User talk:DoRD/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:DoRD. 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.

Thanks for reviewer

Thanks for granting me reviewer rights. I know it's a pretty much automatic courtesy for established users, but I always like to thank people for wikignome activities. ( If you don't from time to time, I understand they might sneak into your kitchen at night and sit on your dairy products. ) – OhioStandard (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hehe ... You're welcome! —DoRD (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your name

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		LOL i have seen your name before and everytime it makes me smile...so i wish to do the same to you that is make you smile!! Moxy (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And as I said somewhere above, "Glad I could be of service!" Cheers —DoRD (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability of schools

DoRD, can you point me to the policy or guideline that covers notability of schools, please? Love that name. Anthony (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I've read a guideline or something in the past, but couldn't remember where, so after a little digging, I've come up with WP:NHS, WP:High Schools, and WP:SCHOOL (which points out that WP:ORG applies to schools). Hope that helps, and thanks! —DoRD (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. How would you feel about me changing the link in the PDOD template you put on the 3 "Asterisk schools" authors' user pages from WP:N to this? The latter expressly mentions schools. Please don't be offended. I'm just looking for ways to smooth potential ruffles on new editors. Anthony (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken whatsoever. However, since I used a standard template ({{PRODNote}}) in my message, perhaps it would be better to just add a short note with the above link, but it's not going to ruffle my feathers either way. I do agree, though, that these poor teachers are likely to be somewhat surprised the next time they log on, and an additional kind and helpful message couldn't hurt. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Although, for one of the editors it may be a moot point since one of the articles has been speedied as a copyvio. —DoRD (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have created a redirect from the deleted article to its school district article; I hope that was appropriate! Anthony (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

HI! I have applied for reviewer rights and was wondering if you would accept me as a reviewer. I put the application on my user page.Epicstonemason (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Department of Redundancy Department , please see the discussion on my talk page. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 20:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help...

...at the Cardiff template. I knew it was something simple. D'oh!--Pondle (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! —DoRD (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for granting me the reviewer rights, I'll try to do my very best at it. =) Signed, kotak kasut 16:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! —DoRD (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy

This Reference desk/Miscellaneous question here may be of interest. Perhaps a fan? --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 04:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I was, per WP:COI ;) , going to recuse myself, but went ahead and responded anyway. I'll have to remember to link that discussion, when it's complete, to my userpage! —DoRD (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might find it worth a look!

--220.101 (talk)^\Contribs 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Verification

ACC tool request verification. —DoRD (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. FunPika 09:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I had ACC access with my prior account, so I'm familiar with the ins-and-outs. I have also re-read the guide and recognize a number of changes since I last used the interface. Thanks. —DoRD (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User 76.188.17.69

A month or so ago, you blocked user IP 76.188.17.69 for a month for continuous vandalism on several articles, all of which have claims that certain media companies are owned by the Gannett Company. Unfortunately, despite numerous weekly blockages, the user continues to vandalize articles. Please block him permanently. Thanks. - Areaseven (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. IP addresses are almost never blocked longer than 1 year, but I will take a look at it. In the future, you might take reports such as this to WP:AIV to get a quicker response in case I'm offline. Update: The block log says that I blocked the IP at the end of May for only three days. It was then blocked for a week, a month, and so on by other admins. I have given them another month this time. If they continue to misbehave after this block expires, please report them to AIV for further action. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks dude. - Areaseven (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, DoRD. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Phoon (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm —DoRD (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I have no idea why you contacted me. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're here because of the talkback notice on your talkpage, feel free to remove and/or ignore it. That was put there when another user was was questioning your username last month. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

IP 94.219.198.90

Do you really think his edits are content dispute?. Here is a list of his edits [1]. Apart from pushing ethnic-pov, the user is insulting users as well. Pashto language is spoken by around 27% of Balkh Province's population, but the ip removes Pashto from the list of main languages spoken in the province from the infobox while leaves Uzbeki language which is spoken by 10% of the population. it clearly indicates that the ip is anti- Pashto language and Pashtun people. All his edits clearly state that. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

