User talk:Dgies/Archive 3

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 00:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to take into account popular culture. It is ignorant for you to delete any entry without fully considering its validity just because the source of it happens to be someone like Steven Colbert. Steven Colbert is a great man and brilliant thinker. Plus, his wife is hotter than the cyber chick you masturbate to every 16 minutes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.162.136.179 (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 14:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

...for a couple days and blocked that last vandalizing account. Let me know if you want it unprotected before a couple days. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not broken, I'm just using the easy, "fake wikilink" signature, popular a while back. --[[User:Pie Man 360 | UserPage Talk about me!]] 21:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up my user page. I have no idea why I got hit with that.... --Wafulz 22:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.177.47.40&diff=118560763&oldid=117027675 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a school computer. I apologise for anything my idiotic siblings may do. --Digipatd —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.177.47.40 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Not sure where this came from... [1]. -- Gogo Dodo 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's some guy from Toronto who has been trolling me and Meaneager. —dgies^t_c 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For getting rid of that ASCII art on my page. --Wwwyzzerdd 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dgies, good to know you've finally decided to take the plunge. I'll write you a nom right after lunch. :-) See ya shortly. --Húsönd 12:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's done! :-) Don't forget to change the Scheduled-to-end-date before launching it, and please let me know when you do so that I may support before getting too beaten. ;-) Good luck! Best regards, Húsönd 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd err on the side of the user, maybe a 1 day block will get him to change. Many admins started out as "vandal-only" accounts. Yes your attitude complies with policy, but I feel it's too extreme. Jeff Defender 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I brought up your first edit to my RfA to show how I think you found Cremepuff's pages. Xiner (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dgies, I never once questioned your motives in posting my edit details. Xiner (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I merged the votes.

Yes, I made the translation. I know it´s very literal, in fact as you can see I wrote in the edition page this note: !--Correct translation?--. That´s all I can make with my low level of english and over all my scarce knowledge of english poetic resources. Feel free to introduce changes.--Uhanu 18:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reword my translation, obviously it seems more natural now. On the other hand, of course I´m up to date with the article Cantabria/Translation, thank you for the note :).--Uhanu 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have tagged many redirects from titles of Justice League episodes with the deletion reason "Just because it's the name of a Justice League episode should not mean that it should redirect there". This does not appear to reflect any of the speedy deletion criteria. Please don't use speedy deletion tags for things you simply think are bad. If you really think these should all be deleted, you may list them at WP:RFD, but I should mention it is common to keep redirects like these to help people find the closest-related article currently available. Thanks. —dgies^t_c 05:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: ok, then what about reedirects like The Terror Beyond, In Blackest Night, Injustice For All, and other redirects like that, I don't think they should redirect here, because another page about those topics could be written, so do you think those redirects should be keptGman124 17:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Those specific cases have a stronger justification for deletion because they have more generic titles, but it's still not a speedy deletion criteria. They should be listed at WP:RFD if you want them gone. You may with to read WP:CSD a bit to see what qualifies for speedy deletion. —dgies^t_c 17:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I added them at RFD, and i have a question, there I found the tag {{db-redirtypo}}, so can't i use that to speedy delete the articles Gman124 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because these are not typo redirects, they are related topic redirects, which need to be debated. A redirect like "Listt of justic leege spisodes" would be a good candidate for that tag. —dgies^t_c 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank for the help Gman124 18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gman124 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for helping with Steptrip's coach. :-) It's a fact that you have some very good material on your admin coach subpage. By the way, your RFA seems to be going (unsurprisingly) very well. Way to go! Best regards, Húsönd 01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I pointed it out on IRC. It's just a copy of Gurch's text not a template I'm afraid. Also, as he pointed out, I don't think the manual of style is right and I can't find a correct one (if it exists) yet. I'd support someone making a template for it though! Will (aka Wimt) 18:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried making a template that might do the job at User:Wimt/nn-birthday if you're interested. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but my english is not very good, I change my vote in support, sorry  :( --dario vet (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your RfA is ending within the next hour and half (in GMT time?? - what am I talking about) and It seems to be going well and I have no doubts that you will be given the tools, so I'd just like to wish you the best of luck and Happy editing.Tellyaddict 13:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 

