←Archive 3 ( 101 - 150) | Khukri's talk archive 4 (151 - 200). Please do not modify | Archive 5 ( 201 - 250)→ |
I've added a small section (talmud interpertations) into the topic of Neturei Karta (which took a while to make due to the complexity of the talmud) and it appears that other people [a.k.a. user:Bsnowball] are "trigger happy" to remove it despite it's intelectual relevance and encyclopedic importance. to the best of my knowledge, encyclopedias are supposed to expand sub-topics on their subjects and not look for the shortest, least informative, dictionary-like descriptions.
Jaakobou 09:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You reverted all my changes. Why? I was adding information, not vandalising it. I've changed it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.136.183 ( talk) 20:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
I added the blatant vandal tag because it appeared to me as if he was changing information ruthlessly in an effort to mess up the page. Sbrools 19:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Since we have separated test templates and vandalism templates, I don't see why we should have a vandalism level 0. If you can't give it above a 0, it's really a test, not vandalism, as current guidelines state to start at level 2 for nonsense and such. I personally don't even think there should be a vand1, but other users do so it should stay. I think there should be no level 0 for other types of vandalism also, like blanking. T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
You are down as a member of the WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation. I and a number of editors for the last couple of months have been working on the harmonisation of the current warning message templates, at WP:UW. I have spoken to a couple of other members of your project, and I would like to merge it and it's talk pages with ours. If you still have interest in the project or would like to participate or have any thoughts on the combined projects please let me know. Any other problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 10:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for dealing with AmericanBrit for me. I was afraid he would get away with making personal attacks on me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.130.138.12 ( talk) 19:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page - I really appreciate it. (I think it's an AOL user whose spam link I reverted. Oh well.) :-P -- TheOther Bob 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
umm, got a message saying I vandalised a page, I didn't. Are you sure it was me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.230.215 ( talk • contribs)
I am not being mean about user 64.130.138.12 he was vandalizing the article Sodomy and then Survivor. And he blames relatives, leaves attacks on my user page and then deletes them. If I got too made, Im sorry but I just hate vandalisum so much I guess I get too angry when calling down the vandals. American Brit 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've been following this argument ever since the Sodomy article. At first, while I thought American Brit was acting overly harsh in every single possible way... which he kinda was.. it was still my opinion that his "target" was guilty of vandalism and should be banned. I no longer think that, and if anyone should be banned it should without a doubt be American Brit. He has refused that guy's every attempt at mediation, even when he gave perfectly logical excuses for the wrongful edits. He has personally attacked the guy, he has been stubborn and hard-headed, and frankly, he has shown very little logical thought. I'm not a participator in this argument, and I can't say much, but he also seems to be toying under the notion that it's his holy-beyond-words duty to stomp out vandalism, even though he is nothing more than your average ho-hum user. So I suppose you could also throw in delusions of grandeur and arrogance into the long list of accusations. However I do have one criticism for the victim, who for one reason or another doesn't have a username. Why on Earth don't you have your own account?! I highly recommend that you get one, so that damaging mix ups such as this one don't happen again. Anyway, that's all I have to say. I hope my two cents help in your decision Khukri! -Keegah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keegah ( talk • contribs)
First of all would all editors please sign their comments using ~~~~. OK to start, my issuing of agf warnings to you both was not about the initial accusations of vandalism but from the ensuing comments. A couple of points, the old {{wr}} warning removal templates do not exist anymore. It is no longer an offence to delete warnings from a talk page, hence it is not blockable.
American Brit, I would suggest you have another look at this editors history here there is one instances of vandalism on the article Sodomy, which was self reverted, and not reverted by yourself. His/her rational behind the removal of the image on Survivor (TV series) could be genuine, as they have tried to discuss the matter with you at some length. I'm sorry to say this but I believe have a misguided understanding of Recent Change patrol, it is not a fight, crusade, or anything else glamourous. It is a necessary janitorial duty to keep Wikipedia in good order. It is not WP:AGF on a first users vandalism/edit that you instantly start threatening users with a ban such as here or here. Also you waited a almost 5 hours in issuing a final warning to a new editor talk page, for which you didn't revert the vandalism. I don't have time to analyse every contribution of you both, but I would be very interested in what lies 64.130.138.12 has stated. Also your continued threats of blocks will not be getting anyone banned for a year. Wikipedia, as it's motto states, is the encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone, and your thoughts here of who should or should not edit wikipedia is again not assuming good faith. There are admins on wikipedia who are years younger than yourself, and who are respected by the community. You are not an administrator, and you do not have the right to make these threats. I think it would be better if you left this user to me, if I see any further vandalism I will go through the correct channels to have a punitive block applied.