I know nothing about the subject and don't really care to learn it. I do know, however, that for the purposes of AIV, the edits are not considered vandalism. If the editor is not engaging in discussion on talk pages, you may consider filing a report at WP:ANI or WP:POVN. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your account closure at ACC Tool

Just a note. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣}

Replied there. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Microformats

You recently !voted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer right (i'm game )

Hi you gave this user reviewing rights here is his request and I just had to remove the fact he accepted a different football team to a footballers BLP, he only seems to have had 120 edits when you accepted him, I think thats a bit of a low level of understanding to be grating the right if you ask me. Off2riorob (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

For the trial, the requirements for becoming a reviewer were intentionally low since the reviewer right effectively only restores the capabilities all autoconfirmed users had prior to the trial. The trial, if I understand correctly, will end at 23:00UTC today. If pending changes is implemented site-wide, I expect that the requirements will be somewhat higher. If you have comments about pending changes or the reviewer userright, I assume that the discussions will be found somewhere at the above link. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It was your action that bothered me and the actions of the user you gave the right to, thanks. Can you raise your game a bit, thanks . Perhaps go along and have a word with him , or try investigating the users you give right to a little more,Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Rob, it's not a question of needing to raise our game - back when the trial started we were all doing out the reviewer right like candy. There's no question I'd do that once the trial is over, and I doubt DoRD would either. It does raise an interesting question about how we handle all those "candy-recipients" who now have the right: my thinking is that it might be best to remove the right from everyone, and then re-assign it after a WP:RFPERM request. (Or, in your case, I'd probably just assign it without the bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, but I know and trust you). TFOWR 13:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have given that user with his experience the right if it was Xmas and his birthday rolled into one. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, the guidelines we have been working with are quite liberal. Sorry if you're not happy with the results, but this is one of the reasons we're having a trial period. —DoRD (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, sorry I'm just upset, its not your fault. Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I expect that there will be plenty of input asking for stricter requirements before this goes live. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons Deletion Assistant

Thanks for catching that bug. I've fixed it. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! —DoRD (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

When I see you signature, I think of this. :) Deli nk (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - I wasn't aware of that band. Cheers! —DoRD (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

unblock

Hi, how long do unblock requests have to stay on a talkpage when a user is indefinitely blocked? Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Indefinitely? Until someone else decides to blank the talkpage? Assuming you're referring to my recent undo, certainly it should remain there as long as the ani discussion is ongoing, and probably until it's clear that he's not intending to use the account any longer. —DoRD (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that if a user says he doesn't want unblocking any more he could remove the template as it has no value, the unblocking discussion is over as I can see. And insisting that the pleading refused request to please be unblocked remains there seems a bit like rubbing his nose in it, but fair enough. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I understand what you're saying, but in any case, the blocked user shouldn't be the one to remove it. It's only been a couple of hours, but it'll be fine if it gets blanked sometime down the road. —DoRD (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He appears to have removed it again , what do you think is the best thing to do? Replace it and revoke his talkpage privileges? Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not planning on doing anything about it myself. That page is no doubt on dozens of watchlists by now. —DoRD (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The "non-removal" is for the duration of a temporary block so others know that it was reviewed. That does not apply on an indef, and ESPECIALLY a ban. -- Avi (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Often the template is removed by a blocked user in a misguided attempt to hide previous declines, so whether temporary or indefinite, I don't think that it should be removed by the blocked user. Given the high profile of this case, there's going to be no such confusion, so the removal is not such a big deal. —DoRD (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Template change undone; let's shmooz. -- Avi (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, DoRD, for interventions against the banned user. Much appreciated. (He's still at it from yet another IP though). MartinPoulter (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That one's now blocked as well. —DoRD (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the block of 24.189.168.173

Thanks for the block! I will continue to monitor if they return after it expires. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will also keep their talkpage watchlisted. —DoRD (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's much appreciated. Hopefully we can get User:IGeMiNix‎ back, but I fear that they have left the project permanently because of this disruptive IP. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Virtual Desktop article changes deleted ?

