User talk:RxS/Archive02

This is an archive, please use my regular talk page.

That was funky. Do you deal with people like that often? Prometheus^-X303-05:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the block of 207.235.223.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); this IP has been blocked four times now. This IP has continued to vandalize after being blocked three times. I have noticed that there are geniune and legitimate edits coming from this IP address, and have requested that the user who is editing legitimately sign up. However, I don't think increasing the block by a day each time will get the message across. I would humbly request that the block be increased to a week, to try and get a message across to the vandal. This will also encourgae the genuine user to sing up. Kntrabssi 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, won't happen again. What would be more appropriate so i know?

I've set the ball rolling for a WP:RFC survey to start, discussion is on the GRFA talk page. Please comment. Borisblue 04:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, vandal-fighter! I must say that I come bearing ill news, unfortunatly. I am an goodf (at least I think) historian, and am currently re-writing the articles of Doclea, Zeta (state), Rascia, Travunia, Zachlumia and Pagania. User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles. That would vandalism if he didn't actually think that way. For instance, he is deleting and changing (to a strange way) the beautiful lyrics of the poet Petar Petrović Njegoš (see?). I am afraid that my slow connection and little free time will not leave me enough time to revert all the incorrect date, unfortunatly. HolyRomanEmperor 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your message in my talk, after HolyRomanEmperor said that I delete or vandalize articles which is just another lie. For instance I have never visited Rascia, Travunia, Zahumlje and Pagania articles. As you can see above, he said: "User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles." Plz just see the history of these articles. Serb nationalists, write articles according to their mithology, not according to facts. They are trying to change history of Bosniaks, Albanians, Croats and Montenegrins. When I try to improve the article, they just reverte it or say as above person do about my "contribution". I expect from you to be more neutral. --Emir Arven 10:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I aplogize, for I was not presice. You only vandalised Petar Petrović Njegoš and Zeta (state) articles. The greatest proof is the word "ko", existing only in Serbian and Montenegrin languages that you changed to "tko" existing only in Bosnian and Croatian languages. Even if the word was used in the Serbian and Montenegrin, it is still vandalising of the beautiful words written by an exellent poet. This is obscure anti-Serbian and anti-Montenegrin. User:Emir_Arven, additionally, didn't explain his edits in the talk page, which can clearly be stated as vandalism. HolyRomanEmperor 10:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Petar Petrović Njegoš said that his mother tongue was Serbian (the Montenegrin language didn't exist until only several years ago) One of his greatest works was Mirror Serbian, and the basic school textbook was The Serb elementary reading book. It should be pointed out, that all rulers from the Montenegrin Petrović dinasty were Serbs, and the matter if all, some or none of Montenegrins has nothing to do with that fact HolyRomanEmperor 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One most important thing. Njegoš was a vladika (a bishop in English) not just Orthodox Christian, but of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In 1836, Njegoš printed The ABC of Serbian and in 1838, The Serbian Grammar being the first to politically formalise the Serbian language in the southern territories. HolyRomanEmperor 11:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Njegoš also published the first passports, school certificates and other documents which regarded as the nationality Serbian, rather then Montegrin. And the people of the then-Montenegro identified themselves as Montenegrins and Hillsmen which seperated further onto Serb tribes, which User:Emir_Arven changes to Montenegrin clans HolyRomanEmperor 11:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving it to you to revert the incorrect edits of this potentially-a-vandal user (since you are an admistrator, and like I said, I am a historian and a writer, not a experienced wikipedian, no matter how much I wanted to be) HolyRomanEmperor 11:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, administrator for using your talk page to discuss this subject, but as you can see at User_talk:Emir_Arven, User:Emir_Arven has been deleting (and archiving) all of my posts, which I can interpret only that he either refuses to personally justify his edits to me as a result of bizarre and/or obscure nationalist tendencies or simply cannot prove or give arguements for his edits. Once again, you have my most sincere apologies. HolyRomanEmperor 11:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emir_Arven continues to edit Oj, Svijetla majska zoro; the national anthem of Montenegro. He deleted the original lyrics just because they implied of Montenegrins' close relations with the Serbs. He deletes the links to Serbian sites and the fact that the anthem's writer was a Nazi collaborator (de facto President of the italian-controlled puppet state of Montenegro during World War II). He also added the Controversy part, explaining that the anthem was abused by Serbian nationalists. He was blocked for 24 hours, but now continues to change those pages. What can be done? HolyRomanEmperor 11:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you lock the article of the Montenegrin national anthem, after my last edit? HolyRomanEmperor 13:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you keep spreading incorrect info. Pathetic. As I can see you are blocked for 24 hours. I was blocked because I didnt understand 3RR, when I was trying to protect compromise that Millos and me accomplished (Mesa Selimovic), but other Serb nationalists tried to destroy it. I didnt delete the sentence Serb historians say about Nazi collaborator, Sekula Drljevic. --Emir Arven 18:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, Administrator, but I must make a correction: User:Emir_Arven has acused me of lying to you about the fact that he deleted about Sekula Drljević. Please look at this history part: [1] As you can see, that user lied. You may think twice before believing his statements that I was a lier. Additionally, he was blocked after being warned twice about the 3RR, and I after I atempted to revert his (unexplainable) edits. HolyRomanEmperor 15:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. I just reverted the previous article that you and Nikola destroyed (this was my comment: 11:37, 27 November 2005 Emir Arven (why did u delete the whole section *controversy?* (i think u should not insult different authors, that is very rude)). When you started to make some effort, I left the sentence. As I said befor, you are really pathetic. --Emir Arven 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your note; I understand. Given the turmoil over the ArbComm and proposed process (which does appear to counter general user input), I also think a dual approach – largely as Jimbo has proposed, but flipped on its head – is the correct way to go. A migration of power from users to upper echelons will only serve to alienate Wikipedians more, and debates in any format can be just as divisive if they aren't moderated properly. As well, if anything, the fact that certain discussions have run amock (and not ours!) points to a dual lack of user restraint and leadership in administering them ... both of which can be rectified through diligence. Ditto for those who persevere; to use an aphorism: if a person of authority cannot take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. Perhaps, in addition to administrators and mediators, moderators should be in place to guide discussions appropriately without resorting to dispute resolution or descending into online chaos?

