance. Please help me with the above issue - I may have been a jerk but I sure didn't make weird, scary threats. This guy needs a block. Please let me know what you intend to do. Best, Googie man (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow.....

I vehemently disagree with you, and think you're making a gross misjudgment. He said that *I'm* getting myself into possible legal trouble, then he threw in the aspect of personal risk. I took the part out about going to the press, and feel that it's very unnecessary that you put this into the fray. But now I'm reconsidering that decision and just may do it. I will take your suggestion to completely disengage from that other user. However, let me reiterate, you don't know the context of the dispute, and the way it's worded, can seem like nothing who doesn't know the full context. I've never been one to create trouble. I'm not letting this go. Googie man (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No legal threat? That's what he's been talking about all day. Googie man (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In disbelief now

How am I attacking you? This is getting me nowhere, is a waste of our time, but here it goes anyway.

Quote from Lambton:

"if you replicate your behaviour against AnotherSolipsist, with some other wrongly accused, you are effectively asking for one"

Asking for one, meaning *I* am asking for a lawsuit. This is after I apologized, this is after I explained myself rationally and respectfully, I have not anything less that objective and respectful since the block.

Now, then to the part I don't like:

"I am not interested in your ideas. If you keep to your promise of not repeating your behaviour, the personal and legal risks that you posed will not re-appear. I am happy for you to edit in such a situation."

OK, so before I was asking for a lawsuit with my behavior. Now with my behavior, now I won't be asking for legal AND personal risks.

That's it. The admin. John already warned Lambton to stop, and disagrees with your assessment:

"(outdent) Far from being nonsense, any repetition of this will lead to an indefinite block. I have no idea what you are arguing about, but this is not how we do business here. --John (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)"

Gwernol, you're wrong here. I've admitted when I was wrong, now it's your time to do the same.

Googie man (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - I do not care one iota about anything he said about anything legal. I don't care. That was someone else who said that. I care about the personal issues. that's different. I've explained in great detail how I don't care about the legal whatever it was. Googie man (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

3 times you've asked? Gwernol, you're taking a very negative tone with me that I don't deserve from you. Googie man (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol, its me who warned Lambton about his legal threat, and if you want clarification from me about t hat please post to my user page. Thanks,

SqueakBox

22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I never ever threatened anyone personally. Nothing I said came anywhere near it. I apologized, it, I didn't repeat the behavior, it *should* be forgotten. What does personal anything have to do with this? Gwernol, you really should give me time to find my corroborating evidence for what you ask, instead of saying that you've asked me 3 times. It's bad form, and seems to me that you're throwing your weight around. I'm not making this up - that is a veiled threat. Googie man (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I'm 6 feet 3, and weigh 200lbs, I can take care of myself, I don't often say "I am frightened for my safety, please help" I am going to refrain from offending people so I will speak obliquely this next sentence. I have worked professionally with a certain type of people, and they often have sociopathic tendencies, meaning that you should heed veiled threats. I simply and utterly cannot believe your tone when I took out the part about the press, I legitimately asked you for help, and you've been copping an attitude ever since. How is what I originally wrote to you, anything that deserves the tone you've given me? Googie man (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol, I have nothing further to say to you, other than I'm not letting this go, and it's not the last anyone has heard of any threat to me. Googie man (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I showed it to you, you don't see it, I do. What's poor wording to you, is a threat to me.

That's fine, it's your job to be objective, and you don't see a threat. Like I said, I don't mean to brag, but I'm a big guy, people don't bother me, and I can defend myself. The poor wording was very ominous to me, and furthermore he knows exactly what he's doing. That's fine too. I'm not going to stop editing, and I will never bother you with anything in the future, as I'm just not accustomed to getting addressed the way you've addressed me. YOu were stern when I was being a jerk, and I deserved it. This time however you are completely in the wrong. Anyway, this is enough time wasted out of our lives with this. This has been an extremely negative experience, my worst in almost 4 years of editing, and like I said I'm not letting it go. But with you, like I said, this is it. You can give your tone and attitude to someone else, not me. Googie man (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, not done yet

Have you ever been pulled over by a cop that you can tell is really getting off a little too much on the power he has? Well, that's what my experience yesterday was reminscent of to me. Now, to add insult to injury, you tell me not to speak with Lambton, which is fine with me, I have nothing further to say to him anyway. Yet, he sees fit to add an unsolicited comment on my talk page. So this is what I think of that - he made a threat to me, I take it very seriously, the press is the least of the people in the hierarchy of society I've already spoken to about it, and I want this guy to never, ever address my talk page, or anything on having to do with User:Googie_man, again. I think that since you instructed me not to speak to him, I think it behoves you to instruct him the same thing with me. Keep in mind, I've apoligized to you, I've been concilliatory to you, and you've been abundantly disrespectful to me in our last series of communications, so any complaints on my attitude with you will go unheeded. Have a look at the commment here.. Googie man (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lambton

Hi, Gwernol. Just a heads up that while Googie man has left Lambton alone, Lambton has sure not left Googie man alone--in fact he has edit warred to post comments on Googie's talkpage: [3]. In light of recent events, and Lambton's statement to Googie, "I am not interested in your opinions," it's hard to look at this as anything other than harassment/trying to nettle Googie. I've told Googie just to ignore Lambton, that others will revert any of Lambton's refusal to disengage, but it might be helpful if an admin directly warns Lambton to disengage. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: United Nations

First of all, I apologise for misspelling "recognized" in the article. I was under the assumption that the UN used British English. My bad.

However, you said in your summary that the UN page uses

this part of the MOS lists the United Nations as using Oxford spelling

. While through Oxford spelling it is indeed "recognized", you might want to watch out in case the word "colour" appears.

Bottom line: sorry about the typo, but be careful about other words. Mouse is back 18:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CUBS

Please accept this invite to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago Cubs, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles related to the Chicago Cubs. We hope you can join and contribute greatly to the project.

WikiZorro^sign 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

An ip user has just left a personal attack on my user talk page and i have left it there for you to deal with it because you are an admin. Please warn him or do whatever you want to do. Cheers! (Planecrash111 (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

He has left another personal attack and called me a drunk on his talk page after he blanked the evidence.(Planecrash111 (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

Sockpuppet

Sorry to bother you again, but apparently the user you just warned has now used a sockpuppet IP as shown on the warned IP.(Planecrash111 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

They have switched IP's. I don't want to talk to him ,but as long as he keeps talking to me i have to talk back.(Planecrash111 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

He put that in before the race was even over.(Planecrash111 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

I didn't know only admins could do that so that is my mistake, but he has just called me a stalker on his edit summary so i guess that does it.(Planecrash111 (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

HD179949

Sorry for not saying it in the page, but there was already another page called HD 179949, it was excatly the same, so I redirected HD179949 to HD 179949 If you undo, you will see it is the same! I should of said it in the discussion, sorry. Androo123 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya sorry for not telling you in the discussion page, my fault. Androo123 (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: refrences

Are these refrences good enough? i read the hitory and the comment you made and fixed up the citations :) cheersBJ (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for catching that vandalism to my userpage. Keep up the good work, Malinaccier (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A conflict on the Starsiege: Tribes page

Hi Gwernol! I'd like to ask if you could weigh in on a conflict that has developed on an article that I deal with from time to time, Starsiege: Tribes. The conflict involves the addition of a link in the article's link section, added by the (unfortunately rather combative) user TooCrooked. I looked into the link the user added (to the user's website http://tribesquery.toocrooked.com/), which contains a game server listing for the game 'Starsiege: Tribes'.

We already have a link on the page to another site which provides the same info/service, and looking into TooCrooked's addition, I found that his link appeared to be not notable (very few google hits relative to the site we already have on the page); provides a listing that is already present in the link we have (less, actually - his site appears to just show a subset of that information); and as well I was worried at the self-promotional bias the addition represents (the added link being his own site).

Saddly, the process has not gone well, and I fear a revert war is brewing. He has not proven to be the easiest user to deal with (when changes were made to his original addition some weeks back, his re-add edit comment was "your edits will be undone always. get a life"), and I'd like to see if perhaps you could swing by and take a peek, if you wouldn't mind. I've tried to engage him in a discussion in the past, and currently on the article's talk page, but I don't have great hopes. Thanks for your time, Gwernol! Dxco (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WHY?

i was told i could edit my page and even thought you reverted it you took away the edit i wanted to keep up could you please revert it back to what i want my talk page to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.142.113 (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Ok can you please let me know what i can and cant do with my talk page? one person on Wikipedia says i cant and one says i can so can you please clear this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.142.113 (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC) so basically anything on my talk page is vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.142.113 (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC) ok thank you for clearing that up am i allowed to delete all the warnings on m page since a majority of them were because of editing my talk page when i was not sure on the rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.142.113 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block review of Bjaco18

I've blocked Bjaco18 for 24 hours, after discovering another RfA created by another sockpuppet. Despite the fact this was before your warning about sockpuppets, I feel he has had enough warnings and a third silly RfA in a month (despite being told to wait) when combined with everything else was, I feel, just too much. I have left a longer message explaining this to him on his talk page, but I am asking you if I have been to harsh. It's difficult for me to judge how to treat him- on the one hand, I signed up when I was 15 and always resented when others treated me differently because of my age, but, on the other hand, Bjaco is very young, and it is rather difficult to get the point across... J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwernol

for this. I meant to thank you earlier, but I didn't even notice the vandalism (you are that fast, for sure!). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Willisis2

It is MY user page. Also, it is not an article, and

WP:BEANS says that it is not a rule, only a guideline. Stick to the code man! --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.

) 00:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Top of

WP:BEANS

Even if I am getting a little possessive,

WP:BEANS is not a rule or policy. You have no structural foundation of your edit, and it should be reverted. Please abide by policy, not a couple users' advice. --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.

) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would let it be deleted, but you still haven't shown me that it is in anyway "inappropiate." Unless there is a reason, and a good one, let me revert it! --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think

WP:BEANS and I have been quite clear that it is NOT A RULE!!!!!!! Can't you get that through your head!?--Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.