Why have been deleted my changes on Virtual Desktop article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_desktop

How can I insert VirtualDesktop free open source program in the article http://virtualdesktop.codeplex.com

How VirtualDesktop is different from other programs listed in the article, example from OpenSuise ?

IGProgram —Preceding unsigned comment added by IGProgram (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments at your talkpage. —DoRD (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

From McCrillis Nsiah

I'm welcome again after my three day block. I don't like it when I'm blocked. I have problems with Acps110 editor and IGeMiNix ediotr. I have read their use taking page about me while my user was blocked. I want to speak to them upsetly about the trash taking they had with me. I want to be a great editor. So please, don't block me. I beg of you. And one more thing, don't put bad comments againist me because I was not speaking RUDE to you. Thank you. You are free to call me McCrillis Nsiah (which is my name in reality). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.168.173 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply at IP talkpage. —DoRD (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

86.133.153.187

86.133.153.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi, sorry to bother you as I am not exactly sure at how to report vandalism. I have been patrolling the recent changes and came across this IP, he has done many edits revertings such as on pages -

It seems he keeps on adding trivia without a source.

A few editors have warned his talk pages and he refuses to listen and is always removing the warnings.

Please take some time and look at those pages. Thanks! I went to you since another editor Acps110 has also gone to you about these problems. --IGeMiNix (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope Department of Redundancy Department doesn't mind me answering here but I stumbled across this on Huggle :)

If somebody has been recently warned 4 or more times about their edits then you can report them to WP:AIV. Admins will then look into whether or not the user can be blocked.

However, the IP is entitled to blank their own talk page. Usually that is seen as a way of them acknowledging that they have read the warning. It doesn't matter though as admins can still see the amount of warnings by the talk page history.

Hope that explains things :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just getting to this, but got distracted by some email and didn't click save for about 15 minutes. :D Anyway... (edit conflict) I'll take a look at this shortly, but for a (typically) quick response, reports like this should go to WP:AIV where many admins regularly patrol. You might also find some useful tools at WP:AVP. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well after 5 other interruptions, I see that the IP's been blocked for 12 hours. Cheers to you both —DoRD (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks again, 5 albert square and DoRD!--IGeMiNix (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems another IP that has posted on your page is having some questionable edits. lol --IGeMiNix (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, was just wondering what to make of that... —DoRD (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like wikipedia

It's silly to have articles on characters in Harry Potter when the Masada is poorly covered. It's been years and years and the thing is just not evolving to a level of shcolarship. Articles suck. If someone really does a great job of wrting somehting up, then they should publish it in a real journal. Or at least a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.134.132 (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like wikipedia - If that is true, and I don't doubt it, why are you here? —DoRD (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to fix people that are wrong. They make me so angry. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.134.132 (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

24...173 return

Acps110 seems to not understand what I'm trying to say. The G train is a fully local route. East New York, Brooklyn vs. New Lots, Brooklyn on the 3 and 4 train pages. The stations on the 3 train on the IRT Livonia Avenue Line in Brooklyn does serve the neighborhood of East New York. The New Lots neighborhood is also concluded, but she needs to read East New York, Brooklyn. I know she is the best editor. I find out about her user page that she work hard on those NYCS pages. I want to work hard too. Besides, it's not like she's better than me. This time, I will make nesscary edits. She did'nt understand that I was trying to about the G train's Crosstown that they are local tracks since its the name G Brooklyn-Queens Crosstown. Even with 2 tracks, they are consider being local. Also on the L train page, a sentences says All trains are local, as the Canarsie line has no express tracks. So if she is saying that the Crosstown tracks are N/A (can't classify local or express) then I do see some mistakes on the 3 train page saying the New Lots line tracks are local. One more question, Am I always wrong then Accp10? D:>

Please reply at my talk page. |:>

Accp10 also refix the 57th St (N, Q, R lines) page back to the way it was before. It seems that you, Genimx and Accp10 don't want me to edit at all? }:< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.168.173 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 20 September 2010

Continued incivility and Edit Warring by 24.189.168.173

AARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!

