User talk:Khukri/archive6

←Archive 5 (201 - 250)

Khukri's talk archive 6 (251 - 300). Please do not modify

Archive 7 (301 - 350)→

Thank you, Khukri

I'm honored that you thought of me. Standing for RFA before is something I have gone a bit back and forth on. I'm going to read and think a bit, but I believe I'm ready to take the plunge. Thank you again!--Kubigula (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the kind words in the nomination and I've gone ahead with the acceptance and answers. Please let me know if you think I need to elaborate on any points, then I supose we can take it "live".--Kubigula (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Shad Valley page

I just realized that the "Shad Valley" page had been speedy-deleted under the code db-corp. Is there some way that I could have another go at this page, starting from the previous text and adding in some documentation for notability?

As you can see, I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, so any help would be gratefully received. Lmallory 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted under {{db-corp}} but in it's old state would have most probably failed {{db-notability}} as well. I have no problems with this page being re-created, if it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and you are not writing it on behalf of this organisation, as that falls foul of conflict of interest. Before you start ask yourself what is your end objective, is it for publicising these camps or can you demonstrate notability? I don't go out of my way to delete articles, but there are alot of editors who will put a CSD tag on it straight away, and if it is deleted again by another admin, there is a fair chance the page will be salted so it cannot be re-created again. Any other problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. ^Khukri 08:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Well things are great at the tab wiki, I have become an admin with another user. But we still have our Internet troll/Sockpuppet i blocked them I would have blocked the users for more time except i don't know. It says IP Address/username: Expiry: 24 hours and Reason: I want to know how to block them for more time, Would i put it in minutes,hours,days or years and how do i block users Indefinitely. I am asking you cause i think polices are the same here as over there(not that are policies are written down or i just can't find them). Thank you and Cheers oysterguitarist~Talk 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can type in most time periods, i.e 2 weeks, indefinite, 6 months. The only thing it doesn't like is times like, 2.37 hours. ^Khukri 21:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering that, the bloking policy didn't cover it that well and thanks for answering all my questions it's appreciated. Cheers oysterguitarist~Talk 23:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Barnstar

Hey Khukri, thanks for making my Wiki-day with that barnstar that I never even knew existed. And congrats on becoming an admin! --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SockPuppet

I have a possible sockpupppet he left a message on my talk page [1] and did not sign his post seen here [2] saying i warned him about an edit he made. Except i never warned him before seen here [3] and he never made an edit to that artical seen here [4]. I appologized then i realized this. What do i do? oysterguitarist~Talk 17:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go back through your edits, and find any warnings to an anonymous IP that you may have issued about Saab. Lets not jump to conclusions just yet about sock puppets, it sounds like someone (nicht) not logged. One thing I am moticing is alot of warnings issued but no reversions on your part. If you are issuing warnings for other peoples reversions this is considered bad etiquette so to speak, and it should be the reverting editor who gives the warning. Find anything you've done with respect to Saab and I'll look through it for you. Cheers and don't panic ;) ^Khukri 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went back threw my contributions and found it [5]. It was removed by an anon ip. I then put the warning on the talk page cause it was not done, which would explain the warning and no reverts. If someone does not warn the user about vandalism do i just leave it alone? And what do i do about the user? Cheers oysterguitarist~Talk 18:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a reason why a warning hasn't been issued, such as an admin doing investigation, plain old forgot, etc. You can get on to some very dangerous ground issuing warnings for stuff you haven't reverted, or issuing AIV reports for users you've not really been involved with (though this isn't as bad). If you see someone has done a revert but has not issued a warning there is {{uw-warn}} available. But and it's a very important but read WP:DTTR first.

I know it's very gracious to apologise straight away, but I would check your editing history first. In this example the vandalism was reverted, and if it's the example he was referring to, nicht is clearly incorrect, which leads me to believe he's talking about something else. For future if someone raises a question or comes out with a statement about what you've done, be polite and leave a message along the lines of Please could you proved me with diffs, so that I may be able to investigate this further?, this way gives you time to have a look and a pause before you must respond. ^Khukri 08:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok. oysterguitarist~Talk 14:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again...

...for your help, kind words and nomination. I very much appreciate your support, and I will try not to block Jimbo Wales as my first admin action.