) 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is your opinion that it should be removed, than it doesn't have to be. It doesn't break any rules and/or policies according to {{essay|WP:BEANS}}. If it is your opinion that it is inappropiate, that doesn't mean it actually is. I could say all of the main page is inappropiate, but it is just my OPINION. Under Wiktionary, an opinion's antonym is a fact. Let's be reasonable here. --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 00:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Carly Corinthos

That's her common name, and that's what her article should be titled per Wikipedia policy. I see that you've move-protected that article. I will seek to get it changed back to its common name. A few editors moving these female character articles from their common names simply due to marriage needs to stop.

talk

) 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: "Biased" content in the Catcher in the Rye

In contest to your reversion to my edit in the Catcher in the Rye, I would like to point out that my edit did not express bias. Rather, it expressed a skeptic attitude which, I think you can agree, is a desirable quality to any claim... especially ones that are not falsifiable.

Making the distinction between bias and skepticism is something from which this site could benefit. Stating that a criminal has read a book is completely irrelevant to an article. This is doubly true for a book which is so widely read and popular. The act of reading does not force the issue of an action. Or should we begin editing the article on mustaches, stating that Hitler and Stalin both had one. Or should we edit the article on apples to state that such murderers such as Gacy and Dahmer had once eaten one?

It betrays any logic to revert my edit, which interjected a necessary disclaimer of skepticism, without removing the content which belies ignorance the strength of which can only be described as viral. 12.240.41.254 (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is, indeed, the policy of this site to not publish speculation, then it would perhaps be best to actually review the sources used in an article. In the article in question, there is mention of a criminal being "obsessed with the book" which is substantiated with a source that provides a seeming inventory of posessions of the person. Another citation leads to no source at all, but rather a site map. And then there is this: "Julian Knight, perpetrator of the infamous Hoddle Street massacre was said to have read the book also." Which is uncited but allowed to remain.

I will conclude. If it is, indeed, the policy of this site to not publish speculation, why is a bare-faced rumor is allowed to remain within an article? Why is it, without any real substantiation, claims are allowed to remain? This all whilst a simple disclaimer, warning presumed readers that the claims in the article are the results of a dubious conclusion and have very little, if any connection to the article in question, is removed?

I really, really do not mean to make this difficult; but I am interested in the quality of this site enough to make an issue of it. 12.240.41.254 (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Regarding your message as follows:

"I have responded to your report on WP:ANI. However, as far as I can see, the problem here is you are trying to insert your own unsourced original research into the article. Removing edits such as yours and warning you for it is neither capricious nor threatening. You need to abide by Wikipedia's policies as much as any other editor. Please do not make accusations against others unless you have grounds to do and are prepared to have your own record closely examined. Thanks, Gwernol 11:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

I did not complain about you, but about Maria Difranco (now called Canis Lupus) who is on a rampage of reversions. Within 3 days of registration, she had made dozens of reversions, and by now has made hundreds. She accused me of vandalism, which can not be correctly said by any stretch of imagination. And she did threaten to block me, which I doubt she has the capability of doing.

As to your above threat to have my own record closely examined, I am an open book, and have no problem with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.38.111 (talk • contribs)

talk page

do i really have to have all the warnings etc from the previous people who, presumably, used my IP? that's why I deleted them but you reverted it. thanks, mike ( --82.5.173.251 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC) )

hi

can u change an edit on the david beckham page please, it says he has 101 caps but he won't recieve his 101st cap till tomorrow, you can check this on any website. also it cannot be 100 percent certain he will get this cap because he could always get food poisoning or anything before then, you just can't but he hasn't actually got his cap yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.170.254 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

well...

i made the edits to johns page because i knew i would get the attention of someone like yourself and then you could edit the david beckham page to say he only has 100 caps, and not 101. Go on the england website, have a look. And can you find any source that says he has 101 caps??? check this source http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/postedsports/archive/2008/05/31/mls-l-a-galaxy-at-toronto-fc-minute-by-minute-report.aspx and then pleeeeease change it, if that source aint good enough, just search david beckhamm 100 caps or 101 caps on google news or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.170.254 (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent block of User:86.156.170.254

You might want to look at the wording in the block template you placed on User Talk:86.156.170.254, as it doesn't read right: "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours and repeated personal attacks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism."

Should that be "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism and repeated personal attacks."? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 23:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Revertion of Ipswich School Information

I do not believe that putting truthful referenced information on Wikipedia should be classed as vandalism. If it is, then this is contrary to free speech. It is certainly not self promotion as nobody is even mentioned let alond promoted. This appears to just be a straight attack on the turth. (WikiWebbie (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

Thankyou

Thankyou for removing the vandalism from my user page I much appreciate it Penrithguy (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(no subject)

I am back with the different IP address to play around.--4.152.210.88 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:JUNE 2008

that spot was for vandalizing. he made it. DUH.SexySeaClownfish 00:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

for that second thing with the programme. i wasn't his adoptee anymore. i was fixing it to change it to the other adoptee.SexySeaClownfish 00:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Vertical World

I have two questions regarding the Vertical World page. 1) I screwed up on the title and wrote 'Vertical world' instead of 'Vertical World'. Aka I forgot to capitalize World. Can I change that? 2) I saw that someone edited the page. As not many people know of Vertical World, could you possibly tell me who edited it so that we could work collaboratively on the page? THX! Daltanimal (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Daltanimal, 5:40 June 01, 2008.

FYI

Regarding this edit, I was surprised to find that there was in fact a User:Meaty Weenies who had edited that page and was perhaps involved in some way--the edit you highlighted looked like petulant vandalism but may have been slightly less than petulant? Anyway, wasn't sure if you were aware of that. Regards, Darkspots (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bigbadbradwel

You may want to say 'Hi' to user Bigbadbradwel. He seems to think vandalizing talk pages is as much fun as vandalizing real articles. Andante1980 (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked him indefinitely Alex Muller 12:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call, Alex :-) Gwernol 13:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Whats all this then?

Concerning the Dean Drive article. How on earth can you consider explaining in the inverters own words, the theory of his invention. I know that you don't consider it correctly referenced material, so how can you even have an article about a device thats only real source is the patent and a few magazine articles. What elts is there... Jerry Pournell a man who said he never saw the device, never tested it, but he is a credible resource that it doesn't work!

Norman M. Dean --Nurotoxin (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifyable documents posted?

How is it then that WP allows people to publish documents using wiki-commons for everyone to see, but you say that that same published work cannot be referenced in an article. According to you the only verifiable content is that which users can reference and verify for themselves? Then the only reference-able material on the Dean Drive are his two patents. Because they are given and archived by a third party.

Users cannot pickup a 50 year old Popular Mechanics Magazine or an Astounding Science and read it, unless we post it on wiki-commons for all to see. Therefore for historical documents we must scan and post them so they are user reference-able and verifiable. But you removed them too - hey look they are no longer reference-able and verifiable, they don't exist!

Norman M. Dean --Nurotoxin (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Undid reversion

You reverted a contribution of mine without good reason, and without specifying how anything posted was untrue. I did not have time to deal with it at the time, but I hope you will either leave my posting alone, or specify how it fails to be a valid contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.38.111 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Skabo

Hey there!

You're a railroad expert so I thought I'd get your input on this. Škabo is an article about a Serbian rapper. One of the redirects listed in Special:WhatLinksHere/Škabo is Skabo to which several railroad related articles link. The articles themselves mention Skabo as the builder and I sincerely doubt the rapper had anything to do with building those trains. Should the Skabo redirect maybe be freed up for an appropriate article or should the articles on the individual trains be de-linked for now?

Peace!

talk • contribs

) 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Your first article

Hi Gwernol, with ref to your recent edit at the above, you are quite probably right that ASCII art is not a good idea. That came about because of the recent fork from

WT:CSD (I think). Subsequently, several (!) new editors have persisted in starting their own "first articles" on the above page. We have been discussing this a bit on the associated talk page, and the text-created "Stop" is just a further attempt at getting the message over, made in all good faith. Any input you can make on the associated pages would be most appreciated. I'd be willing to place a bet that the next edit to that page will be someone trying to create a new article :) One Can$ loony only, and I'll be happy to lose! Franamax (talk

) 23:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent unconstructive edits and false accusations

Warnings have ZERO effectiveness on the pages you cite. Please ban the shared IP instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.31.113 (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you plan on warning one specific 5th grader out of over 15,000 students + hundreds of staffers and teachers? --Carterhawk (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The material you have reverted as vanadalism was written in a good faith. The fervor to give a point of view not included in the article prompted me to write it. Wikipedia is chsen because it is easy to edit in it and reach people at large, without going into drudgery of following formats of scientific journals and/or waiting for publication.

As regards self promotion, not only the books mentioned, most of my books [over forty in Marathi and English] are available for free download on scribd.com and www.superliving.net. I have what so ever no intention and no interest to promote sale. However it is promotion; only in as much as it reaches more people and is read and pondered upon by them.

As regards using the citation template, I find it difficult as I am not a competent computer user.

As far as I am concerend, I have been teaching graduate and post graduate medical students for last 30 years and have been conducting stress management workshops for not only medical consultants but other professinals as well. But more importantly I have been conducting workshops for all strata of the society and in many instances without charging any fees.

I have worked with blind individuals as well as small villages in India.

I have also been a Foreign Faculty Fellow in Basic Medical Sciences in Medial University of South Carolina and lived in Charleston [SC] for 1 year [1986 to 1987] and was awarded a certificate of distinction and two awards.

Having said that if you find the content of my writing useless or vandalism you can revert it and/or block me permanently.

Thanking you and wishing all the best in your noble work of global unity and global welfare, Sincerely, Dr. Shriniwas Kashalikar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shriniwaskashalikar (talk • contribs) 12:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

y

y did you give me a harsh warning? what happened to don' t bite the newbs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.212.67 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent blockage

Patrolling my watchlist, i came across

Pavlova article. I noticed you had blocked them for vandalism, but wondered what constituted a block in this case. Seemed like some petty non-NPOV

/minor vandalism there. I do not in any way support vandalism of any kind, but i do support wikipedia's core policy, and slogan, The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I wonder if this was the appropriate adminsitorial action here, or if you blocked them to prove a point. They don't seem to have contested the block, but i think the warning you gave was appropriate enough. I also noted they attempted to blank their talk page, something which is within the rules and rights and shouldn't have been reverted.