173 seems intent to continue to edit war on issues he doesn't agree with. I have tried to talk to him, but he keeps reverting! Please block him for a much longer time, to prevent further damage to the project. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand your frustration, but please give me some diffs illustrating the problems. In the mean time, I'll have another look at their contributions. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Here you go... (Some of these are prior to your previous block, but included because of their continued re-occurrence.)

Tracks of the Crosstown line; I have tried to explain that the Crosstown line only has two tracks therefore you can't classify them as local or express.

22:18 Sept 5 with a talk page edit too [2]

14:45 Sept 5

Adding M is one of three shuttles during off-hours; it's not, see S (New York City Subway service)

Sept 5

Aug 23

5 is one of three shuttles during off-hours

14:38 Sept 5

57th Street (BMT Broadway Line); Adding over and over again that all trains use the local tracks; they don't; the middle tracks are a terminal for some trains.

Sept 4

Aug 18

Aug 15

New Lots, Brooklyn vs. East New York, Brooklyn; un-sourced

4 service - Sept 4

3 service - Sept 1

Thanks for taking another look at this. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will dig back into this in the morning. My allergies are acting up and the Benadryl I took is about to incapacitate me. If you'd rather not wait, feel free to send another admin over here for a look. —DoRD (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Okay, I've looked through their edits and decided that a block isn't the answer. Yet. Clearly, they are very interested in the NYCS and I think that they really are trying to improve the articles, but their attitude is getting in the way. I recall someone [That was you, I see] saying that they admitted to being a young teenager[3], so this looks like more of an issue of lack of maturity rather than malice, so I've left them a long message full of advice. While I was composing that message, though, they continued on with the incivility, but I'm going to wait to see what their reaction to my message is. I am loathe to block, but I will if it's necessary. —DoRD (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Well, it appears that my efforts were of little use. I guess we'll see if anything has changed in a couple of weeks. —DoRD (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That was quite a self-implosion. He just didn't understand what others were trying to tell him. Thanks again for your help with this! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(And on top of all of that, if I revert the G train again, I'll be in violation of 3rr! Doh.) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The mistaken revert/unrevert you did doesn't count against 3rr, if that's concerning you. Anyway, I'm assuming that school starts tomorrow, so hopefully 24...173 will find somewhere else to channel their energy for a while. I'm hoping that, after maturing somewhat, the editor can come back as a constructive contributor. They clearly have the desire and enthusiasm, but they just aren't quite ready. Nevertheless, I'll probably offer them a way out in a week or so, but a long-term block isn't out of the question, either. —DoRD (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems not much has changed.--IGeMiNix (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Everywhere

Hi! And yes, I'm one of your (talk page stalker)s... I've just noticed that (besides having helped me in the past) you jump around a lot of places to help out a bunch of different people. Thank you for leading by example and being one of my inspirations here on WP (hence the page "stalking") :-) Best, Rob / ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you! —DoRD (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

24...173 again

Please reply at my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.168.173 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you can tell he is 13 alright. It seems permanent action might have be taken. Tough job you have man, but props to you.--IGeMiNix (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to say that we've heard the last of this unfortunate child for a while. David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* —DoRD (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It saddens me to realize that I was unable to break through to this young editor. —DoRD (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully he will come back a better editor, took me a few weeks myself to get down the rules here since I am only 3 months old. XD--IGeMiNix (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You are now here

Sven Manguard _Talk 04:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

PIN number

Cybercobra has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Love your username. It made me chuckle. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Mallik Shabazz