I hope Jimbo, in his wisdom, sees all of this. Given all of this, I'm curious what user reaction may be next year at this very same time. Thoughts? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 07:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using your page to adress User:Emir_Arven, administrator, but he does not cooperate in his own page (as you can see at User_talk:Emir_Arven): How can you call my edits "destroying"? You have just written a part of the article that is POV, put absolutely no source to it and appearently written it based on your research which is totally against wikipedia's No Original Research policy (explain it to him if he doesn't understand, administrator) HolyRomanEmperor 19:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to bother you again, administrator; but User:Emir_Arven is restless. He reverted my edits on History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (without adding further to my explainations on the talk page) just mentioning mysteriously yes in the edit summary. I only interpret that he was trying to lure me to break the 3RR rule (which I cunningly evaded) He also has a tendency to use the "filthy" words like can be seen in here: [2] There he said: Jebes zemlju koja Bosne nema litterrally (I apologize for this inconvenience) meaning: F**k the land which hasn't got Bosnia in the Bosnian language, additionally having a nationalist secret line, against the non-Bosnian countries. HolyRomanEmperor 21:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are really, really pathetic and again lying behind my back. You are trying to deny Bosniaks, as Serb war criminals did during the genocide that they commited in Srebrenica. I ask admin to stop this vandal to destroy articles related to Bosnia and Bosniaks (including a constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina). He is spreading incorrect information, lying (as I showed you earlier). Muslims nowdays dont exist in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because they returned their historical name:Bosniaks, but you keep spreading incorrect nationalistic information, showing that you are the kind of nationalist that supports policy that Radovan Karadžić and other war criminals conducted.--Emir Arven 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RxStraneLove, I just want to show you that HolyRomanEmperor is trying to brake 3RR asking other user (User_talk:Obradovic_Goran) to help him in his nationalistic behaviour. Really, really pathetic. Just read: Pih, I need to ask you for another favour: History of Bosnia; vandal User:Emir_Arven has (unexplainingly) deleted my edits. Please revert the vandal's change to my last ([4]) I cannot, it would be 3RR violation. The vandal just said "yes" and deleted important info. HolyRomanEmperor 17:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC) --Emir Arven 23:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't realise I reverted it three times. To be fair, one guy is telling me exodus can only refer to the Jewish exodus from Egypt, and the other is telling me an exodus is synonymous with ethnic cleansing. Does get annoying, Doesn't matter anyway, I prefer the current wording. :) --estavisti 07:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emir_Arven was appearently appearently trying to lure me to break the 3RR rule. As you can see, I have explained everything on Talk:History_of_Bosnia. As you can see; no one added any other post whatsoever to my explaination, and the user kept reverting my changes (which can thereby be considered as vandalism) HolyRomanEmperor 12:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish futher to state, administrator, that I want to discuss the matter with that User, but he has impolitely refused (as commented already when I talked about him ignoring or deleting my posts on his talk page) I am open and good-hearted; but if someone does not want to discuss, why is he changing the articles to his bidding (unless being a vandal?)? HolyRomanEmperor 12:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I ant to know one more thing, administrator: Is there a wiki-place where I can vote and/or express general opinions about wikipedia (francly, they're bad, but I want to state so = no one interested in the acurracy of articles; no one watching the articles; 25% of wiki being POV, etc.)? HolyRomanEmperor 12:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If your an admin, try to block me. That would be hilarious.--Greenfan200 21:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you just reverted vandalism on George W. Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and weigh in (there's a bit of a large discussion page, so be prepared.) Hope to see you there. -Mysekurity ^{(have you seen this?)} 01:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support for my RfA. I will do everything I can to justify your trust in me. Awolf002 03:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was quite a strange account. I personally don't believe that the user is editing with a bot. I think the issue here was that a lot of good faith was lost after the discovery of two intensifying articles written by the user, interspread by a number of welcoming messages. After the block, the user immediately created this account and continued the same activity without explanation. The user edits from an AOL IP, so the blocks have resulted in quite a bit of disruption for those users. In retrospect, I suppose the decision to block was based on a judgement call, so if you wish to unblock, please feel free to do so. You might want to run it by Jtkiefer first though; I personally don't mind either way. --HappyCamper 04:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:VMORO is not allowing me to add the most recent estimaes for Bulgaria's ethnic Bulgarian population (see the pages history) because he claims I self calculated the numbers even though I have sources. He also includes Bulgarian Ministry statistics which are much more unverifiable than the ones I put. This edit war has been going on a long time (akin to the one in Romanians), I'm wondering if you can help me. Antidote 23:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if im blocked i would like to see the "humph, humph" in emotion when you think im gone.

