User talk:Kralizec!/Archive 2009

This is my talk archive; please do not edit this record of past discussions. If you need to contact me, please leave a message on my active talk page.

User talk:Kralizec!	→ 2005	→ 2006	→ 2007	→ 2008	→ 2009	→ 2010	→ 2021	← present

Talkback sink

Please drop all {{talkback}} type messages (aka "I have responded to your message on my own talk page") in this section. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at CobraGeek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Edgeshappy12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at SpaceHistory101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Call me Bubba's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Kotra's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Zvika's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Wpwatchdog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

@PatPeter and Friendly note regarding talk page messages:

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Marek69's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at DFS454's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Glasscity09's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at LadyofShalott's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at KeltieMartinFan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at 98.14.200.92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drappel (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at roux's talk page.

You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Parsecboy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Dbratland's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at JeffBillman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Here's your orange bar, sorry for the delay. :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Kotra's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Ishwasafish's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks alot!

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at 98.248.33.198's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No worries on the delay.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Absolon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Andrewlp1991's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Dalekusa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What is your problem deleting "Chicago Film Producers Alliance"

We were still discussing this page. What is your problem deleting it?--ATurnerIII (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for a subjective and inconsistent process. And the fact that you and others have group think and banded together to delete the article is more evidence of the site's weakness. Sure, I can have more 3rd party article written about CFPA and will. In fact, they are being writting now. But, it's too late. This has become a legal issue. I'm in contact with my attornies about antitrusut violations and soon will contact the site's owner. You can't accept other similar groups for different reasons and selectively reject CFPA. It's illegal. And rest assured, when the summons are issued, your name will be on one.--ATurnerIII (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paki90

Hmmm ... I'm inclined to extend a little good faith, after reading his talk page message. But he must understand that this is his absolute last chance, and even one slip-up will result in an indefblock with no preliminaries. Blueboy 96 15:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that should work ... how many other admins besides us are waiting with raised banhammers for this guy? Blueboy 96 18:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering ... I don't think we'd have too much trouble getting support for a ban if it came to that, since the community has very little tolerance for that kind of behavior. So let's present it to him--take it or leave it. Blueboy 96 18:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your nice message. I appreciate the time you took and your contacting me about it. Have a happy New Year!--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I will add, that was actually a rather impressive hoax attempt. Given the effort that must have gone into writing those lengthy articles, I suspect someone was trying to measure how long a blatant hoax can pass unnoticed here. :) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Wow - it's so uncluttered here, and it takes just a moment to load. I see you take the same attitude towards archiving as the people in the Middle Ages had towards baths - once a year, whether you need it or not!--Kubigula (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage from Angelo de la Paz block

Sanada Yuki-kun (talk · contribs) is requesting exemption from the autoblock. He seems legit. Can you review? Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments

thanks for your comment, I was told by another admin ages ago that official block notices should be left on the page, especially whilst this block is in force. this user has had a recent history of extensive vandalism and has been warned on several occasions. blanking the page gives the reader no indication of this. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

geek

come on you fat bitch why are u going round deleting peoples wikipedia pages if were just trying to spread the word of Kosu u little faggot get a life why would u spend all ur time goin round wikipedia editing i mean seriously ur "college sweetheart" must be so fat that u cant have sex with her so u wank off to editing wiki instead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaaaaan (talk • contribs) 10:01, 9 January 2009

Meet my friend WP:RBI. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, This guy is sad, He has go no life so he gets his kicks out of deleting peoples pages and then blocking them because hes afraid of CONFLICT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahorse Kosu (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 January 2009

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Message at User talk:195.158.85.3

Erm it was only 10 minutes after he had been blocked not 31 hours. The anonblock template only provides more information. I had accidently supplied a warning when the i.p. was blocked so I felt it was the right thing to do. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 11:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look and a message has come up which advises to use that template. A bit too late now. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 18:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not under any ban or warning. please do not keep putting the isp banner on my page as it violates my privacy. I will continue to remove it. 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please help!

User Ronz is continually harassing me on my talk page! Can you please do something about this? He's not an administrator and has a personal vendetta against me. 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS John Stagg

Hi, this article has been nominated for del.--J.Mundo (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report declined

Hi Kralizec! (I guess I'm excited to talk to you). Concerning your comment here, how should the user have been warned differently? No worries if you're busy, I'm just curious so I don't make more bad reports. -kotra (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work

And it was very foolish of you to try —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.155.90 (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of warnings - question

Thanks for your message; Regarding the policy on removal of warnings from talk pages in [[WP:USER]}...was that a recent change, or has it always been in place? I was involved in a similar case some time ago and the user in question ended up being blocked. Thanks. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you already answered this on WP:AIV, please feel free to disregard. :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out one of the versions of User talk:68.192.223.254 that has the numerous vandalism warnings. The user blatantly vandalized two articles and then decided to be much more subtle in his/her vandalism by changing numbers in articles. The vandalism warnings came after the editor was asked to stop doing that because it doesn't conform to WP:MOSNUM. Despite that, the edits continued. At that point, vandalism warnings appeared to be the only course of action. Hope that helps. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...thought it was just warnings, not block notices as well, that could be removed. Sorry. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M.I.A. (artist)

Can I have some help here please, a potentially very big BLP problem, I'm trying to keep the material off the article until/if it is sufficiently sourced. WP:RFPP is backlogged. — Realist² 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my WP:AIV report...

is currently being discussed on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Severe_personal_attacks_bordering_on_vandalism. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hung

Will you un-delete Hung (Napalm Death). It was a single by the band, and it was released on a very notable Earache Records. It should never have been deleted through A7. Undead Warrior (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:NightHunter35

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to read this message. I know that you have blocked this user once before, and was wondering if you could do something again. I do not necessarily mean blocking, but leaving a message of some sort as the user continues to delete the "track listing" from the Before I Self Destruct page. I have obviously tried to talk/warn this user numerous times, as have others, but this continues. If you can help, thank you. And if not, thank you anyway. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 18:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Reverts

Thank you for reverting my innappropriate edits. I was not aware that anon users were permitted to remove warnings from their own talk pages. I will use more care in the future. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly true. Well, I'll go back to doing my part to keep Wikipedia clean. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Civility Award
		I hereby award this Barnstar to Kralizec! for his great civility, courtesy and fairness when dealing with my inadvertant policy violations. He is a shining example of the Assume Good Faith doctrine and how Admins should act towards users. Well done. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I meant every word of it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSV article deleted

Why have you deleted "costly state verification article"? Did you find some definition somewhere that is comparable? Are you qualified to make this judgment? Also, why you haven't deleted the [1] "Complete contract" article? Why you are destroying the work that I've done which very few individuals are capable to do? V sq (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria

Please explain what you think would fit your "notability criteria? Simple search on CSV provides over 160 thousands references to papers in major peer-reviewed scientific magazines.

And also, please explain why Complete contract article meets those criteria and this article doesn't.

I don't want to waste my time "improving" my already well-written article until I get some explanation due for the act of vandalism committed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V sq (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Costly_state_verification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Costly_state_verification. 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. V sq (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what was the rationale for deleting it? The log says it's speedy under criterion A7, which does not apply. The comment also says expired prod. Which is applicable? —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Muran

This is a blatant copyvio - how can you not speedy? – ukexpat (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK you stubbified, no problem. – ukexpat (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at this -- user has added back all the copyvio material. – ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS for Bob Muran

The ticket no. 2009012810027179 refers to the text and NOT the photo. --Zureks (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks!

No problem ;) Inferno, Lord of Penguins 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

75.108.73.219

Many thanks on blocking that user. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 2, 2009 @ 00:22

Thanks for the note. I actually didn't know that the policy included anon users too. I knew it included signed in account users like you and me, but I thought when it came to anons they weren't allowed to do so, hence my revision. I learned something there. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 2, 2009 @ 01:14

Edit war

I am trying to improve the German Shepherd Dog‎ article with a gallery and more and better pictures. The old ones does not illustrate the dog article well, being dark and unclear. User : Ameliorate is reverting the pictures. I removed one because it is uncertain if it should be in the article, (Young Alsatian and Sheperd mix) but the rest should stay.

He reverted them 3 times already :

14:41, 2 February 2009 Ameliorate! (Talk | contribs) (25,448 bytes) (→Description: rv photo back 01:31, 3 February 2009 Ameliorate! (Talk | contribs) (25,381 bytes) (there is more than 13:53, 3 February 2009 Ameliorate! (Talk | contribs) (25,381 bytes) (1) don't add a messy, ugly gallery

That gallery is not uggly. And I think removing it is also constitutes vandalism.

Warrington (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Ok, than that means that it is not vandalism, only an edit war. Sorry. The other editor seems to revert me without dicussing anything. I have to note that have been encouraged many times to add galleries to articles, when there was a lot of nice pictures which were not used in the article on Commons. That because many readers do not know how to find them. A dog article, I belive should show good pictures about the dog breed, I think this is one of the main reasons why people want to read dog articles. I think that pictures are an important part of the articles, wich, if you remove the pictures, will consist of a large amount of text without any visual documentation.

Warrington (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not justified

I am not an administrator, however, I feel that you as an administrator has abused your authority for the blocking of Klasyays. One administrator declined the unblock request for the reason of a 'direct threat of harm'. When you read the Wikipedia polices to blocking it does not cover the type of comment made by Klasyays as the comment was not a direct threat of harm. Because the comment could have meant anything with no stating threat embedded within it, then multiple emotions could have arisen from the recipient, in this case it would seem the comment is threatening, but blocking someone when there is doubt of there true intentions is unjust to Wikipedia policies and an abuse of your administration. I hereby strongly request the immediate unblocking of this user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawtydoit (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from french user Arapaima

Hello Kralizec ! I am completing an article on WP:fr about Donald Thomson , an australian anthropologist (1901-1970) who worked on the ground and fought from the '30 to the '60 for Indigenous Australians rights recognition. I found your beautiful aerial view of Ranger Uranium Mine, and should like to know if you would accept its being deposited into Donald Thomson french article. BTW, what an amazing user's page is yours! Congrats, and hope I'll hear from you soon. --Arapaima (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, "Kralizec!" for your allowance about "Kakadu U*-mine aerial photo". And for your humor & kindness too, which differ notably from "Justin"'s pertness (cf on my user-page, his reaction after I dared to blunder into his article about who founded the first european settlement on Falkland Islands : "I dont wish to dampen your enthusiasm...but I delete").Some tips if you travel again through francophone lands : 1/ blank looks can be easily transformed in latin-lover looks (to be used with parcimony though...). 2/ and here are 3 "phrases passe-partout" (master-key sentences) : with a woman : "Vous êtes trés jolie" (you are so pretty)- & with a man "Vous êtes trés sympa" (you are so nice) - & at the restaurant :"C'était trés bon" (it was so good). As I deduce from your discuss.-page that you are quite stolid, and as you already know "merci beaucoup", you ought to fare well.That's my wish; hope we meet again some other day... --Arapaima (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for protecting the Erica Durance page. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dune

Your vote pleased me a lot, as I'm devoted both to Frank Herberts' Dune (read it many times) and movie & mini-series. At first I was a bit disappointed by both movie and mini-series, but gradually I grown to like them both :-) SpeedyGonsales (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:217.41.243.16

217.41.243.16 (talk · contribs) has received four warnings, how many do they need? AnyPerson (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the second look. AnyPerson (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio meetup

Brainstorming is taking place! Feel free to check it out, and make sure to add your name to the possible attendees if you'd like more information, as this page is mostly gauging interest at the moment. hmwith τ 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where should the Ohio meet up take place? The best option is probably wherever the most people can attend, so you opinion counts. See Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Ohio 1#Location !vote. hmwith τ 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for semi-protecting the Kazuhito Yamashita page, disallowing anon edits. Whosafraidofthedark (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lame

Yeah, lame for sure. I'll be five years here in two days time. I guess the responsibility was on me and I should've just ignored it all as I knew before hand what that guy was like, though I didn't know he still bore a grudge. Feel free to add it to the WP:LAME page as my well-deserved trout slapping. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Precisely what did you mean by this? You know that his conduct was unbecoming of an admin, yet, you'd have "most likely" cast a stone in the other direction? It would help explain why groups of editors become anti-admin after a while. One rotten fruit can make all of them look rotten; but it's a real shame for the project when that happens. The only reason he wasn't strongly admonished for his conduct was because every admin who wanted to respond knew that it'd have fallen on blind eyes - and I know that for a fact because I was told so by 3 respectable admins who were trying to make sure I stayed calm. Other than mischaracterising my posts, he's been stirring this up from the beginning, and tried very hard at the end, despite Kurykh's message to stop.