Hi, just to inform you, I have changed the block settings for this user to allow them to create a new account. The impersonation is likely accidental, as Malik Shabazz is the name of a notable person and it is therefore not unlikely that a bona fide user would use it. Sandstein 09:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. —DoRD (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

...though it looks like my initial hunch was correct after all.[4] —DoRD (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

To be honest, I was getting disillusioned. I still am a bit. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, there are problems with the project, but equally as clearly, you aren't one of them. Cheers! —DoRD (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Child age.

you were recently in a case on Child age via wikipedia, what is your stance? Do you think age is a concern on this site? Should youngsters be allowed to edit? Thank you sir.68.156.142.92 (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than dropping a link in an ANI thread, I don't believe I was recently involved anywhere. But since you asked, I prefer to not make any blanket judgements; some young people are excellent editors. Others, not so much. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Need assistance

Hi, thanks for approaching me for my signature. Please let me know what exactly minimal I need to include in my signature because I myself am bothered by auto signatures mostly I sign it. What is even more puzzling is that the auto signatures do not occur every time! Thanks...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 11:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

The easiest way to fix this is to go to your preferences page and enter

..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..

into the signature box and then clear the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkbox and the software will automatically add the links, but you will lose the yellow color. (As a side note, yellow text on a white background makes your signature difficult to read.) The alternative is to replace the signature code with something like

[[User talk:Thisthat2011|<span style="color:#FFD700;">..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..</span>]]

which will result in ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म... User talk:Thisthat2011 can be replaced with User:Thisthat2011 or Special:Contributions/Thisthat2011 if you like.

I hope that this answers your questions. —DoRD (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this good too?.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 13:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the idea, and it will keep SineBot from bugging you! —DoRD (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Rev Dels at Talk:Gay

Hey there. It might be an idea to remove the edit summaries too, though they're not in the same league of abuse. Just a thought. Ged UK 16:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was considering that, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Since Courcelles made the bulk of the deletions, I'll ask for his input. —DoRD (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw one edit summary I should have gotten, which I have now removed. Other than that, I don't believe any of the remaining edit summaries meet the criteria for redaction. Courcelles 16:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks. —DoRD (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks people. Ged UK 17:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Something contreversial going on

Would you and could you please please please be interested in the article İrf Temrjukovna Oruç and the editing going on around. There is no single resource on this person all around the net; and also no single resource about the parents of this person. If she is to be calimed the granddaughter of any Tsar, then the mother or father of this person must be the child of any Tsar, but the names do not show up in nowhere. This is I suppose a cross-wiki hoax and is being pursued probably with a list of editors probably sharing the same IP and removing the deletion (speedy and prod) tags; but I can not cope with it. Could you please take a look at the talk page and the history of the page; or at least direct any other administrator on the issue. Thanks thanks thanks a lot on the issue already. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 15:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's solved, thank you. Cheers. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently handled by Elen of the Roads before I even saw this. —DoRD (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hiuby

After a recent stumble over Hiuby - in particular, a browser-killer that he worked into his userspace subpages - I have concluded that his disruptive editing is such that his block should be extended to indefinite. Any objections? DS (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have about come to the same conclusion, particularly after his recent reply to Sigma, so have at it. By the way, which of the subpages are you referring to? —DoRD (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User:Hiuby/Userpage/Quotes DS (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Want to help purge his userspace? DS (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that most of it is junk, and I see that you've nuked a good portion of it, but I don't think it's harming anything. I'm not comfortable deleting it myself at the moment, but I'm not going to object to anyone else doing so. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

RevDel

Saw you in the category for admins doing revdels, and your username wins hands down. Please revdel this edit as well as the edit summary [5] because of the racial slur in both. Thanks. --64.85.220.224 (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I noticed that the vandal blanked the page about a week earlier and then added some garden variety obnoxiousness. It's rude, but not quite up to the threshold, so it remains in the history. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. —DoRD (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you from Alex146

Thank you for answering my question about talk page eMail notifications. Not sure if I should have thanked you here or on my talk page so I did it in both places. Please have a good day! --Alex146 (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! —DoRD (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Goliath and the Giants (AFC)