64.130.138.12, I suggest you get an account if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia in a constructive manner, and this will stop any problems you have with vandalising syblings. It will also but an end to this affair if you no longer edit using this IP. Also I would suggest in User preferences under the edit tab you select Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary as currently you have only left one edit summary/header.
I hope that you will not be posting each other messages again. I will keep an eye out and take the required action, and I think this should be the end to this subject. And lets, for both your sakes, not see it escalate out of hand. If you have any further problems please don't hesitate to leave me a message here. Best regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi -- You reverted some of my grammar and punctuation edits to the Uncertainty principle, but actually I think I'm correct, so I've re-reverted. I've opened up a discussion on the article's talk page in hopes of avoiding an edit war.-- 75.83.140.254 18:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted the change, as it is not of the same image and should not have been changed as such. Cheers. -- Bob 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been correctly reverted. You just need to refresh your page. If you like, report him to User:Femto's talk page, as he has just been further blocked for 1 week by him for vandalism. -- Bob 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be best to relist it on today's page, so we can get more views - there probably aren't enough comments for there to be "a consensus of no consensus" as I like to think of it. Normally we don't relist on TfD on the basis of too few !votes, but I think that this is overlookable when there's no consensus in the !votes cast. Good work on them, by the way :) Mart inp23 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as Delete if you aren't an administrator. That's pretty clearly stated in Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, and the reason for it should be obvious - it leaves the actual article around.
What ended up happening in this case was one person tagged it for Speedy deletion, while yet another complained at AN/I, and the deletion was performed by an admin - yet a third. So three other people got involved. What's more, if no one had complained, the article would still be sitting there. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Jan 8, 2007
To; Khukri,
I have a question regarding your addition of the color "Orange- Guilty Feelings. . .etc" to the "Mood Ring Color Chart" on the Wikipedia Article about "Mood Rings". Where did you get your information from regarding that entry for the color "Orange" on a "Mood Ring"? Is it from an older "Mood Ring Chart" from back in the 1960's or 1970's? I tend to agree with the mood that is designated for the color orange, though I think that the color "Orange" should be placed inbetween "Gray" & "Amber" on the "Mood Color Chart".
Would appreciate a response as I am very intrigued and curious about the addition of the color "Orange" to the "Mood Chart".
Thank you for your time.
Signed, Dawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnofrabbits ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for the barnstar :D! And, you're welcome - it was an interesting excercise for me :). Thanks again, Mart inp23 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, your barnstar really cheered me up. If you need help at anytime for anything (even some booooring stuff, which UW was not), don't hesitate to call me! PS:The new templates surely are sexy. -- lucasbfr talk 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
I award this barnstar to Khukri for doing the most towards getting WikiProject user warnings to the review phase, and for being the sole person to give barnstars to those who helped, as you can't really give yourself a barnstar. -- kenb215 talk 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you very much Khukri ( talk . contribs) 16:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm heading home from work now, but will do later tonight ^_^ I've made a note of my changes on the project talk page. ShakingSpirit talk 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was actually just doing one set to show how it is to be used. I've added documentation at Template:Uw to show the possible parameters. If you'd like to do a search and replace now, you can, although I don't know how easy it is going to be (since you need to specify the warning level to get the correct icon). I've done the uw-vandalism set, so I'll stop for now. -- Renesis ( talk) 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messageboxes to standardize meta messageboxes along the lines of WP:UW. Would you like to join? You've done great work on standardization for the user warnings project and your input would be very valuable to this WikiProject (you are even the first person I have asked to join!). Let me know. Thanks! -- Renesis ( talk) 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could comment on the Super 14 page at it's peer review here. I would really appreciate the input. Thanks. - Shudda talk 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of Peter Doyle in my life and I have certainly never vandalised his page. Please refrain from sending me further messages claiming I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.67.155 ( talk • contribs)
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the From First to Last page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Khukri (talk . contribs) 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC) - Found this on the talk page for my IP; the so called vandalism you referred to was the removal of "add sonnys girlfriend on Myspace