First he's going to say something needs to be done, then he's going to make up a grudge, and next he's going to make up something else. Why bother noting that his comments are uncalled for? Howwwww pointlesssss...instead, seeing it's most likely, might as well cast a stone in the other direction, rightttt? Thanksssss...thankssss soooo sooooo muchhhh...words cannot express my appreciation for thisssss, Kralizec! Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Message removed [2] by author, and restored by me since we are continuing the discussion. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was not more clear. I -and probably everyone else- recognize that his extended block was way over the top. However it was fixed in short order and the issue resolved. Everyone makes mistakes, and I see little point in riding people mercilessly when they screw up. However your insistence on "having the last word" with the aggressively worded resolved tag was also way over the top ... which is probably why three different people tried to re-write it to be more neutral.

However since you have not reverted the latest person to re-write the tag using neutral language, I will assume that you have recognized your mistake and decided to stop edit warring over the issue. As I said earlier, I do not believe in riding people over their mistakes, which is why I am not going to cast any stones.

Everyone wins when people learn from their mistakes, so personally, I am thrilled that you and Deacon both gained from this otherwise unpleasant situation. Again I apologize for any misunderstandings caused by my lack of specifics. Thank you, Kralizec! (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (original reply [3] copied from User talk:Ncmvocalist)[reply]

I agree, everyone makes mistakes; but that's a mitigating factor rather than a justification. And of course, I'm not blameless; ideally, if I was a user of another status, I wouldn't have cared enough to insist so. I'd have gotten over this by now, but given that this, in my opinion, expresses an intention of pursuing dispute resolution, this is still an issue.

If for a moment, there was a glimpse that he understood what the mistake was, I would've overlooked him refactoring my comment and we wouldn't even have gotten this far. He showed all appearances against understanding the problem and was unreceptive to the feedback he got from no less than 5 users at the discussion. He then tried to hide the problem in the concluding tag by talking about motives that don't exist (in editsummary, discussion, and subsequent discussions - including above!) Other than being provocative, what does that intend on achieving? In other words, he did not act in a way that you'd expect an admin to, even after the mistake.

Dayewalker wound up climbing on a high horse and reverted on the grounds that Deacon is an admin. That was plainly unhelpful in the absence of discussing it with me or notifying me, in the presence of 5 users having a problem with Deacon's action, and given that the tag was written by the most involved user of all: Deacon. Until Alex's intervention, Deacon continued revert-warring.

I would've walked past your message as I considered it closed. But as Dayewalker would've no doubt added your message into the diffs collection and construed it to mean that I'm the sole problem here, I felt a need to speak. I was annoyed that you suggested casting a stone in my direction without looking at the mitigating factors from my perspective. You've talked about 3 users reverting; I'm talking about 5 users opinions on his action, and several other users who strongly feel on his general approach to adminning - merely insisting on writing out this opinion does not make it a personal attack, nor does it warrant having the stone flung in my direction. I made one mistake in reverting; but he didn't merely just make mistakes in his block, and his reverting - he did more than that. Hope you understand what I'm getting at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about a DR or RfC from Dayewalker, then this may help put it into perspective. Regarding your "3 users reverting vs. 5 users' opinions" concern ... having an admin decision reversed via AN/I consensus rarely causes more than a trout-slapping for the admin who screwed up (again, most of us recognize that everyone makes mistakes). However edit warring is against policy and often results in people getting blocked. As an un-involved admin, I see both issues as being a concern, however only one might necessitate administrative action on the part of me or other admins. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (original reply [4] copied from User talk:Ncmvocalist)[reply]

I don't see how the diff you provided puts it into perspective - please explain.

If there was to be prevention, it wouldn't be equitable to make me the only one. Just because 1 other editor mirrored his revert or because he made less reverts or just because he has tools is no justification. (Note: Alex acted to try to resolve the dispute on the actual page, rather than use the same revert) Again, the user you would not throw a stone at was playing games. If you're experienced with dealing tendentious/problem/civil-pov pushing editors, you will not find it difficult to see the edit-war mentality in this: eg will ameliorate the bad appearance of "edit warring" in any random admin's eyes should make your alarm bells ring, along with the rest. Would you be able to justify inequitable blocks in the interests of this project? No. Enforcing the relevant policy in such a manner was not how it was envisaged by the community, yet, if you were throwing stones, you say you'd promote his mentality in the name of a letter rather than what was intended in spirit. ArbCom wanted admins to enforce policy that is both in letter and spirit, rather than just to the letter. This comment may not be worded very well, but I think you'll understand the point it makes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, looks like I pasted the wrong diff. Here is what I meant to say: "If you are concerned about a DR or RfC from Dayewalker (a la [5]), then this may help put it into perspective." Sorry for the mixup. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (original reply [6] copied from User talk:Ncmvocalist)[reply]

Cheers; that's fine - but that diff page will need to be deleted at some point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OD)Luckily, I have Kralizec's talkpage watchlisted, or I would never have known I was being discussed here. Ncm, I began making out that page when it became apparent you were not going to stop your edit war to make your opinion known in the resolved tag. As I said, I consider the entire discussion lame and reverted you once, then stopped. My edit summary clearly said "There's no need to edit war commentary into the resolved tag, [7]" and as such, I wasn't going to. You seemed dead-set on changing the tag to reflect your opinion on the situation, both adding the "punitive" tag and replacing it five more times. You were edit warring, and I filed the diffs away in case you wouldn't listen to reason. When you were reverted by the third different editor, you stopped, and so I did not file a report of any sort. Your comments to me and to other editors (and indeed, above) didn't seem to show that you understood what had happened and that you were edit warring, so I just finished the page and saved it.

I have no desire to file a report on you. I'd much rather not have contact with you again, to be honest. At the same time, if this situation comes up again (as you seem to keep returning to it), I'd like to have the diffs available to show any admin my conduct.

Since this same discussion appears at Ncm's page, I'll also repeat these comments over there. Kralizec!, apologes for taking up your time with this. I appreciate your patience. Dayewalker (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that I'd quite clearly said that this was over, and did not take any further action, you still chose to compile that page; this was the sole cause for me initiating this discussion both here, and Alex's talk page, despite considering this informally resolved. In these circumstances, I see no good cause to have created this page so late in the dispute - but what's done is done. Thing is, if you intend on keeping that page like similar pages you've created earlier (including as far back as December last year), then I will make a move to have them deleted, as some or all or not compliant with userspace requirements. I hope it will not become necessary for me to do so. In this case particularly, those diffs, as well as the accompanying commentary, aren't designed to show your conduct in this matter as you assert at the end of your comment. My views on your involvement and approach to this are already well known so I need not repeat them. The only part of your comment that is worth explicit endorsement at this point is about rather not having contact with you again - that's mutual. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

You blocked me for disruptive editing. What kind? Where it is visible?--71.252.55.101 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question on my talk page [8]. You were blocked for disruptive editing as per this report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Specifically for edits to the Jasenovac concentration camp article, after ignoring these warnings. Wikipedia works by consensus, so if someone reverts your changes to an article, you should discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page, rather than just reverting the other person. Blindly reverting other editors rather than discussing things will most likely result in your being blocked again. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reply [9] copied from User talk:71.252.55.101)

The above does not constitute any right for this block. I was open for discussion and did not see any willing for discussion of those who sent 'warnings'. These 'warnings' are mere personal attacks and when calling upon rules you have to weight it against reality and not just exercise your ability to block me. About 'consensus' - many changes done there are done by other without any consensus and against basic editorial ethics. Very bad thing that your accusation like "Blindly reverting other editors rather than discussing" is applicable to the accusers - not to me. What you are doing here -is just throwing blind accusations against me in order to justify your block. Just see my talk page - I am again pestered by people who are not willing to discuss anything - rather to blindly disqualify me. I am even a money contributor to Wikipedia and I am going to ask a few questions Mr Wales about very roots of his idea that everyone can contribute and about Wikipedia's administrators--71.252.55.101 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the reminder. Techman224^Talk 22:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already has removed my warning. Techman224^Talk 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For blocking the two IPs (socks?) who messed up my user page a couple of times. I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message on My Page

Thanks for the advice on my page. It is noted --Sikh-history (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block change heads-up

Just wanted to let you know that I changed your block time for User:Markvision55 to indefinite, as it turns out it's one of a rash of sockpuppets of User:EnglandIslas. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Java Scriptus

I've been reverting edits by Java Scriptus because he has seemingly been adding false information. (Please see my talk page for what he wrote to me.) I do think he is a threat and his IP should also be blocked, if not already. Thanks for your attention to this issue. -down load | sign! 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by user:sikh-history

Pleasde can you kindly do something about the persistent vandalism on my and other people talkpages.

user:sikh-history continues to vandalise the talk pages of user:jsu and my own talk page on several occasions and perhaps many more with whom he disagrees with. He suggests I am canvassing! When I am simply thanking user:jsu for his input to which sikh-hisstory does not seem to like or agree.

I am simply responding Now how can this be canvassing, if I am not making an initial statement, remark or request? He also suggests we are the same user?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsu&diff=prev&oldid=269291241

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsu&diff=prev&oldid=269383918

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsu&diff=prev&oldid=270179329

The links above show blatant vandalism of user talk pages of user:jsu, now this user is probably unaware of this vandalism because it has been vandalised so many times by user:sikh-history

He seems to be a rather audacious character. Please advise him not to vandalise user talk pages and getting away with POV.