Obviously, I have a lot to learn about the new tools. However, I meant what I said about being willing to help out as needed. So, please feel free to drop me a line if you are working any backlogs and need an extra set of hands/eyes/buttons. Putting in some time at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview is already on my list.--Kubigula (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TurkishPeople.jpg

Hi Khukri. I hope everything is alright. I need your help. I accidentally pressed (rev) button in the image page. I thought it was (review) button. Is it possible to undid my mistake? or should we upload the image? I shall greatly appreciate your help. Best wishes. E104421 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. I think i fixed what i had done. Regards. E104421 11:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Help

Hi, six of my articles have put up by AfD by the same person and are being voted on all by the same persons.. I was wondering if you could look the articles over and the things written on the discussion pages and give me your honest answer as to should they be up for vote or am I being paranoid? The articles are:

Last week I lost one of my articles and I thought it was a good faith AfD but now with six more up for vote this week I think there is more behind these AfD then good faith. Callelinea 13:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyrics

Are song lyrics copyright violations? Oyster guitarist 21:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most usually get speedied under G12, but AFAIK songs over 50 years old fall out of the copyright, and of course this doesn't apply to songs, where the permission is given, but still has to demonstrate a reason for being included, wikipedia isn't a lyrics hosting site. Cheers ^Khukri 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I just leave the person who added lyrics a note about not doing that(for when they add lyrics to a artical already made). Oyster guitarist 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Send me a link to the article, and I'll take a look. ^Khukri 07:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean I have an artical with lyrics(not anymore), This is what happened: somebody put up song lyrics and I watched to see if they were removed and they were so I just wanted to make sure I understand everything about lyrics so I asked you. Oyster guitarist 32:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 23:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: {{uw-test1}}

Thanks for your reminder and I now understand why you revert my edit. It's because all the UW templates weren't yet available in Chinese Wiki, and I'm now translating them. I will give the inter-lang links after I finish all the templates in Chinese WP. Sorry if I waste your time. --Lkopeter 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Barnstar

Wow thanks so much =) That's really made my day! It's been great to learn about Wikipedia, how it works and the policies that are in place and I was hoping I was doing it all properly and I guess that's my answer! So thanks! SMC89 13:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked suspected sockpuppet user

Hi Khuri, and thanks for blocking User:Nate1501. I believe him to be a sockpuppet and I reported him here; did I do this correctly, and do I need to tag his userpages or change my report in any way? Luckily, I haven't had to do this before so it's my first time with a sockpuppet report. Thanks for your help! Eliz81 15:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally sock puppets, go via WP:SSP but in this case I already had experience of previous Nate vandals 1500 and 1499, so I just blocked it on sight. Don't worry about anything else I've put an indef blocked tag on his page. If you want to keep an eye on the page no probs but I have a sneaking suspicion we will see User:Nate1502 anytime soon. Don't worry about if you didn't do it right or not, the good intention is there, and if you have any further queries in the future don't hesitate to get in touch. Cheers ^Khukri 15:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I got User:Nate1503 ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for blocking User:74.140.243.143. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks for the heads up, I was wondering why that IP was on there since it hadn't been warned since the 9th. Anyway, I'll probably stay out of it if it's a content thing. Peace, delldot talk 11:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for the block on 71.182.146.121. I am new here, and was trying to keep up with reverting its nonsense while speed-reading my way through the admin intervention stuff to figure out how to report properly. Appreciate the help :) Maralia 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Hybrid

Alright, thanks for letting me know. I've seen reports there before, so I just figured that's where it went. Cheers, The Hyb rid 08:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons vandal

Khukri,

A short while ago, you processed a block for 86.136.133.15. This individual has been vandalizing Simpsons-related pages for a month now, using many different IP addresses through British Telecom. An abuse report has been filed, and another user has been logging the vandal's actions. The vandal strikes daily, and there are three of us, User:Gran2, User:Scorpion0422 and myself, who watch for and revert his changes, when his vandalism pattern emerges. He claims to be an eleven-year-old boy.

One admin has said there's little we can do about it, other than to file a new WP:AIV each time he strikes. But it's getting tiring, following him around and reverting changes every single day.

I mailed abuse@btbroadband.com, with links to the abuse report and the user log, asking if there's anything they can do to stop the ongoing vandalism. However, BT says they'd need server logs in order to track down the offending user.

Is there any way to acquire the server logs for our vandal's visits, to assist BT in tracking down and, hopefully, putting an end to the vandalism? Do you have any suggestions, other than following him around every single day?

Thanks... -FeralDruid 10:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I would have no idea how to do that, maybe the guys at WP:CHU would have a better idea as it's closer to their area of expertise. The only thing I could suggest doing and I know it laborious would be to great an excel file, or a temporary page the three of you work on, for all the IP's and cut n paste all the offending actions n time stamps from user contributions. and then pass that onto BT. I'm very sorry I can't be of more help but if you speak to the guys at WP:CHU, and no help maybe try the Admin noticeboard, stating your intention to do the leg work, and contact BT. All the best. ^Khukri 10:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Okay, I'll look into CHU or the admin noticeboard. Thanks... -FeralDruid 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JJonathan sockpuppet

Well, I had noticed that entry sat on AIV for a long time before anyone did anything, or more accurately while no one did anything. I guess the fact that there were no warnings and the contribution history was rather minimal, plus the amount of time it takes to refamiliarize yourself with the case, was deterring most admins from taking action. (Once you do, there's no doubt). Daniel Case 14:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war - help requested

Would appreciate your assistance with an edit war I have come across at Optimus Prime and Megatron. I am unsure how to report it, as the issues range from image/copyright to blatant 3RR skirting. Thanks for any help you can provide, especially if it includes advice for how to handle in the future :) Maralia 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's done, I've protected the article and any specific 3rr you can point out to me or in future you can pass by Administrator Noticeboard to get the attention of any administrators that may be around. You can imagine with time differences it could be 12 hours before I can deal with something. All the best. ^Khukri 07:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Thank you for the reminder, though I have a question. Would advertising be grounds for an initial blatant vandal template? †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me}as 14:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is treated different to spamming though the end result is the same. For spamming you can read here on how to treat them, but try to avoid using the IM templates on first time users, as there is no scope for WP:AGF here. It's pretty easy to spot block evading repeat spammers as opposed to the first time editor who had a bright idea one day to promote their business a bit more. Repeat spammers we block on sight, if it's an account it's usually indefinite. Whereas new users we will try and give some leeway to as there is a chance they don't know our rules, and may come back to be a productive editor. Any other questions don't hesitate to give me a shout. ^Khukri 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user has created account

The ip you just blocked, 201.67.224.147 (talk · contribs) has created an account and has made the same edits. The account is Truesalomon (talk · contribs). IPSOS (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved^Khukri 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back again

Now back with a new IP address, 201.34.190.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I've requested semi-protection at WP:RFP. IPSOS (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Thanks for the advice. I'll check the box. Normally, I don't leave an edit comment only for extremely minor edits, such as fixing the capitalization of headings. I mark those minor. Should I use an edit comment even for things like that? IPSOS (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. I can't imagine going looking for vandals. They are enough of a problem on the articles on my watchlist (I keep it at ~696 articles), plus I like to use random article and fix vandalism when I come across it. Seems like a lot of it would be moot is we simply didn't allow IP editing, but I suspect that if is pointless to work to change that... IPSOS (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind advice and offer of future assistance. Ciao! IPSOS (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal is back again

Vandal is back again, again

Query

Is there an editor who is anti-atheist, who was encountered by you and IPSOS, who may feel hostile to you? User:Atheismfailed recently added a link to the Atheism article (warning; have popup blocker enabled) which leads me to wonder if this is worth checking into. Thanks much! (Note: also posted this to IPSOS' talk page) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UW

I have reverted your terrible removal :). --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Warnings Essay

Hello there,

I noticed that you mentioned writing or rehashing an essay on how to use an escalating scale of warnings on vandals/new users/etc. I may not be an admin, but I'm hardly new on Wiki, and I'd quite like to flex my fingers and type an essay. I understand that I can do so anyway, but do you mind if I try to synthesize your points and those of the other commentators on the Admin's Noticeboard talk pages into a cohesive essay? I'd like your sanction. Thanks.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 09:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, I only mentioned it as I think some editors don't really understand the spirit of the warning system, and by not assuming good faith see it as a system used to gain the fastest block possible. If you wish to bullet point it up on a temporary page I'll add my bullets and we can construct an essay around those. I'm going to be quite busy over the coming 5 - 7 days, so I apologise for any future tardiness. Many thanks ^Khukri 10:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help reversing a page move

Hi, an editor made an incorrect move, but for some reason I can't reverse it. I've put a db-move on the redirect, but sometimes these take a while. The redirect needing deletion is at Boudhanath. IPSOS (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– ^Khukri 09:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who...

This user just doesn't appear to be able to learn. I've left a very sternly worded last message. The Evil Spartan 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the heads up. Seems like the only edits from that IP, so if he/she carries then I don't see anyone caught in the crossfire by a longer block. Only worry is some of the edits seem well intentioned, I'm wondering if maybe a clearer explanation of why he's getting the warnings might be in order. Ta ^Khukri 09:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this editor has gone back to making the edits yet again. I really hoped my message would at least provoke a response to a talk page from this editor. Per your concern: I realized some people were heavy-handed, but he has had it explained to him quite well enough. I ask that you please block this user. The Evil Spartan 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:uw-editsummary

The Article parameter in the documentation is not used by the template. It's discussed at Wikipedia:Help desk#template uw-editsummary problem. PrimeHunter 14:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– ^Khukri 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California_Dreamer

Should I do anything about this or just leave it alone? Oyster guitarist 02:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much about it, wait till you have a website created which is loaded with viruses that says it hates you and another editor (somewhere in my talk pages). If it goes any further let me know. ^Khukri 07:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of 139.133.7.38

Hi, you recently blocked User:139.133.7.38 for 3 months. This is an address that apparently is one of the main proxies for the University of Aberdeen (one of their IT people stopped by the Wikipedia IRC channel). Generally blocking shared IP addresses for longer than the last burst of vandalism lasted, is not helpful. Often vandals get bored quickly, and it deters legitimate users (if the vandal doesn't get bored and the block expires, then it takes a few seconds for someone to reblock).

As the blocking policy says, generally we try to make blocks on shared addresses shorter. I unblocked in this particular case; we'll see if the contributions stay mostly positive. -- Pak aran 17:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would rather you had waited till I had responded until you removed the block, just out of courtesy, though I am not going to go behind your back and re-apply it. I understand fully the policy, but it also goes onto say incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations, also at the top of the talk page it clearly states anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time though the vandalism is by no-means as dire as from most educational IP's. I incremented the block length from the previous 4 blocks, and as a university one would hope for a better quality of editor. 24 hour blocks rarely come to the attention of systems administrators, and in this case the fact that (unfortunately) other editors have been disrupted and have brought it to the attention of their administrators can only be a positive.

.......however, looking back through the ratio of good edits to vandalism I accept I may have been heavy handed, and a lesser block should/could have been applied in this case. Regards ^Khukri 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I probably should have just let you know, since I now realize you were online at the time. If the IP re-vandalizes, and I happen to be the first to notice, I'll re-block it myself. I think a shorter block would have solved the problem (which looks to be 2 blankings, on July 13, with no previous activity since July 10). I guess part of what would tend to make me block for a shorter time, is that the IP is very broadly shared. It would be great if we could expect more of universities, I agree (being a grad student myself). But punishing the entire university for a brief episode of vandalism by one member... I don't know. -- Pak aran 17:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info, I am that IT person that stopped by the channel. I have been pointed at the XFF project which I can assure you I will be pushing to get us involved in. This should hopefully assist the wiki and its admins in providing blocks against that large scale blocking of our proxy (which btw I have no issue with, I understand you felt the need to protect the wiki). I will add, the fact that you placed a 3 month block is the reason why this even came to our attention. So it was a good thing! I would therefore like to thank both of you. Znx 18:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you for your responses and understandin. Being brought up just outside Aberdeen, Znx, if there's anything I can do to help out please don't hesitate to ask, not though that this is a factor. All the best ^Khukri 22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the 3 month block seems rather fair under the circumstances and previous blocks. Also - "per IRC" in the unblock message is not quite how we do things here, first discuss with the blocking admin, if there is no response, you should consider wider input on wiki, not an unblock with no evidence of input to back up the claims. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the first issue, the IP in question is a proxy for a large number of users. While probably not as many users as AOL proxies, such machine should, in my personal opinion, have shorter blocks. On the second issue, I acted hastily in part because it was causing a practical problem for a user I was talking to live. I certainly should have chosen a more informative block message, and spoken with the blocking admin (especially since he was online, which I should have thought to check). -- Pak aran 00:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati

Mostly I am simply demanding citations and deleting the more outrageous of the unreferenced material. I am not really "working" on the article. But I am watching it. Blueboar 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movieman899327

Hello. I was the user who had reported Movieman for vandalism, and I feel that your assessment of his warning was incorrect. The report of vandalism was not in regard to his past edits, but to the edits made immediately following his unblocking on 21 Aug. Just one look at his contribs reveals endless vandalism and total disregard for wikipedia and its users. Following your posting, another user warned him for vandalizing yet another page. I respectfully request that you re-assess this user's history, and possibly reconsider your decision to remove his block. Thank you for your time. With best regards, Neo16287 06:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diff's and an explanation of the vandalism and I will be more than happy to re-examine the situtation. Regards ^Khukri 07:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Khukri. Sorry for the delayed response. I am not 100% sure how to link directly to the changes, but I can provide time references. On the page Logan International Airport, please see time references 23:45, 27 August 2007 through 23:59, 27 August 2007. Also, if you check movieman's contribs log dating to June, just prior to his block, you will find nearly identical edits on multiple occasions (time reference 22:54, 17 June 2007 through 03:05, 18 June 2007). I feel this is sufficient proof of vandalism, but I can provide more citations upon request. If I'm not mistaken, the Khukri was the weapon of choice for the Gurkha, correct? Best regards, Neo16287 05:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you'll have to explain why this is vandalism. I am not an expert on the subject, but to me unless it's deliberately false information of which I'd need counter evidence, it looks like he's just added another international carrier from this terminal. regards ^Khukri 07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. If you would please look here, you will see that all the airlines that he has listed do not operate out of Boston, despite his insistence. That is the only counterevidence I can provide, without digging into restricted materials. Neo16287 14:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shad Valley

Hi, I noticed that you deleted this page, and I was wondering why. Sorry if this isn't the correct forum/format for this question. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.49.104 (talk) 20:49, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

It was speedy tagged on the 30th May by another editor for {{db-corp}}, and I came across the article in WP:CSD. The article was deleted by myself for being a promotional advertising piece and I agreed with the original editor in that it did not meet the criteria notability. I know it's not sometimes what editors wish to hear, but before an article is started the question has to always be asked, why is this notable, why does this deserve to be in an encyclopedia? To inform interested parents of what the camp does, is not a valid reason. Any further questions don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards ^Khukri 07:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious socks at WP:AIV

Hi. You just declined to block User:The Immortal Lord as no warnings had been given; however, as this account is obviously a sock of User:Disturbedrcool1 (it's making exactly the same edit as the two already blocked socks), who was repeatedly warned, I don't see this as consistent with the WP:SOCK policy that "accounts operating in violation of this policy should be blocked indefinitely." Anyway, I've brought this up at WP:ANI. Cheers --Pak21 10:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. ^Khukri 10:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my template

Thanks for letting me know; I wasn't aware that such templates are frowned upon. You're absolutely correct -- I hardly ever find use for it, and I've put in a CSD for it. Thanks again, and cheers! --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 13:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Monsters page edit

You left a message to my IP address, and I am not responsible for that edit. I did not even know of that page until it was mentioned to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.217.216 (talk) 07:28, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

That warning was issued a year ago tomorrow. Suggest it's either a proxy IP, or have you always used that PC? Regards ^Khukri 07:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Thanks for the note! I appreciate the info... Dreadstar † 09:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...but

Thanks for your support at my RFA, but the one you just added is your second support. Cheers all the same -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your continuing efforts to fight vandalism, I award you this barnstar. --Shark face 217 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Your recent report to WP:AIV

Hello. Sorry about that wasn't aware. Have posted a few like that. What does need to be posted then, just the fact its repeated vandalism ? Cheers Hammer1980 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more question. Some of the new ips have blatently vandalised a page with swearing etc so I have missed the first friendly warning (which is really worded to assume they have made a mistake) and gone straight to a caution or even 1st warning. That's not going to cause a problem is it ? Hammer1980 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar RfA

Click there to open your card! → → →

Khukri,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!

Dreadstar

Credits This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's modification of Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Thanks for your support, I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by borrowing someone else's design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! Dreadstar † 04:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol..! Thanks, I appreciate the offer and I may take you up on it! And, um, the "un-mooched" get jealous without their moochie-due... :0 ... If you ever need help with anything...I'll be happy to jump right in..! Dreadstar † 07:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AIV

Understood. Thanks for the tip! Spryde 12:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review ASAP

This user's posts! --Endless Dan 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot edit his posts for various reasons... please review immediatly! --Endless Dan 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the {{indefblocked}} tag that you put on the page, this should only be done by an admin, and the user has not been blocked. All of the vandalism was reverted, if this user is a problem issue with the relevant warnings and then report to WP:AIV. Oh and thanks for the reverting to my talk page. Thanks ^Khukri 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I shouldn't add blocks to user pages, however, the photos he was adding were offensive. By the way, that person who was vandalizing your page, is now vandalizing my page. Is there any way to block him or prevent him from editing my page? --Endless Dan 13:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, he changed some things I cannot revert. Is there anyway I can get those changes back?? --Endless Dan 14:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a block template to a talk page should only be done by an admin, and is rather impotent when there is no actual block behind it. I've semi protected your talk page for one month. Can you provide me with diffs to the vandalism or give me a link to what I'm looking for and I'll do it. ^Khukri 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report to AIV

Hi... thanks for the note. I noticed that just after I submitted it: it was a mistake. I'm undercaffeinated. :) --Rrburke^(talk) 13:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for clarifying to that editor on AIV! (Oh I'll add that I posted my comment right after you saying to come to talk (edit conflict). Phgao 11:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]