Greetings! Saw you posted some followup notes regarding the Macedonian Alzheimer's Disease article that I reviewed at AFC. I literally decided to stick my nose into the AFC world this morning for the first time, so I'm curious to get someone else's opinion on an AFC that I approved -- the above-referenced article. I reviewed the Swedish sourcing in the article using Google Translate and concluded the article topic has at least borderline notability. I'm concerned that some other editors might conclude that the topic doesn't quite pass notability muster, however, so I'm curious to know if there's a general consensus on how to handle possibly borderline notability cases at AFC, and if you have your own opinion regarding this article in particular. In particular, is it considered poor AFC form if one approves an article that is summarily executed via AFD shortly thereafter, or does that come with the territory? I feel like my background in AFD/CSD might make me a fairly good AFC editor, and I'm interested in working in that space, so any thoughts/advice in general or with particular regard to this article would be very appreciated! Best regards. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never done anything at AFC, so I'm not sure how the process works, or what to do with a borderline notability there. In any case, now that the article has been created, I'm not sure that the band meets WP:BAND. The sources provided don't show that the band meets any of the criteria, as far as I can tell. I would suggest to the author that they find some more significant sources lest the article end up tagged for A7 or sent to AfD. Back to AFC, though - there's usually a learning curve with everything on this site, so I wouldn't let a misstep or two bother you much. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There appeared to be at least one article about the band in an independent music news source, as well as several interviews conducted by what appeared to be reliable, independent entities. But...definitely borderline, at best, and I'm probably not in the best position to really judge these particular foreign-language sources. Having just approved one other AFC that seemed far less borderline, perhaps I was overly hasty. I'll send the author a message signaling that there may be some concerns, and if this immediately ends up at AFD or -- gasp -- deleted via A7, I'll dine on some yummy seafood and soldier on :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting my user page. I saw in your notes why you declined to delete my talk page, but I was hoping I could ask you to either reconsider or make its history available to admins only. Is there any way in which I can convince you to do this? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleting, and making a page's history available to admins only are basically the same thing, as deleted pages and and their histories can be viewed by admins. That being said, user talk pages are typically not deleted except in extraordinary circumstances. But, give me a really compelling reason and I'll consider it, otherwise your choices are to find a more sympathetic admin or to send it to WP:MFD. I realize that you tried to tag it for mfd before, but there are additional steps you must take to have the listing go live, so if you wish to take that route again, be sure to follow through all the necessary steps. I know this isn't quite what you're asking for, but I hope that it helps you to find a resolution to this. —DoRD (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I recently had an experience with another editor in which he went through years worth of misc edits to my talk page and used some of it as non sequitur to the discussion we were having at that time. Later, after I attempted and failed to offer the other editor some tea and reset the discussion, I felt it necessary to file a wikiquette alert. The "neutral" third-party on the alert called me an asshole. Now, I'm not complaining about either of the other editors, so I hope it does not come across that way. I am only expressing my current feelings and the motivation behind my request. Recently I have watched from the sidelines as yet another editor got blocked for making a derogatory statement about a dictator, while those that have tossed several equally unflattering names and accusations my way have been praised for their actions. The editor that called me an asshole was actually awarded a barnstar for civility a few minutes after the comment. That's simply unbelivable. I read your user page. I am currently feeling disillusioned with Wikipedia, probably in a similar way that you were in 2009. I have made mistakes in the past at Wikipedia, but I believe I have learned from those mistakes and have made great strides to be a better and more collaborative editor. Despite this, it's still difficult to see rules not applied equally, get called names, and treated in an uncivil manner. It's especially difficult when another editor with an agenda attempts to use previous issues from my talk page--some going back to 2006--as a means to deflect and win (not my term of choice). I'm not blaming anyone but myself, but I would like to start over without having to walk away from my original account completely as you did with yours. Thank you. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll take this under consideration and will get back with you later. —DoRD (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate you letting me know. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