Thank you Khalsaburg (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khalsaburg, please stop being so childish. You have been caught removing ISBN numbers and references that did not concur with your POV. It is not only me that reverted your edits but nearly every editor on the Sikh Wikipedia team, and some others too.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome, it is much appreciated. I hope I am able to help and contribute in a positive manner! Jargon777 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your revert to Seven Wonders of the Ancient World

Simple mistake with Huggle, my bad. Thanks for notifying me. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Block

Could you please block Cardsplayer4life (talk · contribs) from making any edits. They are editwarring with me through the edits I was making via my IP address, I am not sure if you actually read the edits that were made, you would see that my edits were actually not vandalism, but were improving the content of the article by clarifying the subject in order to help the article reach a better "point of neutrality" which is one of the core concepts of Wikipedia.TheTruthLeadsMe (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake, this editor also appears to be the IP 65.96.67.105 (talk · contribs), who was involved in an edit war at NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship. Dayewalker (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes that user is the registered version of the IP, and 2) I was one of three people (in addition to BCSPro and NewGuy34) reverting the (latest) edits of the user in that article, which is apparent if the edit history of the article is pulled up. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50 largest banks

'USAA bank one of largest in world', San Antonio Express-News Published 2/24/2009 1. We are the 28th largest bank in the nation

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.104.150 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could be, however your institution is not on our source list, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's quarterly Top 50 bank holding companies report. Since {{50 largest US banks}} is 100% sourced and cited to the FFIEC list, we can only include the banks they include. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi! thanx for considering me for the priveledge. I'll abide by the guidelines & rules regarding rollback and will be happy to get this privelege. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Friendly note regarding talk page messages

The situation has already been explained and dealt with. In other words, you're a bit late. =/ Elm-39 - T/C 19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Welcoming me

Thank you brother for welcoming me. That was quite nice of you. Peace Micro360 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block Settings

Ooop! I blocked for three hours as you blocked for 24 and only realised when ec'd by the block message we were both placing on the talk page. I've undone my three hour block back to your 24 (me - I'm a softy :)....) Pedro : Chat 23:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 68.218.209.5

Dear Kralizec!, 31 hours for that vitriol? I know its an IP address, and that I suppose that blocks should not be punitive, and should amount to corrective discipline. But that was a level of nonsense that deserved (IMHO) a real sanction, not a slap on the wrist. You have tempered justice with perhaps too much mercy. Hope that all is well with you. Good luck keeping a lid on, and happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I do understand the limited ability to do anything meaningful. But he was just so 'over the top.' Admin apparently has its frustrations, along with the (presumed) rewards. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Vandalism

Hey there, thanks for keeping the vandalism by 202.134.149.222 and 86.96.226.16 at bay. I've given a warning to the former and reported him, so I hope it is enough. Regards, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking vandalism IP

137.191.233.130 is a vandalism IP. What can we do to prevent further damage? (Diagear (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to rollback

Most honorable Kralizec!, thanks for your offer of rollback. I will gladly stick to the only-for-obvious-vandalism rule. You will be proud! Regards, — ¾-10 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Haydon-Jones

Not to harp about the "wrong version", but when you protected this page, you protected the version that wasn't supported by consensus. An IP seeks to have the references tag removed even though more editors than him think it belongs there. Also note this IP has been recently blocked for edit-warring. Please look over this again. Thanks, Themfromspace (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal for JUSTICE

Your blocks hvae been very unfair. You block other users who had done nothing wrong. Is it right to block some users and NOT others?? Is that justice????? NO its NOT!! You blocked user 76.16.103.76 who only made TWO edits!!! How can I have broken the 3 revert rule with only 2 edits!!!! Go on ask yorself... Another user Marek69 made 8 edits and IS NOT BLOCKED!! WHY???!!! We appeal for JUSTICE on wikipedia or I will go higher... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisPro2 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soxbot

Can you keep an eye on this bot? Please tb or comment over there, if you choose to. Thanks. tedder (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied fake block :)

Hello Kralizec!. Have you remembered your block of the IP "165.139.22.67"? Well I was bored, and copied the whole page. Editing some of it, I'm not really blocked from editing, I just look like I am. But I can still edit. Would that be something weird to do? XD Parappa664^{talk | contribs} 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly ... unusual. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also did that to the user crowdo, and edited it as well. Do not think we ressult in edit conflicts ; I'm just bored. :) Parappa664^{talk | contribs} 1:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How about, you know, improving the encyclopedia? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might enjoy this

Special:Contributions/Kradizec! and Special:DeletedContributions/Kradizec!. Cheers! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of sockpuppetry

Hey, I was responding to an unblock request at User talk:RavShimon. You blocked him as a sockpuppet of User:Klaksonn however I don't see any common edits between RavShimon and Klakson in terms of direct textual similarities. Certainly, you have more information that I am not privy to that led you to make your block, but since I do not have access to this information, I cannot respond intelligently to his unblock request. Could you please make a posting on RavShimon's talk page with some diffs to show the obvious duckworthy connection between him and Klaksonn? Without either diffs or a WP:SPI report to go on, I am having a hard time seeing the connection you saw. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Boylan

Greetings. You protected this title after the article was unilaterally redirected without discussion. As Jeanne Boylan is a notable topic, it is completely unacceptable that the article be de facto deleted without any discussion whatsoever. Please consider lowering the protection, so that the article may be restored. Regards, Skomorokh 17:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I protected the redirect in regards to m:OTRS Ticket:2009030410054823. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link is no use to me as it requires an OTRS login. To re-iterate, this article was removed out of process, with neither merge discussion or AfD. If you will not lower the protection, please restore the article to the (admin-approved, squeaky-clean) version prior to the redirect [10]. Regards, Skomorokh 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I do not actually disagree with you here. Normally I would have done exactly what you asked for from the beginning, however BLP concerns coupled with an OTRS ticket means that we must proceed deliberately and with caution. I have contacted another admin who has OTRS access and asked him to review both the ticket and the protection of the redirect. If he determines that the vetted version of the article is fine and does not risk any BLP or litigation issues, I will be glad to un-protect and revert the redirect. However until then, I am going to refrain from poking the proverbial litigious tiger in the eye. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable; I can stomach covering the foundation's ass a lot more than tearing down articles on worthy topics out of BLP paranoia. I appreciate your time, and will revisit the issue in a week or so. Regards, Skomorokh 18:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that we have our answer: [11]. I have no idea why (other than the implied legal reasons) as I do not have OTRS access, however I do have a great deal of faith in both Matt's judgment and his ability to accurately assess the facts on the ground. Unfortunately I do not think there is anything else I can do to help at this point. Additional information on the OTRS process (and how to request a review of OTRS-based decisions) can be found on Meta at m:OTRS. However as the Wiki OTRS page notes, "the confidential nature of [the emails used to create OTRS tickets] makes normal wiki-based dispute resolution processes difficult, and often impracticable in many cases." Sorry I could not be of more help. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP adress

This IP adress http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Komondor&diff=275235311&oldid=275234685 has been warned but continues to edit war without discussing any changes and constantly removing relevant information without discussion that needs to be inserted again, several days now. Warrington (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page [12]. My suggestion would be for you to try engaging the editor with a personal message on his or her talk page. Specifically you could invite the IP to join the discussion on the article's talk page so that everyone can work collaboratively toward consensus. Considering the edits in question, if you were to report the IP to AIV, a block request would probably be declined with a

Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution.. Good luck! --Kralizec! (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) (original reply [13] copied from User talk:Warrington)[reply]

Still edit waring, now with an account. Now is this editing? )Komondor dog reed):

IMPORTANT PROPORTIONS • The body length sligthly exceeds the height at the withers. • The deepest point of the brisket is approximately on a level with half of the height at the withers. • The muzzle is slightly shorter than half of the length of the head. HEIGHT AT WITHERS Males: Minimum 70 cm. Females: Minimum 65 cm. WEIGHT Males: 50 – 60 kg. Females: 40 – 50 kg. The breed shows few faults in type and is largely uniform as it has always been bred with the same target.[2]

I go and paint myself pink....

Warrington (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You have some. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ay Ziggy Zoomba

Yes, that's me. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:AngelaSchmidt

Many thanks for blocking this user! It was a pain fixing their re-directs. CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I feel that only established users should be allowed to re-direct articles. Have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For giving me a funny talk page response (Considering the circumstances, should it be the Barnstar of Goood Humor?) What was with that user's obession with the double O, anyway? Have a goood day. ;) CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the moves look fine so far. ;) I'm of course the master of the typo, so I guess I might not be the best person to ask though... ;) CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page moves look good to me. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh yes, this is why I focus mainly on adding content to Wikipedia, not fixing what other people do. I'd screw up so much! Don't worry, it happens to everyone! :) Even established admins! ;) No problemo on the barnstar, the message gave me a good laugh! Have a nice day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block on User:220.253.179.130 for disruptive editing

Please re-check the circumstances of this matter. You will see that I made 5 edits immediately prior to your block:

[14] removed copyright material from a user page

[15] removed further copyright material from the same page

[16] added copyvio tags to the user page

[17] added advice to the Copyright Problems page

[18] advised the user of the tagging.

Please advise which of these steps you consider to be "disruptive editing"? They all seem to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks, 220.253.65.80 (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked the user with the evidence he provided. I don't see any acts of "vandalism" here; he was merely upholding Wikipedia's copyright policies. —Dark ^talk 10:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed response is located at User talk:Bingo-101a. —Dark ^talk 11:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

86.25.182.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not a vandal. They were removing disputed content, are participating in talk page discussion, and all that happened was ignorant editors constantly reverted and accused them of vandalism. Please consider unblocking this editor. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Thanks!

Your welcome mate. Happy editing! Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's Club

My apologies for the delay in my response, I got really busy recently. Please explain in detail why you blocked me yet not the other editors who were disputing the article. Elpablo69 (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shshsh unblock request

It, too, was declined by someone else for the same reasons I would have given. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict- Thank you.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Protection for Erik Möller

Ah, I see they are from the same IP - I had noticed four instances of disruption all within the last 24 hours. No worries, Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM nonsense

Regarding your protection of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management‎, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrinal Pandey. DMacks (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Turner

Hi, you have locked this article, with the vandalism still included. (The person committing the vandalism managed a swift re-edit before just before you locked it). Thanks for the lock though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by David2206 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

The vanadlism here comes from the content being removed by Dave, who I also beileve is the same person who has been harrasing members of the Frank Turner message board community. Please re-instate the statement regarding Million Dead break-up. Thank you. Jontyjoesph (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaarrghhh. Sorry about all of this Kralizec. If you look through the history of the page (and the content when it was last locked due to the same style of vandalism) you will be able to see what is the vandalism, and what is not. Once again, sorry about all this.David2206 (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you look through David's own talk page you will see he has a history of trying to disrupt pages when he decided to "blank" his own talk page with a false stop. Jontyjoesph (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I have received the warning for that (as a new user I did not know it was not allowed for my own talk page). You recently performed the same action on the Frank Turner talk page, deleting my comments on the validity of claims regarding Frank Turner's involvement in the Million Dead break-up. Anyway, this is immature, and it is too late, and doesn't concern Kralizec. What matters is that the Frank Turner page has been reverted to its un-vandalized state.David2206 (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...except it's *NOT* in an un-vandlised state, is it? You know full well that allmost every member of Million Dead has stated in public interviews that they blame Frank Turner for the break-up. Jontyjoesph (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Memphis 3 / Detroitwheel

Hey, you previously blocked Detroitwheel (talk · contribs) for his edits on West Memphis 3. Looks like he's continuing in the same path, removing sourced (though probably not as sourced as it should be) content and adding what at the very least looks like unencyclopedic content (diff). I get the impression he's POV-pushing (edits like changing "In 2007, DNA collected from the crime scene was tested. None was found to match DNA from Echols, Baldwin, Misskelley nor John Mark Byers" to the unsourced "In 2005, DNA collected from the crime scene was tested an foreign alleles found on the bindings on Steve Branch, and a penile swab from Micheal Moore were consistent with DNA samples from Echols and Misskelley", and completly removing the section on "Mr. Bojangles"), but I'm not completly sure what his goals are. The article really needs some work, but to be honest I'm not really interested in it besides keeping it "clean" and the revision before Detroitwheel's most recent edits seems OK after I removed some unsourced content. Sorry to bother you about this, but I feel someone should do something about Detroitwheel. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 09:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for at least semi-protecting it, but it's not really dealing with the issue as Detroitwheel is auto-confirmed and he just did his usual edits to the article. If you don't want to deal with it (understandable), where would be the most appropriate place to bring it up? WP:BLPN? Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 20:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P = NP problem

Hello. Thanks for protecting P = NP problem; hope the crazy vandal goes away. You've also protected it against being moved, though, but there seems to be no disagreement on the talk page against moving it to the more common name P versus NP problem, the more common name in the literature (e.g. as used by the Millennium Prize Problems at [19], or by Mathworld, etc.) or even simply because we don't believe P=NP. Could this be moved? Thanks, Shreevatsa (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems there isn't actually consensus for the move, so you can ignore the above comment of mine (and this one). Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Square Root Day page

Hello

This morning, having seen the protection on this page has been removed, I made an edit removing some irrelevant material. Not two hours later someone added the 10/10/100 date again, even with the interdiction by Finell. If I am reading this page right, you placed the vandalism protection on the page earlier. Perhaps it's time to do so again. It looks like someone is obsessed with putting that date on the page and will not stop.