Congratulations on becoming an admin, Dgies. Use you tools wisely. Enjoy! :-) Festive regards, Húsönd 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well done indeed!! - Alison^☺ 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well done and good luck! The Rambling Man 16:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. First RfA I've ever been the first to vote on. :-) I'm sure you'll do a great job. Do be sure to kick some vandal butt for me. Heimstern Läufer 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! I'm very happy to see you get the mop, and I know you'll do great things. Good luck! *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep an eye on him.--Wizardman 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the sandwich! It was a very kind gesture of yours. I'll be honored to co-coach a to-be-admin with you in the near future. "Co-coach" sounds funny btw. Best regards (and once again congrats), Húsönd 00:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on passing your RFA! Thank you for the sandwich. I'm enjoying it. :P I am looking forward to do admin coaching with you one day, we shall see how things go first. If you didn't know why wasn't I editing the past few days, it was because I was in a place far from 21st century civilisation. See you around on IRC or here. Cheers Terence 08:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey - I recently noticed you removed the Speedy tag that I placed on the above article. As professional as the article may be written, it is indeed nonsense, and is a copy of Live Bait for the Dead, if you look at the track listing. The article will inevitably be deleted in the future anyway, so a speedy deletion would be the quickest and the least hassle. Thanks ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I based it on the Amazon sales page for it, as well as other vendor sites. Is this some sort of DVD re-release? If so, it should be replaced with a redirect to Live Bait for the Dead, not deleted. —dgies^t_c 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that what Amazon is selling there is Heavy, Left-Handed and Candid under a different name - if you check that article (Heavy, Left-Handed and Candid is the DVD, and Live Bait for the Dead is the CD) you'll see it is divided into two sections. The live concert on disc one is called "Eleven Burial Masses", which is also the CD Live Bait. There isn't gonna' be another Cradle release (The Cradle website makes no mention of a new release) under that name, as that concert has already been released twice, once as the CD, and once as the DVD. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything I can help with? – Steel 19:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Was testing the use of Twinkle for salting, not sure why it modified that page. Any suggestions? —dgies^t_c 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Transcluding an article onto that page prevents creation, have you seen [WP:PT]]? – Steel 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The user created the page while trying to contact me on my talk page. I've moved his comments to my talk page and informed him of the move and gave him a link to my actual talk page. If you could please delete the subpage, that would be great. Thank you Darry2385 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. The page has been deleted. Darry2385 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I deleted it. I got confused for a second because the only contributer was not the person who tagged for deletion, but then I realized it was in your user subspace... —dgies^t_c 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[Copied from my talk page, on the assumption you're a bit busy with the new bucket. Congrats.] Thank you right back!  :-) PS: Any criticism in your RfA was intended only and absolutely constructively. I'm sure you'll make a fine admin around here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, block anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion for more than 5 days (provided there's a consensus), protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=
 PS Please add you name to WP:LA!

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats...--Cometstyles 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A late, but better late than never, I hope, congratulations from me too. You have shown excellent judgement to be an administrator.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your help moving my template to the personal space... 1013-josh 17:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dgies, I think that it may be a good idea to extend the block to indefinate, for this IP you blocked, because of continued vile personal attacks on talk page, and it appears that no constuctive contributions came from this IP. Do you plan to give the IP more warnings first, assuming good faith that they will stop?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As a rule, IPs are not indefinitely blocked because they may be shared by multiple people or reassigned to innocent users. This IP only had a single day of attacks so for now I'll treat it as a one-time occurrence. If they continue after the block expires, they will warrant a longer block. —dgies^t_c 23:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have another illrelevant question. If a talk page of an permanetely blocked user is fully protected, as oppose to semi-protected, but then an administrator deletes the talk page, would that blocked user still be unable to edit their talk page, by creating it again, or would they still be unable to edit their "deleted talk page", being a "blocked user".--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion removes and existing protection, so it would be unprotected. It would only still be protected if it was transcluded onto another page with cascading protection enabled. For more information, see WP:SALT. —dgies^t_c 02:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Polakworrior, who you blocked, doesn't seem to agree that the name is inapproprite, nor do I understand why it would be. I gave additional advice, restating some things that were already said, and trying to say it in a way it would be understood. Perhaps, you can give addition information from here.(You're doing a great job as an administrator, and I hope you are enjoying the extended service to the community. Keep up the great work.)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Polack is an ethnic slur, and WP:UN prohibits those usernames. ("Slurs, profanity and obscenities") I will unblock and file a WP:RFCN case so they can make their case. —dgies^t_c 04:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, those kind of names should be immediately blocked without consideration. I had no idea what Polak meant, but now I completely understand the situation, and if you haven't already, I will let the user know on their talk page.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But I was not fast enough to do it, running into the edit conflict that you got it covered.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It was Wikipedier. I guess I should have mentioned that earlier. Yes, I remember you from when I reported Iwasdeadforever, and you said that you didn't think it was inappropriete, exerising good judgement, and why I supported you. I didn't see it coming, my username being inappropriete. This was hard for me to swallow. So I was in a hurry to change it pronto.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant User:Wikipedier when I said Wikipedier.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that this name is in violation of the policy, I think you can go ahead and reblock. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC

Well here is what I have. Only preliminary concept material, so let me know what further specifications you would like.

