![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Hi LaraLove, can you please take a look this discussion in reference to images that were uploaded from WWII in Color website, the copyright status is in question and there have been many users who are part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft who are upset about the Wiki Policy about image licensing WP:IUP. Thank you! - TabooTikiGod 06:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to review the following pages: [1], [2], [3]. This situation is a replay of previous events and has two things in common: the Elvis article and a certain editor. If it was me, I could not not rationalize spending time trying to come to agreement with 141, who has shown no willingness to discuss things, and would just let the article degrade further. I don't know how much longer Rikstar, whose efforts all but one editor support, in general, can keep this up. Again, I believe arbitration is the only reasonable path at this point. -- Steve Pastor ( talk) 18:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You have one of the best userpages! -- ❤☺❤Hugs And More Warm Hugs to the HEART! ❤☺❤ ( talk) 06:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Wanna adopt me?
Lara, if (and only if!) you have the time, could you please take another look at the James Strang article (you redid the footnotes on it--and I heartily thank you!). It's been nominated for FA, but an objection was entered (on the FA talk page, not the article talk page) about the footnotes. I know I added some after you had finished, but I'm really not sure if I screwed them up, or what this gentleman is talking about (as footnotes aren't my forte'!) when he says they're in two different styles, neither of which (according to him) seems to be correct. Could you give me some insights or pointers if you have a minute? Thanks again for all your help! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please can you restore this stub? I removed the speedy tag from it, as George Cross recipients are inherently highly notable, yet you deleted it anyway. The article as it stood was short, but by deleting it you are inhibitinh its development. Thank you. DuncanHill ( talk) 18:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lara, there is a bit of a discussion on the Brassiere talk page, which I started about a month ago. At that point, the article was exceedingly anti-bra, and I posted an unsigned comment on its talk page regarding its dubious neutrality. Since then, a good deal of work has been done, but the later half of the article still seems very biased against bras. User Mgoodyear feels that his citation support this stance, and that they make the article more balanced as opposed to biased. Could you take a look and tell me what you think? As always, many thanks. Zidel333 ( talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
|
[4] Hot damn. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to say thanks for your attention to this article, and for removing the external links. It seems like a good solution. I'm going to work to try and integrate any of the relevant (non-spammy) ones back into the article text, but in the meantime I just wanted to say thanks. Vl'hurg talk 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, can you clarify this edit? [5]. I reverted it but am open to discussion if it should be unreverted due to a policy I'm unaware of... Cheers, AndrewGNF ( talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lara. Saw your comment, edit summary and pipedlink [6] but I'm still confused as to what your trying to tell me! Could you just tell me in plain English instead - I'm old and crusy and get confused! Cheers :) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Pedro : Chat 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
However you will not use a respected Wikipedians RFA as an opportunity to attack and disparage other deeply respected Wikipedians. Your "minders" comment is not within the spirit of discussion and I will block for disruption if I read something similar from you. Sorry, but the candidate and community deserve beter.
So are the admin tools worth the trouble of adminning so far? I'm trying to convince someone who's reluctant to accept several people's offers to nominate him as an admin. Wryspy ( talk) 20:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware of the recent instability of the Elvis Presley article? See [7] etc. etc. If these many removals of well-sourced information continue, we can forget the GA status. See also [8]. Onefortyone ( talk) 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Odd, I thought that article was kept as GA according to the GAR. I also question a few of TNN's other contributions... « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 10:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You voted for one of my prior proposals to institute a List of the Day Proposal. I may have already alerted you to an experiment I am conducting at WP:LOTD. Now that the experiment is running I can point out the benefits to the project of the method I am experimenting with that other alternatives don't offer. First, there is a set of orphaned articles for persons who do not have any featured lists of their own or persons that would like to take responsibility for more. Anyone can nominate such orphans. This benefits WP by getting people involved in list articles that might not have active editors to update them or defend them against vandalism. Please consider adopting one of our orphans.
