I'm new here to Wiki and recently wrote to an article, adding to an old stub. The article can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_engineering. I see you had altered the article previously. I am looking for comments from various users, especially those guiding my revisions. You can get ahold of me on my talk page, which is currently empty. Apadget04:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If there's some way I can find data on elections prior to 1996, I'll add that data in as well. Could you show me some examples of candidates running in multiple districts? With all the data I entered, there's always the chance I accidentally pasted in a name twice and didn't notice. Of course, they may also have similar names. Based on that, I can figure out if they were different candidates or just sloppiness on my part!
I have been in communication with this person and in respect to the subject's wishes, said article is to be omitted to protect this individual's anonymity. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. 37Celcius01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a new admin and still trying to understand what I am supposed to be doing. ;^)
We seemed to have crossed paths tonight at WP:AIV. A request to block User:The Crawling Chaos claimed vandalism after final warning, but when I checked, no edits had been made since the final warning.
I noticed that you blocked the user indef because it was a vandal-only account. I was under the impression that we had to wait until after a final warning was posted, followed by another act of vandalism. Is that not correct?
I'm not questioning what you did; I'm trying to learn more about the blocking policies. I've been frustrated a number of times where I would have loved to block the editor, but didn't feel I could because they hadn't gotten the final warning. :-( The one thing I have learned is that there are lots of opinions on what the policy really is. ;^)
Thanks for your message. As you said, there are lots of opinions on what the policy is. Technically, it is the policy to only make blocks after warnings have been disregarded. However, I have often seen vandals get blocked even after they disappear when they are warned, and I have reluctantly started to do this myself, particularly for new accounts. Basically, with the more difficult process in creating an account, it is unlikely that someone who would create an account and then vandalize several times would have any interest in contributing to the site positively. If it were up to me, I think that particularly registered users should be blocked without warning for simple vandalism, and IPs should only have one warning. However, in practice I am not quite that tough. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have more questions. Academic Challenger05:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was human error -- I accidentally put the same info in twice. Should've been Mark McSpadden in the 36th. I'll double-check my info and make sure there aren't any other duplicates. Thanks for the catch!
Hey there, I'm currently engaged in a prod war on Jamie Hornsmith which is an article you've deleted twice tonight ([1]), and the prod notice has now been removed three times. I still don't feel the article is sufficiently referenced and have explained to its creator why not, but obviously I'm in danger of a 3RR violation if I go any further, so the case is in need of a second opinion! Sorry to bother, and have a nice day - Zeibura S. Kathau(Info | Talk)01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would, please, go to this user's talk page and give him a stiff warning. He has been adding these spam links all evening, and he must be made to stop. I have already reverted him four times in the U2 article. Much more of this, and he goes to AiV. Cheers! ---Cathal23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Context duly noted, apology for db-nonsense tag left on user's talk page and previous warning deleted. Hope I wasn't too BITEY - it had the appearance of a nonsense page about e.g. a classmate (and not a very polite description at that!) I'll add the book to my "to read" list... Yours, Bencherlite23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'll remember that one next time. BTW, if you're in nonsense-fighting mood, how about Icky Face, where the author has now deleted the speedy tag four times...? Bencherlite00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Did think about reporting the username, but thought that the user would be banned anyway before long. The Talk:Icky Face page needs to go too - unless the persuasive advocacy there from another user causes you to reverse your delete decision?! Bencherlite00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, I wanted to get your opinion on User:Locuasohappy. I tagged it for speedy deletion, since it seemed to contain personal information about a minor (possibly not even the user, see Kevin Zeledon (also csd tagged)). Personal information is not, to my knowledge, a CSD. You seem to have had some interactions with the user before, what would you suggest? Maybe deletion of the personal information while retaining the userpage? Not sure of policy here. --TeaDrinker16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everywhere I go, especially WP:AIV, Academic Challenger is always there, helping out and blocking vandals. He does an amazing job, and I don't know what AIV would do without him! Thanks for reverting vandalism and making Wikipedia even better then it already is! Chickyfuzz14(user talk)05:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Warn him once more. If he doesn't respond, block him for a half-hour, with a note that says that this is just to get his attention. DS18:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. About a week ago, you commented about my bot, User:Polbot. You suggested it create redirects for common alternate names for politicians. You may be glad to hear that this task has now started. See here for details. All the best, – Quadell(talk) (random)17:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me, my account is lazio gio. For some reason I have been blocked, after having been accused of being a sock puppet, which I am not.
