Am I likely to get a heart attack? (the answer is no :) Just some advice, but if Riana is wielding her deletehammer of justice... Let's just say that my ass got kicked... --DarkFallstalk08:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Random unrelated plea for collaboration: anyone interested in helping me with this Age of Mythology list? All my other projects are either inactive due to lack of editors that aren't under the age of 8 that actually know something about the subject, or how to use {{cite web}}, or due to the lack of "don't-know-what-to-do-next" because all I get from peer reviews are those automated reviews... argh. Sebi[talk]09:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section seems to have a problem with it. Unless a new one came out, I was under the impression that only Age of Mythology and Age of Mythology Titans Expansion existed in the so called "series"? --DarkFallstalk09:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added Category:Jewish Communists to Twinkle; I confess I barely know what that means, but it it's what I think it is, then Category:Jewish Billionaires should probably go there too. Judging by the past couple of weeks, in a day or two user:pionier will probably try to recreate these categories via a new sockpuppet. I happen to be online a lot at present, but that could change soon, it would be good to have other admins keep an eye out for this banned user. --woggly10:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we decided to act at the same time :) I saw that you did the articles talk - are you doing the user talks as well, or should I (I don't mind either way). Furthermore, User:Daniel/Toolbox/DYK may be of interest to you. Cheers, Daniel01:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived war that occurred between The penguin cabal and Some random guy and Nils Olav's penguins and Pizzaboy. Please do not modify it. Subsequent wars should be made on the appropriate war field (such Pizzaboy's talk, where good discussion never seems to take place) No further edits should be made to this verbal battleground.
The result of the debate was: Resignation by Pizzaboy when he ran out of comebacks/quips.
You do realize that your favored penguin has already been brutally hacked to death and eaten? He's already been replaced by a new victim... --DarkFallstalk06:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived war that occurred between The penguin cabal and Some random guy and Nils Olav's penguins and Pizzaboy. Please do not modify it. Subsequent wars should be made on the appropriate war field (such Pizzaboy's talk, where good discussion never seems to take place) No further edits should be made to this verbal battleground.
Claim of notability
Well this comment is in regards to Beg for Life. You said the article makes assertion of notability, my question is where? The biggest claim is that the band is going on a regional tour, which doesn't cut it for WP:BAND. It would be a claim of notability if they were going on a national tour, but that is not the case. And a demo that was self released is not a claim of notability either. --Leon Sword07:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know a band doesn't have to qualify for WP:BAND, they only need to make an assertion to be kept even if temporary, but a demo that was self-released is a really weak assertion. Well, I guess it's better to play it safe, so I will too and switch over to using prods instead. Happy editing. --Leon Sword08:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DarkFalls figures himself a gansta does he?? Sorry, because if he did, that would make me just laugh...and laugh....and then laugh some more.......and then call an ambulance after popping my Aorta. :P -- Anonymous DissidentTalk09:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DF, see you removed the image. Spebi said (just before leaving), to re-add the image with <!-- wrapped around, as per "pending discussion". Is this ok? I'm not very knowledgeable with images, so I thought I would consult you first... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk07:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DarkFalls, thanks for blocking mr pee pee himself. Incidentally, would you mind weighing in here about the offensiveness of excretory names? Since User:Alasdair was warned by an admin (see his talk page for reporting a user with 'pee' in the name, I figured it would be a good community discussion at this time. Thanks! All the best, Eliz81(talk)(contribs)07:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current username policy states: "Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions." I just follow that... --DarkFallstalk07:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that came out more aggressive than I meant to. However, I am a little insulted that you implied in the edit history that I would edit a protected page. - Ta bu shi da yu09:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is consensus on this article to again delete the material about the fan mod. and to add a sentence or two about content being deleted from the game. If you'd remove the page protection some time in the next couple of days, I'll make the changes to the article by week's end. --EEMeltonIV01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm a bit unaccustomed to Wikipedia's inner workings, but I recently requested on WP:AIV for user 200.60.12.162 to be blocked for which you denied. The reason I saw it necessary for this user to be blocked was because they were given a "final warning" on their talk page to stop vandalizing articles (by NawlinWiki on May 16) which they seem to have ignored judging by their most recent vandalism to Dyslexia (note that they were given previous an earlier warning for vandalizing the same article on August 28th): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyslexia&diff=155497946&oldid=155251136