myspace.com/dream_a_little_sonny" from the article, which was unnecessarily there, and the removal of a bunch of HTML gibberish from another section. As a result, I fail to see why you would revert the edits that removed that nonsense. :/
Not a problem, it was hard for me to catch at first, but I finally pinned down that that particular IP didn't cause the vandalism in question. -- Core desat 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I, OhanaUnited, hereby award you the 2nd anti-vandalism barnstar for help reverting a blank-page vandalism on my userpage. |
I tweaked the width to 40% of the total table width. That's far from perfect but that's the only simple workaround I could think of. Tell me if that's better -- lucasbfr talk 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
As the main editor of this template, I thought I would check with you that my latest edit to it [1] makes the link point to the location you intended? → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sebastian has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:smile}}, {{
subst:smile2}} or {{
subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm sorry, I don't want to be so single minded that I criticise small things instead of acknowledging the big overall work that you're putting into this! — Sebastian 09:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Super job revamping the whole Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace page! -- LakeHMM 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
what do you think about that one? To be honest I regretted creating it just after pressing the save button... -- lucasbfr talk 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
the revert [2], I really don't understand, I though the consensus was to change it in that way. → Aza Toth 14:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I have zero programming skills that could create a bot which could accomplish the task. I'd like to run a bot, but unfortunately, I posess no skills to do so. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Khukri. Thanks for writing to me. It's not a big deal to me and I'm not gonna revisit those pages, but I do wish to explain the rationale for my changes. My concern is nowhere in the templates was the term "3RR" mentioned. For such a widely used term that seemed to be a glaring mistake. Moreover, the term "three-revert rule" was used in each case before "3RR" was mentioned. Grammatically, too, it seems better to avoid using the same term again, since we have another term that we should get across to the user. But whatever is fine with me. Thanks for letting me know. Xiner ( talk, email) 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Why are you removing .svg version of the icon in that vandalism template? - Darwinek 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Khukri,
I don't think it would be a good idea to redirect all discussion to WT:UTM. If these templates are adopted, there will be quite a lot of discussion, much of it relevant to single templates, and I think WT:UTM would be overloaded. And even if not, it's good to be able to see on the talk page of a template if an issue has been brought up before, instead of having to search through WT:UTM.
So I put in a messagebox advising discussing multiple-template issues at WT:UTM. Λυδαcιτγ 03:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have words strong enough to express the way your nomination made me feel. Thank you so much! Unfortunately I don't think I am ready yet to become an administrator. My knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and ways of doing is still far from perfect, and I know I have still a lot of room for improvement in my behaviour (I feel I am a bit too bold sometimes). I must admit I am a bit afraid of working without a net as I am used to do (it's always easier when someone double checks your work). I will definitely work towards that goal and eventually achieve it. Maybe I will try in a month or two. Thank you again for your trust. Working with you on WP:UW was a great experience, I am proud of being one of the little hands that worked on that project (and I will continue to help of course). If you have any advice or criticism to give me on the way I worked, it will be more than welcome! -- lucasbfr talk 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I really applaud the work being done at WP:UTM, so I wanted to give you (another) pat on the back for your hard work there.-- Kubigula ( talk) 21:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I've got the main user talk templates page on my watchlist, so I saw Ned and followed his edits. I think I'll add some of my favorites to my my watchlist for the future. Good luck with him, John Reaves (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONED TO WRITE A BOOK ON IRISH BOXING AND I WISH TO EXERCISE MY COPYRIGHT ON THIS ARTICLE ... PLEASE DELETE
BARRY FLYNN (FLORRIEBINN) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.27.15.61 ( talk) 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
I'll create the nomination if you accept – please do accept! =) -- Majorly (o rly?) 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Go on ;-) -- Heligo land 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the barn star, and great work yourself in getting everything organized. :) — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-08 07:46Z
{{ ArticleConcern}}, {{ ArticleDiscussion}}, {{ ArticleResult}}, {{ ConductConcern}}, {{ ConductDiscussion}}, {{ ConductResult}}, {{ UsernameConcern}}, {{ UsernameDiscussion}}, and {{ UsernameAllowed}}, came about due to requests and suggestions on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.
I expect that discussion and revision of wording to fit the needs of RFC escalation will go on for a while.
If the names must be shorter (yet can still be comprehensible and easy to remember), I don't think anyone would object -- certainly not me, the fewer keystrokes the better!