Hail Anonymous6, Greenfan200

Hello, that guy has been changing the Ramdisk page again with his utterly horrible english!

As a party to her RfC, you might be interested to know a request for arbitration has been filed towards deeceevoice Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice.

-Justforasecond 18:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should be informed that you are on the [black listed]. I wouldn't worry or anything if I were you, just conceal any personal information he doesn't have about you. No need to make things easy for banned users. Izehar (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA, which closed with a 24/1/1 outcome. I will do my best in the position I now am in. Thanks again, and see you around Wikipedia!

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would just ask you to stop people who think that Wikiepedia is a place for wars and alliances. Check this two: User:Izehar and User:HolyRomanEmperor. They are destroying earlier efforts to make compromise. They are spreading incorrect information about Bosnian language etc. This is really pathetic. --Emir Arven 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of manipulation is here:this when User:HolyRomanEmperor asked VMORO to help him> Look: [3]; puh, I have never seen a person so violent as User:Emir_Arven. I suppose that he is a Greater Bosniak propaganda. HolyRomanEmperor 18:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also showed you here, that this person lied twice about my contribution, when he said that I edited the articles which I never visited. And btw what the heck is Greater Bosniak propaganda?! Such thing does not exist, there is just Greater Serbia. What should I do? --Emir Arven 20:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting in my recent RfA. I was overwhelmed at the turnout and comments received.

