User talk:RadioKirk/Archive06

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Snikch13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is his first block, and there are some real edits before today's meltdown, so I did not feel an indef was appropriate. If he continues upon his retur, however, I am sure that will be taken into consideration. . -- Avi 04:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paparazzo

I'm inclined to agree with you as regards this article's properly being an exception to the singular formulation guideline, apropos of which inclination I'll try to offer some thoughts at

Talk:Paparazzo straightaway. In the meanwhile, though, one must contemplate whether Paparazzi (surely a band so styled must exist) are a musical group or is a musical group... :) Joe 16:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, but what of those of us who think that
Talk:Paparazzo, although I'm no longer certain that the plural is appropriate (to this question I devote hours; to things such as, well, real life, just seconds). Joe 05:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, there are those speakers of
Differences between American and British English#Singular and plural for nouns); of course, perhaps I ought, as an American, to speak proper English. To demonstrate, in any event, that my pedantry is as great (or, to use the term others seem to prefer, at least w/r/to me, annoying) as yours, I should observe that the comprised of locution you used apropos of the nature of a musical group is solecistic ("The band comprises the musicians" whilst "the musicians compose the band", viz., the "band is composed of the musicians"). You will, I hope, take such observation in the jocular spirit in which it was made. I'm certain that you'll find sundry errors in this note alone, and I ought surely to have cast out the beam out of [mine] own eye...[in order that I should] see clearly to cast the mote out of [yours], but I've never been much for the Bible. :) Joe 05:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

account hacked

alright well ive done that, but how can i get all those warnings off my record so i dont have all these things stuck on my account when i never did them?

gtapro91 00:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC) gtapro91[reply]

Expansion of Wikiproject Hard Rock

Dear WikiProject Hard Rock members,
This is a notice about the proposed expansion of the WikiProject, so the scope covers

WikiProject's talk page before anything goes forward. We hope start the transition soon. Until then, please, make your voice heard! Cheers. -- Reaper X 22:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Royalnavy.org

I hope my comment at

HawkerTyphoon 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Thanks for that, it's rather more clear than the knives I have thrown into the darkness so far! Happy editing!
HawkerTyphoon 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Confused about
WP:AIV
process

I reported chronic spamdexer

rules
:

√ "Users must be appropriately warned using a final warning template, such as {test3}, {test4} or {blatantvandal} before being listed on this page."
{spam 3} was used with 63.80.97.254 1 day ago.
√ "The vandal vandalized within the last few hours and after the final warning."
I don't understand your 2 hour comment in this context.

Do not list here if:

X "The incident is not vandalism but a content dispute."
It's not.
X "They have not vandalized very recently (past 24 hours), nor since the last warning ({test3} or {test4})."
63.80.97.254 has vandalized (spammed) recently and after last warning.
X "The vandal has not received the full range of test warnings recently (i.e., within the previous week)."
63.80.97.254 did not get the full range all the way from {spam0} since the last block but I understand that the 0-1-2-3-4 sequence is not required for those who have been blocked before, especially so recently and with such a blatant track record.
X "The recent vandalism from an IP began hours (or days) after the last warning — it could be a different person."
This account has only been used for spamming from what I can tell; those edits not made to "External links" sections of articles have been sneakier link additions such as this and this.

This editor has been discussed before on

WP:AIV
was the correct reporting forum and was told it was.

Can you either reconsider this decision or set me straight on what I'm doing wrong? I'd like be helpful, but deleting spam and other vandalism starting to feel like a waste of my time with little to show for it.

Thank you for taking time to read this. --A. B. 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Disregard the above -- I see another admin has just blocked 63.80.97.254 while I was writing the above.--A. B. 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle3801

Hi. I saw you were the admin responsible for a first block of Michelle3801 (talk · contribs). You may need to check her latest contributions, which involve creating an article of dubious value (and truth): Princess Dandia and included a warning that "Do not deleted this whole page or you can be blocked by editing Wikipedia Not Michelle 3801, Michelle 7802, Michelle 4903, and Michelle 1004". Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 01:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance for a new admin, please

With regard to our friend from earlier today,

SOP
for an indefinite block?

Atlant 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I replied to your latest on my talk page.)
Atlant 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair-use

Rumour has it there's been a recent change to the fair-use policy. See

WP:FUC (first point). We can no longer use a fair-use image of a living person as a replacement free image could reasonably be created. Word has it that this came down from Jimbo Wales but I'm not sure about that. Anyway, I noticed that you disputed the change made by another editor on Image:Lohanspeak.PNG so I'm trying to give you a bit of context on this. I am not convinced this is necessary, mind you, but I do know that the majority of images marked as "promotional" quite simply are not, and this will resolve most of those problems. Anyway, I had nothing to do with this policy but I thought I'd pass it on. --Yamla 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Asking for permissions

Hi, RadioKirk! I've see you got some success in asking for an image to be released under a free licensing. Congrats!