After a glance over your talk history, I realized which recent incident you were talking about. I also found the older name-calling incident and realized that I was aware of it at the time as well. Because it would be a rather controversial move, I'm not going to act on your request. You may invoke WP:RTV, but then you must leave the site and stop editing altogether, or you may MFD your talk page, but I doubt that you'd find many supporters. I appreciate that you're disillusioned and frustrated, so perhaps an extended wikibreak is called for. (Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer) —DoRD (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Answer

Yes, I do want User talk:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox deleted as well. When I nominated the sandbox I forgot that there was a talk page associated with it. Thank you. Spidey104 20:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Done —DoRD (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

thank you

thanks very muchfor deleting my error category Nirame (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! —DoRD (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Pulstate?

Due to it not specifiying importance?

Please explain.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furtive Sway (talk • contribs) 14:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no indication that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. For more information see WP:WWMPD. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It was no different to many band pages such as Daniel Kandi.

The importance is that he is a Signed Musician, and that was stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furtive Sway (talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to appeal this deletion here. —DoRD (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it for a non sensical reason, couldn't you have just helped fix it?

( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.80.27 (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Rakyasni

Sohan choudhary my village rakyasni is very like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.12.20 (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to SOHAN LEGA VILAGE RAKYASNI TEHSIL DEGANA DIST NAGOUR RAJASTHAN? There was nothing in that article except for a ten-digit number. —DoRD (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dust buffalos

What is the meaningful content? PTJoshua (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the default decline is not very explanatory. The article does not meet the definition of WP:NONSENSE. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy laffs in edit-summary

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎; 19:41 . . (+230) . . Department of Redundancy Department (talk | contribs | block) (→Blocked from blocking: blocked)

Nice summary to correspond with username:) DMacks (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comcast

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comcast. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Absolute majority

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Absolute majority. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Done —DoRD (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify

Hello. You closed this case without comment, so I was wondering if you might add one. We were waiting on a comment about a behavioural connection. I've struck the diffs related to the stale cases, but left those for the first IP and the original named account, which are still active. Another editor has provided more diffs. Thanks, Nightw 23:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It appeared to me that the case was ready to close, but since you have questioned my action, I will gladly reverse it. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't really questioning your closure, was just wanting a closing statement or summary of findings. Thanks though :) Nightw 23:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Horror Sneeze

What was the content of this deleted page? I tagged it for deletion and I can briefly remember the content but I don't think it was negative, but then it may have been edited since it was tagged. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It was something like "A brand from [[Lowe's]]". ~~I'm not sure what brand it was mocking~~, but with the other attack article they created against Home Depot, I figured that G10 fit. —DoRD (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Google leads me to believe that this person has a problem with store-brand ceiling fans... —DoRD (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're too kind...

I was going to lock his talkpage much sooner (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Then again, I suppose I was thinking of this. Cheers! —DoRD (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I unpacked a big load of that stuff just yesterday (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting weak :(. I hoped they would get the hint in the block message. Apparently not... -- Luk ^talk 15:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess not. Well, we'll see what happens in a couple of weeks. —DoRD (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Showing you something I just wanted to be certain to make sure you saw

Nice redundant title, no? I amuse myself. :)

Anyway, I made this unblock not as a criticism of your block but just because I had offered the user safe harbor to say his piece to me on my talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, but If he uses the IP to continue posting the same old stories on AN or ANI, he'll probably be reblocked by another admin. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for removing the pending WP:CHUU entry for me. I was at work today when I got the email that my talk page was changed and I was unblocked, but was unable to do anything about it. :) Evan Nelson (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AlgoSec

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:AlgoSec. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Open proxy issue