Ian ≡ talk 07:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me, or is there a lack of vandalism today?--Jay (Reply) 02:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use a tool for reverts? I noticed what seems to be a standard message in your reverts, Popups isn't as neat as yours... -- Jbamb 02:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thx for quick ban... Jbamb 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the movement? Reply here. Thanks. --Kin Khan 02:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rx StrangeLove! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. First of all, happy holidays!

Second, re. ArbComm elections: please feel free to either edit the rules as discussed (add comments! :)) or to fork it into another section or official (or soon-to-be!?) page. Remember: nothing is carved in stone – the ruleset in my personal space is an attempt I spearheaded with a few others (in open discussions) to codify a common ruleset (with consensus) that everyone can follow, while not succumbing to the pitfalls commonly associated with doing so in Wp. As such they are a starting point and work in progress ... it just so happens that one of the Arbitrators (IMO, a conflict of interest) took exception to these/my efforts (perhaps due to me calling her to account regarding lack of tact and discretion) and without previously discussing any misgivings publicly. But these are whole other kettles of fish ...

I hope this makes sense. I do not have IRC (WTF?) but have Trillian (MSN, et al.) Please let me know if you've any questions. Happy editing, and happy ho-ho! E Pluribus Anthony 04:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm amidst other tasks presently, so I can't chat here extensively or use Trillian (which is, yes, a cross-platform chat programme that should be able to IRC, but I haven't fleshed this out yet). At first blush, your edits to the rules generally seem fine; the only thing I'd suggest (since this wasn't touched upon additionally in our discussions) is to retain the proviso of candidates not voting for oneself but for other candidates: voting for oneself is frowned upon in RfA. I will take a thorough gander in the next day or two. I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony 05:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a gander in the next day or two. Remember, this process is supposed to be 'patterned as closely as possible' on the RfA, and voting for oneself is a significant diversion from RfA. I think a mere Wikipedian's ArbComm candidacy implies entrenchment (would a candidate vote against oneself?), but I am not rigid on this point, though, and it can be removed if there's majority or unanimous opposition to it. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 05:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know ... obvious, isn't it! That's why a vote for oneself (in a public forum such as Wp) is pretentious, which is likely why it's frowned upon in RfA. If votes are near-parity, even moreso; if not, they're unnecessary. E Pluribus Anthony 06:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; I agree with your position and, yet, do not. The practise of prospective admins not voting for themselves in RfA, and patterning the ArbComm election process after it, is sufficient precedent and my guiding reason for not encouraging the practise here. I suspect (if such votes are allowed or such a rule is unstated) that some voters and admins may view self-votes with either indifference or skepticism. Anyhow, I'm not rigid regarding it either, but don't see a reason to buck the trend just yet. E Pluribus Anthony 06:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we are asking them ... if not inviting them to (since, as candidates, they are also voters) ... but I believe that to be a circular question/discussion. ;) E Pluribus Anthony 07:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I just wanted to thank you for your input regarding the ArbComm election process and alternate/simpler rules: they seem fine, niggles notwithstanding. :) I truly hope that all of our efforts result in a positive, effective process this year: some recent discussions and actions have given me pause, but I'm forever the optimist. And we're still awaiting feedback from Anthere (who is reportedly swamped), upon which perhaps this show can get underway. Let me know if you've any questions; thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 21:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That page has been deleted multiple times. I don't know, as the ability for non-admins to see even editors of deleted edits has been removed, but I would guess that that IP had been involved before. That IP removed the deletion warning a number of times. Due to the stated policy change I can no longer access even my own deletion history to see how many times I reverted its removal, but it was at least four. I left a warning on the talk page of the IP, which has been blocked in the past for similar stuff and the talk page of the article's creator, who is almost certainly the IP that was also involved. I ask you to check the edit history for proof, as I am no longer able to see it. This IP editor responded to warnings by vandalizing my user page, telling me to buzz off on my talk page, and writing that attack articles aren't disparaging when everyone agrees its true. Given all of that along with the past vandal history of this IP, having been blocked just over a week ago for vandalism, I find myself wondering what more actions you find necessary to warrant a block. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The logged in user I'm talking about is User Thistheman who just recreated the page after you deleted it. Please take action. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 23:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rx StrangeLove (you've got a deliciously strange username too!),