Am I missing something here? Is there a specific reason why this user should not be blocked in light of these facts? SeLfkiLL
Normally, for IP addresses, we base it differently to users. It is quite likely that the IP address has changed to another person since it was given final warning by NawlinWiki. Therefore, we must base it on a pattern of contributions to see if it is the same person. --DarkFallstalk07:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of befuddled by the issue going on at Rosalind Picard: what with the edit war, the guy req.uing page protection, both of them getting excited on my talk page, one guy req.uing unprotection... I think i will stay away from RFPP until I am more experienced with admin buttons. Thank you once again. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk09:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I just was not sure of what to do. turns out that protection etc is not that simple. Thanks. As I say, I think I will stick to the areas where I have more non-admin experience, the ones outlined on my RFA. (PS:Like the new sig :)) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk09:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Note in particular this one. The reason for the {{hangon}} tag, obviously, was that it was a hangover from a version the user saved before one of the three times that it's already been deleted. --Calton | Talk08:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IP addresses change, which is the reason I declined your report. What a IP did a few years ago may not apply to the current person using the IP. As for warning a user, take a look at WP:WARN, and choose an appropriate template, dependent on the vandalism. Hope it helps. --DarkFallstalk11:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you block User:Max.faust.dk? The only reason you gave was the "usernameBlocked" template, but I see no violation at all in the username.
I fear you may have been mislead by a bot report. Although it has the form of a Web address, there is no Web site at http://max.faust.dk.
The damage has probably been done, but I have unblocked the user. Unless there was some other reason to immediately block the user that I don't know about, I'd urge you to be more careful about blocks in the future.
That's called a parked domain. Sometimes they are registered automatically by a computer, and sometimes an existing domain name server directs any names under it that don't match anything else to the same catch-all page (which is what happened here: compare http://max.faust.dk to http://madeupname.faust.dk. They're the same.)
The purpose of a parked domain is to move accidental visitors to other sites (usually ones that are advertising something). As I have pointed out before on WT:UAA, nobody could ever reasonably benefit from purposefully directing people to a parked domain (if they did, they would benefit much more from directing people straight to the advertising site, instead of losing 99.9% of their visitors on the parked page).
So when a username matches a parked domain, it's almost certainly a coincidence, not promotion -- especially with the large number of parked domains there are these days -- and it's definitely not a situation that merits a block.
Ariel's Contributions: 01:47, September 7, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Charlotte Hatherley (New section: September 2007)
Lol, I was writing her a nice note requesting she not spam random talk pages with her lyrics (if you click on her picture, it is pretty obvious she's promoting herself), and I hit enter, and you've already been and gone, lmao. Good catch! Ariel♥Gold05:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. SieBot is not working from zh-classical at the moment. It will not work from zh-classical before the issue in pywikipediabot has been resolved. Cheers! Siebrand10:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was not gone yet :(. Had to do some more fixing. It appears that if anywhere an interwiki "zh-classic" is added, the interwiki bots will add it everywhere. I have no idea why, because I removed all references to "zh-classic" in the framework. I'll try and have a pywikipediabot developer add some code to prevent "zh-classic" from ever appearing in interwiki links anywhere and remove them on sight. Cheers! Siebrand18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
My RFA
I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Thanks for your optional questions, because I do love to dig into AFD noms and research the subjects. My not mentioning the military rank claimed for Gen. Fraser must be chalked up to editing too late at night after a long day's work.