Thank you!

Journeybear (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)JB[reply]

Thanks for the lengthy block

of Special:Contributions/125.168.97.158. This makes me chuckle. Enigma^msg 05:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in Rock of Love Bus with Bret Michaels

Hello, Krazilec! I too have noticed the vandalism in the call out order of rock of love 3. I did my best to help bring it back to the way it was. One thing of note is that I felt it was important to turn Ashley's elimination light blue in episode 9 (Exes and Ohs) as hers was not a standard elimination. If you watch the episode, you will notice that Bret was all ready to give Ashley the pass but asked the key question that revealed how she truly felt about her ex boyfriend in Las Vegas. Because of her hesitation to answer we all knew she wasn't ready to move on and be there for Bret and it was only then Bret decided to end her tour there. Her own inability to answer and move on from her ex qualifies as a voluntary withdrawal, not a standard elimination. Kimmymarie24 (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Kimmymarie24[reply]

Sorry, I have no clue what you are talking about because I do not watch reality television. The article was protected as per a request at Requests for page protection. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I felt it was important to point this out because the way this episode ended for Ashley is strikingly similar to Episode 6 of For The Love Of Ray J entitled "Bad Girls, Bad Girls Whatcha Gonna Do?" in which the wine glass was available to Cashmere at the end, but her own hesitation to take it because she had second thoughts about the pressure around the other girls (and Ray J was not about to pick it up and offer it to her but there it was) earned Cashmere's elimination a dark purple voluntary withdrawal color on the For The Love of Ray J page. VH1 is fun...give it a try! Kimmymarie24 (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Kimmymarie24[reply]

Kazakhstan article

Hello. The user Debresser removed the protection from the Kazakhstan article. It almost immediately started getting vandalized again. I don't believe it was supposed to be removed, and I'm not sure if I can re-add it or if only an admin can do that. Can you take a quick look? Thanks. Otebig (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page [20]. The removal of the {{pp-vandalism}} template by Debresser (talk · contribs) is perfectly fine as the article's protection expired on the 15th. As the article's edit history shows[21], my semi-protection of the article was just for seven days. While the article has been edited several times since this protection ended, I only count three reverts (including my own just now) in the past three days, which is not sufficiently high enough to justify protection on a high profile article like this one. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC) (original reply [22] copied from User talk:Otebig)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Just wanted to say awesome work you do here keep it up. Cheers Kyle1278 (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hello. Please be careful when making edits to WP:AIV, as it appears that you accidentally removed one of my administrator's comment [23]. Thanks — Kralizec! (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I started using Huggle about four months ago, I haven't made a manual edit to WP:AIV. This is not the first time that a Huggle edit overlaid an AIV edit, and I will bring this to the attention of Huggle's developers. Alansohn (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Sig

Hi, this page User:Equazcion/Zeitgeist: Addendum was deleted when the user retired, but was partially userfied at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Zeitgeist: Addendum. I was wondering if you could userfy the talk page to User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Zeitgeist: Addendum.

Also, what's the code you put in the raw signature box so that if you sign on your own talk page it says (talk) instaed of a link? Many Thannks --DFS454 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history Coordinator Elections

As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is so go great to see people getting involved. It seems that some people truly care about the future of the WikiProject Keep Up the Good work. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 19:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

66.76.200.2

Why am I being told to "wait" on a AIV post? The vandalism took place within the hour, so it isn't stale. The user has been given 5 warnings in the past hour as well. A block should be in place not "let's wait and see if he vandals some more pages". - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 22, 2009 @ 21:36

Because blocks are preventative, not punitive and the editor has indicated that the problems have halted. It seems to be sincere, but we'll see. Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's not vandalism, either. Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is blantantly removing information from a page not vandalism? - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 23, 2009 @ 03:31

Apoligies in advance to Kralizec!. Please direct any replies to my talk page.

I saw edits like this that would be tough to say were deliberate attempts to compromise Wikipedia - especially after the editor's comments about holding up since s/he was contacting a RTN representative. I'm not known for shying away from blocking folks (probably the contrary), but I'd have a tough time defending a block there if it were challenged. Toddst1 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 pretty much summed it all up for me: as per WP:BLOCK, the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. In light of the IP's commitment to stop, any block I levied now would be punishment. However if this anonymous editor breaks his or her word and continues removing content, then a block would be entirely appropriate as to prevent further disruption of the project. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with it, I will respect it and keep an extremely close eye on the WVVA article (the one the user seems to vandalize more than anything) and the users contribs, but I wouldn't be surprised if the user doesn't switch IPs between now and then. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 23, 2009 @ 12:19

Fair enough. However, even if our anonymous friend switches to another IP, please let me know (especially if you have diffs showing different IPs making the same edits), as I would be more than happy to semi-protect the article. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the user jumps IPs, I might have you do that....and trust me, I have plenty of diffs :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • March 23, 2009 @ 12:26

User: 114.77.199.50

This user was temporarily blocked by you, but now that the block is off he has now returned to harass me on my talk page. Can you do anything? J Bar (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not until the IP makes a more substantive threat than to leave you alone [24]. However if you can provide diffs showing that this is the same pattern previously used to harass you (or that "leave you alone" is how he/she begins a new wave of abuse), then I could block based on that. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: Journalist1983

After an admin reverted the same thing that I reverted, he told me "since removing referenced content is considered vandalism then you are permitted to revert them without penalty." [[25]] Why are you warning me, then? This article was written by what seems to be a PR corporate shill, and he is doing everything in his power to block something which might portray any of his subjects in an unfavorable light --Nacl11 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aegis or not, this guy obviously has some sort of self-interest in this article. It is blatant and obvious. LessHeard vanU recognized this. I wish you would also. This editor has used socks to try and get around the 3rr rule and an admin edit. He's written a glowing fluff piece about someone who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar in a very public way. Look at some of the editors other articles. They all take on a similar tone and fairly reek of being the work of a public relations intern. They are mostly about little known business executives and former politicians. (btw, the New York Times Caucus blog has been recognized as a reputable source before). But if a situation which is so obvious on its face is re-cast by you as something about editing technicalities (and your an admin for crying out loud), directly contradicting another admin, I don't really have much hope for this contribution. Thanks. --Nacl11 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any reason you would like to articulate for the block or was it just a general show of force? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding, but the 3RR rule expressly refers to three reverts in a 24-hour period. Since this was clearly not the case, is there a different reason you blocked me? I attempted to defend the cited content that I added to the article on the article's talk page as you suggested, but the other editor kept deleting the cited content. Please explain. --Nacl11 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

93.97.167.197

Whew, thanks a million for that block, my head was starting to spin Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Manwithvan

Could you please explain your rationale for blocking User:Manwithvan? I could only find one warning on his talk page. I do not believe that due process was exercised here. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manwithvan (talk · contribs · block log) was reported to WP:AIV as being a "vandalism only account." However I declined to block indefinitely because the user had not been warned sufficiently, so instead I blocked for 31 hours [26]. The block was based on the inappropriate creation of four articles failing WP:NN and WP:BLP. I see that since the block expired, this user has created Emily Ambrose ("most famous for her awesome tennis skills at the well renowned earls colne") and Rebecca Drakeford ("likes a drink on a firday and is a bit of an alci"), as well as the prod'ed Pyronecrophyliac. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

I just noticed you protected Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. I also see that the protection was requested by User:VitasV.

I monitor this page, and do not feel as thought he edits Vitas is complaining about were vandalism. As near as I can tell they were actually anonymous edits by a registered user who appears to have simply not logged in. On the article's talk page, you'll see a comment from Wesp5 who asks that people stop changing his edits. I'm pretty sure the IP edits in question were his.

The edits in question looked to me like valid content, rearranging a section of the article discussing patches to the game.

Further, Vitas said in his PP request that an IP editor had removed portions of the talk page. I don't see any such edits in the history of the page in question. -FeralDruid (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City bombing

Hello, I have spent the last few days cleaning up the citations, adding more sources, removing multiple unreliable sources, and moving information around for the article. I have definitely learned a lot since first working on this article to get it to GA. I would like to get this to FA in time for the 15th anniversary to be featured on the main page. First, I want to commence an A-class review with WikiProject:Oklahoma, and since you are a member, I was wondering if you knew of how A-class reviews are handled by the project. I didn't see a nomination page (such as WP:FILMS A-class page). Would you be able to copyedit the article and help me set up an A-class review with the members of the project? I want to get rid of errors/inconsistencies/formatting issues before heading on to FA. Thanks for helping to maintain the article, and hopefully it can be improved further. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand. I'm currently job searching right now, and I think once I'm employed I'll be running out of time here on the many projects I have. Would you still be able to give it a look-over? I never catch my own mistakes, and it would benefit from another set of eyes ensuring everything makes sense. I guess I'll just open up an A-class review on the talk page and then leave a message at the project's main talk page. I'm also not an expert on FA, only having completed one (as well as one FL with one in FLC right now). I had wanted this article to be my first FA, but I didn't really know how the process works and there was continual reverting/editing related to the conspiracy theories section. Fortunately I found some reliable sources for that section finally, and if the article is deemed too long, perhaps that can finally be split off. So I'll take this one step at a time, and hopefully I can reach the goal of getting it featured. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Arapaima for "Aerial view of Ranger Uranium mine"

which betters a lot my article about FrDonald Thomson. May I use it again in my future article about "Shibumi", a 1980 book by Trevanian who tells of the struggle between a man ( a modern samurai) - and a secret organization trying to monopolize the world ressources ? I have quite finished FrShibumi & am completing the En article . The caption would run :"Kakadu uranium mine (Northen Territories, Australia). This kind of mine-stripping used to shock Nicholaï Hel" Merci d'avance, bonne continuation Arapaima (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

So is there any reason you would like to articulate for the block or was it just a general show of force? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding, but the 3RR rule expressly refers to three reverts in a 24-hour period. Since this clearly was not the case, is there a different reason you blocked me? I attempted to defend the cited content that I added to the article on the article's talk page as you suggested, but the other editor kept deleting the cited content. Please help. --Nacl11 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

	I seem to have drawn a crowd of support!
	I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
	A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.