Image:Mopnbucket.jpg

Aequo 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good start. The "drawing" part especially is just about ideal. I was looking for something which looks more like an actual manual than an award. So it wouldn't say award, and it would look like a book. Perhaps you could use either Image:Sermon.jpg or Image:Ralph Chaplin IWW booklet.jpg as a base and then using transparency, add on the picture and "MOP & BUCKET OWNER'S MANUAL" in a blocky font. —dgies^t_c 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what you think. Image:Mopbucketmanual.jpg Aequo 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I foolishly used my real name to edit articles, this has led to problems in my real life - please allow the deletion of the user and talk pages thankyou SallyBoseman 16:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You stole my idea! you bastard! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krazykenny (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

  Congrats on the successful RFA.  ~Steptrip 00:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Well, I knew what I was getting into when I saw those opposes, but thanks for remaining civil. Good luck with the mop. Xiner (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 

Hello Dgies, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

14:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh Ok! WikiMan53 t/s Review me! 16:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to blocking his sock by just a moment. However, your block summary said banned user, and I don't think he was ever banned. Picaroon 19:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. I haven't gotten the hang of the new interface on the block page. Aside from minor confusion, no harm done I suppose. —dgies^t_c 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for fixing my talk page! I had no idea what to do, and it was driving me crazy. It was such a big help to me. Thanks again! --PAK Man 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I seem to like this Mop & Bucket Owners Manual so I guess that trading would be ok (although I'll really miss the sandwich). :-) Regards, Húsönd 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Done! —dgies^t_c 23:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that there should be a special "thank-you" award for people who have been helpful in the admin coaching program. By chance I met someone on IRC who wanted to make a Wikipedia award in Photoshop. Through consultation Aequo made Image:Mopbucketmanual.jpg for me. Do you think it should be listed on any of the admin coaching subpages? I'm not quite sure where it should go... —dgies^t_c 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool image. :) You could add a 4th bullet under "Instructions" on the main page (Wikipedia:Admin coaching). Or I'm open to other ideas. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, both for 3RR. I wasn't going to block any of them for vandalism. Especially because the user that was reported had been attempting to discuss the changes on the talk page. I was considering protection as well, but decided to watchlist the article instead. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your report on WP:AE. Would you like to follow up on this, or should I? Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah too late for a block now but I left a warning explaining the arbcom ramifications. —dgies^t_c 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Seems a slightly odd way of going about things especially as there is the {{subst:uw-tpv1}} warning message. Surely blanking out recent warnings to avoid other editors doling out the appropriate warning does constitute vandalism as per any other form of blanking? Maybe that's just my opinion, but as I detest vandalism, I would see it that way! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. It's just rather frustrating when people do blank valid user warnings (i.e. ones that have resulted in a block) as it makes my life (as a recent changes patroller) more difficult! Ho hum, thanks for your time! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 06:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what (if anything) is appropriate for this, but that same IP has removed most of the warnings from his talk page since your last edit. Nyttend 09:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: [2] 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What the... ? I did not break 3RR and there is no need to block me, late or early response. Nikola 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied: [3] 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You might note that fourth revert was to another version of the article, in which I added source for the part that kept getting deleted[4]. Nikola 08:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Sanantonio Productions a well known company? The username seems to be appropriete. The only thing that left me in question was the "productions", and I certainly did not report the user at WP:AIV.--U.S.A. cubed 04:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking for purposes of a possible user name block, I'd say no, leave it be unless they show signs of spamming. The top search hits I find for it are just some MySpace account. —dgies^t_c 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I and others are having problems with two users, User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2. These two user accounts were made within three hours of each other on September 18th, 2006 (so sockpuppetry is suspected) and the users are personal attacking, violation of WP:OWN, among other rules I am not aware of and causing a ton of problems on KDKA-TV and related pages. Some help is requested. Thanks...SVRTVDude ^(VT) 21:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a tricky situation. First, aside from a couple snarky comments, I'm not seeing anything that's an overt personal attack. WP:OWN is policy, but not directly something a user can be blocked for. I'm not seeing WP:3RR violations (but if they exist, please show me the diffs). As for sockpuppetry, while they are almost certainly related, it's hard to tell if they are the same person or just, say, coworkers at KDKA, which would be "meatpuppetry". Even then, aside from double-voting in AFDs, they're not doing major no-nos like block evasion or 3RR gaming. I will cross-post to WP:ANI for a 2nd opinion. —dgies^t_c 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks....I and a couple others are keeping a very close eye on both of them so no vandalism or edit wars break out. I will look and see if there have been any reverts today. Thanks again...SVRTVDude ^(VT) 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at my talk page, You will see some evidence. His "curtain is falling down". I suspect he will start to get sneaky and try to make it look like two people; so I suggestion action be taken. Thanks, --TREYWiki 02:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that the 2 accounts are related, and it doesn't really matter whether they are the same person or just friends. Let me know if you see misconduct besides just the use of 2 accounts. —dgies^t_c 02:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this source reliable enough for you? [5] JAB5 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Done —dgies^t_c 22:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat puzzled at your removal of the article for deletion tag. It is poorly referenced because it doesn't exist! (Read the talk page). (Sarah777 23:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