I don't usually get so involved in blockings, but this one caught my attenton for being overly pushy. Feel free to respond or not, just as long as your aware of the situation (and i do not mean to come off sounding harsh, but wish the best for all parties involved.) Best wishes and happy editing, Metagraph comment 14:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that sounds okay. Also, note that Telecom shifts IP's around every fortnight so if anyone comes bothering you, it'll probably be them. (I used to have them as my ISP, so unreliable.) Best, Metagraph comment 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. All the best Dr. Shriniwas Kashalikar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shriniwaskashalikar (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I was alerted no to re-edit and article on Peter Daicos. I've tried to explain each further editing I have made, even adding citations. If you happen to read wich are my additions you will notice that what I am trying to do is to write an article that avoids people from editiong-undoing- re-editing. It seems that this subject is becoming a "sujet d' etat". I assume that my Greek username may hurt Macedonian users but I am trying to be neutral and objective. Please, revise if I have been in conflict before when editing, and if my "undoers" can say the same. Please I ask you to read also the Talk Page about this subject where I stressed my points of view. Periptero (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Periptero

To be entirely honest, while his later edit was technically a revert, blocking the user (though it's only a day...) might be too strong a measure. The piece he added is pretty much a personal synthesis but I gave up on trying to revert it and just corrected some points. Do you think that an unblock would be possible? (Not to question your judgment or anything :). Thanks. Edit: Actually, I just noticed we're both waaay over 3rr (I won't comment on 3rr's deficiencies). Those reverts sure fly by. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The user 90.201.*

Thanks for helping me out with this user on Deal Or No Deal (UK game show)! At first, it seemed like genuine good faith edits but I've never seen anyone so persistent with their edits, while at the same time not even putting one word on their or anybody's talk page! Nzseries1 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Vertigo315

I have been having problems with Vertigo315. He keeps deleting my constructive edits and tells me to tell why I am adding new info in the discussion page, so I did and now he has warned me of vandalism after providing a reason. He is causing an edit war.(Planecrash111 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

User:REDYVA

FYI: this lovely character came right back as User:Ayvder and User:TalktooMuch. I've blocked the underlying IP for a while. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That edit on Dr. Seuss

Hey, really sorry about those reverts. I am trying out

T.C.

No problem. Sorry again. I'm trying to figure out huggle, and I realized I clicked the wrong link, and I'm going "SHITSHITSHITSHIT." Lol. Sorry about that again. Cheers!

T.C.

01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

not everything that appears to be salacious vandalism necessarily is.there was an episode of 'family guy' in which lois was a sex-ed teacher.had i not known this, i would probably also have assumed such an entry to be vandalism. cymru am byth! Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you blocked Bjaco18 for vandalism threats. You might also want to either keep an eye on or block Stop and stare14. This is allegedly his sister (and hasn't edited much since he set up her account). However, she might start "editing" now that he is blocked. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I don't understand why my edit is being repeatedly undone on the Kent Hovind page, when it is factual and I am providing an internal link for it to another wikipedia article. Is the sentence contentious, is it a matter of style, or something else?

Thanks for your feedback.

Sminhinnick (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I contact you by email? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.97.245 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If Santos returns from his block, do you think it would be possible to place him on sort of page move restriction or probation. He's moved pages about 80 times, and for the most part I see nothing helpful about any of them. In fact, for the most part they seem to be hyphenated versions of soap characters various married names regardless of whether or no the character even used the name. AniMate 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you agree on the page move probation. Personally, I don't think he's coming back as Santos25Q, but we'll see. On a semi-related note, I've found at least five more "General Hospital" articles about non-notable child characters. I'm planning on sending them all to AfD, but do you think this is an acceptable case for a "group" AfD or should I submit them each individually? AniMate 02:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know I'm not valid for adminship, I haven't taken that down yet. Gwernol, what do u do besides wait for obvious mistakes and correct them?--Milst Epja 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How exactly do I change My signature? --Milst Epja 02:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All I ask is that next time you remove anything from my page tell me on my talk page. --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We are related though. Onyx 0 is in fact my dear older brother. I was off the computer for a second and what do I find but him on the computer. He says he'll let me back on when he's done. I get back on and there it is. Please disreguard this whole scenario for he will not do this again for if he does i will personally remove him and myself from this site. Happy editing --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the feeling that Neo is trying to play games with me. Should I just ignore him completely? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a new, Gwernol, you tagged Onyx's page as being a possible sock of Neoonyxalchemist‎, but I'm not seeing that you actually filed the sock report? Tagging his talk page without filing a report won't result in a check being performed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if s/he couldn't decide how to insult me. Do I give it away for free or for a dollar a minute? Lol, thanks for the revert :). Seraphim♥Whipp 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What did I do, please provide me with a diff, so that I know what you are talking about.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• is this justification enough?Myheartinchile (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• and this tooMyheartinchile (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

it's a fake!? well why not assume good faith and believe me that I have been had. If its a hoax, i totally fell for it, because it seems legit to me. Would you remove your warning though as I was obviously not trying to insult anyone, I was just discussion possible content for the Chris Crocker article. I could have added it into the article itself but I chose to discuss it.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

according to another user that has messaged me on my talk page, the video was indeed posted by crocker and is not fake, however the incest depicted is a hoax. Seriously please remove your warning as my edit was not at all disruptive.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Myheartinchile, I agree with Gwernol here. The way you addressed the subject came off as accusing Crocker of incest and why didn't we include it. You can post a link with a softer approach saying according to this video of Crocker he seems to making out with his brother, should this be mentioned. Your entire approach to that article has been confrontational so you might want to rethink what you're trying to accomplish.

boi

00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have worded my comment more carefully, I certainly wasn't trying to make any claim as to whether or not the comments were justified. (I didn't mark it resolved by the way). Clarified here.

I just want to say I do add comments where necessary, and the WikieWikieWikie is really my tag for a minor edit, although these usually are in strings and constitue major edits. If I add references or drastically alter the facts within an article I say why. Usually it is necessary to use WikieWikieWikie on the introduction, for edits on the sections generate an automatic summary, and I usually use this. If I write Introduction if my edits are on the intro I am sure this will be a significant reduction in my use of WikieWikieWikie as an edit summary. I hope this is enough. Otherwise, if I use the minor edit tag along with WikieWikieWikie, will this be Ok??? WikieWikieWikie (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit you say, is: a) not minor and b) should be accompanied by an edit summary along the lines of "converting quotations to use blockquotes template". This is surely true if it was a drastic alteration to anone's previous work. It was all my own work, and the labouratious annotation of the nitty gritty of an articles primary construction is surely not necessary to summarise. Isn't it ovious what it is that I am doing? I suppose you chose this example because it was difficult to find another. This is because there is generally not much to say about my edits other than general attempts at improvement. Alot of the time I edit my own edits. The vadalism you point out is an example of this. I did after all edit the exess text out. It was an accidental addition I meant to delete. I thought the only person this edit might concern is myself!?! Likewise if I edit my own edits. Really the problem is my haphazardness. I agree this does look ambiguous, and potentially could be seen as a cover for vandalism. I will try to look unambiguous through my edits with as many summaries as I can mangage. I can also assure you there is no thought of vandalism. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, looks like our favourite user is back, wreaking havoc on UK game show articles! Nzseries1 (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For the last time we aren't the same person. No I haven't left, Im not confused, and you're making a personal attack at me. your rude comment has already been removed. Never gonna stop Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's back the information never left. I needed that deletion sign put up, for the page is clearly a page on an unimportant person. Therefore it needs to be removed. I'm not a vandal, I just need to know how to put up those deletion signs. --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like he created Benjamin zack in order to "find" it, tag it as a speedy and reap praise as a "buster." I'm reviewing his contributions and may change the block to indef for a vandalism-only account. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

check it out, i have expanded it and its far more than a dictionary definition, perhaps i can make it longer, it has potential would you agree? even if the article isn't up to standards the concept it notable right? check it out again, i added references too.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'...For the romantics out there still wishing to surprise there loved one with an engagement ring there's a number of online tools that will help you investigate their jewellery preferences or design a ring for the special occassion..."

I do not understand how this comment can be considered promotional or bias when there are no links or references to any organisation.

If I am promoting romance or the use of the web and this is forbidden then excuse me but I'm simply seeking to balance the previous comment that people "shop for engagement rings together" as there's still people out there that might prefer to surprise their loved one and why not let them know that theres tools online that can help them do this?

I don't understand your logic? Clarification would be appreciated--Lee0007 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

hi i no u have sent me a message regarding my edit on iagara falls but what i sed was true i have lives there for 22 years and have been on the ride and if u dont beleiev me go and check for urself it is just an intrsting little fact i thought might be added thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyrus20 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I notice you recently deleted a character image lifted from the ABC website citing their own terms of use. I have been replacing and discouraging such images myself based on the same argument, of which I became aware in some long-ago discussions on the topic. However, when asked not too long ago to defend my position with WP policy, I was unable to find anything concrete. Do you know of any precedents, policies or guidelines established on this specific topic somewhere, or are you just going on the merits of the sites' terms of use themselves? They obviously prohibit unauthorized use elsewhere, but any copyrighted material anywhere has the same inherent prohibitions which may be circumvented if fair use applies, so I'm not sure how defendable our position is. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 03:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just following up on this, in case it missed your attention. ;) — TAnthony^Talk 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

190.10.11.103 is a vandal. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Talyllyn was nominated at FAC, but it doesn't appear you (or the article talk page) were consulted, per the instructions at

Please could you post on the FAC page to confirm that you are happy for the FAC to proceed. I genuinely wasn't aware that I had to consult with more "involved" editors, and I apologise if I've stepped on anyone's toes ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You blocked

Wouldn't it have been more useful to ask them to change first? Thanks.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I had assumed that was a bogus account when I saw the change come through on Recent, so I reviewed all their changes to be sure it wasn't a random occurence of doing the right thing. :-)

I'm almost positive Santos has been editing under a dynamic IP while he waits out his block. The IP is in the 76.6X.XXX.XXX range and has mostly been making the same edits to characters names that have been so problematic with Santos. Looking through the history of

