User talk:Hall Monitor/Archive2

This is an archive of inactive discussion. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

List of Internet Slang

Hello there. Maybe I'm missing something really obvious (I often do), but can you please tell me what was wrong with this edit. Thanks, →Fir e Fox 18:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, there were two reasons actually; although it is an acronym, it does not really fit the definition (albeit vague) of internet slang. That, and it does not return any hits on Google that I can find, so it appears to be an extremely non-notable acronym as well. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, that's fine :) Thanks for getting back to me. →Fir e Fox 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon 204.218.244.11

Concerning this anon(s) and he/her/it's disruptive vandalism, I really have to say I don't appreciate it. However, the downside is I also make "constructive edits" at this adress, and I can't afford to have it blocked.. How about I take his contributions under my watchful eye and make sure to revert when necessary..? That way the IP will be free of vandalism and a block won't be nessesary. What do you think..? -MegamanZero|Talk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inconvenience is quite mutual, I assure you. If you do not mind, it would be appreciated if you reserve your edits until after school. Hall Monitor 20:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I do, which is why I was compelled to bring my query to your attention. Please allow me to take responsilbility for awhile regarding such behavior, if I can not handle it, then reinstate the block. I think that sounds sensible. What's your thoughts..? -MegamanZero|Talk 20:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hall monitor, please see: [1] -MegamanZero|Talk 20:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I have responded there as well. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of those constant blocks. Which is preciseley why I ask you let me take responsilbility and keep up on the IP's contributions. Note that the last 10 times had no one keeping an eye on the contributions enough to revert. I will take this seriously, and I request you give me a chance to do so.-MegamanZero|Talk 21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request has been brought before the Administrator's Noticeboard, and I will honour whatever decision is made. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Thanks for mopping up that vandalism! :) - FrancisTyers 17:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.17.116.148 (talk)—again...

Wow... it sure seems like the admin community has shown amazing patience with this poster child for immaturity. This person just attempted to tell another user that an "edit to Jennifer Vasquez a long time ago was not vandalism. I was simply stating a truth, because she is rumored to be adept at oral sex." If "rumored to be" equals "a truth", then reality is a long way from finding this... er... individual... ;) Radio Kirk talk to me 00:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried blanking the page again... Radio Kirk talk to me 05:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the language, but this bottom-feeder's latest attempt to blank its page included, in the edit summary, "blank, bastards. Go fuck yourselves". Given this "person"'s history, from whom would I request, say, a sixth-month block from all of Wikipedia, including its own pages? Radio Kirk talk to me 02:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next was even worse... Radio Kirk talk to me 02:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of the anon's personal attack

I understand the motives for your edit on User talk:Jimbo Wales. The comment you removed violates WP:NPA and, what's worse, is a waste of a few seconds of Jimbo's time. Nevertheless, I think that letting such things remain is generally better than giving their author the chance to play the martyr in a denunciation of censorship. Therefore, although I appreciate your thought, I would've reverted your edit if the anon hadn't already done so. JamesMLane 00:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NTL cache

bmly-cache-8.server.ntli.net You just blocked the NTL cache. That's me, a whole host of other people who use NTL and a vandal. I've undone the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but wasn't the NTL collateral damage issue resolved long ago? Hall Monitor 23:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well i thought it was too. Something must have changed in the meantime. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article protection

Please do not protect the daily featured article. Raul654 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not realise that the Marilyn Manson article was the daily FA; that atleast explains the sudden rampant vandalism though. It must be time for a wiki-break. Signing off, Hall Monitor 23:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for your support and kind comments on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf ^melmac 11:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Pgk's RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk^(talk) 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block removal

Once again, many thanks. Also, check your e-mail, okay? -MegamanZero|Talk 19:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, and it appears we are making good progress with the vandalism problem from the Department of Defense Dependents School network. I'll keep you posted. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli-Palestinian edit conflict

At History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I assume that when you reverted you did not mean to ratify the unilateral uncommented deletion of the section The Great Uprising. If I've misunderstood, could you please leave a note on the relevant talk page and let's discuss it. If I'm right, no need to respond, because I've restored it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. Thank you for the restoration. Hall Monitor 17:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images to a user page

Hey man,I need to know much. I am creating a user page for myself and want to know how I can get images from outside and keep them on my user page.

Also,while editing,how can you change an image into a new one from your saved pictures on your computer. Batzarro 16:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm on it. :)

DickyRobert

I've been eagerly watching your CheckUser request on DickyRobert because I've had my own runins with him and his sockpuppets. Just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser has been created; you might relist there and get a faster response. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my WP:RFCU has been redirected there instead. It is worth noting that Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser previously redirect to WP:RFA which is why the nomination for Curps has been placed there. I still believe strongly that Wikipedia would greatly benefit from him receiving these privileges, and appreciate your follow up on this. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith

I apologize if my tone in opposing your actions implied that I was questioning your good faith. Your good faith is not at issue. I am not questioning your motivations, I am questioning the appropriateness of your actions. -- Cecropia 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, and I accept that. Please understand that I have been giving this matter consideration for a number of weeks now, and to the best of my knowledge there is not yet a process for handling these types of requests. It was not until this morning that WP:RFCU as a CheckUser Helpdesk was created. I am strongly of the opinion that we need to promote specific individuals, namely User:Curps to have the ability to perform CheckUser requests, which is why I went forward with this WP:BOLD public appeal to grant him these privileges. Appropriate or not, the reason that I selected WP:RFA as the place to make this appeal was because Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser redirected there. Please accept my apologies as this was not meant to be a disruptive action, I have only the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Hall Monitor 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also accept your expression of good intentions, and I know you obviously feel this is a Very Good Thing, but I think the way you are going about it is inappropriate and will not achieve what you are trying to. My interest as a bureaucrat who is one of those who oversees the RfA page is that it not become a polling place for community sentiments that cannot be acted on there. -- Cecropia 00:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...

There was a vandal? I thought I'd just cover up for some people. ;-) (No problem.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for adminship

Woo woo! Thanks for the nomination! Now I'm all excited! :) :) --Yamla 21:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be accepting the nomination and answering the questions later on today (I'm at work right now...) --Yamla 21:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, I'm glad to hear it and wish you the best of luck! Hall Monitor 21:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I passed! Yay! I'm going to take time this weekend to thank everyone who voted (even the negative and the neutral vote). Tonight and tomorrow, I have to celebrate quitting my job, starting a new job, and my girlfriend's shiny new M.Sc.! (These are obviously not the result of my adminship, though I can only hope adminship brings such luck to others) --Yamla 03:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Hey, I've just been doing a bit of New Page monitoring and this fella: Jaxtelles has added loads of (awful resume style) pages which look like copy and paste jobs from some American Idol website. Can you use some admin power to help?