However, please don't TfD them while we're still trying to work out a consistent and civil notification scheme.
We've already had a TfD on "UsernameAllowed" (closed as "Keep"), and the reasoning there applies to all nine templates.
Also, with regard to brevity of text: the problem had been that so often a brief ("terse") text on the "concern" topics had come across as hostile or accusatory, and we wanted something more carefully diplomatic to avoid making such an impression. The explanations of process are to help new users understand their options -- since most problematic usernames tend to get addressed while they're new, and the article/conduct templates derive from the username templates.
Please understand, these are not for the gross, blatant, or obvious violations of policy that get warnings escalating to blocks. These are for the "grey-area" topics where RFC consensus might conceivably end up allowing whatever had raised concern. They're not intended to be equivalent to the "warning" templates, though I think they should be listed alongside them, as alternatives when a "warning" is either too harsh a reaction or too certain a claim of wrongfulness.
Would you please take this into account? Thanks! -- Ben 17:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
RFC-related templates and shortcuts:
Template | lowercase | rfc- prefix | short | rfc- prefix | Parameters, (req)uired or (opt)ional |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{ ArticleDiscussion}} | {{ articlediscussion}} | {{ rfc-articlediscussion}} | {{ artd}} | {{ rfc-ard}} | article name (req) |
{{ ArticleResult}} | {{ articleresult}} | {{ rfc-articleresult}} | {{ artr}} | {{ rfc-arr}} | article name (req), outcome of RFC (opt) |
{{ UsernameConcern}} | {{ usernameconcern}} | {{ rfc-usernameconcern}} | {{ uncon}} | {{ rfc-unc}} | nature of objection (opt) |
{{ UsernameDiscussion}} | {{ usernamediscussion}} | {{ rfc-usernamediscussion}} | {{ und}} | {{ rfc-und}} | name issue in discussion (opt) |
{{ UsernameNotice}} | {{ usernamenotice}} | {{ rfc-usernamenotice}} | {{ un}} | {{ rfc-unn}} | RFC/NAME subject's name (req) |
{{ UsernameAllowed}} | {{ usernameallowed}} | {{ rfc-usernameallowed}} | {{ una}} | {{ rfc-una}} | archived RFC's "oldid=#" (opt) |
{{ UsernameBlocked}} | {{ usernameblocked}} | {{ rfc-usernameblocked}} | {{ unb}} | {{ rfc-unb}} | reason for block (opt) |
All these templates (except {{
UsernameBlocked}}) will automatically add your signature, unless you add the optional parameter sig=n
.
![]() | This template should always be substituted (i.e., use {{ subst: User talk:Khukri/archive4}}). |
Khukri, there is a small issue with "biog1". If you use the template with an article name, there is no space between "contributions" and "to" - it makes it "...thank you for your contributionsto <articlename>". I tried to fix it, but you can't test changes - you have to save the change before the new template goes into effect. I don't want to experiment on the template any more - can you fix it?-- Kubigula ( talk) 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Replied there. See my comments. -- sunstar net talk 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Where was this discussion, exactly? I see one mention of the spelling difference in the 5 archives of WT:UTM, and every other occurrence of "vandalise" seems to be just people pasting it in from the messages themselves. (You also said it once.) A 3-man straw poll with the supermajority opinion being "no one cares" is the only mention made of the subject on WT:UW or any of its archives, and there is no discussion on the warning template pages themselves. I find the WP:VAND usage rather compelling here, and would switch it the other direction if that were the usage on VAND as well. (I'm American but I really prefer British spelling for most things since I've grown up on a diet of British literature.) -- tjstrf talk 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_ dzasta 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086 Talk 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Template:Cv seems to radically change its behavior retroactively. Was this discussed somewhere? - Harmil 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi...here is a diff that demonstrates the issue. [3] Thanks in advance, Kukini hablame aqui 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page ( here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.
Mart inp23 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to read through WP:CANVASS. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Khukri, I think that the article I wrote about R19 Youth Ministries should stay on Wikipedia because it is a youth group from South Hills Bible Chapel, a church which has an article on Wikipedia. Personally, I think that if you allow South Hills Bible Chapel to have an article, why won't you let their youth group, one of the largest in the Pittsburgh area, have an article too? Please reconsider speedily deleting it!