OK, my bad. I saw Killiney on a map and assumed it was legit. I'll let someone else handle it... —dgies^t_c 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Its a hoax (I think) - designed to look plausible! Regards(Sarah777 23:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

Received your note. I was the one who reported the editing war originally. I'm sure you'll see from the history that what I edited out was Spam and Vandalism. One of the users perpetrating the vandalism was warned to stop, so he posted on a message board and encouraged the other users to post the same. Regardless, thank you for intervening and locking the page. 24.46.123.100 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob, and don't forget: "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version". —dgies^t_c 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I this case, should the account creation block be lifted, so that the user can have a chance to create a new account with an appropriete username, unless it's a sock.--U.S.A. cubed 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Account creation is allowed and the autoblock is disabled when a good-faith user (or future user) inadvertently chooses a name that violates the username policy. There is no way that someone believed that "Judas Is Getting Ass Raped In Hell" was going to be an allowable username, and in fact this is one of at least 15 similar names that have been blocked within the past hour or so. Newyorkbrad 02:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For username blocks, you'd generally be correct, but there's been a rash of blasphemous accounts so it's probably all one person and we shouldn't let them make more. —dgies^t_c 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You said that Raul should Checkuser Kjrouni. The fact Raul checkusered Cowboy Rocco is why Kkrouni was blocked actually. Funpika 23:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I recommend you go to that user talk page and a comment on the block again. Funpika 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I've made up my mind and I don't think there's much he could say which would convince me or any other admin it was just a coincidence. —dgies^t_c 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, may I remove all comments (including mine) made on the talk page of ACN inc. that have nothing to do with the content of the wiki? The talk page is full of off topic posts (of which I am partly responsible) and could do with a clean out.

Tristan.buckmaster 06:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, or better yet, just archive everything stale. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. —dgies^t_c 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that next time. Thank you very much for the tip! · AndonicO ^Talk 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion at AN/I regarding the above user making death threats, I'm a bit concerned that you've blocked the IP for this, it's not a threat, it's just simple nonsense which could have been dealt with via a warning. Was there any other reason? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind your on AN/I now anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I treated it as a (admittedly improbable) threat because they kept making the same vandalism and having it removed, so it was clearly directed at the person removing vandalism. I was under the impression threats are to be treated very seriously. If you think it was overly harsh you can unblock/warn. —dgies^t_c 17:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not undoing one of your blocks, I just fail to see how that was threatening the user that kept removing it, did it mention his name? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is moot now as its on AN/I so I'll respond there. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dgies, I appreciate your relaying of my unblock request to the admin that installed the block. However, I am concerned because I do not understand the basis for your comment that I "clearly did violate 3RR". May I ask your basis for saying this? My edits in no way attempted to delete the work of others, and it is my belief that the material I introduced was authoritative, reliable, and verifiable. The users involved in the dispute -- in particular the one that filed a 3RR violation report -- made no significant attempt to engage on the talk page. Your further response could be very valuable in helping me better understand the 3RR policy. If you want to leave it here, a message to the effect that you replied would be appreciated. A response on my talk page would also be fine.--68.54.18.57 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You added the same content 4 times in under 24 hours. That's WP:3RR. 3RR doesn't make judgements about whether someone's edits are authoritative, reliable, or verifiable, it only makes exceptions for obvious vandalism, copyright violations, and unsourced libel. —dgies^t_c 04:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Done & done. Thanks for the heads up. Cornell Rockey 20:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice on listing of these pages. However, I did not nominate them. I merely was the first voter. However, I will make sure to make use of this advice should I ever delete a large group of subpages. Thank you again for your advice! Captain panda 20:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

18:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Dgies, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. Thank you once more, · AndonicO Talk

Hi, I tweaked the block on User:DickBeater2000 to a full block since the only contribution indicated an obvious throwaway vandal account. --Wafulz 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was tempted to do that anyway but they only made one edit. —dgies^t_c 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the prod tag, was that the person who removed the tag was a vandalism-only account, and while in hot pursuit I assumed this one was an act of vandalism as well. His opinion shouldn't be taken into account at all, but yours is a different matter, and since you think the Golden Bear Stadium shouldn't have a prod, it shouldn't. Peace, Maurog 22:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I think it should be deleted, but that prod removal doesn't look like vandalism to me, so it is a valid, if unexplained objection. —dgies^t_c 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest relisting, considering that majority of votes were cast by new users / possible socks. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed the socks, but I also noticed that the main deletion arguments were a lack of notability/sources, and a suggestion that it be merged, but no consensus on what parts or where to merge it to. Since several (apparently reliable) sources were added later, that kills the main deletion argument, and if someone with more subject knowledge wants to merge later, they can still do that. —dgies^t_c 07:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See also: Social cycle theory (Sarkar)

The important thing is that Piotrus chose Social cycle theory as a name for a page he created about theories of social dynamics. He is now trying to kill the Sarkar page because it upsets this arrangement by laying claim to the name. Indeed, it is a fact the name first came with Sarkar's theory. Before that no one referred to the theories on this page as social cycle theories. As a compromise, on the Talk:Social_cycle_theory I have proposed the article created by Piotrus be renamed to the plural Social Cycle Theories and the Sarkar page named in singular Social Cycle Theory. Piotrus, however, has wasted no time to oppose the proposed solution. Now he is trying to rally support elsewhere to relist the Sarkar page for deletion in the vain hope of getting rid of the problem that way. That is not going to happen simply because Sarkar's theory is too important and has become too well known. To have to enter a debate like this is no fun, but I´m afraid the issue will not go away until the correct solution is finally adopted.Ramayan 19:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You two are having a dispute about page naming conventions and ownership of a theory. I don't know who's right and frankly I don't care, but neither of you have articulated a good reason to delete the other's page. Until you can come to an agreement on page naming, you get the status quo. —dgies^t_c 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have joined WikiProject Userboxes and plan to help Wikipedia with this WikiProject aswell as with WikiProject Clinical Medicine, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject California, WikiProject Anime and Manga, etc. --ISOLA'd ELBA 13:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Dgies. The Adopt-a-User program is looking for new ideas and input on the program. If you are still interested please stop by the talk page and read some of the ideas being floated and give a comment. If you want to update or change your information on the adopter's list page, now would be a great time! Thanks! V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for adoption after i closed my old account and i am making a fresh start. will you adopt me RedSpike101 07:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I noticed your userbox requesting to adopt a user, and you seem like the best one for me, as I was looking to be adopted. If you except adopting me, I'd like that. - Thekittybomb 15:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, I saw your message, thanks. Right now, I'd like to learn a bit about making templates, do you know much about that? Thekittybomb 22:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