I am not Vince B, this is ridiculous. Please compare my edits.
I write about American sports and Central European History, that is it. I do not mean to offend anyone.
I could not even admit your discussion page because I am blocked so you will see this library's IP address. If you have any questions please contact me at lazio_gio@easy.com or if you suggest I appeal to anyone else please provide me with the contact information.
Thank you for the help...
Hey, AC, its junebuggy!!! im back for about 2 days because its my boyfriends birthday. ill check my messages today
junebuggy17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ac! I admire the work you've done for the community and so I thought I might draw your attention to a new task force that I've set up with various editors. We're basically committed to making sure that the environmental records of major corporations and politicians are accurately and readably represented. If you have any interest in the project, please take a look. Regardless, keep up the great work! Benzocane00:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I need some help with embedding an image in an article which is a combination of many images from this site http://www.loopers-delight.com/tools/akai/MPC2000/MPC2000.html . I am not sure what license to use and when ever I try using the usual code It says "image deleted because no license." Help would be great.
I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [[2]] (Felsommerfeld16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt01:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt01:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi again - I am continuing the discussion above about the current collapse of the Shakespeare Authorship Question article -
I just posted the statement below on the Shakespeare project page as advised by another administrator with an "A". I am a long-time editor of this page and am coming under attack from 2 "new" editors and one sockpuppet (now banned). They have deleted material, section by section and my attempts to revert have not been successful. I tried posting information section by section, as advised by another administrator, asking for discussion, but none came. Instead, these ridiculous accusations came and reverts were made. My post below will tell my side of the story. I am asking that you revert the page to the version that was in place from Nov 06 to June 07 (before these recent wars started) and then lock the article for a cooldown period. Here is my posting on the project page:
"Mass deletions of material from Shakespeare Authorship Question article"
As a regular editor to all things Shakespeare, you all know (and some are sickened by) my interest in the Authorship Question (laugh). My last (and first) year here at WP has been quite a learning experience, and believe it or not, the FA process for the WS page was quite an eye-opener. But many of us learned a few more things about WP, so even though the article did not achieve FA, I think one day it will and in the process has already (and will further) become a great article.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Shakespeare Authorship article itself. For the past 8 or 9 months, the page has been relatively stable. In the last week, 2 or 3 new editors (and one unfortunate sockpuppet which has already been banned) have made mass deletions of referenced material. No big surprise - all the deletions were Oxfordian or anti-stratfordian. Now this is the same page where most of the mainstream editors from the WS FA process said that the authorship information should go. Now,... that info is being deleted, section by section. Unbelievably, in their haste, these editors have even cut the stratfordain disclaimer (that academics dismiss all the alternative candidates) that I had grown to accept.
Anyhow, because this is the WikiPjoject Shakespeare, I have been advised, and had already been considering, requesting that the editors of this page take a look at what is going on. Because I have resisted their deletions, they are now waging a campaign to have me declared some sort of SockPuppet for long-time editor BenJonson, even though I don't think he's made an edit for weeks or months. This accusation has been plastered on at least a dozen admin mailboxes - none of which, so far, has fallen for their. I know the truth, I detest sockkpuppets, and I know that some smart administrator will be able to prove their accusations groundless. In the meantime, however, the page is the one that will suffer.
