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.

hi i wrote an article for discussion about archbishop robin eames and a whole lot of stuff came up about vandalism. i have been using this computer which belongs to the royal air force and i'm not sure how widely avilable all the computer identifier stuff that i dont undrstand is available or if its just this unit. if it is there are only one or two people who can be doing it and i will sort them ot for you (vip) if its the whole organisation that is leaving this footprint then block it cos we should all be defending the realm and not tooling about on wikipedia. if it is someone in my department accept apologies. 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)~

Hey, I seemed to have received a message about vandalising the Volcano page although I have not, I haven't even been on Wiki for at least a month due to the Xmas holidays, why has this come up? Thanks... -- 84.13.68.56 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

...on the first edit of 2007! (that's 2007 UTC time, of course) – Gurch 00:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol. As I looked through another user's userpages. I am just curious about Adminship List, because I decided to make my new pages for listing adminship like person who succeded his/her adminship, or didn't succeed his/her adminship. May I ask Where did you find this?: Username S O N S % Ending 1 Savidan 80 1 0 99% 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2 BostonMA 76 27 11 74% 09:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 3 Yao Ziyuan 12 4 0 75% 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 4 Nilfanion 7 0 0 100% 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Please, Respond in my user page. Cheers!! Daniel5127 <Talk> 01:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. I was referring to this:

Daniel5127 <Talk> 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

See User:Dragons flight/RFA summary – Gurch 11:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re your recent block of 12.45.169.249 ( talk · contribs). The last edit was bad spamming, and at first the group of edits prior to that (on cars) seemed to be spam, and I reverted them all. I then discovered that the URL being added - http://www.analogstereo.com/ has been added to many car articles by a number of different people, and I was going to remove tham all. After looking some more, I then decided to revert my reverts as it seemed that it's probably an ok URL to add in that it provides free downloads of manuals. Let me know what you think. -- ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish to join the Welcoming Committee, can you help me? Rasillon 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ps: I love age of empires, best game of all time.

Gwernol,

It was brought to my attention that you came by and deleted a post on my user talk page because you thought it was spam. While I appreciate the intention, I'm going to have to ask you not to do that again. I saw the post and left it up. If I thought it was spam, I would have removed it myself.

Thanks, Clint ( Clint 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles, so I apologize if I've broken some rules trying to deal with this person. I've noticed that you've banned this user before, so this is why I'm asking you for help. This user is repetitively editing this article] to put incorrect information in it, specifically adding it (an article about an alien) into the "Fictional Scots" category and stating that the Alien has a Scottish accent, as well as saying that a character has retractable claws when there is proof that he does not. I've repetitively tried to have a discussion with this person on the talk page and also by leaving invisible comments next to the lines they keep editing, but I've been ignored. The last straw was when I added a dispute tag to the page and it was immediately deleted by them. It's pretty much an edit war, and I have no idea how to settle this. Thank you for your help. Miriam The Bat 01:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

sent to you just now Tvoz | talk 02:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You blocked one of my trolling accounts which is a little unfortunate. Please don't do it again. I know your ip address and i will release it on the vandal community if you ever block me again. Yours sincerely JINX

it was much needed. Dropal 06:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as fast as User:Dropal

However, I also am here, first, to thank you for your help/intervention.

Also, I'm impressed by how quiclky yo intervened!!!

2nd, I have created the article in question as a retort to Jewish Bolshevism, and I will source it as soon as possible.

Now regarding civility, its only appropriate to respond in kind!

I had only asked for the reason regarding the Vandalism tag.

The title "don't be childish" started it all.

3rd - what remedy does on have against such ABUSIVE LANGUAGE? Is there a way to deal with it? 4th - Who, and Why, was My TalkPage Deleted? -- Ludvikus 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Civility to Be Maintained

OK, I understand that now. I have learned my Wikipedianism by trial and error.

As a Wikipedian, I have an obligation, to keep my cool, even if the other has insulted me.

I wiil do that in the future.

Now as to Wiki interests. It may be that I am an extremely valuable writer WP. But to keep being so it is essential that my reputation be intact. That reputation is reflected by what others say of me - and this available to other Users who visit my Talk page for a comment, often in disagreement.

It is not to Wikipedia's interest to have a reference such as "don't be childish" available to others to read, especially as it is groundless.

Accordingly, can you tell me if this person User:Dropal a WP Administrator? -- Ludvikus 07:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Altering/Deleting Another's Talk/Discussion Page

I'm not as unversed in Wikipedianism as you might think.

I am able to tell that User:Dropal, an admitted ex-vandal, deliberately vandalized my Talk page.

Because our discussion was on each other pages, and he had used the slanderous "don't be childish" on my talk page, I decided to defend my Wikipedia reputation by blockquoting my remarks on his talk page. He reponded not merely by remarking on my talk page, but also by deleting the block quote I had made of my side of the dispute, which was on his page.

Now if that's not vandalism, what is?

This I have never experienced before. No one has ever DELETED a portion of my Talk page while making a comment on.