But I ask you to, when doing that, foward the e-mail do permissions AT wikimedia DOT org (I'm not sure if you're already doing that). Although I'm completly sure you're not faking these emails, unfortunatelly. I can't say I've never found an editor incapable of doing that. I'm affraid other could abuse this pratice. Hope you understand and keep on the good work! Best regards, --Abu Badali 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

(Moved to User:RadioKirk/Honors with my thanks.)

142.32.208.234

Hi RadioKirk. Regarding your block of User:142.32.208.234, that IP's had a couple of monthlong blocks before and one of three months. Considering that the vandalism has started again right after the last (month long) block expired, I've extended it a little. --

Steel 18:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks!

Thanks for uploading a free image of Lindsay Lohan. As always, your contributions are appreciated. --Yamla 19:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful job!!!

Wonderful job, Radiokirk! Now, do you understand the reasoning behind not allowing replaceable unfree images? The use of a unfree image had virtually blocked the creation of a free one. Lindsay Lohan's article is such a great example of things working the way they should. I would give you a second barnstar right now, but this would make them seem less valuable (the king of thing you get one per week) . :) . --Abu Badali 19:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, consider uploading a higher quality version of this image, preferably using the jpg file format. Low-res is for unfree images only :) ! --Abu Badali 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Do I know you? HP 50g 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped after last, monitoring

User:205.213.113.47 didn't stop after last though. 13 blatant vandal edits, which is why I went straight to bv. He vandalised 4 times after. Gotyear 17:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin blocked him, though I'm still curious why you said he stopped after last. Gotyear 17:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

216.153.209.222 Vandal

Your have previously blocked this user. Can you please do it again? As far as I can tell 100% of the edits are vandalism, some quite subtle, like changing dates by one year. The most recent vandalism was deleting several paragraphs of cell membrane on Oct. 25 '06. Somoza 13:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

As per your comments on [1] page, I would like to put up my new user page. I now understand the past problems and I will put up a user page to corrected specifications. thank you. Is there a way to take a 'template code' of the first user page and for me to delete or modify the content code already used to save time? Netwriter 17:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied my Wikipedia user page code and I am adapting it currently. **PS....Since you are familiar with my TALK pages, I would like to ask you to keep reviewing my personal TALK pages for a renewed combative editing on those pages by Wikipedia member, MikeWazowski. I believe this person's many past & present comments show clear violations of ideals listed here [2]
Actually, I think what you'll find is that Netwriter has essentially recreated the exact same information on his user page that you deleted months ago, RadioKirk, along with quite a lot of new information purporting to be from articles he claims to have written, when in fact (especially in the case of the Star Wars and Doctor Who entries) he's never once edited many of the actual Wikipedia pages, if they even exist at all. On top of that, many of his listings on the Star Wars articles are either skewed, misinformed, or completely inaccurate. Netwriter can claim whatever he wants about me, but my editing history, in regards to him and Wikipedia as a whole, will easily stand up to scrutiny. MikeWazowski 06:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Shows

You do raise some valid points, and I appreciate your feedback greatly. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I'm still getting the hang of it. That said, I didn't see anything all that different between what I added (where these classic shows could be heard) and what is visible in other Wikipedia articles based on pop culture. Of course, for all I know, those articles are similarly flawed, too. So no harm done, and thanks again! McDoobAU93 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal notice

I thought you might want to know that Wikiquote user Mi nombre es Heraldo made an attempt to associate your Wikipedia user name with a vandalism event. It seems to have been part of a series of multiple-user vandalism/disruptions that I'm taken to calling Wazz attacks, after an early Wikiquote instigator called "Wazzawazzawaz". (They are connected to User:Wazzawazzawaz here as well.) If you're interested, there's more information at q:Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard, under the "User name blocking", "Rezilartuen joke mischief", "User:Loslonleys", and "Coming Clean" headings. I wanted to let you know in case this is happening to you elsewhere. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warnings.

Thanks...I figured as much. Only have a few articles I use experiencing vandalism and I wanted to tag them.

trezjr 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vin Scully article

Why is a citation tag nessesary over the fact that Vin Scully called the 1981 (season) NFC Championship Game with Hank Stram for CBS!? Trust me, Pat Summerall and John Madden had nothing to do with the television side. I'm guessing, you're either way to young to remember when Scully worked for CBS, or haven't checked the announcer pairings in the archives. And if you don't want to believe that he left CBS because he was upset over not being named the #1 NFL play-by-play man, then go talk to the people at http://www.dbsforums.com and see if they can back up my statements. Personally, it also isn't meant to be a negative point-of-view statement to describe the announcing styles of Vin Scully, Pat Summerall, and John Madden! And I don't appreciate you removing that screencap of Vin Scully and Joe Garagiola in the booth at Fenway Park during NBC's coverage of the 1986 World Series.TMC1982 29 October 2006 (UTC)

william shatner...can't stand...