Joshua —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piratesmvp ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
←Archive 3 ( 101 - 150) | Khukri's talk archive 4 (151 - 200). Please do not modify | Archive 5 ( 201 - 250)→ |
I've added a small section (talmud interpertations) into the topic of Neturei Karta (which took a while to make due to the complexity of the talmud) and it appears that other people [a.k.a. user:Bsnowball] are "trigger happy" to remove it despite it's intelectual relevance and encyclopedic importance. to the best of my knowledge, encyclopedias are supposed to expand sub-topics on their subjects and not look for the shortest, least informative, dictionary-like descriptions.
Jaakobou 09:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You reverted all my changes. Why? I was adding information, not vandalising it. I've changed it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.136.183 ( talk) 20:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
I added the blatant vandal tag because it appeared to me as if he was changing information ruthlessly in an effort to mess up the page. Sbrools 19:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Since we have separated test templates and vandalism templates, I don't see why we should have a vandalism level 0. If you can't give it above a 0, it's really a test, not vandalism, as current guidelines state to start at level 2 for nonsense and such. I personally don't even think there should be a vand1, but other users do so it should stay. I think there should be no level 0 for other types of vandalism also, like blanking. T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
You are down as a member of the WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation. I and a number of editors for the last couple of months have been working on the harmonisation of the current warning message templates, at WP:UW. I have spoken to a couple of other members of your project, and I would like to merge it and it's talk pages with ours. If you still have interest in the project or would like to participate or have any thoughts on the combined projects please let me know. Any other problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 10:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for dealing with AmericanBrit for me. I was afraid he would get away with making personal attacks on me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.130.138.12 ( talk) 19:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page - I really appreciate it. (I think it's an AOL user whose spam link I reverted. Oh well.) :-P -- TheOther Bob 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
umm, got a message saying I vandalised a page, I didn't. Are you sure it was me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.230.215 ( talk • contribs)
I am not being mean about user 64.130.138.12 he was vandalizing the article Sodomy and then Survivor. And he blames relatives, leaves attacks on my user page and then deletes them. If I got too made, Im sorry but I just hate vandalisum so much I guess I get too angry when calling down the vandals. American Brit 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've been following this argument ever since the Sodomy article. At first, while I thought American Brit was acting overly harsh in every single possible way... which he kinda was.. it was still my opinion that his "target" was guilty of vandalism and should be banned. I no longer think that, and if anyone should be banned it should without a doubt be American Brit. He has refused that guy's every attempt at mediation, even when he gave perfectly logical excuses for the wrongful edits. He has personally attacked the guy, he has been stubborn and hard-headed, and frankly, he has shown very little logical thought. I'm not a participator in this argument, and I can't say much, but he also seems to be toying under the notion that it's his holy-beyond-words duty to stomp out vandalism, even though he is nothing more than your average ho-hum user. So I suppose you could also throw in delusions of grandeur and arrogance into the long list of accusations. However I do have one criticism for the victim, who for one reason or another doesn't have a username. Why on Earth don't you have your own account?! I highly recommend that you get one, so that damaging mix ups such as this one don't happen again. Anyway, that's all I have to say. I hope my two cents help in your decision Khukri! -Keegah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keegah ( talk • contribs)
First of all would all editors please sign their comments using ~~~~. OK to start, my issuing of agf warnings to you both was not about the initial accusations of vandalism but from the ensuing comments. A couple of points, the old {{wr}} warning removal templates do not exist anymore. It is no longer an offence to delete warnings from a talk page, hence it is not blockable.
American Brit, I would suggest you have another look at this editors history here there is one instances of vandalism on the article Sodomy, which was self reverted, and not reverted by yourself. His/her rational behind the removal of the image on Survivor (TV series) could be genuine, as they have tried to discuss the matter with you at some length. I'm sorry to say this but I believe have a misguided understanding of Recent Change patrol, it is not a fight, crusade, or anything else glamourous. It is a necessary janitorial duty to keep Wikipedia in good order. It is not WP:AGF on a first users vandalism/edit that you instantly start threatening users with a ban such as here or here. Also you waited a almost 5 hours in issuing a final warning to a new editor talk page, for which you didn't revert the vandalism. I don't have time to analyse every contribution of you both, but I would be very interested in what lies 64.130.138.12 has stated. Also your continued threats of blocks will not be getting anyone banned for a year. Wikipedia, as it's motto states, is the encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone, and your thoughts here of who should or should not edit wikipedia is again not assuming good faith. There are admins on wikipedia who are years younger than yourself, and who are respected by the community. You are not an administrator, and you do not have the right to make these threats. I think it would be better if you left this user to me, if I see any further vandalism I will go through the correct channels to have a punitive block applied.