You can very easily see this Vandalism yourself - I know you are quick, and believe you are knowledgable as to the "history" of Wwiki pages. This User:Dropal I believe is a danger to the integrity of Wikipedia. It is not a mere personal score I wish to settle.

So for the sake of Wikipedia, please, please, look into the matter I raise here - he has VANDALIZED my TALKPAGE.

Yours truly,, and Happy New Year, -- Ludvikus 07:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

um i was trying to print something out and i wanted to remove information that i didn't need. so i just went to edit and deleted it and it said i vandalized this website. i didn't know i just want to get rid of the things so i don't have to print out 5 pages when i could only use 3

Do it! :) - crz crztalk 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A trade magazine. Only known to professionals in that sub-industry. Much like "magic the gathering magazine" should not be used to justify the notability of a magic player. In our general encyclopedia, general notability is required. - crz crztalk 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Could you please tell me how to archive all the messages I recieve on my talk page. Shakirfan 16:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gwernol

Please do not remove the external link to " http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/" on the "Charles Manson" article.

This link is to what is superficially a blog. It is in fact the source of some very interesting and newly available secondary sources.

The author of this "Blog" is also in possession of some primary sources relevant to the 1969 prosecution of Charles Manson and his "Family" and is in the process of analysing and publishing his research.

The author is fairly well known amongst scholars of the case.

The link deserves to stay.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barland ( talk • contribs).

I trying to make WP a more harmonious place. By giving Majorly a more pronounced air of benevolence, this would enable him/her to continue with his/her duties without as much opposition from other Wikipedians. Blueaster 18:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(here's a smiley for you even though you might not appreciate it :) )

i thought that we don't own our userpages... and besides, although it isn't a guideline on WP (yet), my actions were done according to the golden rule, doing unto others only as I would have done unto me. I would love to find my user page filled with smileys from another user any day. Blueaster 19:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Metamagician3000 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, was attempting to learn the coding used on the portals thought i was deleting said things on my own wiki. 208.13.165.219 18:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Which Fair Use image am I using? I don't know which... Pikminlover ^Meep!↑ 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I goofed I hit the wrong button but as soon as I did I realized which button I pressed and I fixed. (I have a js for helping block users) Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right way to do it, but the user at IP 216.56.60.211 has been defacing the Andersonville, Georgia article with something about oompa loompas in the "Demographic" column. I'd revert it but I'm not sure how to do it properly and saw that you blocked his IP for a week so I'm sending this to you. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soporific ( talk • contribs).

I totally agree with your request to delete the Manifestation of God category. Can it just be speedily deleted? The user who started the category, continues to add it to other articles. -- Jeff3000 02:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. -- Jeff3000 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, didn't mean to upset the delicate order of Wikipedia--I just noticed that someone else had apparently made that edit, and I wanted to make it all proper and wikified, so I linked the name of Lachey's (now apparently alleged) mistress/girlfriend. No harm no foul, I hope.--Phil, aka the renegade editor of the Nick Lachey article, which i swear I don't read every day.

I am glad to be back at wikipedia again, after being rudely blocked for a month for little to no reason. I assure you I will do exactly what I did before being blocked, that is, only contribute to wikipedia. I write this to you, because I want you to know that I think your actions were irresponsible, and only furthered my theory that many wikipedia admins are pompous and overzealous. I don't want to offend you in any way, because I know you would be prone to blocking me if I did. I want you to at least understand my point of view, being that you acted irresponsibly. If you don't want to listen to me, I understand. If you never want to speak to me again, I understand. I just feel I was mistreated, and that if you are as responsible as you think you are, you would at least try to make it right. Again, no offense should be taken from this, I just want to talk.

With all due respect, Sportsguru9999 06:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandalism revert on my user page...the user in question is certainly making life interesting for us today. Hope I haven't inflamed the situation with that user by being a bit eager to tag (I Prodded (tag then removed by author), then AFD'd the original article, so I may be the source of the frustration...). Kind Regards, Chrisd87 12:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol, if you have time could you take a look at this and let me know whether or not you think I'm nuts? I'm somewhat at a loss to understand why the discussion is going this way. I would like to hear what you think. Thanks. Accurizer 15:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am learning. I have eight confirmed kills, er. . .AfD within the past two days. Ronbo76 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried the prod's and got beat up by two editors who then went back and wikified the page as I originally suggested. The AfD method seems to be working real nice for me because consenus usually is quick!!! :) Ronbo76

Re: Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Abortion. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

   Taking your edit one part at a time:

       Noone wants to get an abortion.

   That is your opinion; can you cite a reliable source for this? You need a nationally published survey showing this is true

       No one is "in favor of abortion"

   Again, what evidence can you present that this is anything but your opinion?

       however it is the womans right to choose what happens to her body, and getting an abortion is a lot like getting an F in birth control

   Purely your interpretation

       and where abortion is well tolerated it is commonly used as a method of birth control.