Actually, after doing some digging this looks like a sockpuppet of User:Randy Jaiyan, who had some problems with Yamla and KellyAna. I believe at one point Santos25Q asked for both Yamla and KellyAna. I'm going to leave a note on Yamla's page. AniMate 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I filed a report about this Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Randy_Jaiyan. AniMate 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

i was just joking, it was not a serious statement.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

well i thought that since i wrote it in italics and used an emoticon "=P" (a tongue sticking out) and wrote in hidden text <!-- just kidding --> i thought it would give it away, as did my very colloqial "duh". How could i make it more obvious i was being silly and joking in a friendly manner in the future?Myheartinchile (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this SSP case. You blocked Santos25Q for one week for "abusing multiple accounts." AniMate now suggests that Santos25Q may be the sockpuppet of indef-blocked user Randy Jaiyan. Could you please evaluate this possibility and comment on the case page? Yechiel (Shalom) 04:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was messing around with my monobook page and the Wikibreak enforcer, and thought that it would run on Wiki time, not my actual time, and am now in an enforced wikibreak. Can you help me out please? The link to my page is User:Dustihowe/monobook.js. Thanks!! Dustihowe2 (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've unblocked him for now but I feel we may just be deferring the inevitable. --Rodhullandemu 05:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I wondered if you could help me out with something. 90.199.49.250 has requested an unblock. I looked over their edits and those of the suspected sockpuppet and I couldn't see anything that was vandalism and quite a few things that looked liked positive additions. I have not looked very closely, so could you help me understand better? Cheers TigerShark (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for getting back to look. As I suspected, it is far more complex than it originally appeared. As you know far more about the case, I am happy just to know that you are aware of the request. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Boy, it was helpful that he confessed that the account he's been disputing against is really his own sockpuppet and should be banned, wasn't it? I believe him wholeheartedly, and I'm sure you do too. Sorry; I should write that in a way that he could understand. i bliv him 100# <3, & i no u du 2. Let's go block User:SilverOrion right now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why my edit was considered "disruptive". I merely added an image to an article. Is this a crime? Somody (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an image of Carly Corinthos in which I took of during the episode and would I like to know if it is acceptible. If not, May I have permisson to remove all the GH images I had uploeded? --Carly Benson Corinthos Jacks 18:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. We have a serial abuser of multiple accounts, who has several accounts indef blocked, who has admitted to anonymous editing while this account was blocked, and we're giving him another chance? Why? AniMate 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Firefly (TV series) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies.

According to "neutral POV": None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one

Could you advise where on the firefly page to address it's (admittedly popular) mischaracterization as "science" fiction? Obviously I'll save my arguments for the page itself. :)

-- User_talk:76.10.139.103 —Preceding comment was added at 02:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

... "the pretense of a" to "...presents an atypical backdrop for the pretense of a science fiction narrative". ... Please do not simply insert your opinions into articles.

• Well, thanks for the clarification! How is it decided what does or does not require a citation? How is it decided what is an opinion of an author (external or internal)? (Sorry.. I'm new here!)

-- User_talk:76.10.139.103 —Preceding comment was added at 02:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• ... is your opinion and not an established fact

• • So, in summary, as long as I have an uncontested opinion (such as the genre of a show), it belongs on the article page. However, if I want to include (and not have removed) a contested opinion, I need to publish it directly on my website, and then cite it in the article? Otherwise, my opinion needs to be on the talk page? Correct? (Thanks for your patience and help!)

-- User_talk:76.10.139.103 —Preceding comment was added at 02:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Should I check with some other editor?

76.10.139.103 (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent response on my talk page [4]. I responded there but am reposting here. — TAnthony^Talk 21:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

While it has been established that fair use images are not appropriate in a living performer's article to represent what that person looks like, it is longstanding convention in fictional character articles that screen captures be used (sparingly) under fair use to represent the characters themselves. A freely-licensed image of an actress on the street does not adequately represent a character she has played, prosthetics or not. An image from a Harry Potter film is an image of Harry Potter the character, technically not an image of Daniel Radcliffe. You seem to be saying that no fair use image should be used to illustrate a character, and while that may be a valid opinion, there is no specific wording in policy that backs it up to the point where such images can be removed from articles or deleted without discussion. The prohibition specifies living people. Articles like Pauline Fowler rose to Featured status with their images intact because characters are not the same as living people, even if they are portrayed by them.

If you are referring to the use of non-screen captured images like posed publicity photos, the whole reason I asked the question is that I know of no explicit prohibitions in this regard either. I have seen arguments revolving around web site terms of use, or their promotional nature vs. actual program content, but it is a grey area that is not spelled out in policy. Even the language in Template:Non-free promotional is vague enough to arguably allow their use to represent a character. — TAnthony^Talk 02:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a warning for me. I get confused sometimes as to which is which.

I was proud I managed to get an actual real revert in without being beaten to it by a bot or someone else!

Once I was over my proudness I went to dig out the template but you had already done the job for me. *grin*

Thank you Lukeyboyuk (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Disembodied Presence, Never write me again. This "encyclopedia" is certainly two things; innacurate and biased. This "encyclopedia" is certainly not open source. I commend your atempt to provide free information. Allthough it has failed miserably. The only redeeming value it has is to provide an endless amount of pages covering worthless information that is left out of real encyclopedias due to the irrelevence of imformation like "History of Spandex in Modern Wresteling". All of this aside you are not a real editor. So to recap; your point is that I left my opinion on a page with a crude attempt at humor that may offend someone. My argument is that I deface nothing substancial by leaving my comment for this is not a "real" encyclopedia, nor are you a legitamate editor. I am sorry our interests have crossed as I put my two cents into the culture wars and you attempt to be a real editor. Please have a good day. Never write me again and waste my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.16.20 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked 216.171.96.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) early. It seems to be a public library, Guelph Public Library. Now I am told it was only soft blocked, and that logged in users could edit. Perhaps it should go back that way, but I don't actually know how to do that. Fred Talk 22:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to a page of photos of squirrels at different ages of development. The link is to a non-commercial site which is dedicated to squirrel rescue and education. It is not my site. I go to that site for information about squirrels. It is run by a Fish & Game licensed squirrel rescuer and educator. You deleted that link yet left up a link to a page of silly photo shopped comic-strip drawn squirrels made by some kid which even has ads on it. I don't get it. Why'd you delete the link I made but not his? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllAboutAnimals (talk • contribs) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think my queries came from the fact that the AN thread sort of appeared to be "Hey, Why did Gwernol do this" ... "Gwernol blocks user". The clarifications were for me, but I hope they helped the appearance of the thread, which was clear in the end that you were only trying to prevent further disruption. What constitutes disruption, of course, is often a tough call, but nothing was wrong here. Don't want you to get to riled with "who's this Gwynand fellow?" :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism King Barnstar Thank you for helping out with the disruptive edits made by this user, and reverting his/her edits to my user page. Thank you! --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (Talk!/Cont. ) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How come you deleted my page? Talk to me on aim my screen name is lordlactoseLordlactose (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer we communicate via AIM my sn is lordlactose or via EMAIl my email is [email protected]

problem 1 You make it seem as if I am someone deliberately breaking rules and trying to exploit the site. I am a newbie I don't even know what I am doing or why I am in trouble and you are threatening to ban me. How would you like it if someone did that to you.

problem 2 Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. I made and entry about a video that exist on you tube. Isn't that the whole purpose of the site? It is a video and it needs an entry just like everything else.

You depict me as if I am someone who even knew I was being warned. I didn't even know the warning were there. I don't even know how to sure this website, i am having a hard time communicating with you right now.

What is the problem with my post is it because I made it about my own video. Is the rule that the entry has to be made by an independent source?

Please inform me what I did wrong. If this is true can you clear my charges so I have a blank slate. The way it looks now is if I accidentally break a rule I am gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlactose (talk • contribs) 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you clear me so I can edit articles without having to be banned just because of one mistake. I racked up so many infractions I don't wanna get banned from another single mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlactose (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If I cant have an article about ym video how come all of these do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:YouTube_videos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlactose (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You still need to respond to this message —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlactose (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Gwernol, you may find this forum thread interesting: [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=498492&highlight=wikipedia "The editing of wikipedia for the WN cause"]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the above. As your have realised I created it using the Template:Historical Scottish railway companies as the basis. It still needs a lot of work on. One comment thought - Awdry lists the CM&RDT as a GWR constituent (the source of my initial info) and as the CR became part of the GWR in 1930 I feel it should be in the GWR list. --Stewart ^(talk) 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pencefn, I saw your new template on Historical Welsh railway companies. Its looks like an interesting and ambitious project. I have started adding the narrow gauge railway that have Wikipedia articles. I have a couple of questions for you though. First, I'm not sure which railways should be included. What defines a "historical" Welsh railway, as opposed to any other kind?

Second, I'm concerned that the list is going to get very large. Even if we restricted it to railways that have Wikipedia articles, I suspect there are several hundred articles to add. If we added all the Welsh railways, there may be upwards of a thousand railways, I'd guess. The template will be larger than many articles, and could well take up the entire screen for some users. It might be worth thinking about how to deal with this. One simple solution would be to default the template to being closed.

Also, I removed the template from a couple of categories, since in general categories should contains articles and other categories, but not templates. Best, Gwernol 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking your points in turn - (1) I do not think the template will get as big as the Scottish equivalent (which I am taking a break from at the moment). My definition of historical is defined as those listed in Awdry (basically - pregrouping); (2) Have a look as something like Ayr and Maybole Junction Railway. Here we have a stub article, with the template added. Default closed is the way forward; (3) Finally as regards categories, I followed the Scottish example and transposed the categories. I am easy either way.

I suppose my aim was to trigger some interest in a template. The Scottish one had its origins in a combined current and historic companies which was split when the number of historical companies started to exceed the current open routes. --Stewart ^(talk) 23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow!!!! - you have really been busy on this. I am very impressed. I had not realised what I had started. --Stewart ^(talk) 14:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

CM&DRT

Our messages crossed :-) Regarding the CM&DRT, I'm afraid this is an example of Awdry being wrong. The CM&DRT became the Corris Railway in 1864. The CR wasn't acquired by the GWR until 1930. The CM&DRT was never owned by the GWR. This is covered (with sources) in the Corris Railway article. Best, Gwernol 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem - Timeline as I understand it was CM&DRT (1858) >>> CR (1846) >>> GWR (1930). Mostly closed 1931. Nationalised and finally closed 1948.

CR was independent up to 1923 so is definitely an "Other Line". --Stewart ^(talk) 23:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Amusing, no? Somehow, I think the Wikimedia Foundation would tell them where to shove reject their donation. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but why are you deleting my article? I'm trying to contribute and you mark it as spam when its an article about an order just like all those other orders you have info on here, some with more info some with less. I'd like to add this article pleasee thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkbreed (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

...for protecting my page from vandalism. I go away for a few days, and chaos breaks out.

Any idea what prompted this outburst? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi this is the source regarding that statement: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/nyregion/12spitzer.html

Have a read through and you will not find jewish or jew anywhere. Just my 2 cents.

Try reading page 3 of the article. It clearly states he's Jewish. Gwernol 18:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

my mistake, thanks for the clearup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercury888 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, on the block of

Apologies if I just caused an edit-conflict there. Rudget (logs) 14:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The article claimed he was a national champion BMX racer. That seems to meet the standard of A7 to me. Darkspots (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going on memory here--I thought he said he was a "13 Rookie National Champion" or some such. Darkspots (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for looking into it. It's probably not worth keeping as an article--there were a ton of ghits but nothing seems to be panning out--but I couldn't keep looking into it w/o the article there to refer to! Thanks for restoring it. Darkspots (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet you get a big kick out of being the Wikipedia State Trooper - I can see you now, marching up stridently, taking off your mirrored shades, stepping up with your toughest geek face and giving a good old warning to your old nemesis, Googie Man. "Be nice son, or Ima gonna have to block you!" I've told you three times now to just keep away from me! Remember those words! So my words are this - you obviously don't have a life. I have a beautiful woman I have sex with, and don't have to piddle around all day telling people what and what not to do, because I don't need such nonsense to feel good about myself. Do what you gotta do Dirty Harry Gwernol, as I've told you I don't give a flying fuck. Why you of all people....oooh I'll bet you'll REALLY think you're sticking it to me when you hit that block button. Go ahead...make my day. Googie man (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If this wasn't enough for you "make his day," Googie man just attempted to intimidate me by implying that he's aware of my location.[5] --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for joining in with us at FAC, your reviews are much appreciated. However, when recommending a copyedit, please direct people to

I did notice that, however some of the listed members will happily copyedit an article if you ask on their Talk pages. —

talk ~ edits

) 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

LOCE isn't looking like it will survive MfD. Anyway, Gwernol, I stopped by to thank you for your prose reviews at FAC; several editors who regularly review prose are out for the next month, so your help is really noticed and appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a Dispatach with some general info about FAC reviewing: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gliese_581_c&diff=next&oldid=216105168
Here's a little evidence to refute your support of this user as not a vandal.
Notice the removal of the reference for the perihelion isolation (line 119). 24.77.204.120 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:REDYVA gave me a warm message when I newly registered on Wikipedia, why is he now blocked? What did he do wrong? Chimeric Glider (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC) _____________________________________ LORDLACTOSE- your right that particular site got removed but go down to the bottom of the page and look at the websites at the bottom under "pro eugenic sites". Can you explain to me why 3 of those sites get to stay there, don't need to explain the mankind quarterly sites existence.

Lordlactose (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone is campaigning to add "gynoid" to the Kristanna Loken article again. I saw in the edit history of the page that you had previously handled this issue. I really don't want to get into a revert war over this (or anything else for that matter). My understanding of the word is that since "android" is in the dictionary and "gynoid" isn't, inclusion of the term in the article probably isn't appropriate. It's probably more of a political statement than it is an improvement upon the grammar of the article. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention at

How did I do?--

WP:LOTM

) 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Gwernol. Just wanted to say thank you for the barnstar, it really is appreciated. I had been wondering for sometime whether I was being too efficient as a WikiGnome to be noticed by anyone, I mean, I've only been here two years and contributed >10000 edits! There again, I haven't given a single barnstar myself, yet... (PS - if this sounds like I'm moaning at you for not doing this earlier, I'm not, really I'm not!)

Well done with your own tireless efforts too. Regards, EdJogg (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elaine Paige I think I've addressed all of your concerns. Thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gwernol. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

Please go to

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gwernol. I am contacting you because I am at my wits end with Planecrash111 and am not sure what to do. On multiple occassions he has warned me for vandalism when none occured, then later I discovered that he was creating abusive sockpuppet accounts for vandalism and insertion of nonsense, then when I would remove said nonsense he would log in as Planecrash111 and start doling out the "warnings" again on my talk page. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Granted, the aforementioned 3 accounts have been blocked, but now I'm left to wonder are there others I'm not aware of? What other disruption is taken place at the expense of other well meaning editors time and effort..? If he would leave me alone, I would just as soon drop the issue, but I recently fixed a formatting issue at Jeff Gordon and was warned again for vandalism for doing so.

Thanks in advance for looking into this, I appreciate any help or advice you have to offer. JBsupreme (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Apart from the above problems that JBsupreme had to put up with, User:Falcadore and I had problems with him at Sébastien Bourdais which were really exasperating. The guy is just a non-stop pain in the backside. He deletes portions of articles and then sends vandalism warnings to other users, blaming them for it. He even edits other people's talk page comments so that they don't make any sense, then he accuses them of not being able to type properly. Blocking him is just the most wonderful thing anyone could have done right now, so thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for removing that from my user page here. Everytime I tried to revert it using Twinkle, I got an edit conflict with his further harassment. This stems from a series of reverts he made to page for actor Ashton Kutcher where he provided false information that the actor had died on that date. Seeing as that was obviously false (and yes, I did look on Google News, despite I knew that was vandalism) and i gave him a series of uw-biog warnings that escalated every time he made the edit. you can see the history here. seeing as it's been two weeks since he's made these attacks, I think he's learned his lesson and/or you scared him off and/or he got eaten by a grue. Nonetheless thank you for reverting those attacks. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's no problem at all. I kinda guessed you were busy anyway. Thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Also see this discussion re recent vandalism...Best wishes, --Badgernet (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwernol for reverting that badger rubbish on my talk page, clearly that IP has been infected by a nasty case of bovine TB! Tmol42 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about killing your reference on Out of this World. I didn't realize you had edited the article; for some reason the interface didn't throw me an edit conflict message. Odd. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL And I thought maybe I was going out on a limb with what amounted to a final warning after 2 edits! But seriously, thanks for the block, that was a good call. No way was it anything but a SPAM account, so I'm glad you used your discretion. Doc Tropics 01:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review on

Maybe not, but there are plenty of bloodsuckers, as you know if you've filled your gas tank lately. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That is the most random comment I have ever seen.

Disc.us.sion

13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, **hahaha** I get it now. That's a good one. :-)

Disc.us.sion

13:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. After some comments from a few other users, I condensed the plot section. Please check it out.

Maybe you didn't see my message. Please look over the article again for more comments.

Disc.us.sion

07:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

HEY? Are you there?

Disc.us.sion

05:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! :D I will get on them straight away.

Hey again. The article has undergone a copyedit and some more improvement. Check it out!

Disc.us.sion

17:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Didn't see my message? I'm starting to feel like a stalker, lol.

I just wanted to say that I read the guidelines. I was under the impression "External Links" was a collection of links but it seems I was wrong. Still deciding if I want to post anything on the "discussion" side like the guidelines suggested. --Spike (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On June 30 you left a final warning on

...is asking for an unblock. Thoughts? –

Will do. Thanks for the link, I've never seen that one before. cheers, –

talk

) 01:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - it worked smashingly. It quickly sorted out a troll from a possible constructive contributor. Thanks for the advice! –

talk

) 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wish I'd known about the {{
  talk
  ) 16:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

heh... thanks for the backup. cheers, –

talk

) 17:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you check your reversion of the use of the {{Whyte}} template? The template uses   so the types are not able to wrap across lines. I have tried the page at various window widths and don't see any wrapping occurring as a result of the use of the template, down to page widths around 200 pixels. Which entries are you seeing wrap? Thanks, Gwernol 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It was the wheel formations for the fairlies wrapping over three lines (laptop on 1024 wide) - the dashes are probably the issue (not the spaces) - should they be em-dashes. The column is only six characters wide.

As regards Prince, I tried to sort that out (which did should not have been reverted). Thanks to that. --Stewart ^(talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Same thing has happened on Llanberis Lake Railway‎. --Stewart ^(talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say I increased the block on 72.76.78.177 as the user has been a long-term problem. See also, 72.68.127.189 72.68.117.227 GDonato (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

chill out, i wasnt trying to vandalize anything. it looked like wikipedia had been removing the pages of old accounts. it was just some house cleaning. good grief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.111.101 (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

this is exactly why i left wikipedia. people have a right to vanish. these accounts havent been used in two years. i try to delete them and you accuse me of vandalism. you remove my tags. allow the accounts to be removed. please, stop bothering me,. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.111.101 (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Right on! Stick it to the man! --Eedo Bee (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday You noted:

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Heliocentrism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Gwernol 22:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you please explain why you thought that this was "commentary or my own personal analysis"?

How does it differ from the paragraph in "Philosophical discussions"? Would you not agree that If we were to use the a broad definition used above then that paragraph would seem to give commentary and personal analysis. For example "These ideas can be found in a range of Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic and Latin texts." has no supporting notes, and is lacking a formal tone due to it being vague. There are many other such examples in the artical.

If it just a matter of references I have several references of quotes that support my entry that was deleted.

Thanks for the help. This way I can improve my efforts in the future.Richwierd (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have been unable to locate the standards for “formal tone” that you noted were expected. Would you please give me the Wikipedia guidelines on “formal tone” ?

Thanks Richwierd (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the edit that I objected to: [1]. Since you did not provide a published, independent source for this edit, I can only conclude that it represents your personal viewpoint. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that all information must be verifiable from reliable sources. A second core policy is that articles must maintain a neutral point of view which means that you cannot simply include your own opinions in articles. If you have a reliable source that states this viewpoint, you are welcome to re-insert it into the article along with a citation to the source. Thanks, Gwernol 00:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richwierd"

Sure, I have some good published, independent source now. Before I post again I need some help.

I have not been able to locate the Wikipedia guidelines on expected “Formal tone”. Would you please let me know that link?

I would like some help in differentiating the post that was immediately removed from the posts that have no supporting references (or even a note saying a reference is needed) that make up the majority of the section in which this post was removed. Would you help me find that information in the Wikipedia guidelines?

No need to have any edits removed after the time and effort is spent to make them.:) Richwierd (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this user had a personal attack against you, and he was also doing it to me. I warned him, but he persisted. I think he should have a final warning, or be blocked right now. Thank you! --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What can I say, I am a very harmful person.

--Eedo Bee (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Santos25Q/Randy Jaiyan has returned yet again as MoranRAV4. He vandalized my user page [11] after I expressed my belief that he's evading his block again. I'm assuming he decided to call me a sockpuppet of you and User:TAnthony because of this request for checkuser on his latest incarnation. I'm fairly certain the checkuser isn't necessary as this is ridiculously obvious, but I'd like to get something official linking these accounts so that blocking future edits by this user will be easier. AniMate 19:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hy, look I'm a bit tired of the whole issue so I'm not going to try to be candid. You have noted that the article "Roman Empire" is the victim of POV pushing. I know my limits and the rules (3RR - but I believe that I didn't break it; I might be mistaken) and therefore I'm unable to fix the damage which Goremite has done to the article (he deleted valuable information, which I might add are not the result of my work at all - check the diffs). If you are willing, and if you have the patience for it, could you please revert the article to the prior version (the article as it was before he simply)? Thank you.

I also want to add that I already had requested semi-protection (check User talk:CIreland, and that the article was protected previously exactly because of the POV pushing that Goremite has done. He appears to have succeeded in his actions. Flamarande (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anything today (it is time to cool down) and it is 2:39 in Western Europe, but I do want to restore the prior version (the correct version - please take a look of my new post about the whole matter in the articles talkpage). I'm not interested in participating in an edit-war at all. The link you provided deals with fully-protected articles. So what should I do? Revert it and then request full protection? Flamarande (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it.Counteraction (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that most UN departments where started by eugenicists.

World Health Organisation is openly funding China's one child policy, which is very eugenic in nature and prohibits people with dyslexia from having children: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A53938-2000Oct11

These are proven facts, and it's ridiculous if you call this a conspiracy theory.Counteraction (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's this guy coming from? I'm seeing IPs from Canada, India, and so on. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have another look at

Oh, ok. Well thanks for the help. :-)

Disc.us.sion

03:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten something?

Disc.us.sion

03:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. On 4 July, you reverted an edit on this page that deleted a reference to oral sex with men. I really don't care about Ratner, I have no gay or anti-gay agenda, but it seems to me that this sentence is being intentionally reinserted into the article in order to malign him. While it does include a reference, is it relevant and/or within the scope of unbiased tone? Just curious. Erin0027 (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Erin0027

Hi again. I know that you're really busy outside of Wikipedia, but could you take a few minutes just to look again at the Elaine Paige article as the nomination for FA is coming to an end. I've had a good copy edit done and all of your problems I hope have been addressed. Many thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice it in my watchlist until I saw that he had been blocked for attacking other editors, and looked to see who. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough notability to remove your tag since the recent changes? Best, --Achim (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You sent a message to me saying that if I edited RyanLupin's Talk page anymore that I would be banned from changing anything on wikipedia. First of all, let me explain, I feel that I am in the right, because I deleted my OWN posts. I was writing to Ryan about why my edit I wrote on pacifiers was deleted, and I noticed that I wrote it in the wrong area. So I deleted the response I put (as a person that wasn't signed in....75.23.152.205. I just got an account right now as geowhizkid26, I didn't realize you had to sign in to change stuff. So anyway, I wrote it in the wrong place and I noticed it, and I moved it down to the bottom of the page. The only thing I deleted were the things I wrote, but you put them back and you sent me a scathing notice saying that I would be banned from writing here if I did anything like that again. I DID NOT delete a single thing that other people wrote under his Talk page. I feel this scathing warning was unjustified and not correct. Please respond back. Thank you -- Geowhizkid26 Geowhizkid26 (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I really appreciate it. And I accept your apologies. I will be using this name from now on. I didn't realize you had to get a screen name to do things like editing or whatever (Well, you can edit as a unknown, but it doesn't seem to be such a good idea now....I didn't realize that you could have a user name, I wasn't knowledgeable about that...sorry....so, yes from now on this will be what I will use. Thanks Geowhizkid26 Geowhizkid26 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote an entry on Sapiosexuality (my first entry), which I felt was written rather professionally and in line with all the rules as I understood them. The deletion notice states that you removed it because there was "not enough context to identify subject". I'm not sure I understand what that means. Tidy Monster (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Any free time?

I have blocked both phonetic variants of the good penguin for harassment of The Rogue Penguin (talk · contribs) and for abuse of sock accounts. It seems pretty obvious that they are Video777 (talk · contribs) logged out, so I have reset and extended his block accordingly. Please feel free to review and/or adjust any of these actions. --B (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite certain how to create a new section on the talk page, so please forgive me if this in incorrect, but i edited the page not because of censorship, but simply because the quote was incorrect. Rosie O'Donnell did not say "nigger" on the air, she used the term "the n-word." The network would not allow that racial slur to be broadcast over the air. The same is stated on the Rosie O'Donnell page in the Controversies section. It was definitely not done for censorship, as i am just as much for free speech as you are. Chad (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems after dozens of AFD nominations I have lost my mind and can't get one right. I saw you added a 2nd AFD nomination tag. Was the article ever listed before? If it was and I didn't notice, its just another source of personal embarrasment. Montco (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

K thanks. I had to make sure since I have made a hash of some of my recent AFDs. Cheers Montco (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in removing the unsourced edit, I shall modify my edit notes in future to a more suitable form. The user involved has been adding similar spoilers to articles relating to Telford Steam Railway's proposed extension to Buildwas for some time. WaltTFB (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask you to look again at the full protection of Roman Empire. The edit warring is really one-sided, with one editor blindly reverting to a version that even includes spelling errors that had since been corrected. When I warned this editor for 3rr, he logged out to continue reverting (so I blocked the account and IP) and has since created a further account and continued. The aforementioned editor has a history of using multiple IPs to edit war on this article against the near unaninmous consensus of the other editors. I only held off using semi-protection because there is another, static, IP that edits the article in good faith. I would ask that you consider changing the protection to semi-protection which, whilst causing collatoral damage to User:209.90.146.105 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), would deny the IP hopper the ability to game the system. CIreland (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My original plan had been to use semi-protection if blocking did not work in order to stop the obvious sockpuppetry and then see what happened. I fully protected the article a week or so ago which happily stimulated a great deal of talk page discussion and would obviously agree with renewed full protection if the removal of sockpuppets did not prevent edit warring. CIreland (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

CRIreland, you are completel misrepresenting the situation. Only Flamandrito and Brando support thhe stupid 476 date. A huge number of editors support 1453, not just the anon whose opinion you seem to want to crush. You also give a green light to Flamandrito to behave as he likes, violatet 3rr edit war and slander. When acting as an admin you should have a little bit of integrity. Goremite (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello to you too. English is not my first language, but I am quite fluent and I cannot see any personal attacks inside this comment. It is just above this comment. Goremite (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You make too many links at me! Saying that you sound like a trained monkey would be a person attack if I said it, but I am too much of a gentleman for anything like that. What you specify does not sound like personal attacks. Sorry. Goremite (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol, more than 24 hours have passed since the last posts in the Talk Page of the "Roman Empire" (at the "John Bagnall Bury" topic, which support the end date "(476 /) 1453" or even only "1453"), I can only believe that no one else wishes to dispute this further (and I thank them for agreeing to end this), so please stop the page (semi-)protection, I don't think there's any reason for it anymore (and yes, Goremite can now change that end date if he wants, his actions are now justified). Cody7777777 (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Would User:CCWWuss's mass prod-removal be considered vandalism? -WarthogDemon 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was watching one prodded article that he had removed the prod. I replaced it because to me (unless I'm a bit slow - it's possible) it didn't seem like his explanation coincided for the reason of the prod. I asked him that if he removed it again that he clarify a bit more. If he does remove it again, for whatever reason, I'll AFD it. Thanks. -WarthogDemon 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That guy was a real pain. I would have notified the admins if I could have reverted his edits at the same time, but this works just as well :) Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gwernol,

On User talk:172.163.123.77, the IP is abusing the right to freely edit on his/her talk page after that IP was blocked from editing other pages already. Can you check it out? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a bunch. Hopefully things should settle down now :). Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I added some good info that was clearly missing from the "Online casino" article here - currently in one section it speaks about the benefit of betting the bonus prior completing wagering requirement. Earlier/currently there are some explaining key sentences clearly missing and currently the aticle´s reader can´t understand about what benefits are talked about in the "cashable bonus" section of that article, because "benefits" are mentioned, but never explained WHAT the benefits are. This is the addition I made to clarify: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_casino&diff=225710728&oldid=225710087 - but you seemed to have reversed that my useful contribution as a non-reliabale source. I compared the sources with the other citations on that article, and this seemed to be at least as reliable as citation source numbers 2,4,6 and 12 on that same article. That source I took info from has some reliable and advanced articles/pages about the online gambling topics written by the site administrator, for example:

http://www.winnergambling.com/sports-betting-bingo/sports-betting-guide/
http://www.winnergambling.com/forums/winnergambling-blog/263-12-7-2008-lucky-unlucky-casino-poker-content.html
http://www.winnergambling.com/forums/online-casinos-casino-games-softwares/14-interesting-data-post-about-variance.html

So I´d say this source is as reputable as the other mentioned sources numbers 2,4,6 and 12 on that article at least. The admin seems to be an experienced professional gambler (the content writer).

I think you should take another look into that addition/modification of mine and maybe reconsider accepting it. Thanks.
Regards, Pokahplaya (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't understand the comment you left on my talk page about this users talk page. I only reverted the page back to what it once was. It looks like people were teaming up against the individual and picking on them. Am I wrong? Please clarify. Thank you. Briankervin (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For the revert on my userpage. I recently started using

I never properly thanked you for helping with the anon who kept blanking my userpage, among other things. Thanks. Zazaban (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for getting back to me about the reversal discussed two notes above so fast. You wrote to my talk page: "...Some websites do have such an editorial policy but I couldn't find any description of such a policy on winnergambling.com.". I think you missed an answer on their FAQ page (http://www.winnergambling.com/contact/site-info-faq/) about this policy. I noted that it says (mixed in another answer so it´s easily missed while checking fast): "...Also, on all our articles and information/guide pages we have a policy that they are based on true mathematical thruths and formulas and cannot be altered via advertising or any other methods. We have an editorial/publishing policy to keep our guides independent, based on the formulas and mathematical truths we have developed/learned around gambling (publisher is the administrator of this site) along many years of professional gambling experience. Formulas and instructions are widely accepted among the gambling community."

So I think this publishing policy is at least as acceptable as most of the other citated sites on that same article, like citations 2,4,6,7 and 12 -> I think my addition was valid and should be accepted - especially when it fulfils clearly missing information from the article (article currently produces confusion what the mentioned benefits really are mentioned on that point without my addition).

Regards, Pokahplaya (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

The user Lycianaff‎, who also seems to openly admit to using the sockpuppets Lycianaff1 and 76.166.188.163, is on a not so slow motion vandalism war against the Wikipedia page Lycia Naff. She is claiming to be the pages's subject (Lycia Naff), which is already enough to stop this person from being allowed to edit it. But besides that, she is repeatedly blanking the page, deleting data, rewriting it as a vanity page, removing the Notes, and leaving her own comments to other users not to edit the page. She is now leaving messages that she will take legal action against anyone editing/reverting the page . She also just left this charming message for user Troy07, who among many other editors, has reverted her vandalism:

"what the fuck is wrong with you. stop editing my page. ignore me and focus on your own life. every time you edit my page, i'm going to edit yours. leave me alone. if i find out your real name, i will get another restraining order against you."

Since the real Lycia Naff's current primary job is listed as a journalist, I have a hard time believing they would be unfamiliar with the basics of Wikipedia and would well understand that this page isn't a personal resume for central casting. I'm leaving this up to your infinite wisdom, but I feel that this user and the related sockpuppets should get a long time out in the corner. Thank you for any help here. Quenn (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your quick action on this. Quenn (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't actually remember to be honest - I was just trying to avoid the boilerplating that tends to make no sense to anyone but us lot. I'll change it. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've edited slightly to reflect the preventive nature of a block. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gwernol. You have been invited to join list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} to the top of your talk page with the heading ==WikiProject Software Announcement==. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page {{Software invite |~~~~}} with the following heading == WikiProject Software ==. Thanks, Contributions ) 09:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me how to undo a page move?. --SkyWalker (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol - I added links to several pages related to voice and video quality, which you then deleted. If you took the time to LOOK at the links you would find that they are actually useful and informative Adclark88 10.36 US EST 18 July 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 14:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol - You state that you did review the www.iptvtroubleshooter.com and www.voiptroubleshooter.com web site content and found that these were not appropriate links per Wikipedia guidelines. I looked that the criteria listed on Wikipedia and am at a loss to understand how you reached this conclusion. Could you specifically state which criteria you felt applied to these sites? Adclark88

Gwernol - You state that you deleted the www.iptvtroubleshooter.com web site as it is a link to my company home page. This is not correct - my company home page is www.telchemy.com. The IPTV Troubleshooter web site is a free information web site (companion site to VoIP Troubleshooter) that I created as a useful industry resource. Adclark88

Gwernol - You comment that as I created the IPTV Troubleshooter web site then this represents a Conflict of Interest. From the Wikipedia COI guidelines - "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.". In this case, the IPTV Troubleshooter web site appears to conform to content policies and to be a useful source of information on the subject. It looks as if we are not going to agree on this point and should potentially seek mediation. Adclark88 —Preceding comment was added at 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did you block me? 80.42.157.166 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

hi, shall we make the template rail gauge to an infobox? Ideal gauge - i just copy pasted it from some article. me too i think it is not very encyclopedic. But direct deletion - i don't know. Maybe the pro and con of diff gauges can be discussed. TrackConnect (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you wrote on my talk - yes, as said above the ideal gauge thing is rather strange. but i only took it from other articles. There was lot of mess. I only added to the temmplate some very important ones. Hey, scotch was there before! TrackConnect (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

you wrote again, fine. i dont recall where from i copied it, i am already looking around. I definatly didnt write it!! TrackConnect (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

could you as admin help here:

I found where I took the content from, see Talk:Ideal gauge. TrackConnect (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There messageboards are no longer free. Someone has already added the credit card verification.

I want you to add that registering now to use the boards without credit card brings up a page that says that users must have purchased a product from Amazon.com from within a year. This does not constitute a Free messageboard.

The information on the IMDB page is completely wrong.

I would ask you to verify this with someone else if you think I'm lying.

thank you. Lets not allow ads for corporate websites on wikipedia. Lets have a little fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

what is the inappropiateness of that category? The sources are the films. The scenes aren't obscure or unknown. Since they are mainstream films, it can hardly be said that the actors participated in the films unwillingly or without their parents knowing. in the case of Pretty Baby, parental consent of Brooke Shields mother was widely reported. Please tell me what the problem is. Should Wikipedia adhere to the Hollywood/Disney Code of conduct? --CrashTestSmartie (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! who said anything about sex?!? I did not, and it wasn't implied. I resent that implication. Nudity does not equal sex anymore than kissing equals marriage. There are many films that have nudity unrelated to sex, some Astrid Lindgren films, or Bille August films. IMDB is usually reliable as to age of actors. Can you state your problems with this more clearly? Since I'm beginning to suspect you're seeing things which aren't there. Again, these are mainstream films, that's why inappropriateness is highly unlikely, especially in the better known films, such as let's say 'Man in the Moon' with Reese Witherspoon. ???--CrashTestSmartie (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, are you trying to impose your morals on this issue? I don't think that this category should be subject to some political agenda, if that's the case?--CrashTestSmartie (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What's funny about your unblock decline (which I fixed) is that this IP hasn't been blocked in over a month (24 hr block back on June 25th). I went ahead and re-blocked them for 24 hours just to match your decline reason ;-)

thank you. Lets not allow ads for corporate websites on wikipedia. Lets have a little fairness.--Ericg33 (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the matter on FOX News, other news outlets about the place being a haven for illegals and criminals. A gangbanger killed an entire family there,and the gangbanger is also a illegal alien and San Francisco has been running Ads all over the place that it is a haven for illegal aliens and criminals (In US law, a illegal alien is a criminal), and will always be a haven for criminals, as stated by the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage, other conservatives. The ads are all over their TV networks, newspapers and radio, and on the 'net as well. This got Bill and some crime victims really disgusted and outraged about taxes being spent to promote criminal behavior.The link should be restored.65.173.104.138 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be on the FOX News website or on Bill O'Reilly's website by now. Can we lose that lightbulb thingy? I'm new here. 65.173.104.138 (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, San Francisco is listed as a sanctuary city in that article. Appreciate the assisstance.65.173.104.138 (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) :)

Since you have helped me, now I'll help you. I have Googled, just now, San Fransisco/Sanctuary city, and you would'nt believe what I've found. Found the FOX News quote all right, and a pix as well. It is the first thing that came up on the Google Search. There are currently 27 news items about the matter. I'll fish up the one I've found.65.173.104.138 (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cite is http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,387722,00.html Can this be used? 65.173.104.138 (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two related matters in that website as well, one describes San Francisco AS a "Sanctuary city", the other is a video link, all in "Related"/"Related News". Can this be used?65.173.104.138 (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you handle the placement? Thanks. 65.173.104.138 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC) :)

Was placing it, and got knocked offline due to a glitch. Thanks.65.173.104.138 (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

...and it took out 1/2 of the article. 65.173.104.138 (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Can that be straightened out? Thanks. 65.173.104.138 (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've given Skeletal a new sig. Time to run it by you.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gwernol. I see you have blocked the above user. Great. But now there's one IP account which I suspect belongs to him -- 99.229.75.229 (talk · contribs). This IP user keeps editing this userpage, and his general edits are practically the same and on the same articles. I'm therefore almost sure that it is the same person. I've been suspecting that for quite some time. What do you think? Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you kindly tell me how a warning not to try to perform autofellatio is not "neutral"? I believe that the act is quite risky, and couldcause severe pain and minor back injury. I would know, as it gave me a sore back for a week, and I don't want others to make the same mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.158.216 (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

...for reverting the vandalism to my user page. →

Gwernol, take a good look at my user page! I believe it documents that fact that I have been a long time contributor of good articles related to my many years of engineering experience.

So why have I decided to leave Wikipedia? Because I have grown weary of the revisions made by unexperienced people who think they know a subject when they really don't know it. I am also weary of people who make revisions because they "know better than anyone else". In particular, the actions of one young postgrad student who calls himself Headbomb with whom it is impossible to reason because of his firm belief that he is infallible ... and that he and only he "knows better than anyone else". His attitude has finally been the last straw in making my decision to leave Wikipedia. I am simply tired of trying to reason with the likes of Headbomb.

Goodbye to all the friends I did make here in the past two and a half years or so. mbeychok (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. StaticGull  Talk  12:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That article was for an actual film, I see no reason for it's removal.SUPERSHIPTIME (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reverting vandalism made to my user page. Chamal ^Talk 13:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize that what I entered in the article regarding Ken Livingstone was technically true, it did not belong in the article. Why though would it warrant a one week block? It should simply have been an error with a warning.--Comradesandalio (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Can you give examples please? You warned me about Livingstone. I also got one warning on the article on Rob Knox. But as I soon as I got that "warning", you blocked me already.--Comradesandalio (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol, I am sorry for causing disruption. I will not cause them anymore. Thank you. RS1900 11:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is clear that she is not DPM. I'm not saying she is officially in the post, I'm saying that she is his right hand. HOw else to you say that but an acting note? When he's gone, she does PM Questions and if he dies, she become acting PM. Unless and until he formally names someone DPM, she de facto is. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if we never including acting officeholders, we'd have a lot of blank and false sections on our boxes. David Paterson has the same thing, albeit in a less constructive way than it once was. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gwernol,

My name is Christopher Hooper. I am the photographer who was sponsored by PROMPERU to capture Machu Picchu with my full screen 360 x 360 photography. This can be verified by contacting the office of Vladimir Kochera, the former Peruvian embassador to the US directly in Washington DC. This one tour is part of a much larger project designed to digitally preserve all of the ancient ruins of the world. We are currently constructing the same thing for Chichen Itza. This time with the sponsorship of the Mexican archeological department INAH and the Departmente de Tourismo de Yucatan.

These tours after completed are given in donation to the respective tourism bureau for their own promotional needs. These sponsorships are not easy to get, and many people, including government officials, in all related countries came together to ensure the very best imagery. By closing the parks for these special photoshoots and accessing areas that people will never be able access in real life, we have truly captured the essence of these important places.

Because they are donated, they are funded in part by a simple Google adsense campaign. A far cry from "promotional in nature" it barely pays for the cost of production, but it does help.

This contribution was made to the Machu Picchu catagory because millions of your users will never have the oportunity to travel to Machu Picchu, most of them simply want to learn about this truly important place. We have recieved countless thank you letters from visitors who felt like they were really there because it was shot with this very new full screen 360 x 360 technology.

I understand that it is your job to assure that the listed contact is valid and true and I thank you for this. This content is important and needs to be shared with the thousands of students, travelers, and interested parties who use it and enjoy it.

Of course I ask you to feel free to edit the copy however you deem necessary, but most importantly, please include it.

Thank you for your time.

You may find out more about my photography by visiting my gallery here > http://www.VRWorldGallery.com

I can supply you with countless referrals as to my credentials and skills if need be.

Best regards,

Christopher Hooper 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)~~

FYI, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Question - Ban for multiple sockpuppeteer. Garion96 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Since that cabal case has already been opened, shouldn't go there and reject the mediation, or request that it's closed? --Enric Naval (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please follow established deleting policy? TrackConnect (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

i did move again, pls revert me TrackConnect (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean, this leads to no good solution. Pls revert my second move. TrackConnect (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, move it back to

Cape gauge. I even got to know it first under that name. That's probably the wide spread name for it (no source for that, but I don't contest that). TrackConnect (talk

) 16:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

A few days ago in the article on Ernest Rutherford, you reverted his nationality from NZ to UK, with edit summary "And yet sometimes "obvious" is not the same as "correct". Could you explain your reasoning further, preferably at Talk:Ernest Rutherford, where I have listed several possible reasons and would like to know which if any is correct. Dirac66 (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you program in BASIC or Z80 assembly? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you have tried to block the aforementioned user before, but this time hes gone too far. Hes linking the recent death of Tim Mclean (Greyhound Bus Murder in Manitoba) to Jihad and calling the man who did it a Muslim (the ol' Muslims are evil thing). He linked sources to unknown right-winged websites with no credibility. He keeps switching it back to what he wants. Not only that, but on his recent contributions page, he seems to make frequent edits to Jewish individual's Wikipedia pages.

Like an article on Rob Knox, he edited the page so that it read "Karl Norman Bishop, a 21-year-old Negro from southeast London, has been charged with the murder." He inserted the word 'negro'.

I dont know if you can do anything about this - but I thought I might bring it to your attention.

Thanks

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol! Would you like to help me to improve SMK Semera? I know a lot about it but I just don't know how to elaborate it. I'm really STUPID right? Could you please ask something about that school so I know what to write?--Mark Chung (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

The user Lycianaff‎ has returned to their slow motion edit war (editing the article Lycia Naff) and is again demonstrating why subjects of Biographies shouldn't be allowed to edit them. A quick glance at this user's talk page may give you a reminder of their standard procedure. They slowly pad out the article by inserting myspace quality vanity edits and then go to war or threaten legal action against anyone who edits or reverts "their" page ("Stop changing ME!"). I may be speaking for myself, but I don't think anyone really cares that the subject of this bio is a "motorcycle enthusiast", needs a complete listing of every show this person has appeared in, or wants the contact information for their agent, all of which keep slowly being re added to the article. When the user is reverted enough times they blank the page and/or then add thinly veiled threats under their main name or a sockpuppet ("what the fuck is wrong with you. stop editing my page" or "Page cleared for inaccuracies by Lycia Naff" and the charming "if you don't contact me and explain, i will take legal action") or change the page to something incredibly inane ("hi, this is lycia naff. i have lots of credits and fun things to say." or "this is Lycia Naff, in the cyberflesh. More to come. From me. The reel real scoop. Stay tuned."). At a minimum, I don't think this user should be allowed to edit this page. This user has been more than fairly warned and advised of proper procedure over and over again on their talk page, which they have ignored repeatedly. Besides the self stated conflict of interest, this (unless I'm missing another sockpuppet) appears to be the only page they ever edit and their account exists only to "fix" what they perceive as their vanity page. May I suggest that they are never going to change, and that any contributions they are ever going to make to Wikipedia are going to be either negative or self serving? Quenn (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw you were the last to block User talk:211.28.54.73 and he/she is at it again ([12]: [13], [14]). Would you mind taking action again? Thanks. dfg (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol, could you have a look at one of your Ffestiniog pics - "Taliesin and train crossing Cei Mawr embankement" ? I really don't think that this is Cei Mawr, as - amongst other things - it has a low wall along its edge. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Helli Gwernol, In

• 1672 is really (5 ft 55⁄6 in)
• 1668 is really (5 ft 52⁄3 in)
• 1664 is really (5 ft 5½ in)

Surely they can be corrected??? Peter Horn 01:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am back to playing around once more. Is that okay?--71.80.8.126 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, based on recent contributions. I am also aware that you edited your signature, so I've blocked both your IPs. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwenol, thanks for your thoughtful edits on the John Michell, Author article. A newbie keeps posting incorrect, slanderous material on this living author despite your warnings and mine. 91.84.237.105 reversed 4 edits of mine and I believe this editor is either a sock puppet or a puppet master for user jpontoli. Please help with this newbie who is trying to villify this author with lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC) SageMab (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask for your help with this article again? Various spoilers have recently been added by unregistered users including an addition to 'The Future' that bears no relevance to the current railway or it's future plans. Many thanks. WaltTFB (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that he is still abusing picture policy since his last block. Someone should keep a watch of it or look into it. — Realist² 18:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mr. Vandal" is back. I suggest we keep a keen eye on him for a little while. He has recently edited the Banjo-Kazooie Nuts and Bolts talk page. Keep up the good work. --Anfish (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the {{

I am ready to play around again once more. Is that okay...--71.176.11.31 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol, are you familiar with this individual? I blocked the IP for 31 hours, but they've asked for an unblock. They were given a second chance, and appear to be cooperating. Are there extenuating circumstances here? GlassCobra 22:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am ready to play around again once more. Is that okay?--71.176.59.210 (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol, this guy is the same as the one above (obviously) and just vandalized a

page. E Wing (talk

) 11:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to play around...--71.176.59.210 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is NOT A PLAYGROUND! E Wing (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, more pages like Breakfast and Sega is edited by me (because I wanted to play around like always...)

Gwernol, I suggest that please lengthen the blocks on the above IP's, since this kid stated that he will just vandalize more articles after his blocks were over (as stated in User talk:71.80.8.126. Thanks E Wing (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol, from reading your edits in the edit history of John Michell (writer) User talk:91.84.237.105 is at it again on the article talk page and using 81.171.186.74 as a sock. See bottom of talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Michell_(writer)&diff=prev&oldid=237663307? Is there a problem on this talk page with administrators dbachmann and moreschi? Thank you.WoodyMoor (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of that old "

• Hollywood values out of touch, poll says - MSNBC: March 8, 2006
• Garance Franke-Ruta, Hollywood Values Save America! - The American Prospect: March 23, 2007
• Andrew Breitbart and David Ehrenstein, What are 'Hollywood values'? - Los Angeles Times: September 26, 2007

So I think those sources are good enough for an article about "Hollywood values" - after all, Wikipedia documents the "culture wars" over hollywood with articles like

Article is at Sittingbourne and Kemsley Light Railway despite discussion on talk page. Could you move it back and protect from further moves? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks regarding:

1. Whether the proposed Disputed Islands infobox is neutral in its presentation of basic article information
2. Whether there is a valid reason to exclude the proposed infobox from the article

I should note that I am involved in the discussion, but I do not want to influence your opinion should you choose to offer one. I merely want some uninvolved editors to view the discussion and then offer an opinion. If you choose to participate, please post your opinion in the RFC comments section there. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am back to play around once more. Is that OK?--162.83.114.18 (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol You had helped me with my page last February. After several adjustments it finally got approval, or so I thought. After having the page up since February, I was a little taken back to find out that the page had been deleted in September. I am not sure what information you have on the deletion, but I would appreciate your input. Thanks Sweetpea03 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When a user is indefinatily blocked, it is not the same as being banned, is it?

What's the correct procedure to open a discussion on whether or not an editor who is currently blocked should be unblocked and allowed a chance to show that they can contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. Such user to fully understand that if allowed back they are on probation and the block can be reimposed if it is shown that they haven't learnt from the imposition of the block in the first place? Mjroots (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You can make a request at

the administrators' noticeboard. Jehochman ^Talk

20:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are the Administrator who last blocked 139.184.30.132. Your block started 19 April 2008, with a duration of 6 months. Vandalism began right after the block was lifted, and has been escalating as of late (see

I would like to inform you that all my recent changes were made in the sandbox, however, I don't know how to work Wikipedia very well at all, so it is likely that my edits were put onto the actual pages of the topic I made in the sandbox because of some sort of technology bug? I don't know, but perhaps my profile was hacked. Please believe me that all changes made on actual pages were not on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingweasals (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is a battleground between three editors (

I've been aware of the situation for a while, an currently it is at informal mediation with no sign of any progress being made. Would the next step be RFC or AN/I? Wherever the issue is raised, I'd say that all three should be given a fairly short ban from editing the page for any reason, including vandalism (say one month), with a one year block for violation of said ban. They would be allowed to communicate via the article talk page if they had any concerns over the article. That would allow enough time for other editors to work on the article secure in the knowledge that they are not going to be reverted by one of the three belligerents. Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark Chung (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:Flaming/MC2008

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Mark Chung (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)