There are several other advantages that will improve the project:
Again come by and consider adopting one of our orphans this month or in future months either adopt an orphan or give feedback on the candidates.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 17:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you commented out an image in this article that had been "speedily deleted". However, I can see no evidence of this or even a basis for proposing its deletion, the image is still present so I have removed the comment. Halsteadk ( talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[9] Lol... ya overrode me! :-D Jmlk 1 7 05:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
why did you delete Image:Snowshoe Hare.jpg? It just got removed by an image bot from several articles where it was in use, including the main snowshoe hare infobox. if it was a duplicate, you should change the image links before deleting it. and if it wasn't a duplicate, it should be nominated at WP:IFD--having a better image available somewhere is not a valid speedy delete reason. thanks, 209.113.152.82 ( talk) 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
it looks like you deleted several other images for the same reason... when you're deleting it would be much better to specify the exact name of the duplicate image in the deletion summary so other users can track it down. it would be good if you could undelete and redelete so that you can write a better log entry... and undelete and WP:IFD where the images aren't exact duplicates or obviously and ridiculously horrible. 209.113.152.82 ( talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I found it, Image:Lepus americanus.jpg. I went through the Bot contribs and corrected all uses of the image. Once again, sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for letting me know. Best regards, Lara ❤ Love 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware that Dubone ( talk · contribs) is the name of his band? Or the name he uses as a DJ, at least? I thought we weren't allowed promotional usernames on the Wikipedia but I will not override your unblock. Note, though, that the user was also blocked by another admin for 3RR violations, and that you have lifted this block as well. -- Yamla ( talk) 19:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You just speedy deleted Image:051706lm12.jpg, but as I noted at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 November 16#Image:051706lm12.jpg the image does appear to be uploaded by an individual who is using the same username as the original photographer does at multiple other sites. Is the watermarking what is causing it to be deleted? I don't mind it being deleted because of the watermarking making the copyright unclear, I just want to get another user's feedback before I start trying to contact the individual on other sites to try to clear up the licensing. - Optigan13 ( talk) 04:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You moved a message I placed on User talk:Duggy 1138 into the unblock template [10]. I indicated in my edit summary that I did not remove the template. I did that to allow another admin to review the block also. I did not specifically decline the block therefore neither my message or signature should be within that template as I did not put the message there.-- Sandahl 06:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Lara. Congrats on your new mop. I'm letting you know that I've reverted your deletion of Fingerskate. The version of the article you speedied was indeed awful but the article has been around for two years and there are ok versions in the history (see the current one for example: not great but not deletion-worthy). In general, articles with long histories are best sent to AfD, particularly when they've been edited by numerous editors. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 18:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey there.
I see you declined the block request by Globalexpans ( talk · contribs). He has asked, by email, to retain the current account for some reason. I'd be inclined to let him (if the 'crats will allow the rename) as I'd prefer the user didn't just vanish underground (for obvious reasons); indeed, he's got little history but I think it'd be better if it remained attached to his account. I'm not going to overturn your deny, but I wonder if you'd reconsider? — Coren (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I sent you email. Thanks, Crum375 ( talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that your deletion of the local copy of this image was not really according to the rules. CSD I8 has the condition "The image has been marked with {{NowCommons}} for at least one week. Waiting one week is not necessary if it was the uploader who moved the image and marked it." I figure that is why Category:Images_with_the_same_name_on_Wikimedia_Commons has subcategories by date. For this image it was less than a day since it had been marked. I think it's probably not a problem in this case, but the condition must be there for a reason, right? Arthena (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
On November 16, 2007, you said on the Elvis Presley talk page,
As far as I can see, for more than a week nothing has happened concerning the problematic images. I am not responsible for including them. Several of them have been uploaded by my old opponent, User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW, who is under a hard ban for massively uploading copyrighted images under the pretence they were free. Several weeks ago, some of these images have been updated by Northmeister who added a fair use description. See [11], [12], [13]. However, the entire problem has not yet been resolved. What should be done? Onefortyone ( talk) 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up, i didn't know. I would like to note however, that there we're no dashes anymore after the previous edit, which i wanted to fix. Just didn't know that i not only need to move the new template to the top, but also leave dashes at the bottom. Thanks a lot for the info! ~ | twsx | talk cont | 00:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful
RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, well, this is partially your fault ;-))
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
This is the best edit I've seen all day. the_undertow talk 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello LaraLove. I noted that your user page is the 5th most viewed user page. That's great! Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
On way to you. -- Rodhullandemu ( please reply here - contribs) 16:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You recently deleted Sunset Marquis (album) as a copy of another article, Nobody's Daughter. That's not exactly true. The content had been moved around to a bunch of different articles. Sunset has the edits before about October 8, 2006. Not sure what should be done here, maybe a history merge, but under GFDL I don't think the Sunset edits should be hidden. The version of Nobody's from October 11 appears to be a cut-and-paste from the Sunset article. If you haven't tried a history merge before, this might not be a good one to start with. Gimmetrow 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking I'll do the history merge if we agree it seems useful. The annoyance is that one article has about 400 edits, and the other has about 100. Also I made a small edit to your monobook. Hope you don't mind. Gimmetrow 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
For helping resolve misunderstandings with a number of users recently. Yamla ( talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC) |
For your support. :) Durova Charge! 06:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
? -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 06:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You blocked this guy for a 3RR violation. However, he is now requesting an unblock on the grounds that he wasn't made aware of the rule (he has less than a hundred edits total since September, so it's plausible), and he apparently wasn't given a talk page warning that he was approaching his third revert.