I've reverted your removing of the speedy deletion request tag on the above article as your edit summary give the reason that it's on AFD at the moment. There's no problem listing something for speedy deletion if the person listing believe the article qualify for speedy deletion. If an admin agree and delete the article, the AFD would just close early, otherwise it can run its course. KTC06:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that just wasn't the impression I got from reading your edit summary. I had relisted it for speedy under WP:CSD#A3 because the article provided nothing at the moment other than a rephrasing of the article title. Feel free to remove the tags if you disagree. KTC06:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this user requested to be unblocked and I decided to overturn your block, because I was convinced by the explanations given (concatenation of the IATA airport codes for Vancouver, Hong Kong, Manila, and Singapore). Of course if you disagree, don't hesitate to ask for comments at WP:RFCN! Thanks -- lucasbfrtalk19:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to apologize for being uncivil. I need to work on dealing my frustration. I'm dedicating 10 hours to reverting vandalism. I also reverted all articles that I fooled around with. Anyways, sorry 75.60.14.11304:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"With 2 albums under their belts, now they are coming out with their 3rd album, witch is entitled "From Failure"." seems to be a small assertion of notability. They won't pass WP:BAND for sure, but that info escapes a speedy. --DarkFallstalk07:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*shrugs* - A deep insight into the sort of admin I'd be (not that I'd delete that straight out, but I wouldn't call that notability assertion just because it's there...meh). DihydrogenMonoxide07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:eyes
As you say, it isn't blatant, but it is fairly obvious where the copy-violative material is. I would take to AFD if I were you - can't be speedied, as it isn't blatant, but I do think that it is enough to go to AFD. Glad to help out. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk07:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that anyone asked, but I came up with the same URL as you did, when I copied sentences and googled them (not that you asked for my opinion, but I happened to see it). Sorry for butting in. Ariel♥Gold07:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007
The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Context means if the article can qualify for a stub, which in this case, it can. The notability asserted on the second article is present on the first line "is the Director of the Lands Protection Program for the Sierra Club". Although that may not qualify in accordance with WP:NN, please remember that an assertion of notability is just any claim of notability. --DarkFallstalk09:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be only one edit of vandalism in a few days, and he has stopped. I don't think a block will be much help... For a much quicker response, try WP:AIV. Cheers. --DarkFallstalk05:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great work everyone!Our edits ahave sontributed to reachiung a Wikipedi with 2,000,000 articles. It's been a pleasure working with you. A good effort all round, and a Party at my Place! Dfrg.msc06:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was thinking "nothing says happy 2,000,000th article like 2,000,000 pictures" but I decided against it. Back to the underage issue, I'm sure that's what you'll say, and then you climbing the cat-food and eating the curtains. Dfrg.msc10:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm older than 12! Ask Riana! And, could a twelve year old have such a highly developed, uniquely destructive mentality? Would a 12 year old have a page as awesome as this? Would a 12 year old be up this late? No really. Dfrg.msc11:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pizzaboy's more destructive, has a better userpage and is up right now... Sorry to ruin your dreams of being older than him :P And anyway, being Riana's sock, I officially declare you younger than pizzaboy... --DarkFallstalk11:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it could go one way or the other, seriously though, his userpage is to the standard that pizzaboy's was when he was 10. aliasd·U·T11:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe... Not gonna say anything unless TarragonMan gives me permission :) Somewhere between the ages of 10 and 85. ~ Riana ⁂11:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohho hooo! Keeping DarkFalls in the "Dark" (pun intended, thank you), is better than any edit I've ever made. But why is this important? I have a dream that my two little wiki-children will one day live in a Wikipedia where they will not be judged by the age of their person but by the content of their edits. I have a dream today. Dfrg.msc06:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. I'm sure we'll keep running into one another over at Riana's talk page. Cheers!! And I think Australia look good for the RWC. Flyguy649talkcontribs20:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I see recently deleted 2Clix for being a re-creation of deleted material. This company has (arguably) instantly just become notable because they are suing Whirlpool (website) for defamation relating to comments on that forum about their product being crap. The Whirlpool article explains this. I leave it up to you as for what to do, because I am not familiar with what happens if a previously AfD'd article subject becomes notable. - Mark07:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just on notability alone, I wouldn't delete it instantly. I was more concerned by the questionable phrasing of the article as it hardly mentions what the article is about, and sounds more like a question in WP:RD... --DarkFallstalk07:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, I have just recreated the article complete with NPoV and Citation/Sources/References. Please check it out and let me know. Fosnez10:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[4] You don't have to delete all the old versions, just the ones that are too big. I generally go with about 400-500px. I left a couple of versions here because they were OK in size :) ~ Riana ⁂14:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I saw you re-opened the AfD on BulletBall. I agree with your rationale - that close looks inappropriate in light of the closing admin's involvement in the discussion. But I think it would be best to just re-nominate it for a brand new AfD (with a link to the old one for review). Would you consider re-closing the old AfD (perhaps with a note as to the closing admin's involvement) and instead creating a new AfD for the article with a clean slate? Also, I should let you know (as I don't see anyone else has done so) that I came across the issue in response to a post at WP:AN/I regarding the re-opening of the AfD. MastCellTalk15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I listed on AN/I this morning in exasperation over the whole mess, seeing the reopening the two month old AFD as the last straw in the whole thing. I did not look close enough to see that you were an admin, and had I, I would have come here first. Sorry.