In spite of the fact that most of you are staunch stratfordians, I have also found you to be reasonable and have a sense of fair play. I ask that you look at the talk page and bring some cool heads into the discussion. I ask that you look at the article and its format for the last 8 months, then look at the edits over the last few days. I realize some of you personally disagree with the content, but if we are attempting to make these articles better, then the kind of attitudes and accusations and mass deletions going on on any of these pages should be a cause of concern. Thanks for hearing me out.Smatprt05:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You are the person who have welcome me to the Wikipedia and now I need help: ) I would like to ask you if there is a possibility for these three articles (battle of Anchialus, battle of Pliska, battle of Kleidion) to become FA? I think it would be almost impossible for them to become any longer, so they are going to remain around that size. I know that the language and grammar are not good but this can be improved by a native speaker of English. If there is a possibility for that, would you tell me what other things to do? Also you might help with the grammar and language if you have time and interest. Regards, --Gligan15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Would you please nominate the articles bacause I don't know how... If you have something to clarify for the events during or around the battles, I will gladly help. Unfortunately I very busy too and it is night here in Bulgaria, so I will probably answer you tomorrow. Regards, --Gligan19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AC! I reported him to 3RR twice, the first time he had stopped for a while so we gave him a second chance, but then he came back and started deleting content and reverting. Thank you! – Dreadstar†06:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Workadded has been previously blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations. He's unblocked now and has continued to do what he has been doing previously, including posting of fake warnings on other user talkpages past final warning (past multiple final warnings actually). -WarthogDemon22:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images are important...The images are releated to the article. The japanese poster shows the difference with the american poster, and the pikachu the movie logo show the changes throughout each movie, the logo for the third movie has the release date for japan ex: Pikachu the Movie 2000, and the fourth logo has 2001 the year the fourth movie was released, and the fifth one has Pikachu the Movie 5th which is the fifth movie, and the tenth movie has Pikachu the Movie 10th which is the tenth movie. These users aren't listening to me when i try to tell them the reasons for keeping the images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Workadded (talk • contribs).
Can you pls help me? I´d like to work with pop ups. How can I have them inserted?
Well, on this topic/link, what exactly would be a code and where should I insert it?
Thank you,
Hello,
I was wondering if it would be possible for you to take a look at an edit war that is going on at Gary Peters (Michigan politician). The main part of the dispute revolves around the "Central Michigan Controversy" area and is especially related to WP:RS. I do not believe the "Central Michigan Monitor" which is a blog published by the Young Americans for Freedom at Central Michigan, is an example of NPOV. A unregisterd user with slight different IP addresses continues to edit the page to include information from this website.
209.254.46.3414:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this looking very much like this is enough evidence to file for a check for suckpuppet request? Also, there is a third account (newly created) that blanked the page after this happened in what may be an attempt to cover it up. I dont have much experience so I do not know what to do, but all the accounts involved have a history of vandalism only. See the history of Talk: Global warming. Thanks for the advice and reply here telling me what you recommend. Brusegadi04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should definitely make a check user request. Their extremely hostile attitude and on the same position of the same issue makes it very possible that they are the same person, and even if not, they will get in trouble if they continue with these types of comments. For now a Check User request is a good idea, and we'll see what happens from there. Academic Challenger05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just posted the article "The Eleanor Series". I was curious as to why it was deleted? I think it is a fantastic set of books for families, and wanted to let people know about it. I included information about the author, and about the books. Is there a way that I can edit this article so that it will not be deleted? It was taken down so quickly I didn't even have time to add the "hang on" thing in there.
Tori.Close19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll do as you suggested, and try to resubmit it after I've researched a bit.
Checking on my past vandals! Way cool! I love it!! I'll hit you up directly if I need help - thanks!. Glad to hear from you, my friend! Dreadstar†05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Tedo Japaridze, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Jeepday (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please hold the fort while I'm gone. I'll be retiring for the night. The Vandal was using two other IP addresses. Since his IP is from Japan, it's probably daylight there, so he might persist. Again, I appreciate your assistance. (although sometimes I wish I was a sysop) Odst03:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I have time, I will look into it. There aren't an abundant amount of English sources, though. I primarily refer to Ancient texts, Which are available at the University of Seoul website in pdf format. I was only able to find one english source at the local library, and that book also cites those old Chinese and Korean texts. Odst01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the article on Yecats deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacono (talk • contribs) 21:59, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry , but you are mistaken. This serious article was no joke and it must be reinstated immediately. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacono (talk • contribs) 22:03, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Jackrm is awarding Academic Challenger a Special Barnstar for being a great admin at times when there is a low ammount of active admins due to the time, and for deleting those darn nonsense pages! → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 07:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for deleting my entry. I was prompted to create a page for my house. I have done extensive research in archives of our city courthouse, historical society, personal archives of articles in the attics and basements of my neighbors houses. I reseearched at Taliesen West to confirm ties to Frank Lloyd Wright as well as have had Taliesen archetects to my house for research of the design and authenticity of the claims. The builder of my house has ties both to Taliesen West and Peoria Arizona and has had contact With FLW in many venues.