Restrictive hours idea

In light of the realization that we may never get around all these schools sharing the same IP address, I request perhaps we could set up a time frame we could unblock then reblock again each day..? I don;t know, just popped in my head, as I can't see any other options. Tell me what you think about it; right now, I going go to bed. Cheers. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of time frame would you suggest? Hall Monitor 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking 7:00 - 9:25 (wikipedian time). As I am in computer classes during that timeframe, respectively, and can keep up on vandalism more. Certainly not the whole day, however, because multiple school IP's vandlaism would be comming in from all sides. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think..? -MegamanZero|Talk 21:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would not feel comfortable enforcing such a restriction without the consent of the appropriate school authorities. If the school principal, superintendent, or system administrator were to send this request via email to info-en@wikipedia.org I would be more than happy to try to accomodate this. What would make this most difficult though is that there is no automated way to achieve this, meaning an administrator (or group of administrators) would have perform these blocks (and unblocks) on a daily basis. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I suppose we'll have to find another way, I guess. -MegamanZero|Talk 03:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hall Monitor, thank you very much for supporting me during my recent RfA campaign! Thanks to you, I am now an admin. Please drop by if you need anything - I'll be glad to help you. Once again, thanks! --M @t hwiz 2020 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianEdwardGruber

Good candidate to nominate for an RFA: ChristianEdwardGruber. KI 20:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked in...

...and I not only caught a sockpuppet, I saw you on the blocked IP page. I guess I still care enough to block a monkey every once in a while. Drop me an e-mail...? - Lucky 6.9 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

169.244.143.115 (talk · contribs)

Hello, Hall Monitor. I noticed that you tagged 169.244.143.115 (talk · contribs), which seems to be a source of persistant vandalism, as an open proxy. It's my understanding that that IP address is a public-use computer for Maine Department of Libraries - do you have any reason for indicating that as an open proxy IP address? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why can't you unblock {{unblock}} ? --MaoJin 13:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

User:Endomion has started a dozen or so articles, which is wonderful - she hasn't categorized them, or added a stub notice (as far as I've checked they are all stubs) and she has not cited any sources, which is bad. I left a brief note on her talk page about the first one I saw, but then I checked her list (from her User page) and found them all to be as I have noted. Unfortunately, Endomion does not view me in a positive light, as she attempted to make a number of unsupported, unsourced, POV edits to Intelligent design and I was one of the editors explaining why her views were not meeting with support. Would you be so kind as to post a friendly message on her page about the importance of citing verifiable sources? I think she would take it better from a party she sees as neutral (as she does not see me.) Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user in question only has a small percentage of stubs in the state described above, typically ones that were done within the last couple weeks. This can be verified by looking at the comprehesive list on the user's main page in the "Original Articles" section and the "Stubs" section. The user in question is an eventualist Wikipedian and would not view any such message to be friendly. Endomion 19:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, apparantly not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the user would probably feel it was a form of gang Wikistalking. Endomion 20:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

199.195.109.4

Hey, I am a student at the school with this IP address, and I agree with the block based on what I have seen from this IP's contribs. However, is there a way that I could contribute from this IP while I am logged in? If you look at some of the useful contribs from this IP (such as [2], [3], [4], and [5]), you will see that I sometimes add useful, relevant content to Wikipedia from this IP. I don't know if it is technically possible to do this, but I would greatly appreciate anything that could be done. You can also feel free to look at my logged-in contribs, I do not vandalize. zellin t / c 22:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

I was wondering if you can replace your CA flag image with Image:Flag of Canada.svg. Thanks. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 02:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karen Dotrice

With a great deal of input, my first article from scratch is up for Featured Article status (self-nominated). Feel free to visit and vote! Radio Kirk talk to me 18:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA "serial opposers"

Hi,

Just thought I'd drop a line to continue our discussion started at EurekaLott's RfA, since I must unfortunately continue to disagree with your view. Let me explain more fully. My belief that "serial opposers" should simply be left alone arises from several grounds: first, I dislike questioning of a voter's rationale -- if a voter opposes solely on the ground that "There should be no admins," he has a rationale to vote. This rationale is ludicrous, in the wiki-context, and the vote will likely be ignored by the b'crat. Arguing with him over the rationale is of little use; he is clearly outside the wiki-mainstream, and provoking him runs afoul of the spirit of WP:BEANS.

It is true that such a serial opposer is being slightly disruptive; however, arguing with him over his vote only enlarges that disruption, draws more attention to his unusual views, and can attract well-meaning sympathizers (like FSF), who don't wish to see any vote questioned so strongly. Silence on the RfA really is the optimum approach to keep the RfA orderly. If a serial voter is abusive, or truly exceptionally annoying, problems with him may be taken to RfC, as was done with Boothy.

I'd argue, though, that -- as asinine as they seem -- serial opposers are sometimes good for the system. Remember, their votes are almost always ignored by the B'crat, and most RfA regulars. Clearly, the offending voter has a gripe, and needs to blow off steam; letting him do so alone may make him feel better, and after doing so many times, without provoking anyone, he may come to understand that his vote is essentially ignored. In the meantime, having a single oppose vote on every RfA serves as a symbolic reminder (ala William Plumer) that the RfA system is an open one, and not clique driven, or "cabal"-ish.

I'd only worry about serial opposers if they began to multiply; again, in the spirit of WP:BEANS, I think this is less likely to happen if they are ignored, and left in peace alone on their protest "hilltop".

Best wishes, Xoloz 17:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how that justifies the act of trolling. I see you're trying to say what's best for everyone, but allowing a user to walk off scott-free without letting them know they are in the wrong for being disruptive and/or trying to prove a point is unacceaptable. Nor was Freestylefrappe's spite voting "well -meant" ethier. Rfa's are for the eventually improvement of the encyclopedia by asisting users with more responsibility. They are not the place to "let off steam", troll, "let off a gripe", and certaintly not the place to WP:POINT at someone else's expense. Rfa is just that, rfa, and nothing more. People with such feelings not to do with that procedure should allow cooler heads to vote and refrain themselves. -Zero^Talk 17:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is, looking at his record, MassiveEgo is probably a troll. Have you noticed, though, that he has at least started providing words to justify his vote, and even supported one? By being ourselves level-headed in response to his less-than-mature provocations, we might bring him into the "responsible user" fold yet. Our other serial opposer, Boothy, was a valuable contributor in other ways, so serial opposing isn't always "trolling." One other point where I disagree with you a bit -- I don't see how any candidate could take a serial opposer too seriously; I had looked forward to being opposed by Boothy, as a badge of honor, and in any case, simply telling an aggrieved candidate, "he always opposes" should soothe feelings. Xoloz 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how voting out of blantent insolense can be a "badge of honor", but I'll respect your opinion. However, considering Massiveego's lack of communication skills when someone politely asked him his concenus for voting, he has decided to ignore them. No one has "aggrivated" him or "harrassed" him- he's just avoiding discussion. However, I am glad to see his lastest vote seems somewhat more civil and I really hope he continues to improve his behavior. -Zero^Talk 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Xoloz for contacting me regarding this issue. While I understand your point of view, and even agree with it to a certain extent, I think there is a point where things stop being a minor nuisance and start becoming insulting and disruptive to illustrate a point, and I believe that this line has been crossed. If the actions persist I am afraid an RFC will need to be filed. Hall Monitor 17:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an RfC. That measure takes the discussion out of individual RfAs, where debating one (likely to be ignored) vote is a distraction for the candidate involved. Xoloz 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an RfC for freestylefrappe as well..? -Zero^Talk 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFAR for freestylefrappe at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe, but I am not party to it. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its already clear to everyone that his voting is disruptively based on WP:POINT, and his overall actions and demeanor unacceaptable. I will not participate in the ordeal ethier, but I would very much like to read it. I invite you to do the same. -Zero^Talk 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with this edit ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Santana&diff=35713823&oldid=35713382 The link I added was to a personal fan site, containing just info & pictures, it is not commercial & does not charge anything. Why was it removed ? I have seen links to Amazon in other entries, thats surely commercial ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gungho (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you the same person as IP 82.45.1.145? Hall Monitor 20:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same computer but used by several people, I made 2 edits to the Santana entry & then decided to register under the name "gungho" which I will use from now on. I see there have been a few edits under the "Chris Moyles" entry. These must have been done by my nephew earlier today. They are not funny & you can delete them. But, yes I posted the Santana entries as 82.45.1.145.