In general though, I also agree that the original AFD close was questionable at best. But at this point, two months later, I do not agree that reopening the old AFD is the proper path forward. A new, fresh AFD is probibly in order IMHO. There is also currently an open RFD on the page, opened by me a few days back. I debated between RFD and a new AFD, and settled on RFD because the page was a redirect for the bulk of the last two months, and only started to return to an article when the recent edit wars began over it. The RFD has not really gone much of anywhere, and I would have no problem seeing it closed in favor of a fresh new AFD. But at a minimum there really should not be both AFD and RFD debates going on at the same time. - TexasAndroid15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that there were both a CFD and an AfD at the moment, when I chose to reopen it... The closing rationale the editor gave when closing the merge was inappropriate as there was no consensus for the merge, nor was the editor an admin. To be honest, I really don't see much use in opening a new AfD... but I'll take a closer look in the morning. Cheers. --DarkFallstalk14:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put my photos up for deletion because of you taking Fuzzy510 side and not mine. I am sick of these rules that you have to have a non-free image a small size and not a big size. These rules are a bunch of crap and you stick by it. You deleted my uploads and kept his resizings and it pisses me off. You did the wrong thing by doing that and you abused your power by doing that. You always have to leave the first upload up there and not delete it so the other administrators can RV it if the resizing does not work in a article. You did the wrong thing and I can not change the size because of it, I don't think those resized photos would work as DVD covers so I put those transformers DVD covers up for deletion. Think about what you done. Thank You.--Stco2312:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The bunch of crap" are rules governed by copyright laws. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with Foundation. Until then, pay attention to #3b in this policy. "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/sample length is used (especially where the original could be used for piracy). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace." --DarkFallstalk14:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they do used those for piracy I will get those son of a bitches. It still wrong for you to delete someones pic without permission and my pics have been on for one or two years and the rule was not on there at the time and the pictures that were uploaded from one to six years ago should be left alone. You should be able to upload a picture of any item no matter what quality it is in. What should I do put a bad looking DVD cover instead of a good looking DVD cover. I know that if this rule stays then why bother uploading photos, because if this rule stays in place then this site will be a text site without pictures. Bye.--Stco2322:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request
When I try to edit in foibe massacres after push save page I see warning in connection with blacklist of spam link and it's impossible to edit. May you to solve problem? Regards and best wishes. user:PIO, 17:49 14 September 2007
Dearest DarkFalls,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.