I am tending towards unblock, but since you were the blocking admin (and congratulations on the mop! I didn't know you had been nominated; I would have added support) I will defer to you if you wish to review the situation. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Hi LaraLove, can you please take a look this discussion in reference to images that were uploaded from WWII in Color website, the copyright status is in question and there have been many users who are part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft who are upset about the Wiki Policy about image licensing WP:IUP. Thank you! - TabooTikiGod 06:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to review the following pages: [1], [2], [3]. This situation is a replay of previous events and has two things in common: the Elvis article and a certain editor. If it was me, I could not not rationalize spending time trying to come to agreement with 141, who has shown no willingness to discuss things, and would just let the article degrade further. I don't know how much longer Rikstar, whose efforts all but one editor support, in general, can keep this up. Again, I believe arbitration is the only reasonable path at this point. -- Steve Pastor ( talk) 18:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You have one of the best userpages! -- ❤☺❤Hugs And More Warm Hugs to the HEART! ❤☺❤ ( talk) 06:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Wanna adopt me?
Lara, if (and only if!) you have the time, could you please take another look at the James Strang article (you redid the footnotes on it--and I heartily thank you!). It's been nominated for FA, but an objection was entered (on the FA talk page, not the article talk page) about the footnotes. I know I added some after you had finished, but I'm really not sure if I screwed them up, or what this gentleman is talking about (as footnotes aren't my forte'!) when he says they're in two different styles, neither of which (according to him) seems to be correct. Could you give me some insights or pointers if you have a minute? Thanks again for all your help! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please can you restore this stub? I removed the speedy tag from it, as George Cross recipients are inherently highly notable, yet you deleted it anyway. The article as it stood was short, but by deleting it you are inhibitinh its development. Thank you. DuncanHill ( talk) 18:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lara, there is a bit of a discussion on the Brassiere talk page, which I started about a month ago. At that point, the article was exceedingly anti-bra, and I posted an unsigned comment on its talk page regarding its dubious neutrality. Since then, a good deal of work has been done, but the later half of the article still seems very biased against bras. User Mgoodyear feels that his citation support this stance, and that they make the article more balanced as opposed to biased. Could you take a look and tell me what you think? As always, many thanks. Zidel333 ( talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
|
[4] Hot damn. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to say thanks for your attention to this article, and for removing the external links. It seems like a good solution. I'm going to work to try and integrate any of the relevant (non-spammy) ones back into the article text, but in the meantime I just wanted to say thanks. Vl'hurg talk 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, can you clarify this edit? [5]. I reverted it but am open to discussion if it should be unreverted due to a policy I'm unaware of... Cheers, AndrewGNF ( talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lara. Saw your comment, edit summary and pipedlink [6] but I'm still confused as to what your trying to tell me! Could you just tell me in plain English instead - I'm old and crusy and get confused! Cheers :) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Pedro : Chat 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
However you will not use a respected Wikipedians RFA as an opportunity to attack and disparage other deeply respected Wikipedians. Your "minders" comment is not within the spirit of discussion and I will block for disruption if I read something similar from you. Sorry, but the candidate and community deserve beter.
So are the admin tools worth the trouble of adminning so far? I'm trying to convince someone who's reluctant to accept several people's offers to nominate him as an admin. Wryspy ( talk) 20:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware of the recent instability of the Elvis Presley article? See [7] etc. etc. If these many removals of well-sourced information continue, we can forget the GA status. See also [8]. Onefortyone ( talk) 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Odd, I thought that article was kept as GA according to the GAR. I also question a few of TNN's other contributions... « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 10:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You voted for one of my prior proposals to institute a List of the Day Proposal. I may have already alerted you to an experiment I am conducting at WP:LOTD. Now that the experiment is running I can point out the benefits to the project of the method I am experimenting with that other alternatives don't offer. First, there is a set of orphaned articles for persons who do not have any featured lists of their own or persons that would like to take responsibility for more. Anyone can nominate such orphans. This benefits WP by getting people involved in list articles that might not have active editors to update them or defend them against vandalism. Please consider adopting one of our orphans.