64.130.138.12, I suggest you get an account if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia in a constructive manner, and this will stop any problems you have with vandalising syblings. It will also but an end to this affair if you no longer edit using this IP. Also I would suggest in User preferences under the edit tab you select Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary as currently you have only left one edit summary/header.
I hope that you will not be posting each other messages again. I will keep an eye out and take the required action, and I think this should be the end to this subject. And lets, for both your sakes, not see it escalate out of hand. If you have any further problems please don't hesitate to leave me a message here. Best regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi -- You reverted some of my grammar and punctuation edits to the Uncertainty principle, but actually I think I'm correct, so I've re-reverted. I've opened up a discussion on the article's talk page in hopes of avoiding an edit war.-- 75.83.140.254 18:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted the change, as it is not of the same image and should not have been changed as such. Cheers. -- Bob 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been correctly reverted. You just need to refresh your page. If you like, report him to User:Femto's talk page, as he has just been further blocked for 1 week by him for vandalism. -- Bob 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be best to relist it on today's page, so we can get more views - there probably aren't enough comments for there to be "a consensus of no consensus" as I like to think of it. Normally we don't relist on TfD on the basis of too few !votes, but I think that this is overlookable when there's no consensus in the !votes cast. Good work on them, by the way :) Mart inp23 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as Delete if you aren't an administrator. That's pretty clearly stated in Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, and the reason for it should be obvious - it leaves the actual article around.
What ended up happening in this case was one person tagged it for Speedy deletion, while yet another complained at AN/I, and the deletion was performed by an admin - yet a third. So three other people got involved. What's more, if no one had complained, the article would still be sitting there. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Jan 8, 2007
To; Khukri,
I have a question regarding your addition of the color "Orange- Guilty Feelings. . .etc" to the "Mood Ring Color Chart" on the Wikipedia Article about "Mood Rings". Where did you get your information from regarding that entry for the color "Orange" on a "Mood Ring"? Is it from an older "Mood Ring Chart" from back in the 1960's or 1970's? I tend to agree with the mood that is designated for the color orange, though I think that the color "Orange" should be placed inbetween "Gray" & "Amber" on the "Mood Color Chart".
Would appreciate a response as I am very intrigued and curious about the addition of the color "Orange" to the "Mood Chart".
Thank you for your time.
Signed, Dawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnofrabbits ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for the barnstar :D! And, you're welcome - it was an interesting excercise for me :). Thanks again, Mart inp23 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, your barnstar really cheered me up. If you need help at anytime for anything (even some booooring stuff, which UW was not), don't hesitate to call me! PS:The new templates surely are sexy. -- lucasbfr talk 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
I award this barnstar to Khukri for doing the most towards getting WikiProject user warnings to the review phase, and for being the sole person to give barnstars to those who helped, as you can't really give yourself a barnstar. -- kenb215 talk 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you very much Khukri ( talk . contribs) 16:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm heading home from work now, but will do later tonight ^_^ I've made a note of my changes on the project talk page. ShakingSpirit talk 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was actually just doing one set to show how it is to be used. I've added documentation at Template:Uw to show the possible parameters. If you'd like to do a search and replace now, you can, although I don't know how easy it is going to be (since you need to specify the warning level to get the correct icon). I've done the uw-vandalism set, so I'll stop for now. -- Renesis ( talk) 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messageboxes to standardize meta messageboxes along the lines of WP:UW. Would you like to join? You've done great work on standardization for the user warnings project and your input would be very valuable to this WikiProject (you are even the first person I have asked to join!). Let me know. Thanks! -- Renesis ( talk) 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could comment on the Super 14 page at it's peer review here. I would really appreciate the input. Thanks. - Shudda talk 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of Peter Doyle in my life and I have certainly never vandalised his page. Please refrain from sending me further messages claiming I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.67.155 ( talk • contribs)
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the From First to Last page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Khukri (talk . contribs) 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC) - Found this on the talk page for my IP; the so called vandalism you referred to was the removal of "add sonnys girlfriend on Myspace