I really think that due to the nature of this editor's comments in edit summaries - ie hate slurs - I think that the block should be for more than 3 hours. It's a little beyond uncivil. --Strothra03:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks aren't meant to be punitive. I gave the 3 hour block so the guy can acknowledge his wrongdoing, and familiarize himself with WP:CIVIL. He sincerely felt he was doing the right thing though (even though he wasn't)...which is the reason I didn't give an 31 hours block. --DarkFallstalk03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I understand, but do point out that he's still calling other editors "adversaries" thus showing little understanding of what WP:CIVIL is about. Regardless, I guess we'll find out when the block is lifted. Thanks again for your attention. --Strothra03:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SJP has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Wow, that was by far the speediest speedy delete I have ever seen. I don't even know if there was enough time for anyone to read the article, but had anyone done so they would have realized that it is a copy and paste of a U.S. Government website...which is public domain. I'm not even going to bother trying to get the article restored. What I just witnessed was downright creepy. Paul06:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nik razali07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I copy and paste the write up from midf.com.my website to be appear in wikipedia.username "nik_razali" is an employee of MIDF and MIDF has given him the consent to use articles from our website, www.midf.com.my. The similarities of th e write-ups on both Wikipedia and our corporate website is intentional as we want to maintain uniformity in disseminating our information online.
Please allow me add, edit and delete all the contents about Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad(MIDF) and to all its subsidiaries.
Please teach me what should i do to post the contents available in our corporate website.[reply]
I hereby award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for constantly protecting pages, blocking vandals, and just helping to make sure Wikipedia stays free of vandalism. Good job and keep up the great work! --Hdt83Chat07:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page Protection
Thanks....yeah...it was my fiancee, who was molested when she was younger...which is why I have a hard time around the subject of child abuse. But back ontopic, thanks for protecting. Cheers... -depressed- Tyler Warren (talk/contribs)10:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CAT:FURD7
Good work deleting the top few. Feel free to do an AWB run sometime later, they're all clear of old revs. And after that, teach me how to work AWB :) ~ Riana ⁂14:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't taught me your ways yet!!! (I downloaded AWB - but I got 'application error!' thrown at me, so I felt very disheartened) ~ Riana ⁂19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Wondered if the full term of 1 month semi protection could be reduced? If the article's going to succeed with a near-future push at FAC, it'd be useful to know if it's stable. --Dweller14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear LightFalls' legitimate other half, the block log is sad since the IP block resulting from RFCU appears not to have deterred admin-bashing username creating vandal person. Think filing another RFCU is worth it to try to get the IPs? ~Eliz81(C)06:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Interesting. I have a feeling that the guy has a dynamic IP, which could be the problem. Another RFCU will give the CU a good idea about the range, though that might still prove useless... --DarkFallstalk06:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize there's a chance of it not helping, but I was also concerned about being a RFCU pest. Would CU peeps mind if I started another? If it's not annoying that's enough for me! :) ~Eliz81(C)06:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're prolific enough and admin-worthy to be included on the list! And at the very least, the description of your character is woefully inaccurate :P ~Eliz81(C)21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC after a discussion with (I think) pathoschild, he recommended a userspace redirect to clear "what links here." I originally used User:White Cat/sig just like pathoschild but later decided to switch to User:White Cat/07 to sort by year as what links here is useful to me to follow discussions I have been a participant of. The need actually arose when I was dealing with User:Diyarbakir/User:Moby Dick/User:Davenbelle for a third time. Finding past discussions had taken too much of my time. It also helps me follow any mention of my username. For instance the latest WP:ANB/I thread already appeared on it. Fundamentally this is its use, at least to me. -- Catchi? 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Bradman
I wondered if you could please reply to my message(s) posted above. I am loathe to unprotect a page protected by another admin and I assume you've just not seen my posts here... --Dweller19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've restored the 533 x 300 pixel version of the image, this translates to .16 megapixels and fits any sane definition of reduced resolution as it is unfit for any sort of commercial reproduction. It is also (about) the lowest resolution which maintains a clear presentation of the landscape, as necessary for current usage in the article. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "warning is unnecessary. Has already been warned after the offense"