Yes, I asked because I was concerned about the rash of vandalism to The Chris Moyles Show today which included edits from your own IP address. With respect to the link you added to Carlos Santana, unofficial fansites are generally removed because they are not a reliable source of information, making them inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. If you have concerns regarding any other article, such as one which links to an Amazon website as you've suggested, please do not hesitate to bring it to my attention so that it may be dealt with accordingly. Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chokesoncock vandal

Was just going threw the new user log and discovered this wasn't blocked: Chokesoncock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is there a block in order here? SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 22:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Yes, I do believe that this qualifies as an inappropriate user name, as covered by our blocking policy. This account has been blocked and the owner notified should he or she wish to select an alternate name. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 Christian biographies nominated for deletion

Thanks for voicing your opinion on several of the Christian biographies that A.J.A. nominated for deletion, yesterday. Here are several others that could use your input:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greg_Baker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim

God bless, --Jason Gastrich 22:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason. Yes, I am aware of the series of nominations made by A.J.A. yesterday. I will review the additional links you've provided as time permits, and comment if I feel that I have something insightful to share. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve 'Flash' Juon

HM, I could use your help. My biographical page Steve 'Flash' Juon was unfairly marked for deletion as it was noted I was not a "person of importance." Besides being insulting (which I can ignore) that statement is factually incorrect as I am a noted author and webmaster who is widely published and interviewed. I have re-added the bio page with just a few of the many external links that prove the validity of that statement and that this is not delusions of grandeur on my part. Besides which the bio page itself was very un-aggrandizing and entirely factually correct. Since I worked with you so closely on conforming to Wiki standards regarding the external links policy and created an account to discuss this as an un-anonymous logged in user, I would appreciate your help in return in blocking this bio page from further attempts at deletion. BronzeWarrior 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection of Hero of Ukraine

I'd like to unprotect Hero of Ukraine, as FAs on the main page are not generally protected, in order to demonstrate the "wiki" to new users. As a courtesy I thought I should ask you, would you have any objection? Leith p 19:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do object, due to the sustained volume of vandalism which this article is currently being subjected to; it makes Wikipedia look bad. However, if there is a community consensus to re-open this page to persistent vandalism while it is in feature status, I will stand by that decision. Please bring this up on WP:ANI for broader discussion. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures, etc.

Sorry, was not aware what the signature could do. Has been toned down accordingly. - 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini ^{lobster telephone}

Semi protection of the RfA page

I believe that in the spirit of Wikipedia this page should only remain semi-protected for a short period of time, and that semi-protection should only serve as a way to deal with vandalism (as in this case) rather than as a way to block all edits, in good of bad faith, by all new users. There should be no reason why new users would be editing that page, so I can see your point, I'm just fearful of creating any more elitism on Wikipedia than there already is. -- Francs 2000 23:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NoSeptember's RfA

Thank you, Hall Monitor, for your support of my RfA. I am pleased to join you in the Nominated by BD2412 club ;-). I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 16:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Can you please protect the page User talk:66.75.14.189. This user was blocked by you a few weeks ago and now he came back and is forging fake messages on his talk page. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 05:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now semi-protected. I have also made a note in the protection log that this semi-protection should be removed after February 20, 2006. If you need anything else, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ferall/Batzarro

Hey man,can u help me. Some one has protected myuser page. Please can you unblock it?

I want to use fair use images on my user page USer:zanimum keeps harassing me. So many users use such images. Why AM I being harassed? Ferall 18:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock my user page man? I am addicted to my user page. ME and user:Ferall are being harassed man. Batzarro 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked this user's user page, simply because they refuse to comply with Wikipedia Fair Use policy, bullets 7, 8, 9 and especially 2. I plan to unblock after I feel they have made sufficient additions to the actual project itself. -- user:zanimum

Sounds good to me. Please unprotect the page(s) when you see fit. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. -- user:zanimum

Thanks

Thank you, Hall Monitor/Archive2
	for voting in my RFA. It failed with a result of 31/11/2. I'm not sure that I count as a fair representative of myself, though... :-) If you have any comments, please say so here.

RfA Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL and IP blocks

Please be aware that when a AOL user/IP number is blocked, even with the autoblocker, it impacts other innocent users who are randomly assigned that IP number. Most AOL IP numbers are on the list of numbers that should be blocked for only short periods of time. This is a common problem for me. Please see my user page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection. I would appreciate a prompt release of this block. Information below. Thank you. WBardwin 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address is 205.188.117.7. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by User:Hall Monitor. The reason given is: blatant vandalism

Yes, I've been well aware of this problematic situation for quite some time now. The block on this IP address has been released. If you are innocently blocked again in the future, and I can guarantee that you will be if you use an AOL account, simply contact me here on my talk page, email me, or contact another administrator to have the block removed. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. WBardwin 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage involving 169.244.143.115 / MaoJin

169.244.143.115 (talk · contribs) has been nothing but trouble, but it appears that MaoJin (talk · contribs) gets caught in those blocks about half the time when he tries to edit. MaoJin may be close to some action himself if he doesn't respond to mediation, but he certainly isn't a vandal. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been confounded in a lot of my attempts at contributing by this three-month (!) IP block, too. Can you send me your email address, Hall Monitor? I doubt my school's IT admin would want to register an account at Wikipedia just so he can contact you. Phoenix-forgotten 19:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phoenix-forgotten. Please note that I have sent an email to the address you've configured in your preferences, and should your sysadmin elect to register an account, he may also contact me directly from my user page. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Whats the template location for your anon ip user message at the top of the screen. Is there a list of such talk page templates that I may explore. Thank you! -Husnock 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a matter of fact there is. If you review Template talk:Test you will find a matrix which lists a number of frequently used test-message templates with brief descriptions of how to use them. Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School block?

Hey, Hall Monitor. I've just blocked 216.61.101.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours, but then I noticed they had just returned after your 2-week block and immediately started vandalising again. That makes my little block look a bit useless. Is this one of those schools where the IT person is supposed to get in touch with you? Do you think it would be OK for me to apply a longer block? I don't have much of a handle on the static/dynamic thing. --Bishonen | talk 20:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen. I just reviewed my school address spreadsheet, and do not show any established contact with this particular school or district. As they've been blocked 6 times in the past without any reports of collateral damage, it may be worthwhile to place a note on the talk page requesting that their system administrator (or an authorised school representative) contact us to release the block. Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.130.79.137

Could call, I wasn't familiar with that template, learn something new every day. --Wgfinley 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

167.21.254.13 strikes again

167.21.254.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been vandalizing again, this time at Where's Wally. Please consider blocking this user again. Almost as soon as the user's blocks expire, he/she goes back to vandalism. WillMcC 16:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up, I will keep a watchful eye over this IP address today. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

167.21.254.13 has not given up. The following pages have been hit by this user: Automobile, Isaac, Groundhog Day, Muhammad Ali, Infrasound, Garrett Dutton. All of these have been reverted. WillMcC 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General questions

Hi there. 1) About how long do you spend on Wikipedia each day? And exactly, what time zone are you currently in? 2) How do you revert vandalism soo quickly? Thanks. Just hit the reply button. --Jay(Reply) 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this survey? :) Hall Monitor 22:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 205.188.116.139

I just got a few emails from AOL users who got caught in this block -- it ended up being 155 minutes, but I'm guessing you meant for it to be 15. I went ahead and lifted the block, but feel free to put it back if I was wrong. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I did not receive any email regarding this at all. Thank you for lifting the block. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidalgo (Spanish nobility) -> Hidalgo

Hello. Somebody made this controversial move on December 30th without a prior discussion. The editor cited "Hidalgo title is older" as a reason to make such move and renamed Hidalgo asHidalgo (Mexico). However, Hidalgo, the state, is far more known, there are more articles on it than Hidalgo (Spanish nobility), it is more complete and far more articles point to it. There is an entire Category:Hidalgo on it as well. Could you help?