Please Unblock The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Quite clearly, the page should be unlocked as soon as possible for more comments and new editors should be allowed to edit. I find semi-locks strangely and biasedly enforced on this page. It would have been quite easy to block vandals using an approach that I find Wiki administrators using on other pages where:

1. Administrators could block IP addresses of vandals 2. In case vandals use multiple IPs, administrators could use the facility to block IP ranges, which I believe they have. 3. Block user ids of vandals and proxy ids too. Though I do appreciate that there has been a temporary semi-protect placed some time back, I believe this is a good time to remove it as (and I quote from Wiki policy), "Page protection should not be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." And I hope that this is not the case currently going on with this page as I find it strange that editors who have registered beyond three months are still not allowed to edit. I request administrators to kindly remove the edit lock.

Sincerely, Dean.A.Sandeep (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined as the article has a long history of issues. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools

<--commenting out {top icon | imagename = Toiletpapier (Gobran111).jpg | wikilink = April Fools' Day | description = Toilet Paper for the Port-a-Potty. | id = |width=42 | icon_nr = 0 |extra_offset=0}-->

File:Portapotty3000ppx.JPG		Port-a-Potty!!!
		DFS454 (talk) has given you a Port-a-potty!!! Now whatever are you going to do!? Happy April Fools Day!!!! Give others port-a-potties by adding {{subst:User:Fastily/Portapotty}} to their talk page with, importantly, a friendly message.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Ride

Thank you for protecting Fantasy Ride for a while. The level of vandalism was getting to a shocking level. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Quite the fan

Indeed, did you notice his edits post block which caused me to protect the user talk page? -MBK₀₀₄ 18:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

64.107.220.166

The IP was being used by a cross-wiki password reset vandal. I was just running a check in response to a CheckUser-I thread regarding an unnamed vandal, so I'm not sure if this involves Qwertgb. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Shannon Rose

I'd like to thank you for stepping in regards to the user Shannon Rose, [27]. I noticed that he/she removed the temp. block notice with [28], and another user commented that notices like this should be kept (the edit was since reverted). I'm not really familiar with policies regarding this, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention, just in case. Regards, Spring12 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Rose's page was protected, but according to this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination)&diff=281769543&oldid=281767429) he/she contacted another user to provide a link to the comments made after being blocked (regarding an AFD discussion). The user (Chillum) that protected Shannon's talk page said I should notify you on direction. Should I respond or try to ignore it? Thanks again, Spring12 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP

Could you please clarify exactly why you immediately contradicted the close I made on the first America's Top Model request on this second one in response to one IP vandalizing? Without at least letting me know? One IP editor is not enough for semi protection. Prodego ^talk 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because three different contributors to the article had their edits reverted in the past day? By my book, that is good enough for a 24-hour semi. My apologies if you felt I was stepping on your toes; I was looking for un-processed requests, and was not aware that the previous declined protection request had been made just 72 minutes prior. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72 minutes prior and only 3 requests below... That is very light vandalism, mind that you are blocking a lot of people from editing that article. Prodego ^talk 03:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANTM Cycle 12 protection

Could you please adjust protection settings of America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12 for two months? It is a two-month fashion-themed reality show airing in the United States and the finale will be in mid-May. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One editor is not a high level of vandalism. Prodego ^talk 02:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the edits of three different users have been reverted in the past day, that is not enough activity to warrant any more than a 24 hour protection at most. The IP from the latest set of edits has already been blocked (coincidentally by me, when I was processing WP:AIV reports before coming to WP:RFPP). If there is a problem again when the 24 protection expires, we can try a 36 or 48 hour protection. Skipping straight to a two month protection is out of the question. Sorry, — Kralizec! (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chicago Film Producers Alliance

I am E. Joyce Moore the owner of the page you are planning to remove. I am a member of this organization and have the responsibility of creating a page in your website. As you can see the document has some pieces that are similar but the document clearly is not the same as the original. I have added significant third party resources to address your concerns. Please advise. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guvnur (talk • contribs) 11:08, 8 April 2009

Hello Joyce. Thank you for the message you left on my talk page [29]. In regards to your statement there, the actual "owner" of the page in question would be the Wikimedia Foundation, as they own the hardware and software that Wikipedia is hosted on. As a guest on their web site, we are all obligated to follow their rules of conduct here. Specifically, the CFPA article does not assert its notability via reliable, third-party, published sources, as in accordance with requirements for organizations and companies. The existing article is essentially the same as the previously deleted CFPA chicago article, which was itself a repost of the original article that was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Film Producers Alliance. I hope you have a more enjoyable Wikipedia experience than your predecessor Andrew (who had issues trying to follow our rules). Please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC) (original reply [30] copied from User talk:Guvnur)[reply]

I would appreciate your assistance. I am E. Joyce Moore, a writer and a member of the Chicago Film Producers Alliance. I have a new role as public relations for the organization and as a part of that, wanted to pursue the inclusion of our organization in Wikipedia. While some of the material in the article is similar to the original, it is definitely not the same and addresses your initial concern and I quote: The result was delete without bias as the article does not establish notability as per WP:GROUP. Kralizec! (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I have corrected the article accordingly and welcome you to advise me of any other concerns you may have.

Kind regards, E. Joyce Moore--Guvnur (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ismaili Vandal" Jerk is Back

His edits can be seen using proxies User:84.255.131.37, User:84.255.131.37, etc. - see edit history of 'Aql. To get around the anon-IP ban, he just changed IP. Ogress _smash! 18:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Film Producers Alliance

The user is new and does not appear to understand procedures. Might you consider userfying the article to User:Guvnur/sandbox/Chicago Film Producers Alliance so that it may be worked on and corrected over time? I really do not think the user understand how to create or use a sandbox, and I'd hate the article to get a "blck mark" becuase it was brought back too soon and in the wrong way. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My self-flagellation

I was hoping that went unnoticed... Oh well, if I am going to accidentally block myself every April, I wish I at least had the comic timing to do it on April 1st. On the plus side, I am not the only one who likes to block themselves.[31]

HMS Archer (D78)

Hi, I nominated this article for GA and it has been reviewed. Unfortunately it didn't pass. One of the issues raised at the GA review is the fact that there is no source quoted for File:HMS Archer (D78).jpg which you uploaded. Would you be kind enough to provide a source for the image? Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the picture, if it is the work of the British Government before a certain time (1953?), then it is PD. Otherwise, if you can't be sure tag it as a copyrighted picture and add a fair use rationale. The issue will be dealt with then. Mjroots (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add a disclaimer before I give any advice since I am most definitely not an image expert. I can tell you that if you cannot find the source for the image, even a Fair Use Rationale will not be sufficient. While I definitely recognize the encyclopedic value, I don't think there is a loophole in the IUP to permit them. If you can find the source, then everything is solved, but if not, you are correct that it appears that the only course of action will be the use of the delete button. Perhaps this would be best raised at WP:MCQ where the experts hang out. Sorry I can't be of more help, -MBK₀₀₄ 22:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Thanks for your note on this issue. I am aware of that policy, but reverted the deletion of the warnings because this user seems to be a vandalism-only account and he is taking steps to cover that. Based on his edit summaries I think it likely that he is not new to WP, just that he has been blocked or banned before and this is a new sock account. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Thank you. --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I thread: Repeated personal attacks of User:Shannon Rose

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_personal_attacks_of_User:Shannon_Rose FYI. Ikip (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have added several things to Wikipedia, especially concerning multiple births and cloning. R3ap3r.inc does not assume good faith with new editors, and has deleted notices on his page, which is against policy, also. Netpassport89 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I can remove anything I want from my talk page. This user continually defaces my personal talk page, despite being blocked twice for it now. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R3ap3R.inc is quite right; as per WP:BLANKING editors may remove warnings at will from their own talk pages. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BC

Thanks for your comment on my talk page - it is much appreciated. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faux block

Hello. I just reverted this [32] and wanted to make sure it was not a ligitamate block. If I've messed up, please let me know. Thanks. Tiderolls 18:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message

Hello Kralizec!, thanks for your welcome message :) Arkanosis (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Tea Parties

I was just wondering if the democrats and Independents could be added to the current list which includes Republicans and Libertarians. I met quite a few Democrats and Independents at the parties i went to.

      Just trying to keep it real

           JustinJustingrate (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sheiring

Sorry about the edit, i was just trying to be funny and forgot to set it back when the few people i told about it got a laugh. You have to admit that it was a little amusing.

Worldgate (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Non-breaking spaces

Oh ok. Thanks for the links to the Wikipedia guidelines. I've never seen that in any Wikipedia article before and it confused me. Douglasr007 (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almond image

Thanks. I was at home and flipping through the family scrapbooks and found those images and figured it would be interesting to include in the article. My father did a side job to pick up a few bucks and help a family friend, and ended up helping with the harvest. He always has his camera with him, so it's great to get something like this. By the way, hopefully the OCB article does well today, since it's its busiest reading day of the year. Last year it had 16,500 people reading it on the anniversary, compared to ~2,000-3,000 every other day in the year. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 09:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first Wikipedian meetup in Ohio

Are you from the Ohio area? A Wikipedian meetup is taking place on July 18, 2009 in Columbus. If you are interested in coming or would like more information, see the first Ohio meetup page.

Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create User Block

I understand why the ability to create a user is blocked at this IP address, but how did you know to block that area for this IP? As far as I can tell, you don't work as an administrator here. Not that I want you to unblock it, I was merely intrigued when it told me that a specific user blocked it ("{schoolblock}"). The original Demonlak (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DuPage County

Exactly what is so special/sacred about DuPage County, Illinois anyway? Qwertgb (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.136.252 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do not feel that the DuPage area is any more or less special than any areas. However, I do feel quite strongly about the inappropriate edits like this or this or pretty much anything written by your various socks. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Beerfinger

Could you please consider reversing this block? The user is new to Wikipedia and I have been trying to work him/her through a content dispute. The user has been engaging on the article talk page as well as the user's talk page and has already agreed not to make any further reverts. The block will really only stand in the way of moving forward without preventing any disruption. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 01:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also the report at the bottom of WP:AN3 that was closed by J.delanoy (talk · contribs) as no block needed. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 01:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick unblock. The situation seemed to have already resolved itself, per both user's agreement not to make any further reverts. While I certainly could be wrong, Beerfinger's intent struck me as genuine and I'm hoping the issue can be resolved without further action. Best, --auburnpilot talk 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses

By the way, isn't it true that only major law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, can look up an IP address and find out what the IP address is registered to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.136.252 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Anyone can do it. A Google search for the terms "reverse DNS" will find you a dozen tools. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70.169.143.203

Hi. Will you please look at this vandalism-only account? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity...

Hi Krelizec! I was just reading your user page and have a question for you. It is purely curiosity and has nothing to do with the encyclopedia; if you prefer not to answer, that's fine. I notice that you say you semi-regularly attend Presbyterian church services even though you consider yourself an agnostic secular humanist. I can imagine several reasons why you might do that, but I'm wondering what your reasons are. As I said, this is just my being curious, and if you'd rather not answer, I won't be offended. Ladyof Shalott

No worries, I do not mind you asking at all [33]. My first ancestor in the New World was my great great great great grandfather who emigrated from County Down, Ireland to His Majesty's Colony of Pennsylvania in the mid-1700s. That ancestor was Presbyterian, as had been his ancestors since before the Plantations of Ireland when they lived in Scotland. As such, I never saw the need for a little thing like my divergent personal beliefs to stand in the way of four centuries of family tradition. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC) (original reply [34] copied from User talk:LadyofShalott)[reply]

Trimming

It's not just Wikipedia, they need to come off the internet completely. Giano (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My wife and I are working to find the right balance of transparency and privacy that best meets our needs. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Romanticism

I asked you to reconsider your decision at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If you don't reconsider, I'd be grateful if you'd indicate another method of engaging with an anonymous editor who resists all efforts to engage. Cheers. Hiding T 13:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have put a request for comment up, but so far it is generating zero traffic, so it looks like the situation will simply fester. Hiding T 08:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glitter at RFPP

I'm confused. Why did you tag my request as "done", without either protecting anything or explaining why you would not?—Kww(talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a user error on my part. I misread your protection request and though you were saying that with the blocks were in place, protection was not needed (in other words, I thought it said the exact opposite of what you were saying). I have semi-protected the requested articles for fourteen days. Thank you for bringing this oversight to my attention, and sorry for the inconvenience. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You're welcome, I was using huggle. The vandal got back at me, accusing I was a sockpuppet of you. He just added the box, he didn't report accused sockpuppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewrp (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puppetmaster?

Do you know who the puppetmaster is who likes you so much? He obviously has a big ol' sockfarm. If you think you know, could you open an SSP case? Ladyof Shalott 20:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already filed a quick SPI case in order to root out a common IP or range. WP:SPI#Krazi Attack Socks. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have read the rules on WP:ROLLBACK and I undertake to abide by them. It is not immediately clear to me how the rollback tool will improve on what I have now with Twinkle, but I guess all will become clear with practice. I spend quite a bit of time on anti-vandal activities daily and I look forward to trying the new tool. Thank you for inviting me to join the "rollback group". --Zlerman (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tried the rollback tool for several simple reverts with excellent results. I like the feature when rollback automatically displays the earlier version, without going through any intermediate stages (as with Twinkle or undo). I have not had a chance to try it in multiple reverts yet, but it will probably also work well. Many thanks for introducing me to this useful and efficient tool. --Zlerman (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazax1 sock?

Please take a look at the recent appearance of 92.47.212.200 in Kazakhs. Looks like Kazax1 socking during the 31-hour block you have imposed. --Zlerman (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a follow up, the IP started vandalizing again right after the block was lifted on the article. Otebig (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy

I know you blocked an open proxy I reported at AIV but can you block 82.119.226.53? I tried my case at AIV but didn't work. It is another confirmed open proxy used for impersonation, see Contrib's page. Momo san ^Gespräch 16:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Please give warnings after reverting unhelpful edits

Thank you for calling my attention to this obvious omission in my application of "rollback". These last few days I often used "undo" or TW instead of "rollback" simply because they offered me a clear option for edit comments -- something that I did not see in "rollback". I now understand from you that there is an option of instructing "rollback" to put a warning on the offending editor's talk page. Excellent. I will have to figure out how to do it (unless you will be kind enough to point this out to me). This will obviously make my use of "rollback" more effective. I appreciate your guidance and help very much. Regards, --Zlerman (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhs again

The disruptive IP activity on Kazakhs has resumed immediately after semi-protection expired. Perhaps you could consider semi-protecting it for a substantially longer time -- at least a couple of weeks? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevinman2, Kevinman3, Kevinman4

I see you blocked User:Kevinman3. FYI, there is now a User talk:Kevinman4 which has been flagged as another sock. Plastikspork (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian

Would you consider semi-protecting again? The edits to the page are almost exclusively vandalism. Thanks, Enigma^msg 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPs back again. Enigma^msg 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again. :) Enigma^msg 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about an IP

Hi there. I noticed you were active at AIV and I thought I'd ask you a question if you don't mind. I recently ran across this IP. The vandalism dates back as far as 2005, looks like 99% of the edits from this IP are vandalism. A three month block expired back in January of this year, and since then the IP has vandalized every month. I gave them a level 4 im warning. Should I keep watching it and report to AIV if the vandalism persists, or would a block be appropriate? Thanks. Landon1980 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP you blocked

Hi, you blocked an IP on the 5th for 48 hours, now they're back at it.

So I'm wondering if you would consider additional measures since you are familiar with the situation. Thanks! Drawn Some (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is "excessive vandalism"?

at least as an explanation to protect a page (as sexy), maybe you could characterize the level or intensity of "vandalism" that prompts your action. also consider the possibility that there is a style mismatch. 96.245.6.166 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help for template

Hello, I've seen your name on the project template and I permis myself to ask you help: I've just created a new portal Portal:Lyon and I would like to create the templates for the subways, trams, bus. They already exist on the french wikipedia of Lyon metro for example. would you accept to help me ? Thank you Lulu97417 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting image up for speedy deletion

File:Oklahoma City National Memorial viewed from the south showing the memorial chairs, Gate of Time, Reflecting Pool, and Survivor Tree.jpg Hi, sorry about this but this is a derivative work. You have the copyright of the photo, but the issue of the artwork's copyright comes into play. The Field of Chairs is a copyrighted artwork (copyrights are automatically granted since 1984), which belongs to the Oklahoma City Memorial Foundation—a private organization.[35] As explained at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Oklahoma City National Memorial images, the copyright of the art remains with its creators. This image cannot be used as fair-use because it was not previously "published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia" (WP:NFCC#4). Jappalang (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does meet NFCC#4 because it had been "publicly displayed outside Wikipedia" for eight months before I uploaded a copy to Wikipedia [36]. — Kralizec! (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... sorry about that. I did not know of its prior publishment. Jappalang (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New outburst of vandalism on Kazakhs

Please look at the doings of User:FixerKZ on Kazakhs. His edits are reminiscent of our earlier encounter with User:Kazax1 and his IP socks. Could you check this out and take appropriate action, please? Thanks. --Zlerman (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WVVA Again

I draw your attention to this thread here on your talk page about an anon user who was constantly removing references to RTN affiliation on WVVA television. The user continues to do so, the most recent today on IP address 67.142.163.23. It is obvious from the edits and everything that this is the same user. You said you would semi-protect the page, could that be done, because this is becoming annoying. Thanks for your help. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kralizec!

I'm a student of Waterloo Collegiate Institute in Ontario Canada. Our school's ip has been blocked for a while now. Though I can edit and whatnot while logged in, I'm just curious as to just how much vandalism was done by this ip and on which articles. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2005 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. There's no way for me to check the ip of my school due to strick restrictions, you could however, if you could, check the ip I am currently logged in to, which should be the one that most the school is networked into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2005 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, no problem. I'll just keep signing in then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2005 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Physician assistant

Interesting. I did not vandalize. I was correcting one of the editors spelling, and awkwardness. I put down facts that were cited and yet because of peoples opinion of the topic I was blocked from editing. You probably should go look at fuzballs posts because he is clearly an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.4.84 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message you left on my talk page [37]. I am glad that you are trying to improve the Physician assistant article, however some of your edits (like this and this) clearly do not benefit the article. Likewise your stated goal to "promote the profession" [38] does not necessarily meet Wikipedia's official policy requiring a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia works at its best when people with divergent views work together to build a common consensus. Instead of just reverting another editor when they undo one of your edits, please consider taking the issue to the article's talk page (we like to call this the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).

Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (original reply [39] copied from User talk:69.183.4.84)[reply]

Oddly enough I put the first comment up to see how quickly someone would see it. Secondly.. the second comment. I was attempting to add a comment box that many other wikipedia articles use. As I am not that good at this wikistuff, It looked horrible and I deleted it. As for everything else. I put true non-exagerated CITED facts. Looking now at the page. Everything has been deleted. Information that was well cited and promoted the profession by informing readers what a PA is.

I'm not going to waste my time. Have fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.4.84 (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S3G Edits

WRT your comment on the removal of information on the S3G Core, I'm curious as to why (to the best of my knowledge) what is still classified information should be listed on the S3G page. I note that similar information (core design characteristics and (for most of the pages) power ratings) are not listed on the other pages.

If there is a de-class source that can be sited, we should list it. Otherwise, the information should probably come down.

Cdrikari (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AIV case

Hello Kralizec!, although earlier today you indicated that you would be "actively monitoring" this editor, I thought I'd drop you a quick note to update you on their most recent 'activities' in case you missed it. This afternoon, IP editor 99.230.163.202 added unreferenced statistics to a whole series of Ontario Canada geography articles, was subsequently warned 1-4 by myself, and another editor intervened and advised him as well. Actually, I reverted most of his edits myself and then posted to AIV. 99.230.163.202 subsequently resumed adding the material, until you stepped in and advised him to stop. This evening I've taken note that (apparently) the same editor has re-added all of the material that was removed this afternoon. They have restored the material, but instead of providing a reference as requested for the statistics, they simply added a generic url for a front search page of Stats Canada in the edit summary of each article they dealt with. This material has now been added to perhaps 25-30 articles. I thought I'd mention this to you, considering that you might want to provide them with the opportunity to self revert these fairly useless additions. Barring that, I'll volunteer to step in tomorrow and extract the material from each of the articles once again. Just let me know on my talk page how you want to handle it. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:USS Block Island (CVE-21).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:USS Block Island (CVE-21).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback for Put-in-Bay

Two reasons that I did what I did at Put-in-Bay:

There is no local government website; discussion at talk has favored using the CoC website in the infobox, since it's the closest there is to an official website.
I used rollback because this website, for some reason, has been added to the spam blacklist. When I tried to restore it normally or to use the undo filter, I was blocked from so doing; rollback was the only way to restore it.

Two days ago, I requested removal of the CoC website from the blacklist; it's not been acted on yet because I accidentally placed it in the wrong section. I've moved it to the right section. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, see A.B.'s comments on my talk page a few sections above yours, and my response on her talk page. Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed the "spammers" now have redirected the put-in-bay.com page to another of their sites visitputinbay.com Pretty Clever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.186.62 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 June 2009

note: the above IP is the one who has been most recently adding/spamming the link to the articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uruk2008

I just created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uruk2008; it needs a second endorsement, so please endorse if you agree. Thanks, -- BenRG (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosport

Sorry: Lualua594 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at it again. Could you reblock? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian

Could you semi again? Thanks, Enigma^msg 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Ed Galloway's Totem Pole Park.jpg

File:Ed Galloway's Totem Pole Park.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ed Galloway's Totem Pole Park.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Ed Galloway's Totem Pole Park.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kemp

Could you please unprotect Arthur Kemp's wikipedia article ? There is a consensus on his talk page about changes to the article, thanks. Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paki90

User:Paki90 has violated the terms of his probation. [40] With such a name, I think he is obviously insulting us Pakistanis. Anyone who uses the name Paki is doing so to offend the people of Pakistan. I also believe that he is involved in sockpuppetry and vandalism. He is constantly adding Shia stuff to articles on Muslim leaders who are not Shias. This causes great confusion to readers. He is very annoying and should be banned again. Every edit he does is intended to cause frustration to those who are not Shias.[41], [42], I think User:Geogilgit is his sock.--119.73.1.149 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imbox deletion.png

Hi Kralizec!
Since I've previously gotten complaints about the Twinkle image deletion function, could you please try and explain how you accidentally deleted File:Imbox deletion.png just now? Did you mis-click, try the button, forget to uncheck the box, ...
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Folk Festival

Much appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

conversion disorder

Hi there- I wonder if you can help. I know a neurologist who is involved with DSM so I put a little sentence on wikipedia about the diagnosis being dropped from the DSM. Someone with a personality disorder called Paul Wicks keeps vandalising this and has no doubt persuaded you to lock the page. If you can put it back to what it was with my little edit that would be great. I'd advice you to watch out for Paul Wicks also- he is has a real grudge and got kicked out of IOP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michigancat (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A personality disorder *and* kicked out of the IOP, gosh my life sounds exciting! --PaulWicks (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you had to comment says it all. I heard you got kicked out for snorting coke. If you do want inhale take the top off the bottle first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.118.22 (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger Uranium mine

The Ranger Uranium Mine covers two of a line of uranium orebodies that extend from near Nourlangie Rock in Kakadu north-eastwards to Koongarra, underneath Mount Brockman, then northwards through the Ranger One line of orebodies (in order Number 2, Number 1, and Number 3), then via Hades Flat, where there is uranium mineralisation, to Jabiluka where the line turns westward through the Barote and Ranger 4 orebodies. The mine covers No 1 Orebody and No 3 Orebody. No 2 orebody was excluded from the mining lease at the request of the traditional owners and included in Kakadu National Park. From Ranger 4 the line again turns northwards and then swings westward round an Archaean basement dome before turning south towards Nourlangie Rock again. Uranium mineralisation is known at several other places along this line but has never been explored in detail because of the creation of Kakadu. The name 'Ranger' for the series of discoveries made by Geopeko Limited, the exploration arm of the Australian mining company Peko-Wallsend Limited, in the period 1969 to 1972, was thought up by Judy Ryan, the wife of the geologist in charge of the program. Koongarra and Jabiluka were retained by the companies that found them: Noranda Australia and Pancontinental Mining respectively, although since sold to other parties. The other discoveries are enclosed in the National Park, locking up an energy source that is estimated to be greater than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.44.62 (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why block changes to Twomey's page? My addition was not vandalism despite the complaints of the zealots. I could have said he was a ruthless murderer but didn't. Rather I added an explaining comment from Republicans. The first 3 para are unsourced. Should I remove them and those others needing citations or await useful corrections?81.151.165.183 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't grasp your reasons for blocking the John McKkeague and Seamus Twomey pages. I am not registered so end up getting different IP addresses.81.151.165.183 (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shenaz Treasurywala

Hello Kralizec,

Thanks for your interest and edits to my page. I would just like to point out that I was born on June 29, 1981 NOT 1971. Please leave my real year of birth corrected as this can cause damage to my career as an actress here in India. I am still trying to get imdb to correct the same info, though they do state my correct birthdate on my bio.

If you'd like further evidence, I would be happy to email you a copy of my passport!

Many thanks!

Shenaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.14.101 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome! Graffoe (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal report for 69.248.3.235

Hi there. I've got to admit, I'm confused. Thirty one deliberate (and sneaky) factual errors entered in the space of an hour and you decline the block because he hasn't been warned enough?? What exactly are you hoping for, here? I know you're kind of restricted to "WP's five strikes and you're out" rule, but honestly - thirty one strikes? Who cares if he's been warned or not; it's not like these were all accidents. Gah! I'm sorry, I'm just friggin' frustrated at spending all this time making sure his edits were vandalism only to have nothing done. Of all the people watching on HG and RC, I'm the only one that spotted these ones and I'm tired of dealing with this jerk. You want him to keep editing - fine, that's your call, but you can watch him, then. Matt Deres (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. If you don't mind me asking - what changed your mind? You initially declined the block, but then went ahead with the block even as I was composing my message to you. Were you reading my mind or something? ;) Matt Deres (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Shenaz Treasury

Hello again, This is Shenaz Treasuryvala. YES, my name is Shenaz Treasuryvala with a V and not a W :) :) Its okay most people mis spell my name. Thats why I prefer shenaz treasury. Secondly you are making me 10 years older. I was born in 81 not 71. Do i look 38 years old to you?! :) :) I am currently working on a film called Radio, Age se right is releasing on the 4th of sept and delhi belly next year. I really appreciate you making a page on me but it hurts my career by making me appear 10 years older. Why do you insist on doing that??? I would rather you delete the whole page!! I dont wish to be your project n wik. I'm sorry. You can email me or face book me. My personal facebook user id is shenaz treasury. But please. Lets talk Kralizec. I will give you factual info. THANKS! Sending best wishes. Shenaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.14.101 (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://bollywoodzone.wetpaint.com/page/Shenaz+Treasurywala ;

http://babe-fun.blogspot.com/2008/06/shenaz-treasurywala.html ;

http://www.celebrities-galore.com/celebrities/shenaz-treasurywala/home/ ;

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:jyhxcINt2mYJ:www.indya.com/tgilc4/host_shenaz.html+shenaz+date+of+birth&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:vV_Q64r3XxYJ:www.desimoviemania.com/celebs/210-shenaz/+shenaz+1981&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

Where did you get 71 from sir?

IMDB has misprinted, they have 1981 in my bio which is the real age. I cannot keep doing this and nor can you. At some point we both have to get back to our work.

If you still have problems with this then just delete my whole page please. I really dont wish to be on wik with wrong info.

But putting 71 there badly effects my career because everyone believes what they read. Do you want me to stop working? Age is a big deal here in bollywood and making me 10 years older has already lost me a few jobs.

Thanks!

Shenaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.14.101 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Welcome Message

Kralizec!, thanks for inaugurating my discussion page with your kind welcome message. The useful links are a nice touch! AmateurEditor (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHOIS?

Thanks for cleaning up my notice, just for my future reference where/how did you get this information?[43] - Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me | BNosey - 22:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kralizec :-). Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me | BNosey - 23:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello, thank you for offering me the opportunity to use roll-back. i would be willing to abide by the rules stated and use Rollback as it is intended to. If i have any doubts about when to use rollback may i contact yourself to ask? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

recent edit of Seven Wonders of the Ancient World article

Kralizec!: my apologies for the recent vandalism of this page, it was done by a younger member of our household and I will ensure it does not happen again.

Swardy (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orly

In addition, thanks for being "not a jerk" in your response to mine under that deletion review... (don't misunderstand that I think you are usually a jerk - it's just that some other people have some less useful and more unnecessarily harsh response styles :) Luminifer (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good day,

Could you please send me a copy of my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalium (seems to be deleted). At 5148351@gmail.com.

Thanks in advance, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkervali (talk • contribs) 09:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage! Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I've never actually been vandalized on any of my pages, so this is a very new experience for me! Also the vandalism was very distracting... Again thanks!!!! Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 18:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages?

Thanks for weighing in on topics regarding the actions of an edit-warrior and a heavy-handed administrator.

My (recent past) hands aren't clean regarding Wikipedia procedures, but my factual, rhetorical and logical intents have been clear throughout.

The edit war appears over, even if there's a warrior still looking for a fight. As for the administrator, he and I have been e-mailing amicably throughout the weekend to resolve his concerns.

162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all the more now! :)

I coulda done better from the start, i.e. didn't throw the first punch, but then more of a French Resistance type in response than a Gandhi disciple. (All of this now feels like the first days of e-mail years ago, when any poorly written message launched a series of flames.)

If I can be of any assistance to you in the future, don't hesistate to contact me here.

162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith?

User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion.

In the discussion it was asked for a "reliable" (according to Wikipedia Policies) source, supporting that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4, because the current article claims the contrary in this section: Aktion_T4#T4_and_euthanasia.
There are a lot of sources, but at least one "reliable" source was provided in this post:Talk:Action_T4#propaganda_pro_euthanasia_.3D_crime_apology. This source (Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, No.241, pages 39-47) states that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4
Like the mentioned section of the article, also User:Ratel claims euthanasia has nothing to do with Aktion T4, and he is involved in the mentioned dicussion.
Therefore: why is he allowed to archive exactly all the discussion including the post providing the demanded source?
Note that User:Ratel posted his first attempt to autoarchive the discussion some hours after the post providing the demanded source.

comment made by 190.25.102.181 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 67.188.47.4 vandalism

You removed this IP address and the reason said they were insufficiently warned. If you look on the talk page, they were warned a total of eight times, 4 times on July 29 which resulted in a temporary ban, since the ban they were warned on August 3, August 6 twice, and August 11. The edits are blatant vandalism mostly. They obviously are not going to stop. If 8 warning arent enough, how many notices are enough? Ejfetters (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I hereby award you, Kralizec!, the Barnstar of Integrity for your patience and fairness in dealing with unregistered user 67.188.47.4. I respect assertion to follow rules, because I believe they are created for very specific reasons. Thank you for being an Administrator of the English Wikipedia. :) Dillard 421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thanks for the offer of activating the rollback function for me. Yes please switch on, I tend to do a number of undos on the many pages I am watching. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inuit18 is sockpuppet

You just blocked User:Inuit18 for 30 hours, he is a sockpuppet of banned User:Šāhzādé (a.k.a User:Draco of Utopia, User:Germany2008, User:Anoshirawan...), just compare his edit summary, behaviour and articles worked on. If you file Check User it will confirm, he is a racist cursing at people of other race and all his edits are racist.--119.73.4.166 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

You had mentioned once that you had an interest in helping at WP:SPI. We are rather short-staffed there at the moment. Are you still interested? MBisanz ^talk 05:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to train you. I won't be around much and will best be reached via email, but I could help you learn the ropes and all. Do you ever use IRC? MBisanz ^talk 05:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went ahead and added you to the trainee list. Feel free to look around and see how things work. If you use Firefox, you can click the (direct link) to use the IRC functions. Feel free to email me when you are ready to tackle a specific case. MBisanz ^talk 05:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

94.192.38.247‎

There is a third unblock request on the IP's talk page. I have said for the user to be careful with it, but they ain't listening. Wanna take it or should it be left for someone else? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know that an admin couldn't do more than one unblock request per user, per block. My apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to comment at WP:AN#IP user repeatedly removing WHOIS template from talk page. Hans Adler 12:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is because Bushfire is just to do with Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.112.226 (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion disorder sockpuppet again...