How's that? You posted this after removing a warning. If the vandal is not warned about their recent acts of vandalism (he was warned about one and not the other one of today), editors do not have an easier job of realizing they are dealing with a multiple or habitual vandal. Always wanting to learn if you could explain your reasoning. Thanks and happy wiking! Alexf(Talk/Contribs)10:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One warning is enough for his acts of vandalism, there's no need to pile on the warnings. If a vandal edits half a dozen times before someone notices, one warning fit for the vandalism will be enough, as compared to half a dozen warnings. --DarkFallstalk10:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big girls don't cry semi-protection
Thanks for requesting semi-protection for this page, after all the vandalism that has occured. Although I do have one question for you. Whats with that "expirery date" thing in the editing history page. Is it when this protection expires? 220.101.48.181 9:41, September 19, 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you protected the article about Dobruja. As you have probably seen, most of the editors, both of the article and of the talk page, are Bulgarians or Romanians (half-Romanian in my case). The Bulgarian users refuse to accept a the definition of a concept supported by Britannica, reputable sources published at the Cambridge University Press (unlikely to be tainted by the nationalism common in the Balkans), Romanian historians and even by some Bulgarian historians. They try to impose a view supported only by Bulgarian and some Soviet historians, and they even claim that the view is supported by other authors by interpreting the sources in an unfair way. I think that the most neutral position is the one supported also by Britannica, but maybe I'm wrong. How could I ask for a neutral editor to decide who's right? And is there a way to prevent the editors who don't agree with the decision of this mediator to revert to the version they like? This is kind of stupid, since the dispute is about the placement of 4 sentences under a header or another. While the version I think is right doesn't support any claim on the "right of X-nation over Dobruja", the one favoured by Bulgarian editors is clearly doing it. (Note that the version from one week ago didn't pose this problem, it being created by the decision of a Bulgarian editor to split a subsection). Thanks.Baltaci21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate - now we've wound up Giggy.... I've used the {{subst:uw-block3}} template a couple of times and it goes weird - it transcludes the second part of my sig (i.e. the "chat" part) into it which looks well odd and doesn't help. Have you run into this or do you reckon it's my signature? I'll show you below (just to shove a block notice on your page - ha ha - remove it afterwards).
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 83 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutrals. No matter if you voted (I mean, "!voted") support or oppose, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm new, remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them, and if I do anything wrong, feel free to add to the permanent chorus of disapproval on my talk page. Special thanks to WaltonOne and DihydrogenMonoxide for nominating me.
The claims on Bb music house are highly likely to be untrue, as I found an astonishing 18 Google hits, none of whom are a RS. Prodded.
There's a lot of shopping order pages for American Technologies Network Corporation. They obviously exist. Surely someone has to have reviewed one of their products, possibly in a gun magazine...I know GTEST sucks, but they get about 13,000 Ghits.
BKN Music gets 50 Google hits. Prodded as a non-notable company. Wikipedia is #2 hit. Sounds like advertising to me.
If there is no policy against the use of expletives (as I am not aware of one), then I don't understand the request. I don't find it offensive; in fact, the use was emphatic, not an attack. the_undertowtalk04:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. I was just thinking the same thing about him returning. He's going to come back and think that we used his talk page to hold a forum. Sorry DF! the_undertowtalk05:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing much... but even if it is emphatic, I just feel that a person could use some better wording. Personally I find the use of offensive words in such a situation as a breach of etiquette. --DarkFallstalk05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so I can't do it, but he can (see [7])? I wasn't aware about the fact that we are now censored. I used it for emphasis, not to attack anyone. --Agüeybaná22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent). It's more along the lines that should we be 'warning' users even though using expletives is not forbidden? I would only see it as a breach of etiquette if the wording was directed towards a user. I believe that there are very specific instances when using strong language gets the point across...but that's just me. It's more a matter of 'if its not against guidelines, who are we to admonish?' the_undertowtalk22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to cut in out of nowhere (The undertow had an amusing edit summary that triggered a look at his contribs and brought me here), but I cuss like a drunk sailor and can certainly appreciate the added emphasis a well-placed expletive can add to any point. And, if I do recall, I think the diff posted by Tu above earned him a talk page message from me stating my amusement. WP is not