i have added a userbox that says you have adopted me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedSpike101 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Good job on that one, are you some kind of article-writing dervish? Did you have some preexisting source you wikified to make the new version? —dgies^t_c 16:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a bank holiday, it was raining (so no gardening or motorcycles), and some subjects you just get into. I had some material from previous articles, so it wasn't too hard. Rgds, - Trident13 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dgies, any response back from the school district? I received a call from the FBI wanting to know if anyone locally there was informed, and I advised them you contacted them by email. ^ReviewCASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No response. If you want to follow up, they have a raft of contact info available here: http://www.canyon.cv.k12.ca.us/Teacher/ —dgies^t_c 22:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to seek out a response. It's out of our hands now, and under the responsible jurisdictions. ^ReviewCASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 22:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please lift the account creation block for this user, being that fact that you blocked the user for having an inappropriete username.--U. S. A. 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Their only edit was a personal attack on someone's userpage, which suggests this is a sockpuppet account for block evasion. I suppose I should have been more clear in the block log, but was there any particular you wanted them free to make a new account? They didn't place {{unblock}} on their talk page... —dgies^t_c 22:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They did not continue after their warning, and I thought inappropriete usernames shouldn't have the ACB. If the user is a sockpuppet of another editor, that would be another case, but I'll trust your judgement.--U. S. A. 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For a run-of-the-mill vandal, yes, they shouldn't be blocked without continuing past warning, but this strongly suggested to me they had already been blocked and were only going to use the account for harassment. In general, username blocks should not have ACB set, but when it is clearly intended to be disruptive I consider some account creations essentially vandalism in their own right. —dgies^t_c 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit inexplicable. Google's cached page gives the prod reason as "Unsourced biography, has existed in unsourced state for substantial amount of time", yet you cite A7 in the deletion log. AFAIK being merely unsourced has never been a speedy criterion, and a search at the usual venues will turn up more than enough to satisfy notability. –Unint 22:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It was prodded for being unsourced, but I deleted it under speedy deletion criteria A7: non-notable biography. There was no assertion in the article of why this person is a notable musician. Now that I dig through it, it had links to other articles which could have been used to assert notability, but they didn't and it was deleted. If you can show why this person is notable and want to add that to the article I will restore it so you can work on it. —dgies^t_c 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Would a profile in The Guardian be sufficient? Otherwise, I'm not about to adopt the article or anything, but I'll see if others are interested. –Unint 01:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, I was going to ask the blocking admin on the block until I saw your message above the string. I unblocked the IP because I felt that there was not a sufficient precedent or reason in blocking the IP (in this case, just blanking his/her own talk page). So this wouldn't be instinct, just "absence of malice." Your input helped support my actions. Sr13 (T|C) 05:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that people who use anonymous IP addresses don't have their own User/Talk pages, and blanking those pages is treated as vandalism. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 07:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed Wfwe's unblock request. I know ordinairly, you're not supposed to modify other people's comments, even for spelling, grammer, etc., but I was just fixing the format so the request would come out correctly. I hope that's OK.--U. S. A. 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's definitely OK. They uploaded some pretty graphic attack images after warnings, and now they're wondering why they got blocked. —dgies^t_c 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point about blocking anonymous accounts w/o ACB turned on. My concern was for shared IPs, a legitimate editor would be blocked and have no way to make constructive edits. If it seemed to be a vandalism only account, then I prevent account creation. I might have messed up here and there and given them a chance to do what you said, however. I will pay closer attention to that from now on. Thanks!

BTW - is there an easy way to prevent conflicts at AIV? There have been a couple of times that I research a request, only to find out that somebody else has blocked them. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 06:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Re: blocks: If you're worried about legit editors, leaving anon only checked protects those with accounts. Those without accounts can make an account from a different IP later, or request unblock and account creation if they are really antsy. —dgies^t_c 06:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Re: edit conflicts: Oh, I feel your pain. I think the best I've found is to clear the report with an edit summary User:Blahblah under investigation, then take your time. —dgies^t_c 06:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How come normal users can create accounts for people. this is just a question i am wondering why as admins are only ment to be able to do it. RedSpike101 16:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Normal users can create accounts because there is nothing special about it and it is meant to be easy to encourage people to contribute to the encyclopedia. Or were you asking about Wikipedia:Request an account? —dgies^t_c 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

what is an occation? you placed that word on my user talk page. if you were trying to write occasion and misspelled then you are a dumbass and should not be allowed to edit or use wikipedia. you must be really really really dumb or a wanker to spell it wrong. also you smell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StvJbs1 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I am working for an EU-funded project in order to do free, digital learning objects. As a part of this work it turned out to be wise to publish material in a wiki, so I have chosen MediaWiki. In this project there are many world-leading researchers with a lot of knowledge to share though it is tricky to make them active users. Though, I don't know how tricky since I have only recently sent passwords to them (The wiki is free to read but not completely free to edit yet. It may become so in the future but the time is not ripe yet. Until then visitors must send a request to the administrator (me) to get a password). Anyway it would be nice to share experience with another administrator since I am pretty new to mediaWiki (and also to editing in wikipedia).

BioMineWiki

What do you say? And by the way, I am asking you because you are an administrator and pretty technically skilled.