Would there be any objection to giving both of them disambiguated parenthetical titles? Hall Monitor 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes to Hidalgo (Mexico). And all other Category:States of Mexico lack parenthetical titles, although most of their names have alternative meanings. --Vizcarra 18:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll raise the concern with the Mexican community. --Vizcarra 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do that. In the interim period I have moved Hidalgo (Mexico) back to Hidalgo because your rationale makes perfect sense. If the community reaches a consensus regarding this matter, please let me know what the outcome is. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done (here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Community#Hidalgo), let's see what comes out. Thanks for reverting the move. Best regards --Vizcarra 19:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll check in there periodically. Don't hesitate to contact me should you need anything else. Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School IP 204.218.244.11

Greetings, Hall Monitor. I noticed the school IP has been unblocked as of late; does this mean vandlaism is down..? or at least decreased...? It would be great to have the good news of a stable school IP. Especially as I've been getting some work done as of late... -Zero^Talk 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into too much detail, I personally contacted DoDDS Europe regarding this problem. :-) Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. But you've made a grave mistake-sparking my curiousity! Now, I won't get any sleep wondering how you did it. :) -Zero^Talk 20:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Abramoff

Thanks for the anon-IP block, but unfortunately it worked for less than five minutes. He is already on a new IP address (his sixth by my count in two weeks) and doing it again. --StuffOfInterest 20:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking care of that right now. Hall Monitor 20:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A few days back I suggested semi-protection for this article. The way this guy operates maybe it is really time to consider it now. --StuffOfInterest 20:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the e-mail. He is back on his old IP range now and running from 62.0.105.174. I think that both the 62.0.x.y and his previous block are at the same location as he switched very quickly. --StuffOfInterest 20:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been semi-protected for the time being. If you need anything else, please let me know. Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Now I can turn my attention elsewhere for a while. Watching that guy had been a 2nd job for me the last few days. :) --StuffOfInterest 20:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for intervening on the Abramoff, that dude Brad has been threatening and insulting people all week, there is no way he would have quit without an Sprotect.--M4bwav 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's back.... Someone took the semi-protect off of Jack Abramoff and our anon-IP friend was immediately back spewing "anti-semitism" and "jew-hater" at everyone in sight. He's been working from at least two IP addresses since yesterday evening (EST). Any new help and attention would be appreciated. --StuffOfInterest 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hall Monitor, I have noticed that at the school of Lethbridge Collegiate Institute there has been an indefinate banning of the schools IP address. The other day i was trying to use wikipedia at the school and i couldn't do anything. It would be greatly appreciated if you would please unblock Lethbridge Collegiate Institute's IP address. Thank you so much, Peca37

Purpose of Wikipedia

You asked "You raise a very good question, what is the purpose of Wikipedia?"^[6] Were you joking, or were you trying to make a point?

Yes, the ultimate goal of the project is to build an encyclopedia, but one cannot do that without editors. Should an ever increasing subset of articles be protected, the openness of Wikipedia would be lost, and some potential users might not participate. Suggestions such as "Why don't we force everyone to register" are oft heard, and as often cast aside for this reason.

I might also add that this encyclopedia may never be truly finished, so the ultimate goal of Wikipedia may never be reached (although an argument could be made that Wikipedia is perhaps as much complete as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and as such a true encyclopedia.).

If you were kidding, I thank you for allowing me this moment of thought. -- Ec5618 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When raised in this context it was not meant to be humour, rhetoric, or some kind of point. Wikipedia is very much an evolving organism, and as we continue to grow and develop, this is a question we need to continually ask ourself. Our goal, first and foremost, is to build an encyclopedia of course, but how we achieve this goal and others which support it may need to change in order to address the unique challenges we will inevitably continue to encounter. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block collision

I posted a comment about a block on 147.72.120.11, did you mean to remove it from this page? youngamerican (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, yes the block has been corrected. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP, I wanted to make sure you were aware. I saw where you had moved some stuff around and didnt want it to slip through the cracks. Keep up the good work. Cheers. youngamerican (talk)

18:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MaoJin mail address

I noticed that this very minute. Excellent idea. It'l be easier to IM and e-mail him than to go tit-for-tat on the talk page. Poor kid really wants to do the right thing and someone else on his proxies keeps hitting him with collateral damage. - Lucky 6.9 18:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson photos

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with that photo as it stands -- it doesn't look like a mug shot, and it doesn't make you wonder which of the boxers in the photo is Tyson. Zoe also mentioned on Talk that she thought the original photo was ok.--Sar e kOfVulcan 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson is best known and widely regarded as one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time, regardless of his criminal past. Please feel free to revert my changes if you disagree with the way I've rearranged the images. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

72.136.67.28

Thanks for blocking this vandal. Keep up the hard work and thanks for all you do. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanti VH1 music clip

Hey, Hall Monitor,

I know we aren't doing the vocal profile thing (I'm sorry for that pandora's box), but can you NOT remove the whole section just because someone doesn't "get it" that vocal profiles are over. For example in Ashanti's article, it ran in Jet magazine in December of whatever year Concrete Rose came out an interview where she discussed being derided for a "lack of range". Also VH1 Behind the Music featured a clip of Ashanti singing the mational anthem and climbing the scale to a High D above the staff (although I used my tuner to derive the last part :-( ). Still I don't see how the section as it stands is unnotable. Thanks Antares33712 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you used your tuner to derive the last part, that falls under original research. Please see WP:NOR. It is not a question of notability, but verifiability. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I put the :-( face. But the clip should still be notable to see her abilities as a soprano. There are a couple of other clips that have made BET. How does one reference them in the article? Secondly, on the whistle register page, I added the fact that whistle voice (not the whistle register which is recognized as starting at or after E6), is produced when the vocal folds stiffen up and whistle (rather than vibrate which is head voice). Mark Raxter, a celebrity vocal coach, states this on his website, along some article I found at nic.nih.gov where they did a study on soprano and how they dampen the vibrations with anterior vocal muscles (if you're interested, I will try to refind the article), but the info was quickly pulled down as false. Also, Mark mentions that he has heard Mariah sing off the top of the piano (she would pitch notes above C8 -- Adam Lopez's record is a C#8), but the highest note recorded is the G#7 from her live renditions of Emotions. He is a noted celebrity vocal coach, why would he lie? I'm sorry for being a bitch; I'm just tired of the unknowledgable editing. I have such contention with this line that keeps getting added to Ashanti's page: Ashanti has a 2.5 octave range, and at times she can reach over 3. No one's voice is like that. I don't know how musicially trained you are, but in Thomas Appeal's book, "Can You Sing High C Without Straining", he discusses how the DEPTH of one's voice is fixed by the length of the vocal cords. The height is boundless as people learn to train their adductor muscles to adduct the vocal folds together to create shorter and shorter vibrating lengths. I say all this to say, the learning process is akin to training one's biceps with a dumbbell to build muscle. If the one stops training their biceps, the muscle will eventually atrophy. Same with the vocal chords, if you stop vocalizing high, the folds will lose flexibility and the adductor muscles will corresondingly atrophy. But range never varies like the ocean tide. I wouldn't at this point mention a specific vocal range: we don't know what she does in the shower, or outside the studio. This is PARTICULAR true in her case, she hasn't sung high since she signed with Murder Inc. Off my soapbox I go Antares33712 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.30.49.146