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. --Deathphoenix 14:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to give this guy a wake up call? vcxlor 03:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Seeing you are an admin I'll leave it with you - but if you see his repretition, clearly one who dosnt take no for an answer! Best Wishes vcxlor 03:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey have a good new year, and yes your user name is great kubricks movie is one of my favourites (note austrlyan spelling) and sellers rendition was short of genius. oh thanks for the vandal help vcxlor 03:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia encourages substituting warning templates on user pages, which I see you haven't been doing. See Wikipedia:Template substitution. Royboycrashfan 07:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! It at first looked to me like some selfpromotion. Cyberevil 11:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting my recently passed RfA. Your comments were really kind, and I will try my hardest to meet your expectations with my new status! --InShaneee 04:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, you rolled back a change to another vandal on Project Apollo. Check this out. Those guys are sneaky. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 21:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you like so much saving articles from deletion by re-writing them; why don't you throw a look over there? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another user was kind enough to place a monobook tool that helps with speedy deletions on my page, but it doesn't seem to work quite the way it was intended and it's probably my fault. The program deletes the page and jumps to the speedy deletion list before I can insert the reason for deletion.

I've tried to help stem the flow of garbage, but this site's popularity coupled with the theory that there are more people in this world who are treating this site like a chalkboard rather than like a research/composition/textbook tool greatly saddens me. Band vanity, individual vanity, attack pages, so-and-so was born on such-and-such a date, the list goes on and on. The really disheartening part is the sickos like Willy on Wheels, Wikipedia is Communism and the North Carolina Vandal getting their kicks out of playing cat-and-mouse. As far as the anonymous random character/gibberish crowd, they've found a new home at Simple English.

I'm taking a break of indeterminate length to get my head screwed back on regarding this site. I am but a simple radio personality with some rather interesting and fun things starting to happen in my life. I think I'll concentrate on some of those for now. Feel free at any time to drop me an e-mail. Best wishes, Lucky 6.9 17:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you voted to link the image Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg at autofellatio rather than provide it inline. The template used to make the link is now up for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Linkimage... Mikkerpikker 15:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damned sockpuppets. Wonder who he was? Anyway, he's gone bye-bye. Thanks for covering my back! - Lucky 6.9 07:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help by blocking User:BMXJouster in his vandalism of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Ratzmann. However, he seems to be persisting and using his other sockpuppets to vandalize this AfD page. Perhaps further action should be taken, such as blocking all suspected sockpuppets, or placing the AfD page under semi-protection? Thanks for your help in advance! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, User:Nlu has taken up the cause and is blocking all the sockpuppets. Thanks again for your initial help! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RX. Thanks for explaining your vote. I don't expect you to change it, but I'd like to clear the air. I do understand why the name change happened, but wanted to draw attention to my opinion that it is still a vote - people vote, votes are counted, admin looks for a consensus. And I'm trying my best with summaries, but I can't seem to get the java thing to work to make me use them. Grr.

As for the 'war on blogs' - I don't like the name, as 'war' is a loaded term, and it's misapplied in this case. Although the main people behind it may be using overly-dramatic terms, I do feel the goal of the project is good - to apply a higher level of quality control to the blog-related articles on Wikipedia. And I figured that it's easier to try and keep things within guidelines by working with it, rather than at cross-purposes. Sorry to waffle on, all the best. Proto t c 09:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - I have tried to elaborate on consensus and what my approach to AfD would be in a comment on my RfA. I know that you find the 'war on blogs' distasteful, and I will agree that it nos not the best name. If it was called 'Project:Clear up blog articles and get rid of those that fail WP:WEB', which is what I treat it as, thenmaybe it wouldn't have such a bad reputation. I know that the GNAA are behind it, but for the most part, they've stuck to policy, and actually made some good contributions ... I was shocked, too! Please take the time to read my comments, anyway, and I hope you might consider amending your vote to neutral. If there is anything else you would like to know to gain a clearer impression, please don't hesitate to leave a message for me on my talk page. Proto t c 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just stumbled across edits by 141.43.210.4 that are clearly vandalism. That IP clearly has a history and has been blocked, but if you look at the bottom of the talk page for that IP the user i seemingly trying to circumvent the block. I'm new to this area of wikipedia so wasn't sure what the best approach is. I thought I'd ask you seeing as you blocked the IP. Thanks. Kcordina 16:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doc.

We're getting hammered with real garbage, as you know. Those little film stubs, even with the posters, basically didn't say anything beyond "So-and-so is a 20xx film from South Korea." No plot, no awards, no nothing. The user seems to have gotten the message and he's making real stubs out of them. Another user is adding similar contentless stubs by the dozens about German towns. I've added about ten new articles in the last week, all of which are pretty good-sized. I don't want to be known as someone who just hits the delete button, after all.

Tell ya what I'm gonna do: I'll toss out the real garbage and leave the nanostubs alone; hopefully, they'll grow somewhat. Drop by my talk page anytime. You're always welcome there. - Lucky 6.9 07:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob at all. Thanks for the feedback.  :) - Lucky 6.9 22:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...would be interested in your feedback. Barring significant opposition, it's going for a test run soon. Radiant_>|< 18:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:St_Anthony_Falls_MPLS.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

Hi RxS/Archive02, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for talking to that anon editor. I commend you for trying to negotiate with this person. The problem is that the issue is already discussed in the article, and it seems like a consensus has been reached that it's not appropriate for the lead paragraph. Just thought I'd let you know. I also added something in the chopin talk so if there's significant disagreement, then it can be added back without silly revert wars. Makemi 22:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take another look at my reference desk question (and new info)? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Kamosuke, I've already tried to talk to him via Talk:South Korea page, but he never responds. He deliberately misinterprets quotes and uses outdated information - he claims President Roh of Korea discontinued any Korea-Japan summit meetings after march 2005, but there was one in July 2005. He claims there is no diplomatic relation between SK and China, yet there is an active official Chinese embassy in Seoul, Korea and vice versa. He claims the UNHCR denounced Korea for "diplomatic war agasint Japan", but there is no such mention on the Resolution. He keeps inserting his POV views and uncited facts into Korea-related history articles, and I don't know how to respond to him. Other editors also reverted his changes on South Korea article, so at least i'm not alone in this struggle against anti-Korea vandal. Any advice? Deiaemeth 07:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't know i was supposed to put the warnings on HIS user page. I will next time he attempts it again - wait, he just did. Deiaemeth 07:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rx StrangeLove, thanks for your support and for your kind words in my (successful) RfA! –Joke 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I furthur explained at WP:AIV. If you still want more details, I'll be happy to explain more. But we can make a safe assumption it's Mcfly85. Moe ε 23:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I feel youre waiting on an explanation, I'll give you one. Mcfly85 is a vandal, in short. Not much vandalizing under his account but CheckUser showed that he created many, many, many sockpuppets to make personal attacks, vandalize and screw up any hope I had at making admin. After his CheckUser run by Fred Bauder was finished, his socks were all blocked. His IP range falls under the 68.18 range. That's how I know it's him. Moe ε 23:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and the quick action. There is a discussion on the talk page (under the title Timothy Alexander) which refers to one past version of the edits by 68.179.175.185 (talk • contribs). While I make every effort to respect the 3 revert rule, in this case I believe it was a pretty clear case of vandalism (the same edit has been reverted as vandalism now by four different editors). The issue was raised on Wikipedia alerts as well (which is how it came to my attention). It is the same edit as 68.179.173.206 (talk • contribs) was doing, as well as Atlant (talk • contribs). Thanks for your attention to the matter, --Hansnesse 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I have not reverted the last addition. Thanks for your attention to the matter. --Hansnesse 03:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, and I will comment on the issue on his talk page. Thanks again for your quick action. I am still researching the claims, but it appears that the motivation for adding the material may be to bolster some legal claim, or general vanity. Thanks again for all your help. --Hansnesse 03:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm afraid our discussion was unsucessful; 68.179.173.206 (talk • contribs) is back at it, this time with the threat to sue for slander (I presume he means libel) on his talk page. Someone else reverted the damage to the article, although your continued attention to the matter is much appreciated. Thanks for all your help, --Hansnesse 08:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from user page You did not block this