censored, and as long as it's not directed as an attack at anyone, and not overly done, of course, it should be acceptable, I think. LaraLove02:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't really have a strong view either way. It's highly unlikely that you'll earn a {{uw-npa}} warning about it so it doesn't really matter... In all probability, I'm just repeating what my mother used to say.... :) --DarkFallstalk05:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You recently blocked Homerguy for vandalism after I reported him at the noticeboard. I was wondering, was an indefinite block justified? It was his first block, and he is quite young, so it would seem to me that a shorter block (a week perhaps) was appropriate. An indefinite block is a little extreme. Loom9120:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Anyone who edits this into articles is definitely not there for the good of the encyclopedia. Judging from that and his persevering vandalism, the account seems to be vandalism-only. --DarkFallstalk05:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that this particular user is not yet ready for constructive editing. However, we may all be wrong. In any case, a first-time indefinite block is against common procedure. I think you should scale the block back to a week and see if his conduct shows any signs of improvement. Loom9113:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp15:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Federer protection
Dear DarkFalls, it appears you might be the party which limited access to the Federer page. If you look at the talk:Federer page, you will see at the very bottom my attempts to contribute, within the guidelines Wikipedia expects of contributors, to a particular aspect of the Federer page. I hope you will find that I have made my case well, and that other users who have attempted to rebut my position are now ignoring me. Can I ask you to please look at that discussion? I'll come back to this page to see what you think of it. I hope you will agree that I have a case. If not, perhaps you could advise me as to how to proceed. :) yours truly, Schpinbo15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Famous quotes and intimidating messages.... everything that makes up a gangsta... You see mate dude, a gangsta is the greatest thing America has ever produced, along with.... errr... well I can't think of anything... --DarkFallstalk07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't fair. That's the trump card that will be used for years to come. Give me something good you Australians have given us :). Jmlk1707:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, that actually makes you a badass... crap. And this coming from the kid growing up NOWHERE near the ghetto! :( lol. Jmlk1709:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to make a new template, but switching to the mode with graphics, without consensus, can cause problems for portal designs such as Portal:Cricket. Feel free to attain consensus for the change, or try creating a new template, but continuations in changing the template can cause trouble. --DarkFallstalk12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Mr. Hendricks was very promotional in nature. As it turns out, Barkley L. Hendricks seems to be lifted off of [8]
Siblings and parents, etc. of notable people don't get articles, so why should a spinoff band of a notable person get an article? Nothing is asserted in Die' Hunns
A blatant copyright infringement is on where there is no changes in text whatsoever, or very little changes. The article as it is should go to PROD or afd. As for G11, please remember that POV does not equal Blatant advertising. --DarkFallstalk03:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little brother? Well I'm not Indian, and I'm around the same age so... As for boyfriend, I think Riana's real boyfriend will have my ass kicked if I say "yes" so... "no". And I haven't even met her... she could be this ugly old crone *runs* :p --DarkFallstalk22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been approached by some editors who claim that they have re-done the Mega Society article sufficiently, and they believe that it demonstrates notability. I have unprotected the redirect, but informed them that it will likely have to pass through an AfD for it to survive again. I am going to (try and) remain neutral on this topic, and am requesting that once the new article is set in place, should you feel the article un-notable, that it follow the standard AfD. Things can change and sometimes articles that were once deemed inappropriate may now be appropriate. Thank you. -- Avi01:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a mind reader? I was sitting there staring at the patterns of the past week of the IP range vandalizing that article, and POOF! You protect it! I was just about to do an RFPP for it, lol. Thanks dear! Ariel♥Gold01:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Hdt83Chat has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
RE:Tool reversion
Ok, I'll take notice. Sadly this established editor has some strange ways of editing - removing referenced information, disrupting cited text, using reference, that supported information removed by the user, to support dubious claims of himself not to speak about tone. I agree that this time I did overreact, but sometimes "copyedits" like this are getting on my nerves.--Lokyz07:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above archive is a past discussion. Please direct all new discussion to the current talk page. Thank you.
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Shock%2Bvalue.jpg){kind=link}