Well done on blocking User:64.30.49.146 - I would agree that they have contributed little other than vandalism. On the other hand, you may have been a little too quick off the mark with issuing the block. The talk page history indicates that you escalated through three levels of warning in as many minutes. It is usually a good idea to wait five minutes or so to give the anon a chance to see the first warning message.

As it happens their contribution history shows that their last edit was at 19:50 (18:50 in your time frame) - the same minute as your first {{test3}} warning. It looks like you were reacting to their 19:48 edit to Woody Allen, issued a warning at 19:50 and then perceived them as having continued vandalising with a second edit to Woody Allen at 19:50. But given the synchronicity, and that fact that they have to view a fresh page to see the 'new messages' banner and get the warning, it is quite possible that they would have stopped on the first warning. Also, two weeks is considerably longer than normal - a second ban is more typically 48 hrs, then keep doubling until they get the message.

On the whole, there is probably no harm done as a quick check of their recent edits suggests they haven't contributed much of value, but it is something to consider before blocking other editors. -- Solipsist 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the blocked vandal disagrees, they are more than welcome to contact me via email or leave a note on their talk page. Hall Monitor 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam removal

I think we were reverting articles to remove links to that swinging site at the same time. Nice working with you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inkwell (talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It ultimately succeeded with votes of 52/1/2, so I am now an administrator. Should you have any questions, comments, complaints, or requests at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail.

—bbatsell ¿? 05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your comment on the checkuser poll at WP:RFAR

Hall Monitor, I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Checkuser_vetting. I have since modified my suggestion for the log to exclude having the public log disclose checkuser against IPs. I agree this could essentially violate privacy on anyone who was checked.

I feel this is a very important issue. I have no opinion with regards to Curps. I have very strong opinions in regards to the abuses happening with checkuser. The log could very simply show something like this:

View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

03:57, 8 February 2006 Fred Bauder checkuser on "User:Superm401"
05:05, 7 February 2006 Jimbo Wales checkuser on "User:Ish ishwar"
18:17, 29 January 2006 David Gerard checkuser on "User:Peruvianllama"
00:03, 29 January 2006 Raul654 checkuser on "User:Vegaswikian"

I fail to understand why having such a log would be a problem. --Durin 21:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with disclosing this sort of information in a public manner is twofold. With respect to the Arbitration Committee, there is an inherent risk of offending people who are checked through the course of an ArbCom investigation and later determined to be innocent and uninvolved in a case. As for Curps and his anticipated usage, it would be rather self defeating to release this data as it would only aid the vandals in their efforts to create better sockpuppets. Should the committee elect to grant these privileges to Curps, I trust that he will use them carefully and judiciously. Hall Monitor 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Holmes

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AP Computer Science A

I was looking through the pages on Advanced Placement Program, and one of them was linked to AP Computer Science A, which you have deleted. I am curious why it was deleted and what the reason was. The pages AB Calculus (and a duplicate AP AB Calculus) may fall under similar reasoning. Thanks. - grubber 19:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AP Computer Science A became a {{deleted page}} after being speedy deleted twice for nonsense. The same does not apply to AP AB Calculus or its redirects, as it appears to be a legitimate article. Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I just wanted to make sure wasn't going to repeat mistakes by reorganizing the calculus pages. However, a similar article for AP Computer Science A would be valid, no? - grubber 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you'd like to create one, let me (or another administrator) know and I can remove the deleted page. Hall Monitor 22:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

Thanks for blocking the vandalism flowing from 204.108.196.2. But you didn't leave a notice on the user's talk page, which caused me to mistakenly add a second block. Not a big deal if you don't make a habit of it. I usually depend on the user talk page to determine if there's already a block in order to avoid the extra step of checking the block log.

BTW, this is a school, and I notice that you've blocked others schools for long periods. Is that related to your username? It fits. My feeling (without numerical analysis) is that easly 60% to 80% of vandalism comes from school computers. Has there been any discussion anywhere on policy to institute more quickly than usual long-term blocks against school IPs once vandalism has started? (I find myself more and more of the opinion that schoolboys should be consumers rather than editors of encyclopedias.) --Kbh3^rd talk 19:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing the vandalism to the attention of the school faculty produces positive results from what I've experienced. I've been giving serious consideration to documenting the whole process; you would not believe how horrified school boards are once they realise what type of traffic is originating from computers which are publicly traceable to an IP address they are responsible for, and how eager they are to help stop it. As for the latency in the talk page notices, I will get to them eventually this afternoon, but I do apologise for any duplicated effort. One thing you can do though is check the block logs which are now posted above the contribution page for any given user, a feature I've found quite useful lately. If you need anything else please do not hesitate to contact me or drop me an email. Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you
Hello Hall Monitor, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hey, I need your help. The article List of drum & bass on-line purchasing sites was just deleted, then recreated, and now when i try to relist it the AfD points to the discussion that was closed [7]. I've listed this on the Admin noticeboard [8], but thought you'd provide a quicker response in terms of what the correct approach is in this situation. Themindset 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, it appears the article has been speedy deleted by User:Cleared as filed as a repost of content deleted per an earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of drum & bass on-line purchasing sites (WP:CSD G4). Please let me know if the page resurfaces again and we can pursue this further. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peppers (6th nomination)

You might not have noticed it, but perhaps due to the server mess-up that effected Wikipedia earlier today, your renomination of Brian Peppers has come out in a garbled format that has somehow combined it with the AFD for an article on Psionics. I couldn't figure out how to fix it at my end. 23skidoo 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out, its been a while since I've nominated something for deletion; the error has been corrected. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no soul. FCYTravis 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks, take a short break if you feel it is necessary. Best regards, Hall Monitor 01:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redeleted the article and closed the afd. Split and repetitive discussions are harmful, and if there is consensus to undelete then we can do so, but going on off your own isn't the way to handle this. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notification. Rather than copy my replies four places at once, please look forward to my response at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Brian_Peppers. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this juncture, I believe that I've discharged my responsibility with regard to this tarbaby and am only following this discussion to: (a) make sure there's no misunderstanding about what I did and (b) see how it turns out. I didn't feel that I could escalate this to the board in good faith, without first deleting it myself and being overruled. Now it's up to them, and I anticipate that they will do nothing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is at this point no evidence to suggest that the takedown request emailed to us in regard to this matter is a hoax. On the other hand, there is insufficent evidence to satisfy me that it is authentic. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up re. the most recent debate regarding the Brian Peppers article. I've reiterated my existing position on the issue in the appropriate space. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external links on the SDC page

Hi, I noticed that you removed a link to "Swingers Date Club" on the SDC page before. The same user put it back, then I removed it. They've put it back again, and posted a lengthy defence of it (and his or her use of the same external link on other pages) on my talk page.