Hi! You know the issue i am referring to & you also know about my "vast" knowledge in this. Hence to get more info i thought i could start a dialogue here. As you mentioned i could raise a alarm with my network provider & warn them for this open proxy server thing. But you can guess that i wont be completely comfortable in raising such an issue until i know if this is really grave. I have two questions as of now. 1) Can you let me know since when has this ip been recognized as an Open proxy? Is it a recent happening? Or you cant find out this now? 2) Another question i had was that do other companies also have same type of Open proxy? Coz i guess that due to vast expanse, this proxy enabling facility is present. But i cant log in to various other sites like facebook or gmail through that ip. That means proxy is blocked. My understanding could very much be wrong & i would love to get it corrected. Note: Am using other source to write this. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Network proxies are used for a number of reasons. There is the type that many organizations use to limit what their employees (or students, etc.) have access to, which is the reason you and your coworkers do not have access to Facebook or Gmail. They can also speed up access to websites and reduce the amount of internet traffic by caching or storing copies of pages that are frequently accessed. Normally, the proxy software is configured so that only users inside the network have access to it. In this case, however, it is misconfigured so that everyone inside and outside the network can access it. The effect is that anyone, anywhere in the world, can appear to be a user on your company's network. People often access this type or proxy for privacy reasons, but they are most often used as a gateway to send spam, to launch network attacks, to facilitate viruses and trojan horse attacks, and, sadly, to vandalize Wikipedia articles, which is the reason we automatically block them.

But to get back to your questions: I have no way of knowing when the IP address began acting as an open proxy, but it appears that it was detected and blocked by an automated process here on October 22, 2011. And, no, most organizations do not employ open proxies due to the security concerns I mentioned above. It appears that the IP address has not been included in any anti-spam blacklists yet, but if you run a Google search for it, you will see that there are some indications of trouble. Most network admins would be very glad to hear about this sort of issue before the IP address appears on blacklists gets blocked by their own or other internet providers.

I hope this clears it up for you, but feel free to ask more questions if not. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, as soon as the issue is solved on your end, we can run another check and, if it is no longer acting as an open proxy, we will unblock the IP address. —DoRD (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay! thanks for the info. I also tried searching the contributions of this IP on Wiki, but found very little and almost no vandalisms. I found no adverse effects as of now. I foresee that vandalism can increase but admins can then block it surely within 6hrs or so. Do you still wanna block it? One thing we know for sure is that my contributions have reduced. :( Cant it be unlocked till problems arise? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but we cannot unblock the IP address until it is no longer acting as an open proxy. Please see WP:Open proxies for more information and the reasoning behind the policy. —DoRD (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your awesome username, Schiessman99 (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mellanox Technologies

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mellanox Technologies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Edits on Blue Army page.

Please note that the edits included in the most recent version by Faustian were deemed as POV by other users see. Note form the discussion page...

but, Faustian, both these sources are problematic, at least for the purposes that you seem to indent to use them for. The first one specifically says that it is referring to perceptions. It even says "What is important here is not facts themselves but the way in which they have been seen and remembered". This does not at all support the inclusion of the text you propose. The way you seem to want to put it into the article is actually quite misleading and bordering on straight up POV pushing done via out-of-context citation. Yes, you have "Jews remember it..." in there but you are still misrepresenting the gist, and purpose of that quote. Likewise the second source is a PRIMARY source and in fact it only mentions Haller's army in passing. You can't use this. Volunteer Marek 04:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

...and when I tried to revert them Faustian had my IP address restricted. How do you not consider this vandalism and harassment? He had me restricted last night, then when I used my different IP he had that restricted also. Please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiiiiix (talk • contribs) 01:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND. —DoRD (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well in this case please un-restrict my access since I was blocked for simply trying to revert claims that have been deemed as POV by myself and other users... My IP 76.118.227.161 address. I think that arbitrary blocking of access by blocking my IP and then putting a lock on the page is a form of wiki terrorism and harrasment!

You have been reverted on that article by three different admins, so I do not believe that the other editor is necessarily the problem. —DoRD (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on File talk:North Strathfield Bank.JPG

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:North Strathfield Bank.JPG. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.