I understand the standards of Wikipedia must be met. Even with those high standards there are many glaring errors in multiple entries. I can see these in relationship just to my residence. Being a slow typer and a busy person I will refrain from trying to improve ao add to Wikepedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindseyma (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought so. However, we do have that damned 'assume good faith' policy, which is often interpretated as law. After all, it could be argued that he hadn't actually vandalised... *Rolls eyes heavenwards* Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)23:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a long-term pain in the ass. Glad I zapped him before he had a chance to do anything - not for the 'OMG he nearly vanadalised' overeaction thing, just sheer sadistic pleasure of having annoyed him before he got us. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)00:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your block on Serena! Seems like schools are always a popular target. Daytime for the Aussies, I guess...! A fun way to spend our weekend, eh? Dreadstar†07:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: IP 202.135.64.225. I can't see how this IP has been blocked "for a year" if I just reverted vandalism by that IP half an hour ago. Please double check. Taroaldo22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for changing the thing about the Hyde Park concert. I wondered if you would please perhaps also consider having a look at the issue discussed here:
The current status of this is that the fact that it was the BBC's theme tune, not FIFA's official one, is now in. However the wording is still in my view a little over-the-top and I wondered what you thought. Here it is:
"Pavarotti's pivotal step in becoming an internationally known celebrity occurred in 1990 when his rendition of Giacomo Puccini's aria, "Nessun Dorma" from Turandot, became the theme song of the BBC TV coverage of the 1990 FIFA World Cup in Italy. "
My concern remains that the song being used by the BBC - and it certainly was very popular over here - does not necessarily add up to a "pivotal step". Indeed, I feel that to assert that it does is somewhat Anglocentric and ignores other aspects of his career and how well he was already doing by that date. It certainly made him an even bigger - perhaps a MUCH bigger - star here in the UK, but I am still not sure that the assertion works in an international encylopaedia. Though if sources were cited I would be happy to see it stay as it is.
Having said that I recognize that I am in danger of giving in to the sorts of behaviours that led me to give up my wiki account, and that I should probably shut up now! If you have a look I will be grateful but I am not going to obsess about it and I do recognize that it is not all that important really.
I didn't know who to turn to, but I really need your help. A user by the name of Taulant23 has been disruptive on the Albania article after Deucalionite and I reached a consensus about the removal of the Pelasgians section. Taulant23 adamantly supports this section and has not provided reasons at the discussion page after it was reviewed by Deucalionite.[4]
Taulant23 has also violated 3RR since he completely reverted the positive edits Deucalionite and I made towards improving the article. He constantly went against consensus and forced both Deucalionite and myself into a revert war. Taulant23 has since failed to discuss adequately his arguments and his sources about the Pelasgians before actually placing them in the Albania article. You see, Deucalionite reviewed the Pelasgians section and first stated that it had to be deleted since there were no sources. I agreed with him. Deucalionite even requested that Taulant23 provide reliable sources in order to help the Pelasgians section remain in the Albania article. Taulant23 provided sources that were either taken out of the Pelasgians article or were just plain unreliable and Deucalionite tried to explain to Taulant23 that the Pelasgians section in the Albania article deserved to be in the Pelasgians article, which was neutral and showed all modern theories from all perspectives.
Recently, Taulant23 has digressed from the discussions he previously had with Deucalionite about the Pelasgians and has since been uncivil towards him (calling him a "Greek nationalist" and implying that he is a "Nazi" because of his blog). Deucalionite insisted that nothing be done about Taulant23 since he wanted to continue to reason with him. However, I think that Taulant23 is incapable of collaborating with other users.
I am new here at Wikipedia and I am definitely not here to cause trouble. But I feel that something needs to be done about Taulant23 and his disruptive behavior. I am not sure if Deucalionite wants to continue "reasoning" with Taulant23. I would speak to Deucalionite about this whole mess. As for me, I need to take a break from all this.