I dont know what the drill is, as I'm new, but I thought you'd like to know. I don't think there's any point in me just removing it again, as he or she will just put it back. I feel like I've removed a hundred of their links. Inkwell 18:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up, this is a known spammer and should be dealt with accordingly. Hall Monitor 18:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Swingers" is back again, adding a certain link to the swinging article. I've removed it a dozen times and it keeps coming back. Whoever they are, they're not listening to me: could you have a go? Inkwell 23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome!

Thanks for your nice welcome, Hall Monitor. I was the formerly unregistered user 152.91.9.115. Because of your encouraging message, I eventually signed up as Ossipewsk/Biggus 02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello Hall Monitor, thank you for you support in my RfA. I was promoted with a final count of 48/1/0! If you see me making any mistakes, let me know ASAP. -- WB 02:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP 142.22.186.7

It seems that 142.22.186.7 has been blocked for good reason. I'm probably as close as you'll get to the administrator of this address (or the only one who cares). This address is the external IP of the Burnaby School District School District 41. This IP unfortunately is shared through all the schools in Burnaby. Most of our terminals in schools lack the ability to track individual users browsing habits. This makes unable to confront the vandals about the vandalism of an excellent public resource. I just thought I'd like to bring forth the truth behind this. As much as I would like to see 142.22.186.7 unblocked, keeping it blocked would be appropriate for the preservation of Wikipedia. Zoobtoob 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for removal of the Squid vandal Tawker 07:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Quarl

Hi Hall Monitor, thanks for your nice comments in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 12:20Z

Help

Please check out the numerous new pages added by User:Jaxtelles - they all appear to be copy and paste of CV's of American Idol hopefuls. Can you advise, or mass Afd them or speedy? Budgiekiller 19:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lethbridge Collegiate Institute

Hello hall monitor, i was just contacting you in regards to the blocking of Lethbridge Collegiate Institute, I was tyring to edit a page on wikipedia and there is an indefinate banning of the schools IP address. It would be extremely helpful if you unblocked the IP. This is a blocking of 1800 kids meaning that they are unable to use wikipedia for their school assignments. Thanks you Peca37 01:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Hall Monitor, I have noticed that the blocking has not yet been removed. I am begging you please to remove the blocking of the schools IP this would be so much appreciated. IT is just some kid screwing around ONE day. I'm sure he wont' do it again. Consider it. Peca37 03:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked this account. Friday (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you!

Hi Hall Monitor/Archive2. On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support.

Soothing R 20:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

"You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. The block is for a period of 24 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Hall Monitor 19:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)"

You left this message for me at User talk:12.178.24.2. I frankly have no idea what you are referring to, and it would be helpful if you had referenced exactly what I was accused of "vandalizing".

Maybe you could explain how adding what I thought was useful information to a couple of articles is "vandalism". I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to contribute additional information that others had previously missed or overlooked. Apparently not.

I hope I've edited this page correctly to add this comment.

Thanks.

Abyler 19:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picard102's collateral damage

User:Picard102 is blocked, suffering what seems to be collateral damage. The message they get is "Reason given: returning vandal, long term vandalism, warned repeatedly, *12th block*; have your system administrator contact me" which corresponds with:

# 04:12, January 27, 2006 Hall Monitor blocked "24.66.94.140 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 4 months (returning vandal, long term vandalism, warned repeatedly, *12th block*; have your system administrator contact me)

in the block log.

Picard102 has spoken to their ISP and gotten their IP changed.

Picard102 said their IP (as given from http://www.dnsstuff.com/) was 24.109.130.46. I unblocked that IP but they are still blocked. I can't quite understand what the problem is, could you take a look?--Commander Keane 02:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to edit now. Thanks. --Picard102 05:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP 72.1.206.178 is a school

First let me apologize on behalf of my school Earl of March, for whatever vandalism people in my school did. Almost all the students in that school have access to the library's computers and know about Wikipedia; so some vandalising is bound to happen. But the majority of the students there, are not vandals and have knowledge that they can contribute; should they see a mistake or want to work on Wikipedia while at school they will be unable to do so. Please consider unblocking it, even though there isn't any school policy againist vandalism Wikipedia(perhaps one could be implement?). Pseudoanonymous 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks and geekybroad

Please be careful with blocking me simply because I have made an edit! (I am currently not blocked.) Details on my user talk. --geekyßroad^{. meow?} 05:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.66.94.140 is a shaw.ca proxy. Shaw route all their customers through transparent proxys whether they like it or not - one IP address may have tens or hundreds of thousands of users. This variety of proxy should never be blocked for more than a very short time to stop a vandal in real time. You'll see that User talk:24.66.94.140 has the {{sharedip}} template on it - David Gerard 13:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{sharedip}} template is being applied far too liberally, we should probably create some sort of {{proxycache}} template which is more explicit and accurate for these sort of proxies. If you agree, I will begin instituting one immediately. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Punk'd "irrelevant"?

I'm in the middle of a dispute with backburner001 over the Punk'd reference at Lindsay Lohan. This user says it's irrelevant. I laid out the case for its relevance—with a rewrite for clarity—and he deleted it again. His response: "I did my part – I removed content I felt was not significant and I made suggestions for improvement when I was asked for them. If you are interested in working together to fix this problem, do your part and improve the Punk’d reference or give me a legitimate reason for keeping the reference that was in there before." (Essentially, "You think it should stay? Prove it to me and me alone," which sounds awfully close to self-appointed WikiGodhood, but I've been called dramatic already. More on point, "working together" to this editor means he deletes it, but someone else has to "fix" it.) This user's page includes as a goal, "[r]emove irrelevant/trivial content", but a quick look at his edit history is telling: on 30 January, he removed from WP:MOS a "reference to naming conventions for Mormonism"; on 19 February, he deleted "2 paragraphs" from Hiram College "to keep concise". Since then, every deletion of material has been a Punk'd reference, from Lindsay Lohan, Avril Lavigne, Jena Malone, Beyoncé Knowles, Mandy Moore, Chris Klein (actor) and Proof (rapper). After we blasted each other's antagonism (real or imagined), I threatened him with a WP:3RR war and mutual blocking, and backburner001 then agreed to stop removing the reference pending the discussion that results from my Request for Comment. No matter the outcome, your input would be very much appreciated. Radio Kirk talk to me 21:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks again for your response on the Bill Gates issue. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't any confusion. I've already seen in the past how not clearing up small issues like this can end up in utter chaos down the road. - 66.191.162.101 19:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

142.22.186.7

Hello, Just thought I'd let you know (in case you didn't already) that the ip range 142.22.186.7 belongs to West Vancouver Secondary school. I'm a student there, and noticed earlier today that the ip was blocked from editing; I'd just like to apologize for the idiots here who have evidently been vandalizing articles on wikipedia. Although I don't at present have an account, I'll hopefully get around to doing that sometime soon...

thanks, pd

AP Computer Science

I see from this edit history that you added the {{deleted page}} template to the AP Computer Science A article. I'm trying to learn why the article was deleted. Do you know where the discussion page is? If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would respond on the AP Computer Science talk page, where I ask the same question. Thanks! — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 07:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or request, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wondering if you could request an article deletion?