user because he was not issued a level four warning. However, this user has been banned before. He has vandalized again coming off of a block, and even if he only made one post today, he has vandalized in the past. He has had 14 total warnings, not all of them templates, and thus has been warned plenty of times. I am adding the final warning now, but I would strongly, strongly suggest a week long ban for him again. At least a 48 hour ban. Kntrabssi 05:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, I meant block when I said ban. I understand what you mean about a level 4 warning. However, there are so many instances when many people will all issue level 1 or 2 warnings. Vandals can occasionally collect 15 or so level 2 warnings before someone issues a final warning. I, instead, count the number of times a vandal has been warned. If they have been warned more then four times, and I am adding another, I will request a block. In this instance, I have issued a level 4 warning on that IP, and I will be watching it. I will notify you if he vandalizes again. Thanks for all of you help!! Kntrabssi 07:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am contacting you since you are aware of the problems that have been going on on the pages Total Olympics medal count and a similar one regarding summer olympic medal count. I have put up a note on the incidents noticeboard where you have added a possible resolution. While I've been on WP for a good 5 months now I've never been in need of assistance or been involved in a dispute so I am quite unfamiliar with the procedures and what to do next. both users, Medalstats and Them medals have resorted to personal attacks based upon nationality (funny thing is, I'm neither American nor live in the US!) and most recently, questioning my conduct on WP. I firmly believe the two users are the same person or, best case, meatpuppets. The latest incidents are to be found here. Urgent help is requested.--Kalsermar 23:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the first time I've helped block a vandal. Thanks for getting me to this wiki milestone! -- ConDem 04:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you blocked this IP 82.36.241.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours, just want to point out that this user was blocked for three months on a different IP address, 82.45.55.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). (Compare the edit histories). I personaly think that a block period of 24 hours is not long enough, as this user has such a history of coming back and making the same edits, ut it is of course your call. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 19:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 16:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, try articles I picked for you that have a cleanup or stub tag on them, more work to do. -- ForteTuba 23:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Brugge_Canel.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A70.97.83.53 - three of us blocked him in about one minute. Which block stands? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. VodkaJazz 15:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Plane-sunset.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 05:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone, I think I uploaded it in the first day or so of finding Wikipedia. It was used on some Aircraft related templates so they'll have to find something else. I removed it from them and deleted it. Rx StrangeLove 05:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a living example of the many punishments being handed out, and the random bullies are numerous and growing. Please read my FAQs page before saying things like what you said again. I compromised, but I will not quit until there is equity and opportunity for all Wikipedians, regardless of their name. And as for "consensus"(which is another thing i'm fighting for, a real definition of what "consensus" actually is), well, if there was ever a consensus against consensus, I wouldn't listen. Doesn't the cabal always say that Wikipedia is not a Democracy? Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 06:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect your right to disagree if you can respect mine. If the things on the manifesto happen, then i'll stop, unless of course, an opinion that goes against that of Jimbo's is enough to remove you from this project, because all people disagree with each other at some point. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clown article will have sources cited within each section as apposed to one all-encompassing bibliography at the end of the page, as per your critique.

Cashincomedy 3/20/06

Hi Rx StrangeLove! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note, it was not a content dispute. It was blatant disregard for WP rules regarding the removal of comments of others, over and over. Charles 06:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here and here. I'm sure there is more, but sorting the mess to find those was hard enough. He voted in between and it was accidentally removed, but I restored it. Charles 07:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Haws Highland Support 651-336-0248 www.highlandsupport.com