This is a delicate case, which requires better examination. User:35.11.50.138 was blocked a few hours ago and understandably within minutes, very similar abuses started from User:69.245.186.62. So it is the very same person who's indulging in the vandalism. This is most probably from a registered user, who doesn't want to indulge in similar practices for obvious reasons. Advantage is being taken of dynamic IPs. --AltruismT a l k -Contribs.07:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is only in a case where a single IPs involved should there be "An offence after the last warning for sysop action/block." When a blocked user is repeatedly indulging in vandalism and personal attacks, taking advantage of dynamic IPs, this rule shouldn't apply. This is a loophole, if it is indeed what you say. --AltruismT a l k -Contribs.07:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SieBot is making invalid Chinese interwiki links, I think because it is using the word classic instead of classical. I am blocking it for 24 hours. Please let me know if you have fixed it. Academic Challenger07:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot has been stopped. I started an interwiki main namespace run from zh-classical earlier today. I'll ask a coder to look into fixing this issue in pywikipediabot. Please unblock SieBot. Cheers! Siebrand09:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aww... that's a real bummer. I really thought he could help me - you know, since he's a robot, he would never have to sleep or be drawn away from work (unless he got broken, of course). Anyway, thanks for telling me that, so I don't look silly any further! Wilhelmina Will19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your name listed on the admin coaching page as a potential coach. I have a similar interest in academic topics and was wondering if you would be willing to coach me Mbisanz04:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just wanted to leave you a note to tell you that I unblocked 82.148.97.69 and reblocked it for only 8 hours because it is the IP for the entire country of Qatar and shouldn't be blocked for long periods of time. If you want to discuss this, you can reply here (I'll watchlist your talk page) or leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers, WODUP20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After previously I previously declined this user's unblock request, he made some apologies. Personally I'd unblock and see how it goes (we all know that indef blocked vandals often just create an other account), but I usually let the blocking admins decide whether or not an unblock/block shortening may be suitable. So I leave it to your call. (Incidentally I removed some warnings left by an IP prior to the blocks, they were all left at the same second). -- lucasbfrtalk23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On this user's talk page, there is a statement of apology and good faith. Would you consider allowing me to decrease the block to either time served or time served +48 hours? I'm willing to give this user a second chance and personally keep an eye on them, but since you're the blocking admin, I wanted to get your feel for the situation first. - Philippe | Talk00:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind my saying so, I personally think you overeacted on this occasion, sir. If the guy didn't know what he was doing was wrong, you can't really accuse him of vandalism. Rather, I would call it...: A misguided effort to help improve Wikipedia. I've had brushes with overeacting on others behalves, so I know full well what I am saying on that part. Wilhelmina Will08:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AC,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!
Thanks for your support! I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing someone else's design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! It was so great seeing your vote, thanks...you're the best, AC! Dreadstar†05:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the Peter Plantec entry. You removed it and I don't know why. It was well documented, with some references to be added because I didn't have them handy. All the conditions for notability were met and then some in several fields. And the presentation was balanced and factual rather than biased. I didn't make a copy of it, so if it's stored somewhere please let me know the url. Also Please explain the reasons for removing it. As a member of Wikipedia, I'm hoping you have access to my email address so you can discuss it with me that way. BTW, my friend Ray Kurzweil invented some of the speech and text to voice technology I suspect you use. Your activity is impressive...inspiring to others.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenar (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 12 Sept you blocked NOVAMAN1056 and his sockpuppets (Brewins, 216.143.155.35, 71.252.64.50, 24.127.62.4, 70.174.109.16, and 71.252.64.8). Did the block expire recently? It looks like he's back. Jim Dunning | talk04:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User 64.81.84.84 keeps adding nonsense to the Tim Tebow article. I see that you have banned him in the very recent past for vandalism to related articles. Please consider a repeat judgement. 64.236.243.1617:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please block this user; he insists on vandalising pages here! Bad enough that he laces the pages with misinformation, he is now resorting to fanon. Kindly block him.--KnowledgeLord02:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I miss ya man, <sniff>, we don't talk as much since I became an admin...<sniff>...;) How are you? It's good to see you on your frequent anti-vandal patrols my friend! Dreadstar† —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to high five you on our almost synchronous blocks...both of us in a row...! Teamwork with my pal AC...gotta love it! Good luck with that essay... Dreadstar†05:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finally blocking the guy. Could you please semi-protect the three pages? He'll just be back, otherwise, like he was before. Thanks! Gscshoyru05:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I don't know why some people seem to think things like 1/0 is a number... but they do. Thanks for dealing with this. Gscshoyru05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, not to be a dick or anything, but you blocked me from wikipedia for 24 hours AFTER my "final warning" which was for a silly 1 character vandalism on that guy's user page. Maybe you should be a little less liberal with the banhammer in future? --Jonathan Williams23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please nominate the articles bacause I don't know how... If you have something to clarify for the events during or around the battles, I will gladly help. Unfortunately I very busy too and it is night here in Bulgaria, so I will probably answer you tomorrow. Regards, --Gligan 19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