I was wonderign if there is any possiblity to leave all the so-called G-Unit artists and unofficial confirmations in the links to G-Unit and G-Unit Records articles. I gave them the The Do Nots of Wikipedia to offer a chance to edit the article right. It's been over three weeks and I seen no changes, so now I am involved in making it look like a reasonable article.

There are articles based on G-Unit but there are no official confirmation or possible linking to these artists. So I was wondering if there's a possiblity to vote for deletion of the specific articles if listed:

I tried to use Votes For Deletion link and I had trouble getting it established. I was wondering if you could help. Thanks. 1 March 2006, 12:39 (UTC) LILVOKA

I appreciated that. If there's official proof from a site that claims that 40 Glocc is a member of G-Unit, then I guess so. I'll avoid deleting it, at least for now. Yeah, thanks for the information and the support. 1 March 2006, 16:08 (UTC) LILVOKA
Please note that I only went as far as to verify that this artist has an album which is listed by AMG and appears to be a fairly successful commercial rap artist (which is enough to warrant inclusion), but have not confirmed 40 Glocc's membership of the G-Unit rap group. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.82.9.59

Please note that Anonymous user 66.82.9.59 is once again vandalizing pages. CaveatLector 17:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

195.93.21.135

My username is User:LuciferMorgan and I have been attempting to create the Ozzy Osbourne discography page, but alas, as an AOL user who was logged into wikipedia, I have been blocked for no given reason by you. I can't say I'm too pleased. What do you intend to do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The block of IP address 195.93.21.135 has been released. Feel free to contact me or another administrator if you are innocently blocked in the future, something which I can guarantee with certainty will reoccur if you are an AOL user, based upon the profound way in which they dynamically dole out addresses. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:LuciferMorgan- I'd like to apologise for being abrupt. Being blocked is a common problem for genuine AOL wiki members, but least you've been understanding. I'm guessing there was a vandal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. By the way, you can sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments, as so: Hall Monitor 22:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4.22.151.195

This IP belongs to PISD and represents a multitude of computers. It has been blocked several times due to repeated vandalism which was interpreted as one person, when in actuality it was different people making their first little joke on Wikipedia. The 3-month block expires today. I would not find it too unacceptable to permanently block the IP, but just keep this in mind in future vandalism and blocks. KeYYeK 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this IP, this is the IP of Plano Independent School District, and I believe a note as such should be posted on the talk page, similar to those we have posted on other ISD IPs. Also, the IP talk page is protected. Is this necessary at the current juncture? Thanks. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acumen76

Thank you for your assistance in this matter! Rklawton 19:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping on toes

Pardon me. -Will Beback 00:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot's IP blanking

It appears that your bot is tagging talk pages for deletion which are under 90 days old, but from the looks of User:Tawkerbot#Stale_IP_talk_pages it should only be going after pages which have been inactive for 6 months. Can this be remedied? Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing it back to 180 days, what happened was we were having an IRC discussion on the length of the timeline for "stale" status, I think we had decided on 30 days there but you're right, 180 days is probally better.

We've had a discussion on blanking vs deleting the old pages, seeing that doing just the 1.2 to 128. IP's we've had 2500 pages, it might be easier just to blank the pages as its going to be a fair bit of work for an admin to delete each one. See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#IP_talk_pages for the discussion.

On another note, do you mind if I request temporary unblocks / blocks on the IP 207.216.137.194 - It's a BC education system shared IP and I sometimes have some spare time and being able to edit from it would be an asset. Tawker 19:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all (with regards to the unblocks), but for the record, I show no contributions nor do I show any record of a block [9] for the IP address you're referring to. :) Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I meant 142.22.177.110, the other is one of my ISP's dynamic IPs :) There are a few IP's in that range that you've shown up as the blocking admin on a few of them. Anyways, the bots set to blank the older than 180 day pages as that has had no objections and is most likely eaiser for all involved. Tawker 19:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've left a message at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#IP_talk_pages, but blanking anonymous talk pages over 180 days old sounds like the best way to go. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you!
Hi Hall Monitor/Archive2, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 23:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA succeeded with a final consensus of 52/17/7, and receiving comments including having 'excellent potential to become a great moderator', and I am now an administrator. It did however only just pass, and I shall do my very best to rectify any of my errors, including the general belief that I should do more article work. If you have any concerns, or if you ever feel that I may be able to help you, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you!

Ian13/talk 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 02:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thank you!
Thank you for your support in my recent RFA. It passed 53/1/2 and I am now an administrator. I appreciate that some of you made exceptions to your usual requirements re length of service and so on because we've interracted positively in the past, or because of my credentials, so I will endeavour to use my new mop cautiously. I'm always open to feedback and gently constructive criticism. If you're not an admin and need some assistance do of course please let me know. Thanks again --kingboyk 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

P.S. If you are interested in The Beatles, User:Lar has asked me to tag on a little note advertising the creation of a new Beatles WikiProject that we are currently setting up. Please sign up and help.

Re:Not an admin?

I noticed you added your name to Wikipedia:List_of_non-admins_with_high_edit_counts but did not mark yourself in bold. Are you by chance interested in becoming a Wikipedia administrator? Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am interested, thanks for asking. I just bolded myself; I thought I had done so originally. --Myles Long 23:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:63.204.151.5

You banned this IP for 6 weeks. The system administrator of this school can be contacted at ccarey[AT]bcp[DOT]org. Copysan 04:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrugs, raises an eyebrow.

I have not involved myself in that whole mess. It'll sort itself out, eventually. BD2412 T 14:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNCOOL!

So what? I don't even get to defend myself! WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM!!! I'm sorry, did i upset the arrogant big-wig encyclopedia man? -- ever so sincerely, LaotianBoy1991

I've been blocked for no reason... I haven't vandalized anything and this the 1st, maybe 2nd, probably 50,000th time I've been blocked because of my "IP address"...It's getting really frustrating since I've been trying -- to no avail -- to expand the Japanese music articles

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CJGB and User:142.32.208.238

User:CJGB e-mailed me to request an unblock on 142.32.208.238, claiming to be collateral damage. Since the IP is triply blocked by you, User:Curps, and User:Chick Bowen, I wrote back stating that I'm uncomfortable lifting the block, but I promised to relay his/her request to you. Please review. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked the IP, but I also observe that CJGB doesn't edit all that often. I think your instinct for a long block was right, and we should reblock again at the first sign of trouble if not pre-emptively. Chick Bowen 04:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your diligent handling of this issue in my absence. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Crook

I have looked up on all the major news outlets in Anchorage, and there is not mention of Michael Crook being involved in a fatal accident. The only fatal accident yesterday in the Anchorage area involved a native Alaskan family. This is the 3rd time he has attempted to fake his death, and his aim is to get the article locked down if he can't get it deleted. I would be happy to call the Anchorage police and verify, but it is suck a small place, I am sure that any fatal accident would be extremely big news. I don't want to revert to any previous, for fear of me looking like a vandal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HonestJose (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress report

Hello Hall Monitor. The recent request for investigation into your edits filed by 132.241.245.23 was closed today; I judged that you had reasonable grounds in your reversions to the article in question. The discussion was archived and is quoted below for your convenience.

Hall Monitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- claims Health of Pope John Paul II was vandalized when it obviously never was and banned an anon for 12 weeks over it// 132.241.245.23 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 132.241.245.23 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: As this is the same user as 132.241.245.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), please take care to review the block log as well as their contributions. Hall Monitor 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Blocking is one thing for Hall Monitor to vandalize pages and then claim the anon is a vandal is another. 132.241.245.23 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've found several suspicious edits from this IP: reversions between the two users on Lucille Ball^[10], possible misinformation on Airplane!^[11] and on List of United States Presidential nicknames^[12], subtle vandalism on Kalākaua^[13] and Isaac Asimov^[14], addition of irrelevant external links on Katherine Harris^[15], false information on Elmo^[16], removal of information on Ryan White^[17], et cetera. Without delving into an exhaustingly comprehensive list of such edits, it seems clear to me that Hall Monitor had reasonable ground not to assume good faith on the edit in question, which was itself quite borderline. Being unaware of the entire edit history, I'm unable to say whether the block length was reasonable or not. However, such questions are outside the scope of Vandalism in progress and best placed on the Administrator's noticeboard (Incidents). This alert is now archived. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 05:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input in the investigation. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this, it is probably best if we all keep a closer eye on the contributions originating from this IP address. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Storms

You recently added a tag to the Tim Storms article asking for verification. I found this: http://www.cnnw.com/articles/articles03-03-4.html

You could also probably contact Guinness World Records and get verification. Beisnj 07:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Efren_Ramirez.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Efren_Ramirez.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I found what appears to be the same image at imdb, and I've tagged this image as such. If this isn't the case please let it be known on the image page. —A 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed undone by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 22:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2 on Martin Luther King Jr

I think it edit conflicted there and thats what caused the revert, it was vandalism from 67.50.63.149, I have no idea why it said you vandalized there, I'm looking into it -- Tawker 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've seen your bot rollback Jimbo while he was carrying out an WP:OFFICE action as well, with a similarly worded edit summary. :) Hall Monitor 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Van Susteren

I came across a website of an interview Greta Van Susteren did:it was on http://classicwisconsin.com. I typed in Greta Van Susteren+Xavier High School on google and got the interview.Greta Van Susteren graduated from Xavier High School in Appleton, Wisconsin in 1972.This means she graduated from UW-Madison in 1976.I am having difficulties trying to cite this particular source:http://www.classicwisconsin.com/features/gretaletter.html.In fact I had been experimenting with the sandpile with no luck.Thank you for your help and kindness.RFD 22:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Thivierr

Hi I noticed that in the past you deleted this user's talk history (see Special:Undelete/User_talk:Thivierr) because he claimed he was leaving Wikipedia. However, he's still with us. My personal opinion is that, personal attacks excepted, the history should be restored. What do you think? --kingboyk 05:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question. I'm not aware of any policy which covers this, and the page is within the realm of his own user space, so I suppose I would leave that up to him; my feelings on this are pretty ambivalent. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to check the history to see if any warnings or conflicts were erased. User talk is usually kept around so that people can't hide what they've been up to, see Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F:

As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally.

My use of bold. --kingboyk 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop it. History seems to be "clean" (from edit summaries) but maybe some personal attacks against him. It would be more trouble than it's worth to handpick the not-attack edits and restore them! Cheers. --kingboyk 01:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holi greetings

Hello from an Indian wikipedian. I am wishing you a happy Holi, the unique Hindu celebration of color and brotherhood among all members of the humanity. The festival falls on 15th March 2006. By the way, I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. Thanks. --Bhadani 05:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prasi90

You commented on Prasi90's vote on Myleslong's RfA, noting his substantial block log. A request for comment has been created on account of the user's recent actions on Wikipedia, and I would ask you to have a look at it and sign if you endorse it. Many thanks. haz _(user talk)^e 20:30, 14 March 2006

Semi-Protection of Makuria

I couldn't find a log entry at Wikipedia:List of protected pages explaining why this article was protected. Did you forget to add one? Or am I looking in the wrong place? -- llywrch 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been temporarily protected due to incessant Pisschrist vandalism. Hall Monitor 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that do you mean one individual is behind all of those attacks? A note in the log would help let the rest of us know what is going on. -- llywrch 07:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. I appreciated the show of support and all the kind words. If there's ever anything I can do to help with my new administrator status, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Myles Long 14:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure to nominate you. If you ever need anything as well, please feel free to do the same. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clowns rfa

nah it wasnt bot supported, i was indulging in a spot of new page patrol ;)Benon 22:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hare Coursing Talk

Hi Hall Monitor. Thanks for deleting the edit that was in the hare coursing discussion.Thanks for banning the person. Could you tell me(on my user/talk page) who reported it and who commited the offence. All of us at the hare coursing article are doing are best and i feel that the article is very fair. Gur raibh maith agat!(means in Irish "thank you very much")HECTOR 16:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal responsible appears to have been just selecting articles at random, so hopefully you will not experience any further disruptions. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Acumen76

This user has written to info-en@wikimedia.org asking to be unblocked. The case for an indefinite block looks a little weak to me. Perhaps you might reconsider, or at least contact the user and try to work things out? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is willing to make positive contributions, I see no reason why we shouldn't give him a second chance. The block of this account has been removed. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christin Slater

The misspelling is wrong. It is Christin not Christian Slater. They are not related in any way. Christin is a writer for OMEStudios. Could you change this? OrlandoMurdockEastwood 10:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrlandoMurdockEastwood. You may want to refer to WP:BIO, which is a set of notability guidelines for Wikipedia; it would appear that the original Christin Slater article was tagged for speedy deletion because it did not meet this criteria. I redirected your page to Christian Slater as a possible misspelling of the the notable actor by that name. If you and User:Poloyoe believe this deletion to be in error and would like to contest this deletion, please leave me a message here and I will restore the article and bring it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for broader consensus. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ainslie Henderson

I see you have removed a link to a fansite. This site also includes a considerable amount of biographical information useful for the verification of the article, and was not merely "link farming". Would it be possible for you to reinstate it? Jud 10:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to refer to our style guide at Wikipedia:External links#What_should_be_linked_to. Generally speaking, fansites are not dependable sources of information, and making exceptions only invites additional links to more unreliable fansites down the road. Unless this particular website is an official fansite for Henderson, I would be wary of its reliability and not in favour of its replacement. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Rich (rapper)

Would a biography on Def Jam's page be better? I believe this is the original that the Wanadoo page was translated from. http://www.defjam.com/artists/richie/richie.html KamuiShirou 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The DefJam link is perfect, thanks. :) Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

132.241.245.49

Hi You have previously blocked this user. Please could you take a look at their current activites at Asa Earl Carter and other pages? Thanks for your time. Vizjim 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 82.198.250.82

If you are persuing that with the schooladmin note that the perp moved to 82.198.250.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) where he had a healthy ban too.

I had admonished a later user of that IP to contact the schoolauthorities. Agathoclea 18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 64.88.86.3.

64.88.86.3. is the address of youth services (read: teenager) computers at the Troy, Michigan Public Library. In other words, the vandalism may or may not occur again, but it is terribly frustrating to see my ability to correct inaccuracies, however minor, destroyed by what is certainly (given the character of my town) one or two people. Lockesdonkey 22:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you so much for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I thank you for your confidence in my abilities. If you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]