There are several other advantages that will improve the project:
Again come by and consider adopting one of our orphans this month or in future months either adopt an orphan or give feedback on the candidates.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 17:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you commented out an image in this article that had been "speedily deleted". However, I can see no evidence of this or even a basis for proposing its deletion, the image is still present so I have removed the comment. Halsteadk ( talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[9] Lol... ya overrode me! :-D Jmlk 1 7 05:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
why did you delete Image:Snowshoe Hare.jpg? It just got removed by an image bot from several articles where it was in use, including the main snowshoe hare infobox. if it was a duplicate, you should change the image links before deleting it. and if it wasn't a duplicate, it should be nominated at WP:IFD--having a better image available somewhere is not a valid speedy delete reason. thanks, 209.113.152.82 ( talk) 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
it looks like you deleted several other images for the same reason... when you're deleting it would be much better to specify the exact name of the duplicate image in the deletion summary so other users can track it down. it would be good if you could undelete and redelete so that you can write a better log entry... and undelete and WP:IFD where the images aren't exact duplicates or obviously and ridiculously horrible. 209.113.152.82 ( talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I found it, Image:Lepus americanus.jpg. I went through the Bot contribs and corrected all uses of the image. Once again, sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for letting me know. Best regards, Lara ❤ Love 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware that Dubone ( talk · contribs) is the name of his band? Or the name he uses as a DJ, at least? I thought we weren't allowed promotional usernames on the Wikipedia but I will not override your unblock. Note, though, that the user was also blocked by another admin for 3RR violations, and that you have lifted this block as well. -- Yamla ( talk) 19:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You just speedy deleted Image:051706lm12.jpg, but as I noted at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 November 16#Image:051706lm12.jpg the image does appear to be uploaded by an individual who is using the same username as the original photographer does at multiple other sites. Is the watermarking what is causing it to be deleted? I don't mind it being deleted because of the watermarking making the copyright unclear, I just want to get another user's feedback before I start trying to contact the individual on other sites to try to clear up the licensing. - Optigan13 ( talk) 04:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You moved a message I placed on User talk:Duggy 1138 into the unblock template [10]. I indicated in my edit summary that I did not remove the template. I did that to allow another admin to review the block also. I did not specifically decline the block therefore neither my message or signature should be within that template as I did not put the message there.-- Sandahl 06:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Lara. Congrats on your new mop. I'm letting you know that I've reverted your deletion of Fingerskate. The version of the article you speedied was indeed awful but the article has been around for two years and there are ok versions in the history (see the current one for example: not great but not deletion-worthy). In general, articles with long histories are best sent to AfD, particularly when they've been edited by numerous editors. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 18:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey there.
I see you declined the block request by Globalexpans ( talk · contribs). He has asked, by email, to retain the current account for some reason. I'd be inclined to let him (if the 'crats will allow the rename) as I'd prefer the user didn't just vanish underground (for obvious reasons); indeed, he's got little history but I think it'd be better if it remained attached to his account. I'm not going to overturn your deny, but I wonder if you'd reconsider? — Coren (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I sent you email. Thanks, Crum375 ( talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that your deletion of the local copy of this image was not really according to the rules. CSD I8 has the condition "The image has been marked with {{NowCommons}} for at least one week. Waiting one week is not necessary if it was the uploader who moved the image and marked it." I figure that is why Category:Images_with_the_same_name_on_Wikimedia_Commons has subcategories by date. For this image it was less than a day since it had been marked. I think it's probably not a problem in this case, but the condition must be there for a reason, right? Arthena (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
On November 16, 2007, you said on the Elvis Presley talk page,
As far as I can see, for more than a week nothing has happened concerning the problematic images. I am not responsible for including them. Several of them have been uploaded by my old opponent, User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW, who is under a hard ban for massively uploading copyrighted images under the pretence they were free. Several weeks ago, some of these images have been updated by Northmeister who added a fair use description. See [11], [12], [13]. However, the entire problem has not yet been resolved. What should be done? Onefortyone ( talk) 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up, i didn't know. I would like to note however, that there we're no dashes anymore after the previous edit, which i wanted to fix. Just didn't know that i not only need to move the new template to the top, but also leave dashes at the bottom. Thanks a lot for the info! ~ | twsx | talk cont | 00:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful
RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, well, this is partially your fault ;-))
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
This is the best edit I've seen all day. the_undertow talk 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello LaraLove. I noted that your user page is the 5th most viewed user page. That's great! Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
On way to you. -- Rodhullandemu ( please reply here - contribs) 16:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You recently deleted Sunset Marquis (album) as a copy of another article, Nobody's Daughter. That's not exactly true. The content had been moved around to a bunch of different articles. Sunset has the edits before about October 8, 2006. Not sure what should be done here, maybe a history merge, but under GFDL I don't think the Sunset edits should be hidden. The version of Nobody's from October 11 appears to be a cut-and-paste from the Sunset article. If you haven't tried a history merge before, this might not be a good one to start with. Gimmetrow 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking I'll do the history merge if we agree it seems useful. The annoyance is that one article has about 400 edits, and the other has about 100. Also I made a small edit to your monobook. Hope you don't mind. Gimmetrow 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
For helping resolve misunderstandings with a number of users recently. Yamla ( talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC) |
For your support. :) Durova Charge! 06:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
? -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 06:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You blocked this guy for a 3RR violation. However, he is now requesting an unblock on the grounds that he wasn't made aware of the rule (he has less than a hundred edits total since September, so it's plausible), and he apparently wasn't given a talk page warning that he was approaching his third revert.
I am tending towards unblock, but since you were the blocking admin (and congratulations on the mop! I didn't know you had been nominated; I would have added support) I will defer to you if you wish to review the situation. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)