Jump to content

User talk:KnightLago/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10


Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hey there, I was wondering whether you could coach me, as Malinaccier unexpectedly went inactive for a while. :( A summary of my edits can be found here. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 22:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

123.243.210.246

Recommend a longer block. IP has remained static for several years. 6 months would not be unwarranted. Enigmamsg 03:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coach?

Hi, I'm currently looking for an admin coach, and I noticed that you're listed on the status page as someone who is open to coaching and not currently busy with anyone. So, would you be interested in coaching me? I currently have just over 3500 edits, I've written a number of DYKs, an FA, and I have a number article at FAC right now. I'm also fairly active combating vandalism and at AfD. Cool3 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Cool3 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I've created the page at User:Cool3/Admin Coaching as you suggested. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Assignment completed. Cool3 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I've answered all your questions, once again thanks! Cool3 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Prot of Barack Obama

Are you sure you wanted to use an indefinite protection on this one? Avruch T 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your thoughts on lifting the full protection on the Obama article? It looks like the firestorm is done on the talk page and the limited discussion going on the talk page is much more sedate than the flame war the existed at the time of your edit protection. If you do think full protection is not necessary now, please make sure you continue the indefinite semi-protection. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning User:92.238.168.136

Thank you for pointing this out to me :) (and you're right in general, of course). But there are deeper thoughts hiding behind my decision (or it is just that I'm a power hungry admin, getting a kick out of blocking people). :)

I'm quite sure this is a stable IP, and considering her/his behaviour this is simply an SPA, only regarding vandalism against a certain user and on certain pages. If an request for unblock comes up, I'll reconsider, but for now let's just say that the block is open-ended, with a possibility for redemption. Also, I've been doing the admin thing for quite a long time now, and one tends to see things differently after a certain time. See WP:BOLD WP:IAR and WP:CABAL. Feel free to shorten the block. Lectonar (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just changed the block settings for this IP so that he/she cannot edit his/her own talk page due to abuse (towards you actually :) ). After the fact, I noticed that this is probably what you intended anyway. Feel free to change anything you think needs changing. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hi, thanks again for all you've done so far. I've answered your next set of questions, and I look forward to hearing more from you. Cool3 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll disagree, but I feel like I'm ready for the bit, and I'm sort of thinking it may be RfA time. Thoughts? Cool3 (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright you make a good point, I shall wait. I would like to take issue with the assertion that I've done nothing more than vandalism cleanup since I came back. About 10% of my edits were to Operation Deny Flight, which should pass FA soon if people actually review it. I've also found the time to write a GA, and 6 DYKs, anyway not contradicting you, but I'm a bit more than just a vandal fighter. Yea, though, another RfA might well fail due to experience concerns as I was relatively inactive for quite a while there. So, let's finish coaching then, and by the way thanks for your responses. Cool3 (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I've answered all of your latest round of questions. Cool3 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated myself for adminship. Thank you for your help so far. I feel ready, and I think that there's a good chance the community will express their trust in me. Should the nomination fail, I hope that we can resume admin coaching, but I think with 4k+ edits and experience across the whole project, I have a good chance. Cool3 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've answered all of the questions you added to my admin coaching page. I'd also like to apologize once again for my ill-advised RfA this afternoon. Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I would be interested in your input on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3 3. If I am unaware of any posts or communication which nullifies your request that the candidate wait until you post the RfA, I'd be willing to reconsider my !vote. Thank you, and Kind Regards, — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 19:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm truly impressed by both the admin, and the future admin. If everyone here had the same integrity, maturity, and dedication - we wouldn't have 1/10 of the problems we do. And I apologize if I was unduly critical, or out of line at any point. My very best wishes to both. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 14:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

It seems best for you to hear about this from me. As I mentioned above, I have nominated myself for adminship. A number of editors have pointed out to me that in doing so, I violated the agreement we made when you became my admin coach. For this, I am very sorry; I had not considered the matter in that light. I know that a few days ago you advised me against running, but I interpreted your remarks merely as advice that I might have difficulty if I ran. After reviewing recent RfAs, I arrived at a different conclusion, and decided that it might be worthwhile for me to try an RfA. After looking at the state of the current backlog, I also decided that Wikipedia needs all the administrators it can get. So, to make a long story short, I started the RfA, and a debacle ensued.

I have decided that, in recognition of the agreement we made, if you are opposed to me running at RfA, I will withdraw (though I might have an editor review to still give people a chance to provide some feedback). I think that asking you this is the most honorable road I can take. I would also like to apologize quite profusely if I have offended you, or you feel that I have gone behind your back (although I hope that you don't feel this way). I apologize for not consulting you before I began the RfA, and as I said, if you would like me to, I will immediately withdraw. Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be withdrawing my candidacy. I hope we can leave this aside (as if it didn't happen?) and continue with admin coaching. Cool3 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Finding An Admin Coach

Hi, I saw that you were an Admin Coach from the Cool3 RFA, and I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction towards finding one myself. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping

You got mail. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Filter 61

What exactly did you change in the filter? The diff doesn't make it immediately clear and hit count appears to have gone up severely. I just want to make sure the filter is still working as intended. - Mgm|(talk) 17:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you

I thought I'd effed up my Ari Publican request so badly it was unsalvageable. Thank you for cleaning up after me. David in DC (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Last time around, Wknight94 set up a rollback program to erase all of sock William Tennent's contributions. I went to ask him again, but his talk page says he's retired. So I made a bot request. I'm improvising as I go along here. Was that a request that's likely to be granted? If not, is there another strategy? David in DC (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks again. David in DC (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KnightLago. You have new messages at WP:BOTR.
Message added 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MIstaken vandal revert?

Am I missing something here? [1]

Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MFD

I'm not going to revert, but it's well established we're on UTC and I really hope we're not going to keep this around until noon tomorrow just to be sure every time zone has participated. Also, was this at DRV? I must have missed that. Sorry. Hiding T 13:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Anwar

Hi,

I'm kindly asking you not to draw conclusions. I deny being everyone listed.

User:Sintaku/Vagish/AVTN are all one person, whochnaged their usernames. You can check our edit patterns/use Checkuser etc, to confirm I am not him. Furthermore, how is that sockpuppetry if I did, I haven't used any account to support my claims!

Thanx.

Universal Hero (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hey, Just wondering if you've had a chance to take a look at the latest round on my admin coaching page? No pressure, I understand if you've been busy. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to get back to me despite your busyness. Cool3 (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

FAU

Because the visual guide linked to is an old version (1.0). The website url I replaced it with has further information, and also a link to the latest visual guide as well (2.1). Keitherson (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

[2]...If I were to go ask this question on Jimbo's page, would I be blocked for proxying for a banned editor? Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated misuse of editing privileges?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HappilyBrush I don't see how one edit constitutes repeated... but eh whatever. Jacina (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientology stuff

Thank you very much for doing that :)  Roger Davies talk 18:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I did, thanks. And acted on it.  Roger Davies talk 18:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article

Congrats on the FAU featured article! CptnSkippy (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I also want to commend you on the FAU featured article. It was something followed through by you and you alone. Congratulations! :) Keitherson (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Been added to scientology articles Arb case

Thanks for the heads up. I made some comments to the case some months ago and am quite surprised it is still ongoing. I really have nothing more to say unless someone accuses me of some egregious policy violation. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to refuse the offered contract of adding my username as a party to the scientology Arbitration. I refuse all hidden contracts or contracts of adhesion under State of Florida Law.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope you're doing well

Hey, I hope you're doing well. Thanks for the next round of admin coaching, and I hope you had a happy Easter. Also, I saw your FA on the main page a few days back, so congrats on that. Cool3 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm injunction

Hi KnightLago. Regarding Malcolm Schosa's injunction, I see that it passed 6 to 0, but only see two arbs voting on the workshop page. Am I missing something? Thanks for your help. IronDuke 14:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, should have thought to look there. IronDuke 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy KnightLago/Archive 4's Day!

[[Image:Featured article star.svg|150px|none|

User:KnightLago/Archive 4 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as KnightLago/Archive 4's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear KnightLago/Archive 4!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My faulty signature

Thank you for your notice that my signature was not linking to my user page.

PYRRHON

talk 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A Manual of Style Question

I see that you saw fit to alter my heading. I don't particularly mind, but I am curious as to your reason(s) for doing so. Did I violate an MOS guideline?
--NBahn (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re ItsLassieTime

I had ItsLassieTime's Talk page on my watchlist following my GA review of Milo of Croton, and was surprised to read about the 1-month block. I was even more surprised to see the conclusion of the sockpuppetry investigation that ItsLassieTime = ReverendLogos as the two have very different personalities. I've dealt with ItsLassieTime at the GA reassessment of Ruth Martin (Lassie) as well, and on both occasions ItsLassieTime was a pleasure to work with. OTOH I encountered ReverendLogos at the GA review and Talk page of Bouncer (doorman), and found ReverendLogos dogmatic, stubborn and verbose. In short, I find it hard to believe they're the same person. --Philcha (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

diff

Hi, what does 'diff' mean? As in keep to 1000 words and 100 diffs? Thanks. Politis (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, getting there! So presumably no more than 100 diffs means we should not make more than 100 edits on our text? Politis (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

question answered! happy customer :-) Politis (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence length

Thanks for the note - I'm working at the moment to trim it down. Please bear with me, I'll have it sorted in an hour or two. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Down to 1090 words. I'll have another go at trimming it tomorrow, when I'm less tired. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Arb

Dang, sorry. I didn't realize. Grsz11 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Email

Could you email the arbitrators and say that their lack of feedback on the first request is annoying. They should post status. The case looks like it should have openned already, but NYB proposed a resolution without a case, and now we are all in limbo. Jehochman Talk 21:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, as I posted on the request earlier today, the case will be opened later tonight. It has been delayed not through fault of the arbitrators, but because there was some confusion over who was clerking this case and other obligations I've had off-wiki. Please be patient, everything should be posted soon. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, per Hersfold, and contact us yourself. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Thank you for your advice. The evidence I bring forth are the dialogs between myself and ChrisO, where he threatened to block me. Reading them in the context of the dispute and knowing his actions (renaming the article, etc), I think one gets the point. I don't know how to create links, that is why I posted the whole dialog. It may not be earth-shattering or shocking new evidence, but this is all I have. If you have specific suggestions on my evidence section, or know how to create a link directly to the talk page of the article "List of national animals", please do contact me again. Regarding the arguments, I used a closing paragraph in order to close the section smoothly; if you think it is too much, I will happily remove it. Alfadog777 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your advice, I've come across evidence and will be presenting it soon. Thanks.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Can IP editors present evidences?

Because I do not think so. However I saw your advice to the anon. Do I have to revert it back? Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance and help me fix my mistake. I reverted my edit to the page. --Caspian blue 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence length

I have matched the 1000-word count in my main evidence for Macedonia 2. The responses to others are a little bit of extra. Please note that most of my evidence is tables and is much easier to read than text. Thank you Shadowmorph (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do something

KnightLago, the level of harassment from Avg on the Arbmac case pages has reached intolerable levels. For how long am I expected to endure crap like this [3]? As the case clerk, please do something. I demand to be left alone by that person during the rest of these proceedings. This cannot and will not be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

KnightLago, please note that I have already filed a motion against this person for an obvious defamation and he still keeps harassing me. I also demand to be left alone from this person. He should cease and desist referring to my name and accusing me in other people's talk pages. This has gone too far and it has to be stopped immediately.--Avg (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

KnightLago, I have never sought out any personal issue with Avg on these case pages except where it directly pertained to the necessary formal material regarding my evidence and proposed decision elements about him, and giving a simple explanation to an accusation he raised against me. If you think I've provoked anything here, please be so kind as to show me where. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

KL, I know you're sooo happy to have this conversation on your talk page. I left a message with Newyorkbrad on his talk page regarding the matter, saying, I think justly, that bloody few people other than arbitrators have the guts to block someone while they are involved in an ongoing arbitration. Just giving you a heads-up if he comments before you do anything yourself. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New Brunswick

My contribution is evidence of WP practice; I see no other way to present it. Others have commented on it, which is the chief reason I restored it. Please reconsider. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be adding it to talk; and a link. I repeat: It was presented as evidence of WP practice, which is what ArbCom should be deciding on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Macedonia 2

Hello there :) Some questions for you in my talk page. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hey, I imagine you've been fairly busy lately, but I was just wondering if you'd had the opportunity to take a look at the latest round of admin coaching stuff. No pressure if you've got other things on your plate, but I'd appreciate it if you'd look over my latest responses/leave more questions,etc. Cool3 (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The next batch is now answered. As always, thanks! Cool3 (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Kenny Irwin

I have a question Why do you revert Kenny Irwin's page back to just some old REVERT? That happens to also be the name of a respected artist and a popular Guy on youtube.

Kenny Irwin is a respected ARTIST. He deserves a wiki page and not even YOU have the right to take that away from him.

If someone works as hard as him, its not fair to be overlooked by a guy who only makes right turns, Why must Kenny's page only serve as a redirection to a NASCAR driver who is not even that good. Seriously.

Could you at least do something? It isn't truly... fair.

What can i do though? I revert it back the 100% true info on Kenny Irwin and it will be considered Vandalism of an Redirect page...

Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubis Grim (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Evidence#Evidence received by FayssalF

Do you want me to clean the above section up a bit? Remove the user:X part in the sentences, change Bisanz to Mbisanz, etc.KnightLago (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sure. That's a bad habit of mine. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Done, diff of changes here.KnightLago (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks KnightLago. I've just added a few questions at the Workshop page. Could you please notify Ryulong, Mythdon, MBisanz and Risker? Thanks in advance#. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I left a note for MBisanz, Mythdon has already replied, and I notified both Risker and Ryulong on IRC. KnightLago (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd better have a notification on-wiki. Thanks KnightLago#. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete evidence question

You have deleted my evidence on Macedonian [4]. There might be a good reason for it, only thing is that it looks as 'denuded?' as this evidence by dchall1 [5]. I do not know how these things are measured and I have absolutely no problem with his/her evidence and cannot judge. I only hope you can throw some light for me. Trompeta (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will see if I can change it and whatever happens, happens :-) Trompeta (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FAU page

You have a new message on the discussion page for FAU. Yezn0r (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have left a comment at FAU's talk expressing my concern about COI editing and have likewise warned Yezn0r about his edit-warring behavior. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

J. C.

Thank you for intervening on User talk:John Carter. It is unfortunate that, in his decision to reword the evidence section, he has again repeated the same problematic tactics seen yesterday: replacing one bad version with another equally bad one. Currently, it reads, about my posting on his talk page yesterday: "He seemed to believe that I was supposed to change this virtually immediately, and repeatedly posted there to apparently try to bring about a faster response" [6]. This is, unfortunately, again false. I posted a second time not to insist on a faster response, but because he had in fact already responded in the meantime, but only to exchange old errors with new ones [7]. After my second post, he immediately turned against me with an unprovoked heap of insults [8]. All further posts of mine, of which he is now complaining, were triggered by his posing factual questions and challenges to me, on his own page. He can hardly complain about me answering them.

Seeing as I am now basically banned from his page, I wonder how I can best communicate to him yet another necessary request to amend this newly misleading "evidence". It is something that certainly would best be handled between us without having the arb pages themselves further bogged down with unnecessary detail. On the other hand, I am not happy to let these subtle falsehoods just stand like that. Can you advise? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Checking In

Thanks for checking in, and as always thanks for all the admin coaching; you've been most helpful. No real questions or anything at the moment, just plugging along. I've been rather busy in real life for the last couple of weeks (as you can probably see from a relatively low level of activity during that time), but all is well, and I'm working Operation Deny Flight up to another FAC run sometime soon while keeping Hastings Ismay on the backburner for an FAC run in a month or so. Hope all is going well with you. Cool3 (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Of Allison_Harvard.jpg

WP:CSD#F4 states that the image may be deleted after 7 days. Allison_Harvard.jpg was uploaded less than 24 Hours ago. The uploader should have been given a chance to respond. ... MistyWillows talk 04:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I deleted the image because it lacked a source and licensing information. The uploader in fact listed the author as "unknown". I did a quick Google search and the image appears on a number of websites without any licensing information. Therefore, as the image was obviously not the uploader's work, I deleted it. If you know the source and licensing information I will happily restore it so you can add it. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to use WP:CSD#F4 as the reason, you have to wait 7 days. As for the origin of the picture; it is a self portrait taken by Allison Harvard herself in 2005, which she posted on 4chan, without making a copyright claim. I don't know if that qualifies as being put in the public domain. ... MistyWillows talk 16:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

75.150.117.93 vandalism

the user 75.150.117.93 has vandalized another article Eastern_newt I see that you've warned him before about this behavior. Just thought you'd like to know!--Digrpat (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

University Press of Florida

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision#Civility_reminder

I'm not sure your reminder is having the intended effect. Please check out the comments below your warning. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

the comments on your reversion

Correcting your commentary:

That woman has done undue damage to my life, and job. She did this for no real reason, save for false premises; she's sloppy, and aggressive.

The situation she caused remains active, and she's done nothing to correct it. Claiming that I'm harassing her is the epitome of aggressor-claiming-victimization that is that woman's hallmark. I had no interest in her, and only a passing interest in this website, when she started a large-scale project out of here. If you are looking for the abuse, harassment, intimidation and life-wrecking, you tell her to go in front of the mirror, then tell her to get her hind-end in front of a computer, and she should go about, with the same 'enthusaism' that she caused this problem, to admit that she had NO idea what she was talking about, and that this should be shut down. I'm quite sick of wiping up her dirt. And she smeared it over thousands of people.

If you didn't take this to ANI, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Tell her to look in the mirror, and clean up the mess she made.

Quite simple stuff, but evidently rocket-science to that woman. She's rather cry victim. Which is sort of like (insert criminal of the week) claiming that he's picked on unfairly by the law profession. She started it. She can finish it. I've no further interest in her, save for her mess which I have to cope with.

Thank you. 83.77.110.201 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear of your discomfort. However, the only thing I can do is enforce Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy equally. The policy requires controversial assertions to be backed by reliable sources. I do this for her in the same manner in which I would do it for you. KnightLago (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request (Igor Panarin)

If you have time, would you please review the article about Igor Panarin, aimed at FA status? It has already been reviewed partially (because it was big) by 2 people but I have moved of it into a separate article since, so now it must be much easier to review :) Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you very much in advance! Лъчезар (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hey. Hope you're doing well. I was just wondering if you have any other admin coaching questions, etc. for me at this point. If you do, I'd be more than happy to answer away. If not, I'm wondering if you think I'm ready for RfA. I think it's probably been enough time now. I'm closing in on edit 6,000 and in a couple of days it'll be June and I'll have been back for 5 months. Naturally, I'll defer to your judgment on this matter, though. Anyway, thanks for everything so far. Cool3 (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, 3 and 6 is much rounder and much nicer. Thanks again! Cool3 (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster

Hello KnightLago. I urge you to rethink the 3 day block of Kittybrewster (talk · contribs). The article he moved is not about a baronet. It was titled incorrectly, and therefore he is not technically in violation of ArbCom's terms in moving it. I appreciate this is a gray area, but considering the page move by Kb was the exact opposite of what ArbCom was concerned about (he removed a postnomial, rather than add one to an article title), a 3 day block seems harsh in the extreme. I would suggest a word of advice to Kb to avoid such gray areas in future, would be more than sufficient. Rockpocket 07:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe you were correct that this move violated the Arbcom restriction because the article touches on Baronets and the page move clearly matches the issue. Nonetheless, I hope you will reconsider the duration: 3 days for a good-faith mistake, and a first-time violation of the restriction, does seem very harsh. Mangojuicetalk 09:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for reconsidering. Rockpocket 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Zelenoff spoof page

I noticed that you’ve imposed a topic ban on a user named “Vintagekits” in the past and I wanted to bring to your attention a spoof article he has repeatedly linked to other articles, redirected, and energetically defended. I am not sure if there is a nefarious connection.

Here is the article that is up for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlie_Zelenoff

Here are his recent edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vintagekits

Charlie Zelenoff (apparently an alias) is attempting to use Wikipedia as a springboard to fame and fortune by creating links to notable fighters absent any meaningful notoriety himself, although he may become infamous for creating extra work for Wikipedia editors.

They’re investing a lot of energy into it.

Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Lordvolton (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Innocent bystander

Greetings...your block of Aramgar (talk · contribs) has caught Kafka Liz in a crossfire see the thread here:[9], perhaps you can free her from her husbands block, thanks....Modernist (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, Mangojuice and the Baronet topic ban

Following on from your notification here, of the Baronet topic ban, it appears that Mangojuice has no informed Kittybrewster here that he can edit the articles freely with the exception of moving article pages.

Per the noficiation on Kittys page (replicated on my talkpage) and the discussion here can you please clarify the position as I was under the impression that the restriction on moving articles was just one part of the ruling and not the whole and that the ruling also included. A. A community enacted topic ban on Baronets and Knights, B. A ban on nominating articles for deletion if they were created by the other party and C. To avoid unnecessary interaction with each other, especially if it is likely to be perceived as baiting, trolling, or another form of harassment. Regards--Vintagekits (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kind nomination and all the help you've given me. Cool3 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded. Cool3 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DreamHost

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You participated on the talk page within the time period I scanned for participants to notify. Judas278 (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Any pointers for McCombs School of Business?

Hi! I saw your user name listed under Peer review volunteers for university education and want to know if you'd send some pointers my way on what to improve on within the McCombs School of Business article. I'm working offline on a completely new history section and but I need advice on the rankings section and possibly spinning it off into a separate article or creating an collapsible template, etc. I'm out of ideas on that problem. Also, in addition to User:Eustress's recent [[10]], I'm still curious what do do with the academic profile section, espually the research section and how to avoid it from looking like the Ross School of Business institute section. Would the inclusion of the "infamous" former logo be appropriate in the history section too when mentioning the school's former name?

Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance! NThomas (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedia, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for keeping an eye on the process. May I suggest that instead of flat removing the comments, you place them in the comment section? This way, they remain, but in the proper place. Personally, I don't want to edit anyone's page, as I am standing myself. Thanks again. -- Avi (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[11]

Am I missing something? :) –Juliancolton | Talk 22:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, alright. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

arborial matters

I am involved with an arbcom dispute (nollop) and I have no idea what in the name of satans left earlobe I am supposed to do (or am allowed to do). As such I ask indulgence for any errors I make in this mater.Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What evidence, exactly what have I been accused of? Or am I expected to provide evidence about other users?Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi KnightLago, I replied on my talk page, but thought I should drop a note here as well. The couple links I added to the (Noloop/Webhamster) case are really all I'm familiar with. When folks start comparing others to Nero, telling people to "fuck off troll" and "go fuck yourself" - I try to say it's wrong, but it's not an environment I want to work in. I trust the committee to handle it well, and if you have any questions, I'll try to answer - but I'm more interested in working on some articles, and trying to help others out, than indulging in ArbCom stuff. If you think there is something I should say or do, let me know. I do appreciate the notice though. Thanks, and best of luck. — Ched :  ?  19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 02:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Loyola University Maryland

Please unprotect Loyola University Maryland. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the desire is to move Loyola University Maryland over Loyola University Maryland because they wanted to change their name, and the state approved and it took effect on 25 Sept.

There were no objections on the talk page, and the sources looked good to me. - Sinneed 05:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done KnightLago (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.- Sinneed 22:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia FAC

Last year you were kind enough to give the article on Virginia a peer review, one of the ones we badly needed to improve the article before nominating it for FAC. We didn't get it, but one year later, we're back on FAC, and I was hoping that we could get you too again look over the article, and give your opinion on it for us, whether or not we've done what you suggested we needed to get it up there. Thanks!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Evidence moving?

What's all this moving evidence to the talk page about? I'd have put my "what's to be done" section there myself if I wanted it there, but I want it on the evidence page. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Message on my talk. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Question

Yes, I have further question. Where to place the official request by an involved party. --Dojarca (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Will this case is special and Deacon argues that the existing system does not work. So it is proposed the reform of the system as I understand Deacon's removed part.--Dojarca (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
So between what the arbitrators would arbitrate? Between evidence?--Dojarca (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KnightLago/Archive_4&oldid=1221608191"