--Anna.h.bauer 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I guess. You're better off asking specific questions because I don't have too much interest in shadowing you on another wiki. —dgies^t_c 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Good. If I have specific questions I'll turn to you. Though, I will try to do some work on Wikipedia too. Though, right now there are no suggestions on wanted pages. So I added some information on KVIST. --Anna.h.bauer 09:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the guideline Wikipedia:Notability? As it stands right now, someone could come along and tag your article with {{db-club}}, requesting that it be speedy deleted as there is no evidence why the organization is notable. Please add some 3rd-party citations from reliable sources which show why this group is notable. —dgies^t_c 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that was interesting. I am asking the group/network if they know any suitable third part references (Maybe our local newspaper is not enough?) If I haven't found any acceptable references within a week the article should of course be deleted.--Anna.h.bauer 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page:

I have semi protected Google search for 1 week to deal with the IP hopping link spammer. After 1 week if they return, please report to WP:RFPP.

Thank you for that. Hopefully, it will slow them down, but they've been vandalizing some of the other search engine pages, too. I'll keep an eye out just in case. Thanks again...Joe

--JFreeman ^(talk) 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

my website address is http://redspike101.net.tf/ and when i try changing the link to it i just get a page saying it is black listed why help me out RedSpike101 18:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On the Spam blacklist, you will see \bnet\.tf\b which is a rule for blocking everything in net.tf. This was likely done because other people using that hosting company have been spamming Wikipedia with links to their sites. You could try to lodge an appeal and get your site exampted here: meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Proposed_removals but its probably just easier to either list your site in plain text as you have done, or find hosting on a site that is not blacklisted. —dgies^t_c 19:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Gabeyg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not learned his lessons. See [6]. I'd like to request that you reconsider the decision to unblock him. --Nlu (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not... encouraging. I've decided to leave them another warning and let the original unblock duration stand. If they start misbehaving once the block expires they can always be re-blocked. Most of this seems immature, not malicious. —dgies^t_c 18:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel really bad that you think me that I did not learn lesson and that I'm vandals. Sorry.. But, although messsages were rough.., I'm just trying to inform you. Well.. Also, I will never talk to my friends about problems in Wikipedia. (So that I will not be suspected as puppetry...)--Gabeyg 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

my mate has been blocked for useing wikipedia as a chat client i cant see why on his controbutions his account is User:Pap crap have a look thanks RedSpike101 14:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you look at his contributions: Special:Contributions/Pap crap you'd see he's only used Wikipedia for making his user page and having conversations with others. Using neat-o admin tools I could also find one deleted edit, in which he created the article Interflash but the only text was "interflash". So it looks like he was using Wikipedia as a chat site or personal web host. I will leave him a message explaining things. —dgies^t_c 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you know? was updated. On 16 May, 2007, a fact from the article House of the Faun, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometime ago, I reported some problems with the Kayastha article with regards to a vandal. You decided that the person was not a vandal in the strict sense and I sort of left the article to him. Since then . . . uh, well, things have gone from bad to worse. The talk page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kayastha and you can see that the individual who has decided to be the main editor of the page has chosen not to listen to any advice that suggests he should not use POV or OR material in the articles. Can you maybe talk to him and try to let him know that an encyclopedia is not the place for voicing his religious views at the expense of encyclopedia articles? I have been accused of "sinning" by this user several times when I try to remove POV text. 70.186.172.75 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont delete interflash it is a good page and his first good page if you delete it he will not be very happy. RedSpike101 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that my user page,temples,userboxes,barnstars,etc. was delited by Shazaam. I feel that this action is unfair. Shazaam claims that my userpage needs to be simple but I find that I need a advanced userpage to help wikipedia in a more advanced way. I have gave a warning to Shazaam for the unfair delition.

Cordially, --ISOLA'd ELBA 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was Jeffrey O. Gustafson who deleted them. If you want them undeleted, you could try at deletion review. If you try that, I suggest you be calm, polite, and explain how restoring your user pages will be of benefit to the encyclopedia. I also note you have a general page blanking warning to him; you may wish to see "Don't template the regulars". —dgies^t_c 20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Since I don't really care about being an admin and since I don't much care what people think of me, I won't be disputing anything. I said my piece, if people got happy from taking gratuitous shots then good for them. Otto4711 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I tidied up the closure of the above RfA, with the header, footer and transcluding on the list of failed RfA candidates too. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

i used the vista logo on one of my user page themes and it got changed to a © why? RedSpike101 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The image you were using, Image:Winvista.png, is copyrighted. Wikipedia is allowed to use it under a fair use copyright exemption, which allows it to be used for discussing Vista in articles. Fair use does NOT extend to decorative uses, such as templates and user pages. Some bot patrolled for copyright infringing uses, such as that one and fixed it with a non-infringing version. Also, in the future it would be nice to provide a diff so I don't need to go hunting for what you're talking about. —dgies^t_c 19:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

 

This image does not appear to represent that size of different star types (red giants are much larger than the Sun, ect). Could you explain that in the image? Thanks. --Wasted Sapience 00:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

These are all main sequence stars. This is to scale (though not properly brightness-scaled). The small red ones are red dwarves. —dgies^t_c 03:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed that you recently warned a user who is inserting comments such as "is openly gay" with the {{subst:uw-defamatory}} template. I'm hoping that you will consider using {{subst:uw-vandalism}} or {{subst:uw-test}} templates instead, because the labelling of such vandalism as defamatory reinforces the idea that being thought of as gay is a bad thing. Thanks for your consideration!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your assertion that an accusation of homosexuality should not be considered defamatory, in common usage, as in this case, it often is. The {{uw-test}} is for edits which might be accidental. And while it is almost certainly vandalism, {{uw-defamatory}} allows for the possiblity that the edit is true, just unsourced. —dgies^t_c 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What about using {{uw-vandalism}}?I won't push the issue, but by confirming the vandal's intentions to use the words "gay" as an insult it contributes to the continued perception of it being a bad thing.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 03:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable option, but since they intended to defame, I picked the obvious response. I'm not going to second-guess myself just to be PC. —dgies^t_c 03:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely fair. Thanks for your responses!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 03:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please release the protection of the discussion page of 63.135.11.194 page. I want to say a lots of things. This time, really, I didn't touch the tags. I promise I will NEVER do that. Last contribution was to redirect User:Gabeyg to AirFrance358. It wasn't tag that I touched. Also, it is same person. I moved. (If you see in ID changing place, you will see me...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.86.156 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2007

If I were to unprotect that page, your past behavior suggests you would place unblock notices which do not provide a valid rationale for unblocking. This would make you show up in Category:Requests for unblock and other admins would need to waste their time evaluating the situation before they come to the same conclusion as several of us already have: That your block is justified because of continued interference with sock tags after warnings. The IP block and talk page protection expire in about 4 days. Once that happens you may petition to get AirFrance358 unblocked, but note that continued protestation that the block was unfair will likely not help, as you have had many warnings. Your best bet to staying unblocked is to agree to not touch those tags and instead petition for their removal by others through WP:ANI. —dgies^t_c 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for that it was very helpful i just did a bit of looking around and found this article it is now delted but i copyed the text have a look did i ad the right tag User:RedSpike101/testpage 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I Have Talked to him and he changed his password and cant remember what he changed it to so he created User:Pap_Crap2. i have added that he is blocked to his accont. 10:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know what you think of the possibility of me submitting an RfA, and whether you would be prepared to coach me. I noticed your name was added to the coach list recently. Joshua John Lee 19:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if you submitted an RfA right now it would go down in flames. This is because you have 328 edits on this account. Generally people don't have a good chance of passing until they have at least a couple thousand edits. Try not to get discouraged, its just that since admins can cause so much trouble if they apply policy incorrectly, people generally want to see some experience applying policy. This generally means edits to deletion debates, vandal-blocking reports or the admin noticeboard. You mayalso wish to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. If you're serious about being an admin, I suggest you try contributing to some of those areas. In the mean time, feel free to contact me with any questions. Also it may seem trivial, but some people might oppose you because at present, your signature takes up too much space in markup. A good rule of thumb is 3 lines absolute maximum (240 characters), yours is 408 characters. Anyway, for now I'd be willing to do some informal coaching, but it would help if you can round up a co-coach. —dgies^t_c 20:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I have begun to comment on AfD discussions, and will look into the other things later. I have also reduced my signature. Josh 11:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the editing mistake. Josh 10:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that within a short time of you blocking User:Throw from editing their Talk page, due to abuse of the request unblock system, they e-mailed an unblock request, which User:Nick, rather amazingly, responded to. User:Nick was therefore the 4th Admin that had had to deal with this case. --Mais oui! 14:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What a mess, but stuff like this is not likely to get you any satisfaction. Better to just move on. —dgies^t_c 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superhero League of Hoboken combat.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superhero League of Hoboken desc.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superhero League of Hoboken map.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superhero League of Hoboken missions.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superhero League of Hoboken stats.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superhero League of Hoboken dome.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superhero League of Hoboken guac.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superhero League of Hoboken sol.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I ever told you, but as one of the people who wanted me to get an account (IP 24...), I will tell you who I registered as: AnonGuy. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you again, enjoy the new features! —dgies^t_c 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)