myspace.com/dream_a_little_sonny" from the article, which was unnecessarily there, and the removal of a bunch of HTML gibberish from another section. As a result, I fail to see why you would revert the edits that removed that nonsense. :/
Not a problem, it was hard for me to catch at first, but I finally pinned down that that particular IP didn't cause the vandalism in question. -- Core desat 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I, OhanaUnited, hereby award you the 2nd anti-vandalism barnstar for help reverting a blank-page vandalism on my userpage. |
I tweaked the width to 40% of the total table width. That's far from perfect but that's the only simple workaround I could think of. Tell me if that's better -- lucasbfr talk 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
As the main editor of this template, I thought I would check with you that my latest edit to it [1] makes the link point to the location you intended? → Ollie ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sebastian has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:smile}}, {{
subst:smile2}} or {{
subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm sorry, I don't want to be so single minded that I criticise small things instead of acknowledging the big overall work that you're putting into this! — Sebastian 09:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Super job revamping the whole Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace page! -- LakeHMM 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
what do you think about that one? To be honest I regretted creating it just after pressing the save button... -- lucasbfr talk 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
the revert [2], I really don't understand, I though the consensus was to change it in that way. → Aza Toth 14:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I have zero programming skills that could create a bot which could accomplish the task. I'd like to run a bot, but unfortunately, I posess no skills to do so. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Khukri. Thanks for writing to me. It's not a big deal to me and I'm not gonna revisit those pages, but I do wish to explain the rationale for my changes. My concern is nowhere in the templates was the term "3RR" mentioned. For such a widely used term that seemed to be a glaring mistake. Moreover, the term "three-revert rule" was used in each case before "3RR" was mentioned. Grammatically, too, it seems better to avoid using the same term again, since we have another term that we should get across to the user. But whatever is fine with me. Thanks for letting me know. Xiner ( talk, email) 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Why are you removing .svg version of the icon in that vandalism template? - Darwinek 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Khukri,
I don't think it would be a good idea to redirect all discussion to WT:UTM. If these templates are adopted, there will be quite a lot of discussion, much of it relevant to single templates, and I think WT:UTM would be overloaded. And even if not, it's good to be able to see on the talk page of a template if an issue has been brought up before, instead of having to search through WT:UTM.
So I put in a messagebox advising discussing multiple-template issues at WT:UTM. Λυδαcιτγ 03:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have words strong enough to express the way your nomination made me feel. Thank you so much! Unfortunately I don't think I am ready yet to become an administrator. My knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and ways of doing is still far from perfect, and I know I have still a lot of room for improvement in my behaviour (I feel I am a bit too bold sometimes). I must admit I am a bit afraid of working without a net as I am used to do (it's always easier when someone double checks your work). I will definitely work towards that goal and eventually achieve it. Maybe I will try in a month or two. Thank you again for your trust. Working with you on WP:UW was a great experience, I am proud of being one of the little hands that worked on that project (and I will continue to help of course). If you have any advice or criticism to give me on the way I worked, it will be more than welcome! -- lucasbfr talk 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I really applaud the work being done at WP:UTM, so I wanted to give you (another) pat on the back for your hard work there.-- Kubigula ( talk) 21:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I've got the main user talk templates page on my watchlist, so I saw Ned and followed his edits. I think I'll add some of my favorites to my my watchlist for the future. Good luck with him, John Reaves (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONED TO WRITE A BOOK ON IRISH BOXING AND I WISH TO EXERCISE MY COPYRIGHT ON THIS ARTICLE ... PLEASE DELETE
BARRY FLYNN (FLORRIEBINN) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.27.15.61 ( talk) 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
I'll create the nomination if you accept – please do accept! =) -- Majorly (o rly?) 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Go on ;-) -- Heligo land 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the barn star, and great work yourself in getting everything organized. :) — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-08 07:46Z
{{ ArticleConcern}}, {{ ArticleDiscussion}}, {{ ArticleResult}}, {{ ConductConcern}}, {{ ConductDiscussion}}, {{ ConductResult}}, {{ UsernameConcern}}, {{ UsernameDiscussion}}, and {{ UsernameAllowed}}, came about due to requests and suggestions on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.
I expect that discussion and revision of wording to fit the needs of RFC escalation will go on for a while.
If the names must be shorter (yet can still be comprehensible and easy to remember), I don't think anyone would object -- certainly not me, the fewer keystrokes the better!