   Again without evidence from an independent source, this is just your opinion. Gwernol 04:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Response follows: First off, it is absurd to even think that anyone wants an abortion, ie, gets pregnant just so that they can get an abortion. Second, it is equally absurd to think that anyone is in favor of abortion, ie, thinks that anyone should get pregnant just so that they can get an abortion. Third any woman who gives up her choice over what happens to her body is clearly doing so against her will. Fourth while there are many other reasons for getting an abortion that are spelled out in the article (medical for example), getting an F in birth control is a clear way of describing what really happens. Fifth, it is documented that in certain countries which I don't remember at the moment however I think that one is Japan, where abortion is well tolerated that a lot of women have many abortions, dozens even, and they do so because they are using abortion as a means of birth control simply because they do not want to bother with any other form. See - all facts, and by the way why would a male have an opinion on abortion anyway - as soon as a male gets pregnant is the soonest they are entitled to voice an opinion on abortion. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.125.109.5 ( talk • contribs).

If someone posts content on my talk page, is it considered vandalism to delete it after I have read it? One of the other admins had put a ton of info. One about an image I uploaded. i added the tags required. two a large welcome message, and info on reading the 5 pillars. Which I did. It made my talk page too full, and I read the info. It wasn't stuff anyone would want to read? I notice that the admisn gaes do nto go one for hundreds of pages, so I am assuming you all delete items off of it? Thank you. i am new to this. -- Wer2chosen 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, but the link to archive was broken. Do you knwo the correct one?-- Wer2chosen 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I still do not quite understand why i cannot delete itmes from my talk page. It seems to me that it is my wiki email, and once I have read and dealt with it. I delete it so my inbox dosn't become unwieldly. The archiving process seems to be a chore. I will go with the flow though. When in Rome!-- Wer2chosen 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, you removed a large section of text from the article on Venture Capital on 2 November. I'm a venture capitalist, and while I wouldn't claim it was perfect, it seems broadly accurate, and it strikes me that it's unnecessary to remove it entirely. Would you be willing to add the text back again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.84.6.9 ( talk • contribs).

Gwernol, my response to your kind reply is at: talk (I'm not sure if you are automatically notified of this).

Thanks for taking a look at Countdown timer. I appreciate your quick notice of the issues! Philippe Beaudette 00:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but it's because I work on articles in depth, and I make changes that would take longer to explain than the time it takes to do it. Most editors make one small change, but I go through everything with a fine tooth-comb. I have been asked to leave a summary very often, but I get so involved I forget, or my itchy mouse-finger clicks before I know it. andreasegde 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, and thanks a lot. I will do it, but I don't expect my summaries to be intelligible. :)) andreasegde 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Dear Gwernol,

It is not clear where to post on this page. It says on the bottom and this is the bottom. No offense but you are a difficult one to talk to. I really don't understand what I did to offend. I don't understand what all this talk of vandalism is. What is this? Why are you so angry at me? What's going on? Who is this? Why are you violating me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistysong8 ( talk • contribs)

Gwernol, I've been trying to post a link to an image in the page "Brady Quinn", but I keep getting messages that say it's spam, however, it's not. Here is the image's link, if you need to check the image: http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l44/GoIrish24/IMG_0069.jpg Please help me out with this! Thanks, GoIrish24

Not sure I agree with your analysis of my contributions to Wikipedia as I HAD been making editorial decisions about where I made internal links, and was not adding them un-neccessarily, in my humble opinion. I was enjoying my minor contribution to Wikipedia as a step towards being more bold in the future - did you read my talk page before you left your disapproving comments? hadrians 05:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello there again Gwernol. How was the skiing while editing? I just had another editor Arjun01 indicate that they would like to nominate me for administrator. My first reaction is it has not been long enough since my last nomination, however I feel bad not accepting another users nomination of myself (un-solicited) as it shows they have faith in my editing ability. Do you have any reccomendations on the appropriate course of action to take here? Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was an indepth edtitor review. I very much aprreciate that. I will take your reccomendation and not accept my nomination until later. Your advice is respected and much appreciated. Thanks again! By the way, if you run across any mistakes I make, feel free to leave me a reminder. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gwernol,

I know for a fact that the two users, user: Leben4life, and user: BBQ Teddy Bear are sockpuppets of user: Ockenbock. I have seen a person using both of these accounts being used in the same IP range of the Boulder Valley School District, which was recently blocked for users using the computers to vandalize each others user pages. Just saying, please block these two users. Thank you,

-- Toni.Cipriani 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

YO Gwernol sorry for my outburst I know that you are not bad I was just mad OK? Anyhow It was probably for my better good.

Hope Have a wonderful day and possibly a better future for you and me.

YO!

- Patelco 02:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. I was using the hyphen in a conventional manner when the term is used adjectivally. This is fairly normal practice, for ease of reading.

Birdhurst 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you have had some problems with this user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:69.157.107.88&diff=prev&oldid=98775031

He is making edits everywhere without discussing them, deleting cited information or often just changing it arbitrarily. I think he is very destructive of Wiki content. I and others are tired of correcting his undiscussed and uncited changes to multiple articles. Veritas et Severitas 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I make a rather long comment here, but this user's behaviour is far worse than just this IP would suggest. This user has used a few IP numbers, and has made personal attacks with several of them. They have been blocked a few times for these attacks, and for using different IP addresses to evade blocks. I am leaving a list here of some of their behaviour. I'm quite supprised they have not been blocked recently, they have received several "final warnings" recently, but because they remove them from their talk page they are not evident unless an admin checks the page history. This person's edit history is quite similar for all of the IP addresses used.

IPs used without personal attacks:

69.157.122.195

69.157.126.95

65.92.92.170 block

69.157.126.241 warn warn warn warn block block due to sockpuppetry

IP's used with personal attacks:

69.157.105.101 diff diff diff block for personal attack and sockpuppetry

69.157.102.5 diff diff diff diff diff block sockpuppetry

69.157.102.196 diff appology block

69.157.117.116 diff diff diff diff warn

69.157.120.37 diff

65.92.92.125 diff diff

69.157.107.88 diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff

Vandalism of my user page with IP 69.157.107.88: diff diff diff diff diff diff

Warns for this (main) IP 69.157.107.88: warn warn warn warn warn warn warn

Is this Epf?. Veritas et Severitas thinks it might be, and so do I. Of course no one wants to accuse anyone wrongly, but there are reasons for being suspicious. There are similarities in the pages and arguments this user uses to the pages and arguments User:Epf has used. Indeed this user appeared shortly after Epf mysteriously stopped editing, the first personal attacks from him that came my way were just after myself and Epf had had a rather bad disagreement on the English people talk page, in which neither of us were particularly civil it must be said. I suspected this user to be Epf at the time, but I decided that it was best to assume good faith. Now several other editors think it may also be Epf. There is an edit from the Welsh people article from 20 August 2006, some months before the anonymous editor above claims was his first time on wikipedia. diff, Here is their edit history they have the a similar edit history to Epf and started editing with this address on 6th August 2006. The above anonymous user claims his first time was on 26 October 2006. diff He also made a very minor edit to one of Epf's talk page contributions, which is very odd. diff And he also seems to have asked User:Eoganan to revert an edit to the English people article when he could not break the three revert rule. diff Epf and Eoganan also have had contact with each other. diff I am very suspicious, I wonder if there is any way to find out if they are the same person? Having said all that, I have just seen something of interest at User:Eoganan's talk page, he was editing under the IP address 69.157.126.241, which is the above address from August of last year, User talk:Eoganan and he is accused of sockpuppetry, this address is very similar to the anonymous user's address that I am reporting here (they mostly start with 69.157). So I don't really know the relationship between these three people, User:Epf, User:Eoganan and the anonymous IP. Is there any way of finding out? Alun 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

hahahah, Wobbs, u have got to be trippin. I admit I am Eoganan but are you really foolish enough to think Im Epf ? Maybe we has some things in common but that guys just wrong on alot of his issues and ive seen his arguments with you and others which is why I started attacking both him and you and others. Not that it matters that im Eoganan since most peopel already know ive used different IP accounts and that one before. It doensmt mean much comin from u since your a vandal and opinion pusher yaself, so leave it alone alone before ya get whats comin to you. Eoganan, IP #'s, yeah im the same user and your the same user. (This is acutally awesome because Ive been accused of Epf before with Eoganan on the Scottish peoples article which pissed off that user so bad !!!! hahahahah) 69.157.107.154 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you came across this via my posting or on your own, but thank you for removing this [1]. If you didn't come across it from reading my comment on AN/I, could you please have a look at this comment, [2] disruption seems a clear intent here.-- Crossmr 05:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Fine. Joel Jimenez 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol, I'd like you to look at this web page. http://www.hawking.org.uk/info/iindex.html On behalf of my sister. Thanks. Kevin Holmstead Kevh2000 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my talk page - I kept hitting "save" and getting the database lock message, grr. Cheers, FreplySpang 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of things to prove BBQ Teddy Bear is a sockpuppet of Ockenbock-

• His page was vandalized by user: Cloony Da Baloony. This user only vandalized other sockpuppets.
• BBQ Teddy Bear was created on a BVSD IP Address. Addresses in that range were used by Ockenbock to talk to his sockpuppets.
• People at the IP address range of the BVSD told me they witnessed BBQ Teddy Bear being used as a sockpuppet account of Ockenbock.

Thanks! -- Toni.Cipriani 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not mentioning this before, but I just realized this: BBQ Teddy Bear's page was vandalized by user: Fukkie, who is a sockpuppet of Ockenbock.

Thanks again:

-- Toni.Cipriani 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the mean time, while people are still voting on whether or not to keep the Category:Films which explore libertarian themes, I'll continue to update it. I'm not personally convinced it is as ambiguous as might first be assumed.

Respectfully,
Allixpeeke 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another IP of Eoganan you should be aware of: 69.157.116.202 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You deleted Workflow Management Coalition because "no assertion of notability". Thanks for leaving the node, I appreciate that.

WfMC is a legitimate consortium which has had a defining effect on the information technology industry over the last 13 years. There are 300 member organizations spread across the world. There are local chapters in Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Taiwan, Korea, and a number of other place. The standards are incorportated into dozens of commercial products, as well as a dozen or so open source workflow systems. There are many academic paper written on the subject of the subjects of comparing research implementations to the WfMC reference architecture.

I honestly didn't think I would have to include all that, nor did I expect that the typical wiki reader would be interested in that detail. But it seems that without this, the page disappears.

This page: BPMI similarly has no assertion of notability. Where is the consistency?

This page is worse: Sequence Bpm Workflow -- this is not a standard at all, but a product from a company called PNMsoft whose claim to fame is that they are a "Gold Certified Microsoft Partner" They claim to be a standard, but this is just an ad.

I realize you get a lot of spam from everywhere, but WfMC is an important organization.

The problem with deleting a page is that all the discussion goes away.

• I know that you deleted it because of lack of (CSD:A7 - no assertion of notability) but it was deleted just before that because of this: 22:22, 6 January 2007 Pilotguy (Talk | contribs) deleted "Workflow Management Coalition" (Deleting page - reason was: "Blatant advertising, WP:CSD#G11" using NPWatcher) Please check the delete log if you disagree.

Goflow6206 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)goflow6206

Could you provide a 2nd opinion for me on the latest rounds of edits/rv's etc. in this article. I value your opinion. Rklawton 00:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Gwernol, this is something that I believe would be unquestionable to delete by now. Author is requesting it themselves... ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol, I am coming to you because we have interacted in friendliness in the past. As you may or may not be aware, I had a no-consensus RfA in November last year, largely because of a stupid answer I gave to a supplementary question, but also because of a deficit in some fields of editing. I am looking to go for RfA again this year (no, I am not canvassing you). I have, I think, filled the gaps in WP:NAMESPACE which caused concern to some editors, but do not do anything in template, images or portal. Would you be so kind, when you have a moment, to take a look at my edit count and let me know if you feel that it would meet with community approval with these gaps unfilled?

I have tended to go in the past to User:Melchoir as mentor, but as he proposed me last time I felt that asking him this question might put him in a difficult position.

Please be honest.-- Anthony.bradbury 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be most grateful if you could do that, as and when you have the time. Not in a major hurry - I was thinking perhaps February.-- Anthony.bradbury 17:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have not been vandalised now for about three months. What am I doing wrong?-- Anthony.bradbury 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol, please unblock my friends account, Aidan93 . Her account was blocked indefinitely because someone hacked onto her account and vandalized. Please help. Hmsfrench 18:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol. I saw you removed my last edit to the article. I'd like to let you know that the pictures I saw were innapropriate, it linked to a file named 'ass.jpg'. That's why i decided to delete them. Now it seems all have been reverted. Aveyond06 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gwernol, Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. I very much appreciate it. ArthurWeasley 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol, As far as I know you are an administrator. I figure you could give me some insight on why, if it is, the indef block of User:Fattdoggy is appropriate. I personally believe that his edits were in good faith and an indef block is a bit far out. If you agree with the indef block, I will drop the subject however if there is a place where I can appeal this indef block, I would be interested in pursuing it. I have been trying to help User:Fattdoggy out, and while his edits may be construed as vandalism I find an indef block pretty steep. However, you have alot more expereinece than I do so your opinion would be much appreciated. I and another user have left a message on the blocking admins talk page with no response. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! The opinion is much appreciated, and will consider your reccomendations. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action on what seemed to be an abusive editor who wasn't going to change any behavior. Just a heads up that the user seems to be running multiple accounts. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3A11tas&diff=99064879&oldid=99038948 (not sure how to wikilink to a diff). He accidentally left one of his comments under the name 16 desember 6 januari, and went back shortly thereafter and edited his username in place of the duplicate handle's signature. -- Robb0995 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How come saying things like:

"The sort of out of date racialist thinking that normal people (that's 99% of us) think only nutters believe any more." "you just want to make claims that science supports your racist ideas" "There was a cite to "racial reality", a racist nazi site as far as I can see, with the reliability and accuracy one would expect from a bunch of neonazi thickos (who ever met an intelligent racist? Not me)." While commenting on neo nazis may be acceptable, he correlates it with racists after commenting on my "racist ideas" and after calling me "Ah well my little nordicist friend".

are "content disputes"? Lukas19 03:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok...So you consider this:

"I am very fed up with your racialist POV pushing, you clearly have no interest in producing a neutral encyclopaedia, and are only interested in promoting a racialist minority POV at any given opportunity." as a content dispute. However User:Wobble has said similar things like a dozen times. Recent ex:

"I really am fed up with the constant distortion, half truthes, misinformation and POV pushing you keep trying to introduce to race related articles."

So when these accusatory comments keep going on and on, dont they constitude a personal attack per:

"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom."

And the latest ex is from the Cabal request I have made. It should have been clear that I'm not trying to distort Wiki since I'm looking for dispute resolution... Lukas19 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This user also seems to be having a vandetta against me, reverting my edits without any explanation. See: [3] [4]. Lukas19 04:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps take another peak at the new image just added to the Neil Young article(the one you just rv'd yourself on). My AGF is always pushed pretty thin when I see images uploaded by users making dubious claims about being the original photographer. In the case of the new Neil pic, there are a lot of holes in the tagging/licensing. And the source webpage basically says "don't use it without premission". If you can spare a minute to fine-tooth comb it it'd be much appreciated. Cheers and take care! Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 04:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I was tempted to suggest that as they haven't really made many contributions, they might as well just open another account, but that'd be verging on WP:BEANS I think. Couldn't be clearer sockpuppetry if they called themselves Zippy or Bungle.

You can wish me a happy wiki-birthday if you like; 1 year ago today I set up this Guinnog account. Thank you for being one of the people who have done most to help me and keep me here so much and for so long. Very best wishes, -- Guinnog 06:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Guinnog 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to alert you ASAP that it looks like another sock of User:Batman Fan is at it again. You blocked the latest which was User:EJBanks. Has also gone by User:Dr. McGrew and User:Creepy Crawler and been indef blocked each time for disruptive editing. The typical pattern is to create redundant categories involving soap operas and comics books. CovenantD 07:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, I guess it would help to include the current user name. Fatone411's contributions can be seen here. CovenantD 18:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for all your help with User:Eoganan. It's a dificult job being an admin, and I don't think you always get the thanks and appreciation you deserve. Anyway thanks a lot, you are much appreciated. Alun 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work and support! -- A. B. ^(talk) 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gwernol, just to let you know, I blocked BBQ Teddy Bear ( talk · contribs) as a likely sockpuppet of Ockenbock ( talk · contribs). If it turns out I'm wrong, there wasn't much positive coming from that account anyway since everything was edits to the user's own user page. Just thought I'd tell you since you had already said you weren't going to block him (don't want you to think I'm editing against you here :) ). Also, I'm going to keep an eye on Toni.Cipriani ( talk · contribs). All his edits, basically, have been to his user page, BBQ Teddy Bear's user page, or your or my talks. Also, one of his two article edits was just deleted by me. You can see it at Special:Undelete/Mobius_(novel). Notice some of the other names in there? Ockenbock and his sock crew. It's worth keeping an eye on I think. Metros232 13:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to update you if you were curious, yup Toni.Cipriani was a Ockenbock sock based on checkuser results. Metros232 05:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Every now and then you run into a clever vandal with a sense of humor; sadly, this was not one of those times. ˉˉ ^anetode ╦╩ 18:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your message on my talk page where you started this discussion. — Remember the dot ( t) 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what else to do with this - two Alan Chin's on one page, both potentially notable, or maybe not. Would you mind taking a look. CiaranG 23:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that does sound like the right course of action. However, I'm not convinced that either satisfies WP:NOTE. Certainly they don't on the basis of what's there currently, nor based on anything I can find online. I am also catching a whiff of WP:AUTO. I'm going offline for a while anyway, so I'll come back to it later if nobody else has dealt with it first. Thanks again for the input. CiaranG 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't mean that I would use admin powers to do whatever I wanted without regard to the rules. I meant that if I thought they should be used to improve the site, I would do it. I'm not some power-hungry weirdo. Plus, what I was referring to when I said that I would use my tools to combat vandalism, I meant using ban and protect buttons.-- Averross 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not too bad at communicating with frustrated people. And I do know the difference between banning and blocking, I just tend to talk differently. It just feels awkward saying the same word repeatedly. I need synonyms, dammit! Btw, thanks for the guide.-- Averross 17:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Gwernol....I really do want to clean up vandalism, I didn't know that you had already taken care of it. Sorry.....also, I will use the talk page from now on.-- SupaSoldier 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Gwernol, I will read those Anti-Vandal pages and Vandal-Fight correctly next time. Thank You Again! Best to you also!-- SupaSoldier 18:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gwernol, I have a question. Is the Miley Cyrus page Semi-Protected or completely protected? SupaSoldier 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to reply, I just figured out how to use the user talk pages. I didn't mean to vandalize the King Levitation page. Won't happen again and thanks for fixing it. Ms408 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

G'day Gwernol...Saw your edit on South African steam and disagree about videos being adverts - they are, I believe, historically citable and verifable sources. Certainly, in our land 'Down-Under' films, TV news and curent affairs and videos are citable in academic works. Whilst, I appreciated the advertising complexities a video reference is no more advertising than a book reference. I've left a few points on the Steam Locomotive talk page and would be happy to discuss how to proceed. I saw a bit of the final years of South African Steam and am interested in getting a few words together on that scene. Best wishes. Tonyob 06:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandalism-reverting on my user page. It's appreciated. -- Scimitar 20:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! I was wondering if you can take a look at User talk:Moeron#Thank you for reverting; an IP is referring to having you step in on a content dispute. This is in response to the IP trying to insert a non-relevant section to Phish, which I have removed with this edit summary. I will be copy/pasting the section on Talk:Phish to discuss, but I think removal until things can be settled would be best. Let me know if I am severely erring. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP is back and has re-inserted the section again (without sources), simply stating that "If anyone thinks this is "unverifyable" or "POV" you haven't attended a phish concert. Or you can do a simple google search." I am not at all adverse to having this in the article with the proper wording and sources, but the IP is saying "Until others besides you two really feel this section is not relevant it will be replaced" at Talk:Phish#Glowstick Wars. Perhaps you can mention at the Phish talk page or on the IP's talk page basically what you wrote on my talk page. It might sink in coming from some whose name he mentioned already. Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 06:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gwernol, I've got a present for you!!!!!!

Barnstar moved to my awards page. Gwernol 23:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most Welcome, Gwernol. You completely deserve it!! ;^) BarnStar Boy 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words. I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be. Again, thank you. – Luna Santin

You've done a lot for the wiki, and for a long time, keeping a steady hand at the helm, as you go. Despite the lateness of my reply, in this regard, thank you for giving me a chance to follow in some of your footsteps. Luna Santin 13:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you help - please G'day Gwernol - thanks for the comments re video citations. I've accidentally stuffed up a steam section on 2-10-2s. I added a bit on references and material but the remainder of the article vanished. I'm unable to restore the remainer of the piece, but its visible on my edit page. Can you help fix the problem? With thanks. Tonyob 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Gwernol/Archive 19 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3 Clamster 01:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gwernol, I need your help......I put in a request to Semi-Protect the Miley Stewart (Hannah Montana) page and there has been no reply! Thanks for reading! You're the best! SupaSoldier 01:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:216.59.244.17&redirect=no

Just a random user now seeing this "You have new messages" banner because I happen to be using the same IP address some schmuck you were annoyed with back in September had. What are the odds the same person will come back to read it three months later? Clean up after yourself, if you don't mind -- I don't want to see this crap on my session.

216.59.244.17 12:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This anonymous IP also attacked San Diego, CA. It appears other articles have been attacked by this user. I am going to revert edit them. Ronbo76 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, San Diego is on my watchlist because I am a member of the WP:CAL project. I am doing some historical research on some of its settlers. Ronbo76 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Mac user and contributor to wikipedia and wondered if there were any software-assist programs out there - I've looked around Macupdate.com and generals searches of the internet and all I see are ways to add wikipedia searches to other situations, but nothing to help contributors who use Macs.... I see you are a big contributor to Macintosh oriented sites and thought you and a few others might be good people to ask. Thanks.-- Smkolins 13:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, and for the kind comment accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So I posted a link under the external links category and you removed it twice and im not sure i understand the policy. The link is to a community blog with articles and free resources for users. much like the other (and by the way less relevant) external links that have not been removed, other sections of the site sell for profit relevant training products. if the policy is that external links cannot be to a website that on its other pages sells for profit, then all the links in this section should be removed. I read the spamming section and i dont understand how my posts qualify as spam. please advise - thanks Amerkin 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Gwnol, i remember on the list of lineal heavyweight champs, there was 5:1 vote to keep the article, sure, it needed rewriting, but what happened, why was it removed, i demand it's restored, it's very informative and many people love reading about this, i am one of those former boxers and today a boxer who considers a lineal champion the ONLY CHAMPION! -Boxingwear

Gwernol, I may accidentally have misled you. You will doubtless recall that I asked you for your views on my edits with regard to going for RfA, which you agreed you were happy to do. I then said that I was thinking of February. I should have clarified my meaning in that I meant that I was thinking of February for a further application to RfA. I am in fact out of the Country for the second half of February, and if I am going to put in an application it will therefore need to be right at the beginning of the month. I am really sorry to hassle you, but would be most grateful if you could give a view before the end of this month. My apologies for my lack of precision.-- Anthony.bradbury 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol, I am really sorry to nag, but I do respect your opinion. Due to holiday commitments, if I am going to go for RfA before the middle of March, I will need to do it in the next few days - if I can find a nominator (I hate self-noms). An honest opinion as to whether I should go for it or should wait would be much appreciated, and I would not be offended by either view.-- Anthony.bradbury 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I obviously agree with comments about procedural errors (signing) which I have a tendency to do when I get emotional. I am working on it. I also have a certain difficulty, which I think I have now controlled, in being civil to Holocaust deniers. I will watch it in future.-- Anthony.bradbury 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The addition you just deleted does not reflect personal views. Except from the issue of signing the addition (you are right to point this out) all I did was to add the relevant fact that there are new pressures for Turkey to admit the illegal status of TRNC during its recent talks for EU bid. I am probably stating the obvious here but it seems that all articles that touch on Turkish crimes only represent the Turkish view and admins like you negate all attempts to make them more objective. -- Tedblack 13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Incredible! Guinnog deleted my article on options theory (that has been read by a variety of students and bankers in the City by coincidence immediately after I started posting on articles related to Turkish crimes). You say phrases like "long road" are a point of view. Perhaps this Google search using "long road"+turkey+EU can help you see reality [5]. You also say that the phrase The Turkish government has been pressured to recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus" is unsubstantiated !! Obviously the extensive press coverage on customs deal and its implications for the Turkish EU entry has passed you by (look at Google search [6]). I could go on and on but is it really neccessary for me to convince someone who lives in NY about these facts? Tedblack 13:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with BoxingWear above that the deletion of the Lineal Heavyweight Championship page was a bit rash. I'll admit that there were no citations given on the page, and that was a mistake. However, it is a widespread term in the boxing world (although it usually goes by "linear" heavyweight title, not "lineal"). For example, here is an article from a boxing website which describes it: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=7734&more=1. Looking through boxing books, you can see the same lineage described most often as the "World Heavyweight championship," from a time before sanctioning bodies gave out championships. Harry Mullan's Boxing: The Definitive Illustrated Guide to World Boxing is a good source.

If you could restore this page I'll make an effort to add citations and bring it up to Wikipedia quality standards. Thanks for your consideration. MKil 14:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Where did i insert commentary or personal analysis?Here are the links to what i wrote. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15382

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15370

As for the comments that Donald Trump made , here.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237997,00.html

Instead of tryinhg to be big bosses over here , I would like to know exactly why i got this warning .Where did I insert personal commentary? Now i can imagine how you all will act very innocent and dont reply. Hahahaha1 00:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've increased the block you placed on this account to an indefinite length; the account's only edits are vandalism. If you have any concerns about this (i.e. feel I'm being to harsh), please get back to me.-- Scimitar ^parley 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you have been very helpful in the past, especially with a fairly extensive editor review several weeks ago. I have had another editor, and also an administartor offer to nominate again for RFA Husond, as well as have had several other people ask in the past 2 weeks. I am contemplating accepting this offer and was wondering if you had any input on this? Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for your reply .Its very much appreciated .Another thing - the primary reason why I dont put in citations is because I dont know how to link the citation with the small number.I would end up putting the link there which would look very untidy . Hahahaha1 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

whatever happened to the article on the Angry Nintendo Nerd? He has thousands of fans and maintains a very popular website. I was surprised to seet hat Wikipedia has no article on him, but Wikipedia has articles on nonnotables like Christopher Zervic, who is the president of a nonnotable local club and author of a small and nonnotable web page.-- Sonjaaa 20:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. -- Onorem 17:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you appear to be the current target of a concerted sockpuppet attack. I will watch, but as you will see from my userpage I have some current problemns, and have to sleep sometimes.-- Anthony.bradbury 00:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought that I had reverted you, but I see that User:Anetode beat me to it. Comment still applies, though.-- Anthony.bradbury 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, man. You're an admin. He's a vandal. Block him. I know it's tricky when it's your own pages being hit, so ok, take advice. But block him would be my advice. On the record.-- Anthony.bradbury 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The suck my xxx vandal (shown User_talk:128.186.159.143 and User_talk:128.186.40.98) are IP addresses from Florida State University. The user is probably using shared computers at a computer lab to vandalize pages. Thanks. Real96 02:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a very confused user that at least needs help learning how to reply on a talk page. First, they put a reply at the end (with no newlines) of an existing older conversation on my talk page. Then I find a post on my user page. Neither were signed. I also just found a post, this time signed, where I have been posting my replies, but up inside my post where it was buried.

All this started when I asked them to use edit summaries. Unfortunately, many bots probably get more suspicious when edit summaries aren't used. I tried explaining that in my original post, but that appears to have been ignored.

My original post is at User_talk:ArmenianNY#Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals. I have gathered the replies that went to my pages at User talk:Will Pittenger#Edit summaries. Thanks for any help you can provide this user. Will ( Talk - contribs) 06:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He's doing his usual thing at his Talk page: "I don't understand, what are you talking about?" I don't know if you want to explain... -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I just ask if anything is likely to be done about this character?

For example here (an attack on an ex-colleague of mine) and here which has some very weird stuff about me, including what appears to be a death threat. ("Even you have announce that you fear for your life because of me, correct? Do you remember?").

I've given up editing on the Philosophy page because of this character. I'm amazed at the remarkably tolerant attitude shown towards him. I would appreciate anything you could do. Dbuckner 19:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have blocked him. But is 24 hours enough? Dbuckner 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. You can't imagine what we have had to put up with for nearly a month. Thanks again. Relief. Dbuckner 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I could hardly keep up with this prankster's pranks, but was please to see that you Blocked him when I went put a warning on his page after reverting way too much vandalism. Don't always find Admins that responsive to these serial vandals. Cheers, HJ 20:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't stop him. 84.142.76.116 11:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking this IP. I was going to, but my non-admin position prohibits any blocking by me. (by the way, I was going to warn him/her, but forgot, and it's not worth it now) Ry Guy Sign Here! My Journal 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Your quick effective intelligent block of a sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz is a blessing. Good work. WAS 4.250 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the Colbert reversion. Sorry I missed it in my previous ed. Must remember the banned stuff in future! Thanks again— GRM 18:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. Does something like that need intervention from Oversight? -- Siobhan Hansa 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It may, I'm going to follow up with pschemp and see what action she wants to take. Gwernol 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Attack user name User:Death to Gwernol

-- BuickCenturyDriver 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

headline. so i dont care User:wrestlinglover420 ok dude listen u dont know what its about so im gonna ask you again politly to back off User:wrestlinglover420