(rv: sorry, can't let that one stand ATM; please restore if you have a WP:RS) oh please, you think i was attacking his manhood.

i get most of the data off of the IMDB.

i'll get you your citation.

as a courtesy, you should post a citation request and not delete. [citation needed]

trezjr 04:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

realization

yes, i realize that.

even though all you have to do is see him standing next to someone, i'll locate you a reliable source.

trezjr 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons

Is there some consensus to have flag icons in articles? I see (and have reverted) that User:69.196.136.37 has been adding them all over. Some may have been justifiable but some were not. How is this or this an improvment? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to follow up. I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Flag icons. Rather than just two of us discussing it I think it would be better there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Corrigan

Hi! I'm writting about the years I've wrote and what you told me. I understand, but Icame back to the site, and here is it :

HAPPY (..) BIRTHDAY BRENT CORRIGAN (...) Last night my friends threw me a 20th Birthday bash and (...)


Then, at the end, we see that :

"This entry was posted on Saturday, October 28th, 2006 at 3:53 pm and is filed under Day 2 Day Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site."


So I though it was a good proof.


DaliJim (30 oct. 2006)

Blocking of user

I noticed that you blocked this I.P. 202.89.50.15 once before. I'd just like to let you know that he's been blocked 3 times already, and has a number of 'last warning' notices on his page. Could you please check this out? Thanks - CattleGirl talk | e@ 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Rock music

Well, after nearly no response, the expansion of WikiProject Hard Rock has gone ahead. We are now officially known as

User Wikiproject Rock music
}} to your userpage.
I hope to see you around eh? Cheers. -- Reaper X 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I got one of these too. Wanna go over and argue about flag icons in the infobox? :) CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of shared ip 207.165.196.1

Hey. Your block on this user doesn't show to non-admin eyes as Anon-Only; can you review and set it to AO?

We've had a complaint to unblock-en-l and I'd like to tell them that they can create and log in to an account to get around it, etc...

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 21:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! Georgewilliamherbert 21:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Ryan image

I tagged that image as replaceable while processing your email to permissions(at)wikimedia. The understanding I got while reading the email was that Sony was confirming that the image was a promo pic, not confirming that it had been released under a free license (and based on your tagging of the page, it would seem that you had the same impression. If you think they meant to release it under a free license, I can contact the guy and try to get a formal statement of release out of him. If they were only confirming that it was promotional, however, the image would fail FUC #1. --RobthTalk 20:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Permission to Wikipedia, unfortunately, is not considered sufficiently free; we aim for full reuseability. This being the case, I'm going to reinstate the tag on the image.
On another note, I see you have listed as confirmed two of Owen Ryan's images. Is Image:Joggle.jpeg one of the promotional images he mentions in his email regarding The Passing Zone, or should I be looking out for a second email regarding that image? --RobthTalk 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly offensive language in edit summary

Regarding your comments on this diff... Please avoid using abusive

edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. --Abu Badali 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

About the Trivia

Oh well sorry tell me what i have to do, because everything else such as movies have trivia. Why cant POTC have it?

Editing

Can you help me edit or give me advice to find reliable souces next time I edit or input something? It was my first edit large for Lindsay, so I did not know what to do. I apologize for all the mistakes that I have made. can you help me next time? thanks for making Lindsay Lohan a featured article! :) Mtsangswom15 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

what would be a reliable cite for a movie section?

vandalism

I reverted some vandalism on your page. DJJJ 12:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC) There is a vandal called Aiden's mum who has vandalised loads of pages. DJJJ 13:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :> DJJJ 15:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I am currently having a nomination for adminship, which can be found at :Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DavidJJJ. Please vote, as every vote counts. DJJJ 12:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McFly

Another McFly sock: User:GeorgeKnowsBest - is there nothing we can do to block the originating IP? I don't have access to see if it's a public or private IP, etc. Oh, and I'm guessing you'll want to indef-block this sock as well. Rklawton 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield-Pittsburgh

This summer you put a flag on my article about the Garfield section of Pittsburgh, asking that the article cite sources. I have added several such citations, and invite you to check the article and consider removing the flag. Spakj1 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use paranoia

It was good to read your comments on the talk page for publicity photos. Seems I'm not the only one out there

concerned
that this will increase stalking (and promote the use of poor-quality camera phone photos and/or cartoonish illustrations in the process).

I got into this after my use of Alice Sebold's book-jacket photo got tagged as potentially replaceable. So, I am trying to do the right thing and get it released.

Was it you, or someone else on the page, who pointed out from actual experience that this is harder to do than some people think? I have been told by Sebold's agents (not that they were easy to find) that the photographer controls the rights to the picture (not well, I've found). They gave me a phone number in Italy. Uh-huh, I'm really going to incur that expense.

And do you really think the photographer is going to be that inclined to release it, or a similar image? Yup, I'd freely dilute the value of my own work.

Weren't we just better off without really worrying about this? Daniel Case 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just put my arguments into one coherent piece at the publicity photos talk page. Daniel Case 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velten

I'm sorry if you honestly feel that way about me. I didn't think I assumed ownership over Gwen Stefani at all; I merely had no idea that EM added those images (and stupidly of me I did not check if they were free, which is definitely a greater concern). I'm still going to do whatever I can to get her and related articles up to better standard. Velten 23:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you placing the material on my talk page? This is my last edit for the evening. See you. Velten 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, just received it. Thanks, bye! Velten 23:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review?

Hi. I was wondering if you could take a look at Hilary Duff (album), perform whatever changes you feel are necessary and leave a comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hilary Duff (album)/archive1? You don't have to, of course, but I'd really appreciate it. Also, the article has some info on the Duff/Lindsay Lohan "feud" and I was wondering if you could fact-check it. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 16:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Lohan

I'm not so sure that doesn't assert notability. She had several films, and her work seemed relevant. Just IMHO. Thanks. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 19:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, have to strongly disagree; she did not have a "role" in any of her daughter's films, she was part of several background scenes and had no lines of dialogue. As stated within the article (and with nothing existing with which to embellish it), we have a mother/manager of a notable actress who's been used in crowd shots, and nothing else. It's a clear
WP:CSD #A7. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
By all means, I'm just discussing, but if
Paris Hilton's dog gets an article, well, you can finish that sentence. :-D -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Eh, concerning Lindsay Lohan, don't you think you're being a little strict with that page? I'm not going to claim every reversion you've made is bad, but it seems like you've reverted some very valid edits as of late. From

WP:OWN, and could this change turn off a new young contributer?), [5] (a very valid contrib, not hard to find a RS), [6], [7] (last two more understandable, but worth mentioning). Hope you understand some constructive criticism. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay, in order:

Further, in each case, the reversion came with an explanation of why the edit was wrong for an encyclopedia article—any encyclopedia article. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's start here:
2 - fair enough. I understood the case, but, by your wording, someone adding it to the page would probably think you just don't like the album (i.e., someone unfair with Wiki's fair use criteria, which were not explained in the edit summary).
4, 5 - fair enough; though it could have been improved, the content was excessive, and it would have been difficult to change.
1, 3 - a different story. Firstly,
needsource}} tag on their page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

WTF??

I love cheese sticks!, Give me buffalo wings... what on earth is going on??  Glen  19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, u there???

Hey, u r right about that, but i wanna say that i´m NOT a fan or her or a MG fan, ok? It´s just that i´ve been thinking on that since a lot of time ago, if ou have played MGS: The twin snakes, you´ll see that i´m not lying. But u r right, this is wikipedia. And, by the way, i think that wasn´t so cool but, u r cool, who cares about that bitch? (just kidding) e-mail me to [email protected] , ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.110.162 (talk • contribs)

Image:EW GoF interview1.jpg

Thanks for uploading

first fair use criterion
in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to
    Replaceable fair use disputed
    }}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. --Yamla 17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, standard template warning, sorry. I hope you don't take it personally.  :) --Yamla 17:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL nah! The powers that be ramrodded this unnecessary, overprotective thing through and refuse to discuss it any further; I guess I have to get over it. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That "ramrodding" makes participation by smart, broad-minded non-literalists, such as yourself, even more crucial. I hope you'll stick around the discussion over fair use criteria, because, in my view, we need more balanced, reasoned voices... not ten admins who want to create a Utopiapedia. (I love that debate has moved from being a purely legal one to a philosophical one. I guess when the law isn't on your side, go philosophy!  :) Anyhow, hang in there -- I'm sure this tide will turn. Jenolen 21:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement. I am still keeping an eye on (the lack of) things... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery Man

After a one month block, he's back uploading unsourced images again. Ya'd think... Rklawton 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an alarming example: Image:HHstatue.jpg. MM first had no copyright info. Then he claims it's PD due to age. Given the date of the advent of color photography, it's not possible for a color photo to have hit PD yet (as best as I can tell). Rklawton 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this guy isn't a MM sock, then he's his twin in violating policy: User talk:Pinots. Rklawton 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/67.177.31.91

This particular user contacted unblock-en-l following your vandalism block at; it looks to me like they were removing the "woot" sections, which you then reverted back in. They then removed them again, after which you reverted to an older version (I assume from before the other involved address,

good faith effort to fight vandalism -- do you have any input or thoughts regarding that, or more specifically, any objection to unblocking them? Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 20:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Totally botched, definitely. :p But with a heart of gold! (or something equally corny) Luna Santin 20:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Stefani

Semi-protection is required. Velten 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How do you think the article could be improved? Do you think there's anything essential missing? Velten 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where No Man Has Gone Before

I just looked in on the article for the Star Trek:TOS episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (I added the reference to Q-Squared earlier today, and like to check in on my recent edits), and I wanted to say that it's an impressive job of keeping relevant and interesting notes from a Trivia section in the article. I've recently seen many edits, especially to television-related articles, simply dump Trivia sections wholesale with no regard for the information they contain (especially edits done by the so-called WikiProject Trivia Cleanup), and I feel congratulations are in order for any editor who makes the effort to incorporate information rather than saying, "It's trivia; dump it all". Bravo. -- Pennyforth 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see a difference in calling it "Trivia", "Notes", "Behind the scenes", "Misc info" or "Whatever". Since each misc entry deals with a particular subject you going to make title headers for them all? Your changes leave WNMHGB a tacky-looking hang nail compared to the rest - so YOU GUYS can go make the changes to the others since I completely disagree with it. Have fun since there are 79 more to go. Cyberia23 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fear not! Morwen appears to be on the case rewording them all now as we speak - and dare I not to make a change since she'll bite my head off for it. However, I at least suggest working with her to make them standard in someway - something I been trying to do since I wrote most of them as they were all a complete mess beforehand. Cyberia23 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for starting to remove those links, been meaning to do it for a little while; I'll try and help you out tomorrow removing them.. the problem is it is spammed to several hundred pages :-(! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over 190 to be exact; and, you're welcome :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. I just couldn't resists helping so I did 55 or so ;-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A big help, thank you. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A job well done - now back to the firehouse for the next callout 8-) --
Charlesknight 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Starting Line

Hang on. I have just located an old mirror site of the biography on the band's official website that I was going to include. --HarryCane 14:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Black Pearl's importance

I ranked it 'high' importance because whilst not considered a groundbreaking classic the POTC series certainly is a big film series, so it is highly important.

Wiki-newbie 19:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Well it's part of WikiProject Films. Look closer at the rating box my friend.

Wiki-newbie 19:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

It grossed $600 million, got a fresh rating on

Wiki-newbie 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

OTRS e-mails

Please don't send so many e-mails to OTRS. One is enough; sending several just means someone has to merge them all or they get lost. —Centrx→talk • 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to check

You blocked the user Pitpif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitly but I'm not sure if you meant to leave 24.190.131.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) out since I suspect they're both the same person due to the timing of the vandalism that I noticed. If this was unnecessary to message you, I apologize. ViriiK 18:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I accidentally block you instead of the vandal you were reporting, very sorry, I have undone it. I had clicked the block button in the users block log, and hit yours by accident. I am not sure if your IP was blocked aswell, please let me know here if you have any trouble. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Emma Watson doctored picture

Hello, RadioKirk! I have commented on the Commons DR for the doctored image of Emma Watson here. In a nutshell, I linked the image to this Russian website here, and the translation basically tells that it's a doctored pic. I've also left a message on User_talk:Charmingchariot1, who was the original user who inserted the picture into the article. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 08:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Thanks for that reply; I just thought it was strange to see it being deleted, as it isn't an article that would usually be a target for such things. --SunStar Net 21:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Virtuosow

Thanks! You saved me a trip to

Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Britney Spears article protection

Please see my query at Talk:Britney_Spears#Radiokirk_-_improper_protection.3F. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is very firm, it's not conditional. So even what you described is not allowed by the policy. The solution is to find another administrator who can protect it for those reasons. I'm sure you can see the wisdom in that. The fact that Jim Douglas documented respected news organizations
WP:BLP#Public_figures
as a policy violation. That is, there are primary reporting sources that documented the event and phenomenon, and Wikipedia is documenting this with attribution and sources.
Therefore, what this boils down to is a content dispute. And thus, I will go ahead and unprotect the article. However, if you can find another admin to protect the article based on content or whatever other conditions that other sysop can justify, that would be fine. I know it sounds strange for me to unprotect but be open to immediate reprotection (ie. "unprotecting without prejudice"). But abiding by guidelines makes your case stronger if is indeed the one that is correct, and is better for the community editing ethos. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done watching the page.
Wahkeenah 18:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It's clear I don't have anything else to add to the article at this point. Maybe on another day, after this latest Britney pecadillo has settled down, by which time the recent incidents may indeed by unworthy of further attention in the article.
Wahkeenah 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

User talk:Jmac baller

Is this something that I could have / should have reported to

Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Good enough, thanks. I try to be as conservative as possible about reporting people there...I don't want to report someone and have it kicked back at me with "insufficiently warned." --
Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

What would you do with this?

Oliver J. Y. Denton is described as a 24-year old historian and author. The article was created a week ago, and it cites no sources. I can't find those books or that name listed on amazon.com, a google search shows nothing, and a search of http://www.bbchistorymagazine.com/ shows nothing.

Whoops, I just thought to check

Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

One more thought...since he saw fit to recreate his hoax, is it appropriate to protect it from recreation? --
Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Should Britney Spears be sprotected?

You and I and others have been reverting a constant stream of crap on

Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Man, I gotta ask, what else is on your watch list? Even
Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

copyright

~~ i do not agree with what you think is right, also the site in mention has copyright access. do not judge before you know the facts

now its not my site i just like the name its funny im not saying every site with the name radio is your site am i. and it does hold copyright threw a license agreement with universal music. also you are editing things that have been discussed and agreed on in discussion


==response== i read it one time the site. why dont you email THAT site if you are so concerned. you have an opinion and so do i.


here is a wiki about my case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Video_Codes


==so that page i quoted above should be deleted?

Flag icons

I am attempting to start discussion of this issue at WP biography. – flamurai (t) 21:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only remove the flags once per day. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have a 3 year old on my lap and forgot the second part. Which is that I don't look for them but only remove if the article appears in my watchlist or RC and I happen to check out the edit for other things. I suspect I am worrying about a future issue that may never happen. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Stefani

I saw you removed "Renee" from Gwen Stefani's name and said that it needed a reliable source. There is a source provided; is Entertainment Weekly considered unreliable? (If I sound accusatory, that's not my intent. I'm just trying to figure out if it was an accident or not.) —

ShadowHalo 05:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The edit itself said "Added sources of Gwen's names. Note: Entertainment Weekly is *very* good about fact-checking", unless maybe you're referring to a different source. I'm going to readd "Renee" to the article (not "Gwendolyn" since there's no source for that) since so far as I can tell, Entertainment Weekly meets
ShadowHalo 06:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I added the reference in the first time it's used, and it occurred to me that it's needed twice since the second time, it says why her parents named her that. Thanks for your help. —
ShadowHalo 20:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Daniel Radcliffe

Can the image be used in other parts of the article, like down below? Since the article talks a lot about Harry Potter. Also, what about the other changes I made to the article? like copy-editing, etc. Soredecider 21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, thanks. For some reason there looks like two versions of the article currently up, but I will fix that and restore the image later on in there. Soredecider 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW more re:Radcliffe's head picture. Can we use any TV appearance/screenshot for the top picture? I.e. [8] or [9]. I just was thinking of putting up something better than the current one. Soredecider 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess that's like a "no"? :-) Soredecider 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trek page edits

I have to ask, why do you make a format change to one trek episode article, and not follow suit with changing the format of the rest - you've done this twice already by deleting Trivia and adding "Plot" headers to one of the pages. I didn't like the change but I couldn't win my argument since after I asked a few others about the change they agreed to your idea - so I gave in and made sure the rest were changed as you wanted. My current concern however is the "40th Anniversary Remaster" in the "

The Trouble With Tribbles
" where you "prosed" the remastering list. Like I said before - I'd like to keep the Trek pages uniform as discussed in the Trek Wiki Project - so they are all the same format. You come in and make a format change to one and then thats it - leaving it a hangnail when compared to the rest. Is this in hopes someone like me will change them all the way you'd like to see it? Because I liked it the way I had it - a bulleted list - and I'm sure you'll go in and revert it again to make your point. All I ask is that if you make a change to one as some kind of standard you'd like to see implemented then do it to them all at the same time.

It's like working in a parking lot full of white delivery vans. An employee of the company in favor with the owner (a person like you with admin perks) comes by and paints a van red - the owner of the lot likes the red van and leaves it to the lot attendant (me, and a job I volunteered for) to have all vans painted red - I take the job and paint them red, but that same favored employee doesn't bother to help me. Instead, he comes back a few days later and adds a white pinstripe to one of the red vans - now I'm told by the boss to add white pin stripes to all the other vans as well. Proud of my lot of vans I'd like to keep them all clean and shiny and do my best work for the boss - but in the meantime I'd like to knock the favored employee in the head with a crow bar. Don't get me wrong - I have no claim of ownership to the lot - I know other employees (in this case other Wiki editors) have to take the vans out for spin and they occasionally come back with dings and scratches which I try to polish up and keep the fleet ship shape. But when an employee comes by to add flare to one van - at least he could help add that flare to the rest.

I've given up trying to protest the action of the employee because it seems that anytime I do (not in this particular case - but in past disputes) - I'm in the wrong and I'm told if I don't like it quit (ie. leave Wikipedia) and if I argue I get threated with being fired (ie banned from Wikipedia).

Hopefully you can see my aggravation. Cyberia23 23:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan

Just thought of dropping you a few lines to tell you that I admire how you have consistently stood your ground on Lindsay Lohan. What a pain to be dealing with all the vandalism! Nevertheless, more power and keep it up! --Chickville 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How many edits do you think I should have to nominate myself for adminship. DavidJJJ 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode)

Ello. I've put this article on peer review, and am also soliciting comments from random editors who have worked it on. Anything lacking/broken/not well-sourced enough? Etc. Morwen - Talk 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta! Morwen - Talk 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

subst:smile3
}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Question: If I take a picture of, say Lindsay Lohan, from the computer screen, or TV screen, will that still be copyvio? Just checking. --Chickville 02:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pictures

A. okey. Thanks for the enlightenment...Ooopppsss...More question: what about taking a picture of a yearbook, website or magazine? (Sorry, just need to be sure!) --Chickville|talk|c 03:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks. Best regards. --Chickville|talk|c 05:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.POV user accusing me of admin abuse

Feel free to chime in here [10]. I'll be going swimming early tomorrow and won't be back until afternoon, so there'll be lots of room for discussion. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it's THAT unanimous, but it looks like I'm "winning" right now (pardon the term). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My editor review

Since you're an admin, could you please give me an editor review. DavidJJJ 17:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_review/DavidJJJ

blink 182 article

yes there is, please look at the discussion before editing, very annoying of you. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Olir (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

block user?

Hi! Maybe you've seen this edit already, but just in case, refer here:[11] --Pinay06 (Talk*Email) 08:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Mystery Man

Has this guy ever contacted you? He keeps popping up on my radar, and the list of warnings on his talk page is most impressive. Chronic. I'm looking as much for your opinion as I am to draw this once again to your attention. I'm trying to sort out in my mind what I would do as an admin. Rklawton 02:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request admin intervention on vandal

Hi, please check edit history of unknown "persistent" vandal on Lindsay Lohan as well as my user page. Refer to:[12]. Thanks. --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 17:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Radio

Considering your involvement in radio, would you be interested in joining the new WikiProject Radio at

WP:RADIO? It is a generic radio wikiproject that handles radio, internet radio, satellite radio, podcasts, and anything else that can be considered to be radio-related. --PhantomS 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Alexandre Frota

Hi. I notice you've made edits in the past to the Alexandre Frota article. I've expressed several concerns about the article on its Talk page; please take a moment to read them and help edit the article to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or it may be deleted.

(If your edits were strictly of the maintenance variety, and this information doesn't interest you, please pardon any perceived intrustion.)

Thanks.—Chidom talk  02:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Time

I was clicking the random article button and came across Fraterville Mine disaster. I noticed that the time of day is mentioned twice there. Should the appropriate time zone be attached to them, or the times gotten rid of? -WarthogDemon 19:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings!

Enjoy this and this --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 04:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Delonge's Myspace

Tom Delonge's myspace on the blink-182 page is fake. That's why I removed it a few times. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Caillou1337 01:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

I trust the grand vacation was great! --Pinay (talk•email) 23:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Doubt

Hey, I reverted the change, and I just want to make sure I have things straight. Month-year combinations for 1998 and before should be linked separately, and month-year combinations for 1999 and after should be linked together, right? —

ShadowHalo 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I was worried for a second that I'd been messing up a bunch of articles. =) —
ShadowHalo 05:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Gabe smith

Don't forget to lock the page after placing the {{deletedpage}} tag on it! 68.161.67.54 21:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshy'z Krazy Lyfe, Lunchroom Confessions

I'm a little puzzled as to why these weren't deleted, the author is a sock of User:Josh Gotti, who was indef blocked for creating a sheaf of fake articles, these are just reposts of that user's prank articles. Tubezone 21:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of speedy delete of redirects

Hi, I see that you've rejected some cleanup work I had started, for unused redirects leftover from page renames. Please note that I did another batch yesterday, which were deleted, so there is now some inconsistency in that some sports don't have this alternate redirect while the ones that you denied do have them. Please reconsider your opinion. Thanks, Andrwsc 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lohan

Just because it doesn't have a web site that Google accesses doesn't make it unverifiable per the policy. Perhaps you should go to your local library. Keelerface 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University Park is a city in Texas whose Newspaper is known as the UP Gazette a la the Montreal Gazette.So that's how.Keelerface 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Foran is being added as a hoax to numerous articles. I have given Keelerface a final warning. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation?

Is that what your trying to point out in your statement "Alternating hands counts as varied, right?." hm... do I smell virgin? hehe. I know this will get deleted by some editor but ooh well.

Actually, im 14 as well, doing research for a school science report when I stumbled across this page. Didn't mean to offend you (laughs slightly). Anyway, it's not my buissness to interrupt in your "personal life", sohave fun with your hands. Say hi to the left one for me.

Why did you revert my edition?

Why did you revert my edition of Britney Spears?

--Ricardocolombia 19:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that!

Yeah i just wanted to apologize! I just realized it right before I recieved your message! I was going to put it but let's leave that for another time Sorry again! =)

Mystery24 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shatner

Actually, Shatner is Canadian ;) Morwen - Talk 22:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand

I'm new, you just deleted my entry on a motorcycle club from the 1960s. Please help me understand why?

Thanks! Charles

Cstatman 20:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

got it. not notable as written. What do I need to add? I am actually hoping for MORE input form others.

one of the most interesting cycle clubs from mid 1960's Austin

Spawning:
a man who left the country to run from the law, and started a bike cult movement in Malasia
one of Austin's first Poster artists
one of texas main underground archivists



but I can't write about it all, because? it is underground.
I am at a loss. Maybe wikipedia is not the right place for it.
Thanks anyhow for the reply. Big props for that! Thanks Kirk!

C  :)

User talk:Anthony cfc

Will you please restore my user talk page immediately; I have not listed it under CSD.

T • C] 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

And all the subpages you have deleted as well.
T • C] 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Any explanation for that?

T • C] 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

My article about a server for arts and culture has been deleted as well. I didn't understand why and I'd be glad to receive some hints. Mdorovska 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)mdorovska[reply]

Protected broken redirects for deletion

Hi, I have found that you are helping out speedy deleting pages. I have found one that needs to be deleted but is fully protected: User:Anthony cfc/about/status.css. If you could delete it I would really appreciate it. Thank you, --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page "WinterKids" Deleted

Hi, You deleted me new page ("WinterKids") earlier when it was nominated for speedy deletion, citing failure to meet WP:N and WP:BAND, before I was able to add a hangon tag. I do not believe it failed these; and besides, it specifically notes on WP:BAND that failure to meet those criteria is NOT a criterion for speedy deletion. Whether or not it met A7 (and I'm unclear on what exactly this requires) your cited reasons for deletion weren't valid, and it should have been put up for AFD. Please could you restore it and put it up for AFD so I can explain my reasons. Phunky 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message on your talk page - thanks for the clarification. Is there a way I can access the content I'd done so far so I don't have to start from scratch? Also, how should I go about "asserting notability"? I've read WP:N but I'm not still sure what it actually requires in terms of content - does it just mean I have to put references in?. Phunky 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heathwood Homes User talk:Trooney2007

Hi. Thanks for creating the page to work on. But I am a little confused. I see there are a number of corporations and real estate developers listed on Wikipedia. For example,

Trump Organization
. I would like to do something similar.

I understand that articles created for Wikipedia must be relevant, notable, and neutral. If the tone is formal, is there anything wrong creating an article that simly states information relating to the company, its history, and its founders? I would also like to link to write about our recent environmental drie, using third-party articles cite our efforts of our creating eco-friendly home buildling practices.

Will I be allowed to work on a temporary article, then post the full thing for someone to review?

why do you delete all my work?

i copied all my work from other bands pages but yet you still find the time to delete everything i do

Xxxbiker 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)xxxbiker[reply]

User:Xxxbiker

You might want to block him now, he's just created an attack article about you RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is Radio kirk is an asshole RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already got it, another admin already blocked him. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Red Light Center

Regarding your comment about giving the author time, how much time? The article has already been there for 11 days, and nothing about that website strikes me as notable. His other edits (

Crossmr 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Well you're the admin. I don't think they'd appreciate me being bold and hacking the system so I could delete the page ;). If he doesn't provide some sources for the claims in a few days I'll take it to AfD.--
Crossmr 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
No worries, I've been trying hard to be a good editor (just look at that last sockpuppet ring I nailed) but I figured there would be you know, a memo or something first.--
Crossmr 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I think after seeing this edit, at the notes section [13] you can probably toast this article.--
Crossmr 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Instead of responding, it seems he's blanked our comments on his talk page.--
Crossmr 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The talk page was cleared on accident due to computer problems. It has since been restored and replied to.--kirbyjh 03:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Speak

I just created an article that was found to be too short, and I was working on expanding it when it was deleted and all my work was lost... There was something about a {{hangon}} tag but it said not to use it if it was my own article which it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azoundria (talk • contribs)

Posted a reply to my talk page. Please talk to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azoundria (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RadioKirk/Archive06&oldid=1143250937"