However, please don't TfD them while we're still trying to work out a consistent and civil notification scheme.
We've already had a TfD on "UsernameAllowed" (closed as "Keep"), and the reasoning there applies to all nine templates.
Also, with regard to brevity of text: the problem had been that so often a brief ("terse") text on the "concern" topics had come across as hostile or accusatory, and we wanted something more carefully diplomatic to avoid making such an impression. The explanations of process are to help new users understand their options -- since most problematic usernames tend to get addressed while they're new, and the article/conduct templates derive from the username templates.
Please understand, these are not for the gross, blatant, or obvious violations of policy that get warnings escalating to blocks. These are for the "grey-area" topics where RFC consensus might conceivably end up allowing whatever had raised concern. They're not intended to be equivalent to the "warning" templates, though I think they should be listed alongside them, as alternatives when a "warning" is either too harsh a reaction or too certain a claim of wrongfulness.
Would you please take this into account? Thanks! -- Ben 17:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
RFC-related templates and shortcuts:
Template | lowercase | rfc- prefix | short | rfc- prefix | Parameters, (req)uired or (opt)ional |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{ ArticleDiscussion}} | {{ articlediscussion}} | {{ rfc-articlediscussion}} | {{ artd}} | {{ rfc-ard}} | article name (req) |
{{ ArticleResult}} | {{ articleresult}} | {{ rfc-articleresult}} | {{ artr}} | {{ rfc-arr}} | article name (req), outcome of RFC (opt) |
{{ UsernameConcern}} | {{ usernameconcern}} | {{ rfc-usernameconcern}} | {{ uncon}} | {{ rfc-unc}} | nature of objection (opt) |
{{ UsernameDiscussion}} | {{ usernamediscussion}} | {{ rfc-usernamediscussion}} | {{ und}} | {{ rfc-und}} | name issue in discussion (opt) |
{{ UsernameNotice}} | {{ usernamenotice}} | {{ rfc-usernamenotice}} | {{ un}} | {{ rfc-unn}} | RFC/NAME subject's name (req) |
{{ UsernameAllowed}} | {{ usernameallowed}} | {{ rfc-usernameallowed}} | {{ una}} | {{ rfc-una}} | archived RFC's "oldid=#" (opt) |
{{ UsernameBlocked}} | {{ usernameblocked}} | {{ rfc-usernameblocked}} | {{ unb}} | {{ rfc-unb}} | reason for block (opt) |
All these templates (except {{
UsernameBlocked}}) will automatically add your signature, unless you add the optional parameter sig=n
.
![]() | This template should always be substituted (i.e., use {{ subst: User talk:Khukri/archive4}}). |
Khukri, there is a small issue with "biog1". If you use the template with an article name, there is no space between "contributions" and "to" - it makes it "...thank you for your contributionsto <articlename>". I tried to fix it, but you can't test changes - you have to save the change before the new template goes into effect. I don't want to experiment on the template any more - can you fix it?-- Kubigula ( talk) 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Replied there. See my comments. -- sunstar net talk 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Where was this discussion, exactly? I see one mention of the spelling difference in the 5 archives of WT:UTM, and every other occurrence of "vandalise" seems to be just people pasting it in from the messages themselves. (You also said it once.) A 3-man straw poll with the supermajority opinion being "no one cares" is the only mention made of the subject on WT:UW or any of its archives, and there is no discussion on the warning template pages themselves. I find the WP:VAND usage rather compelling here, and would switch it the other direction if that were the usage on VAND as well. (I'm American but I really prefer British spelling for most things since I've grown up on a diet of British literature.) -- tjstrf talk 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_ dzasta 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086 Talk 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Template:Cv seems to radically change its behavior retroactively. Was this discussed somewhere? - Harmil 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi...here is a diff that demonstrates the issue. [3] Thanks in advance, Kukini hablame aqui 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page ( here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.
Mart inp23 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to read through WP:CANVASS. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Khukri, I think that the article I wrote about R19 Youth Ministries should stay on Wikipedia because it is a youth group from South Hills Bible Chapel, a church which has an article on Wikipedia. Personally, I think that if you allow South Hills Bible Chapel to have an article, why won't you let their youth group, one of the largest in the Pittsburgh area, have an article too? Please reconsider speedily deleting it!
Joshua —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piratesmvp ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC).