Please don't put notices on people's talk pages saying they have been blocked unless you're actually responsible for the block. Use test templates like {{test2}} instead. Sam Vimes12:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you did, except put a "test" template like the one linked to above. Then an administrator will come along and block if they deem the situation serious enough. Sam Vimes21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a line about the sock puppet tag placed on your page- It was totally inapproprate and he is actually a banned user (User:Argol136). He's caused months of problems, and I'm currently documenting all of his behaviour for a much more widespread ban against him (which has been difficult due to his Dynamic IP allocation and multiple sock-puppets).
He's targetted me many times (due to my zero tollerance stance I've took with him), so if you ever need any support, do please get in touch, and I'll add the offending evidence to my documentation. Thanks for reverting his changes, much appreciated. Jhamez 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC
--Hi, I read the addition to the policy page. I think it is a very fair addition and most appropriate - hope it stays! Additonally, I'm quite envious of your signature! Is there a page on wiki that outlines how to alter your sig in such a way? Jhamez14:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not re-add the instance information, it's pure speculation and has no place on Wikipedia, unless you add sources to the speculation. Havok(T/C/c) 13:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to see if there was a way to revert it back, to no avail. (I think there was a basic system change since it was created.) I've consulted with Adam1213 to see if it can be fixed. Thanks for letting me know. — ERcheck (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is anything that you can do at this point. Adam1213 is looking into it. I appreciate the offer. I'll let you know if we discover something to roll it back that you can help with. — ERcheck (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{User:Llama man/Userboxes/Smash Bros.|Roy}} should be changed to {{User:Llama man/Userboxes/Smash Bros.|Roy (Fire Emblem)|Roy}}, because the userbox's {{{1}}}|{{{2}}} indicator means that you have to type the name of the Wikipedia article referring to the character and then the name of the character. {{{1}}} means the Wikipedia article name, while {{{2}}} means the actual character name.
Hi. What was the purpose of this edit? It removed much material from the article without explanation; I therefore reverted it. An accident? If you think those sections should be removed from the article, please explain on the article talk page. -- Infrogmation18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I noticed that the date is wrong on your autowarn template. It looks like you signed the templates when you created them and it was fixed to the date at the time you made the edits. I would recommend one of two things:
Use subst: inside an "includeonly" block on the CURRENTTIME variable and friends:
I believe either of these will end up with the correct current date/time being saved when you create the warning. The second option has the benefit of using your sig preferences at the time you create the warning. Mike Dillon03:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are now recognized as a recipient of the Big Boss Award. Thank you for undoing the vandalism on my userpage. This is my way of showing thanks to dedicated wikipedians. Big Boss 020:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been recognized as a Big Boss Award recipient.
On February 14, 2007, you warned my IP for editing "Joke" page, but I actually fixed it, it previously "ASDFGADFGADGFADFGAFGASF" over and over again in two parts of the page, and I removed them. I do not know if someone replaced it, but I removed it. Your warning, like above, was uncalled for. I may not be an expert in editing, but I know my removal of that combination of letters improved the article. ShinyWatchGuy
Hi, recently, there's been this really annoying guy on the Dr. Eggman article, who keeps on vadalizing it and saying that Ivo Robotnik is Eggman's real name, when it isn't. I've tried to talk to him on multiple occasions, and settle this issue, but he always completely ignores me. Could you tell me how I can ban him? 207.224.61.24600:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to consider using the set of welcome templates that The Transhumanist and I developed — the first six templates listed at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. However, the templates are made to be customizable with parameters, which might make things tricky with your system. Maybe you could have the template come up with preloaded options that can be filled in? Λυδαcιτγ02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you haven't been substituting templates. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you and happy editing. --Hdt83Chat18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am responsible for the article of Charlotta Eriksson that you called one of the worse articles you have ever red. I know my spelling is bad, as i am not native English speaking, and the article did not sound very neutral either, i suppose; but as regards to the praising, that was how she was seen, and that is how she is described in all of the reference books i have taken the information from. I have no problem with your judgement of the article; i know i am not an able writer, and as you can se on my page, that was in fact my last article on wikipedia, so i can now happily aknowledge that fact. I have no problem with the deletion of the article! My best wishes!--85.226.235.16018:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Yokohama Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. NeilN16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Suzuki
Mr. Ahrns
AP History
17 December 2007
The Decision
To Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki
“The bomb that fell on Hiroshima fell on America too. It fell on no city, no munition plants, no docks. It erased no church, vaporized no public buildings, reduced no man to his atomic elements. But it fell, it fell…” — Hermann Hagedorn. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not end World War II. Rather, it was the acknowledgement by the American government that Japan could keep its emperor. Though the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki quickened the end to war against Japan, the power of the bombs was used in place of the power of diplomacy against a nation that was already facing defeat.
An understanding of the Japanese sense of honor and service at the time of World War II is paramount to achieving an understanding of why the Japanese did not surrender prior to the atomic bombings. Indoctrinated into every Japanese citizen and soldier was the honor of serving their Emperor, who was elevated to god-like status. In late July, the Potsdam Declaration was made to the Japanese government, demanding an only vaguely-defined unconditional surrender. The idea of unconditional surrender meant to the Japanese people that the Emperor, whom they had served for their entire lives, was to be dealt away with by the new government. Their devotion to the Emperor led kamikaze pilots to die for him, generals to commit suicide in failure, and soldiers to fight until the death.
President Truman knew of this mindset, as he was informed by Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew, “The greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the throne.” Secretary of War Henry Stimson also sent Truman a memo concerning the Potsdam Declaration stating, “I personally think that if in saying this we should add that we do not exclude a constitutional monarchy under her present dynasty, it would substantially add to the chances of acceptance”. However, President Truman, with vague ideas of ‘Unconditional Surrender’, did not include a clause for the Japanese people to retain their emperor in the Potsdam Declaration. The fear of the loss of the emperor and humiliation in defeat was strong enough that even after the bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese Cabinet still could not achieve a consensus of surrender. Only the intervention of the Emperor could break the deadlock. The Emperor of Japan was believed to be a god, and did not take an active part in the politics of Japan. However, on August 14, the emperor intervened for the first and only time, which finally swung the hawks to agree to peace.
By mid-1945, the Japanese capacity to wage war outside of Japan was crushed. Daily bombing raids had destroyed munition plants, oil storage, and
The detonations at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as of August 2007, have killed over 300,000 Japanese civilians, with an average of 794 survivors, dying every year from radiation-related sicknesses since the year 2000.
Ian Suzuki
Mr. Ahrns
AP History
23 March 2008
Turning a Blind Eye:
The Presidency of Ronald Reagan
"You'd be surprised how much being a good actor pays off." – Ronald Reagan. Among conservatives, Ronald Reagan is one of the most revered presidents of all time. What did he actually do? Many conservatives will claim that Reagan single-handedly ended the Cold War, when it was Gorbachev’s reform policies that finally destroyed it. His “trickle-down” economic policies combined with wanton spending tripled the national debt to nearly 3 trillion dollars. Somehow, this ‘Teflon President’ managed to evade blame for any of the numerous scandals that occurred in his administration with the phrases, “I don’t remember” and “I didn’t know”. Ronald Reagan was a failure for the United States diplomatically, fiscally, and domestically, and was detrimental to the progress of America.
In 1983, the Ronald Reagan made a tragic blunder by attempting to intervene in a Lebanese civil war. Various Christian, Muslim, and secular factions in Lebanon had been fighting for nearly a decade when The Great Communicator decided he would send a relatively small task force of US Marines to intervene on the Christians’ side. Muslim groups, including Hezbollah, responded violently, suicide bombing the United States’ Embassy, killing 63, and the American Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines. Reagan also began supporting a terrorist group known as the Contras formed from the remnants of the dictatorial Somoza regime dedicated to the overthrow of the democratically elected, if leftist, Sandinista government. The public, naturally, was skeptical concerning this support, and then largely opposed to it upon the knowledge that the CIA was mining Nicaraguan waters. The Iran-Contra scandal involved selling arms to Iran in return for their pressure upon Hezbollah, the group that was responsible for the bombings in Lebanon and had captured American hostages. Reagan’s administration, having been denied congressional support in wake of the mining scandal, used the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. The public fallout was immense, but nothing the Teflon President couldn’t handle, claiming first that he didn’t know about it, then didn’t remember, and finally the truth. As stated by Senator John Glenn, “If he knew about it, then he has willfully broken the law; if he didn't know about it, then he is failing to do his job. After all, we expect the President to know about the foreign policy activities being run directly out of the White House.” Unfortunately for the United States, the arms sold to Iran then may have been killing Israeli civilians in Haifa last year (Hezbollah is largely armed by Iran), or soldiers in Iraq today.
“A trillion dollars would be a stack of $1,000 bills 67 miles high” ¬¬– Ronald Reagan concerning the 1980 national debt. The Gipper initially had plans to balance the federal budget. However, once it became apparent that his policy of supply-side economics had failed, he gave up on that plan and tripled the national debt by increasing deficit spending and continuing to lower taxes for the wealthy. The ensuing 192.7 mile high stack of thousand dollar bills caused by Reagan’s explosion in red ink sabotaged the administration of his successor and took eight years of a budget-balancing president to overcome. The administration experienced the worst recession during the early years of his administration since 1914, prior to the Great Depression. While Reagan’s rampant spending did help the economy recover in the short term (in the study of economics, deficit spending encourages growth), severe economic debt discourages foreign backers to invest, which slows the economy and leads to stagnation. George H W Bush’s presidency was plagued by this national debt, and was forced to renege upon his campaign promise of “no new taxes”.
"His errors glide past unchallenged. At one point...he alleged that almost half the population gets a free meal from the government each day. No one told him he was crazy. The general message of the American press is that, yes, while it is perfectly true that the emperor has no clothes, nudity is actually very acceptable this year."
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, ScaldingHotSoup! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page.
Yes, there are image speedy deletion criteria, but, like for that hand-done sketch with the tank, the general speedy categories still apply to images. Nihiltres{t.l}04:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the vulgarity and vandalism on my user page. It's disturbing and frustrating but I thank you for quickly finding it. Bstone (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ScaldingHotSoup, I noticed that you made a change on User talk:Spellmanloves67's talk page. I'm not sure why User talk:Spellmanloves67 is so angry but he seems to be on a vendetta to post non-relevant information about Capella University on many different topics. I've tried to talk but he seems very hostile. I've also noticed that he seems to have engaged in many personal attacks before and has been warned - you can see many of these warnings on his archived talk pages. How can I file for moderation? I really don't think that his edits are appropriate for the articles he is changing and that the distract from the topics. I especially think his edits on the WebCT and University of California, Irvine articles are innapporiate. Thank you for your help.
Sxbrown (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also note in relation to this topic that you recently told Spellmanloves67 that he or she can not delete warnings from his or her Talk page. That is not true. Please do not tell editors that. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page. I did notice a bit of a problem with your signature, in that the 'talk' part links to a page that doesn't exist (it goes to User talk:ScaldingHotsoup instead of User talk:ScaldingHotSoup). AlexiusHoratius (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Hello ScaldingHotSoup! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondarysources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 329 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Hello ScaldingHotSoup! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Hello, ScaldingHotSoup. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello ScaldingHotSoup! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 329 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