Hi Kralizec!, we were recently corresponding about some trouble with user:alpinist on conversion disorder. He is now using a new sockpuppet called user:RAkanaan which is the name of a psychiatrist at the Maudsley who has contacted me with concerns that his name was being used on wikipedia in this way. Are you able to check / block this account? Many thanks. --PaulWicks (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Diffs, here is the most recent one from user:RAkanaan [44] and from anonymous IP that was identified as an SP [45]. Does that help? Cheers, --PaulWicks (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the issue of it being a sock, more that he is impersonating a psychiatrist with an interest in conversion disorder who is not pleased that his name is being used in this way. Is there other recourse for that? --PaulWicks (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your time. --PaulWicks (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP

I've requested that another administrator have their say on this request, as I feel you were too hasty with your initial judgement and did not read the nomination properly. Thanks, DJ 18:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

banned Inuit18 continues disruptive editing

Inuit18 continues with Disruptive editing even though he/she was banned for it less than 3 days ago. If we look at the user's contribution history [46] we can clearly see that the account was created for vandalalism purpose only because we cannot see an constructive edits. Giving warnings is pretty useless because all the user does is remove the warnings. Your assistance will be really appreciated. (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

you are clearly lying here. All of my edits since my ban had a reason which I wrote for you and other users in the talk pages. except for a mistake I made on the Kabul province article which I removed something that was sourced and I put it back when you wrote your reason on the Talk page my other edits are just and constructive since I have provided sources and reasons for my edits. --Inuit18 (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Storm shadow dispute

I've tried reasoning with him he doesn't stop with the speculation he doesn't understand look here User talk:74.196.212.138 he thinks he has a valid reason over what he thinks The Movie Master 1 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please move-protect paypal

Will you please move-protect the PayPal page?Btilm (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Our AOL friend

You know, I'll take you up on that offer. Thanks and cheers! -sesuPRIME 03:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Cheers and happy editing! -sesuPRIME 04:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks, I'll keep you in mind when something else needs protectin'. Gotta love Huggle! -sesuPRIME 04:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

It says on the edit notice for WP:AIV that editors can reply to reports where they feel appropriate. Is it okay if I chime in every now and then? Or should I avoid that and just leave it to the admins? Thanks! –túrian^patois 05:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! –túrian^patois 06:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

revert

Yes, I should have not used rollback. However, if you see what he changed, Devil simply reverted what I had done. He didn't edit it, he reverted my changes to his version. I will not change what I have done here, but I will not use that tool again. If I lose rollback privileges, so be it. Canada Jack (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Plantation House

What do you think of my first wikipedia page? Please give me your opinion. Reply here and then put a talkback box on my talk page. Btilm (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??

What requirements are there to get the rollback feature? Btilm 21:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rollback

I, Btilm , promise to use the rollback feature to the best of my abilities, to make Wikipedia a better place.

I have another question. Is there a tool or technique that makes giving a user a warning easier than to copy and paste the code from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and then copy and paste the name of the article? Btilm 21:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xellas

I'm not sure what to do about him. I have replied to him at my talk page but i'm just not sure what to tell him further. Can you help me out with this? Momo san ^Gespräch 00:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SquirtsDream

Hiya. Pls also see User:SquirtsDream, User:SquirtsDream2, and especially User:SquirtsDream2/I love money kids. → ROUX ₪ 03:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(CSD'd the above 2) → ROUX ₪ 03:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hello, Kralizec! Thank you so much for granting me the rollback feature. To show my appreciation, I have made you a little something.

Kralizec !

When you click on Kralizec, it directs you to your user page. When you click on !, it directs you to your user talk page. Here is the code:

[[User:Kralizec!|''' Kralizec ''']][[User talk:Kralizec!| '''!''' ]]

When you type ~~~~, this will show. To make it visible, go to "my preferences" at the top of the page. On the front page, put in the html code and check the box below it.

Please reply so that I know you got this message.

If you have any problems with this, please contact me. Btilm 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

I think you remember this: User_talk:MBK004#Moon_.22men.22, well, it looks like the user is not going to give up, judging from their most recent post: [47]. I'm not happy with the prospect of semi-protecting all the articles on the Apollo program, but a rangeblock of the entire university is not appealing either. Suggestions? -MBK₀₀₄ 19:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block change?

Hi Kralizec - Is it possible that the recent block you made to 69.201.128.95 should be changed to indef? In addition to the disruption, he was also confirmed as a sockpuppet of indef blocked user Albinofawn here. With months of this type of editing under his/her belt, I'm not sure whether 31 hours is going to make the slightest difference...Your call of course! Cheers, ponyo (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPs generally cannot be indefinitely blocked. There is a certainly some space between 31 hours and indefinitely, but the indefinitely end of that would be pretty unusual. Frank | talk 20:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, of course; I had completely forgotten about the consequences of blocking an IP address. ponyo (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query on additions to Category:Islands of Alaska

Hello. Could you help me understand why you are adding articles like Kodiak Archipelago and Shumagin Islands directly to Cat:Islands of Alaska? The articles are already members of Cat:Kodiak Islands and Cat:Shumagin Islands respectively, which both have Cat:Islands of Alaska as their parent category. Thank you for your time and consideration, — Kralizec! (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that when someone looks up an article such as Kodiak Archipelago or Shumagin Islands, that it should be under a more encompassing category than itself. Wouldn't you agree? I mean that you would have to click on the category at the bottom in order to even find out what category it fell under. Backspace (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Forgetfullness

Thanks for the kind comment. I guess its one of those signs you have arrived when you do such a good job on something that no one thinks about rewarding you for your contributions :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick favor

Hey again Kralizec! Could you please delete User:Sesu Prime/QuiFriends and User:Sesu Prime/Status? I only used Qui for about a week before growing tired of it, but never got around to requesting those pages be deleted. Thanks and cheers. -sesuPRIME 09:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! -sesuPRIME 01:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

Thanks for the comments. I would reply over there but MBK has already asked me to stop leaving him messages as the new messages banner is interfering with his work (which is, of course, fine). :-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Hart

Thank You Commoncase (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party (United States)

Hi. I'm interested in knowing why you think the vandalism is so heavy on this article it merits semi-protection. Thanks. ÷seresin 00:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I can see that. However, where is the large amount of vandalism that justifies the protection? ÷seresin 00:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think your political preferences may have affected your judgment, or how your judgment is perceived, you probably shouldn't have made the call at all, even if you decided to be conservative (no pun intended). I'm not going to unprotect, because you made your ruling and I'll let you keep it. ÷seresin 01:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, yes I know about WP:BLANKING. I had made the comment because I anticipated that the warnings would be replaced by further personal attacks. Loves Macs (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit, at the time I thought I was acting properly. I have since reread WP:BLANKING and realize I may have erred in restoring the blanked comments. What do you believe I should have done? Please tell me so I can do a better job in the future. Thank you. Loves Macs (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections

I left this message on Parsec's talk page, and I am leaving it here too: I urge you to run for coordinator for milhist in the upcoming tranche. I feel you would make an outstanding coordinator for the project, and it is my belief that you would obtain a spot should you decide to add your name to the running. You are, of course, under no obligation to run, but an editor of your caliber would be a welcome addition to the force. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The invitation to run with us is open whenever you decide to run. Until then, fare thee well, and good luck. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Sanu

As you are directly familiar with the issue, I turn to you. You semiprotected the article because an anon was adding false and unsourced awards (probably vandalism as you cited). But this anon had created an account Toton 1984 (talk · contribs) and keeps doing the same edits (he did it even at time of protection and did it today). To request a semi-protection will obviously not be enough, so I request your help as you view the situation now. (Note: when not logged in, this individual has changing IP accounts) Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Speedy Deletion

Hellohello,

I created a page for a musician named Pogo under "Pogo (musician)" and it was quickly deleted, as had been in the past. I am requesting to show proof that this page is legitimate or at least userfy it.

Under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", Pogo does meet criterion 11. His song 'Alice' has been spun on Triple J nationally around Australia. A worker at Triple J Unearthed e-mailed Pogo to say he could play his tracks on air if Pogo posted him a CD. If this is proof enough Pogo said he would gladly to send it your way. I can also rustle up the comments and messages he has received from listeners that report 'Alice' being heard on air.

Thank you for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verveundertoe (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

history of terrorism, yet again

Since you issued the last block, I thought I'd bring this here in hopes of stunting the edit war. LSG280709 (talk · contribs) came back from his most recent block for edit warring on the History of Terrorism article, and went straight back to his reversion with no explanation. He's made five edits since the return, three of them to reinstate his edit, none of them to explain. I'll confess I'm not familiar with this article, but I'm reverting to the version with more sourcing in the face of the edit war. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for blocking LSG280709 and saving me the trouble of having to report it to ANI.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, I wanted to run this by you before doing anything. There's someone who is fervently against Barack Obama who has been vandalizing my page from different IP addresses under the mistaken belief that I blindly support everything Obama does when I would have reverted vandalism to the article on the current U.S. President no matter who was elected.

That's the background. There's this edit on one of the IP's talk pages, who hasn't yet been blocked. Do you think it should be reverted and the IP blocked as a WP:BLP violation? Do you think it should just be reverted without any other action? Thanks for your advice. Loves Macs (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to revert the edit on that IP talk page and on another page in the same IP range. I am unsure if further action should be taken because the editor isn't active right now. Loves Macs (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the semi-protection! Loves Macs (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For The Guidance

Thank you. The only thing which makes me not to post a warning message on the vandal user page is their use of a dynamic IP. If you block a particular IP, some good editor might get stuck while he tries to post/edit something useful. On the other hand, vandal will just restart his router and come back with more vandalism. What is the official policy? Sarmadhassan (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider

...the decline on protection for Albert Pujols. The user involved has refused to be involved in dispute resolution. Discussions on the article talk have become cyclical, and he does not present new arguments. The editor exhibits tendentious behavior and is in continual violation of WP:NOT#STATS. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. I really do appreciate your assistance. I had reached the end of my rope and would likely have done something that I regretted soon. Thanks for your consideration. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killervogel5 is *not* being fair nor telling the whole truth in his assessment of the situation, nor consistent in the application of his many reverts of what I tried to post; sometimes he cites real rules, but many other times he just makes up his own rule such as 'No non-Triple Crown stats on the Infobox', which is not mentioned anywhere in the WP rules, nor is followed by many other players' pages I have found. I have repeatedly said I would abide by a third-party independent editor in a dispute resolution. That has not yet been done for over a month, but it appears it will be now. I was trying to show that the dispute is because of the blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency in these rules KV5 says is what WP is trying to follow but clearly WP does not do so, and his editing-reverts is unfairly concentrated only on changes to Pujols' page while ignoring others. Specifically, other high-profile players such as Manny Ramirez, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, and Ichiro Suzuki all had sprawling tables for months (years?), and not a peep was ever mentioned about them by KV5 (or other editors) in concentrating his continuous reverts solely on any updates I tried to make to Albert Pujols that incorporated what those other pages had. If I promise not to add any additional tables to Pujols' page, would you kindly change the protection level back to semi-protected? I believe 11 days from today is too long to go without allowing changes, especially now in the closing days of the baseball season when most viewers would want to see the most updated information on many baseball teams, and key players such as Pujols. Thank you. Katydidit (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Thanks for your message (and for blocking that user). If a vandal goes ahead and blanks their page I will often re-add content once to see if that stays, if not I tend not to take it much further, I generally assume you lot know where the history tab is! Regards, RaseaC (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with DENY in most repects and very rarely reverted talk pages until a recent chat with an admin, so for now I'll take your suggestions on board but take each one as it comes. RaseaC (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove racist comments if a user puts them on their own talk? RaseaC (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quit it =

quit blocking me, it's not me that's the one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basingwerk2 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meet my friend WP:RBI. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for your swift action on my report at WP:ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

Hi Kralizec! In light of your knowledge of IP address assignments, your wisdom would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:AssignedPA_.282nd_nomination.29. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rollback?

No problem! I was wondering if there was such a tool... I would love to have access to the rollback feature and promise to abide by the rollback rules to the best of my ability. Thanks! Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paki90

If you check the recent edits of Paki90 you will see that he has once again started adding Shia Islam to multiple articles. This was part of the issue leading to his probation. Regards, WWGB (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for blocking the user that was vandalizing my user page. Much appreciated! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rollback?

First, thank you for the "semi-protection" feature on the S.L. Benfica article. IP vandals have been causing a lot of problems for me and others who monitor and legitimately edit the S.L. Benfica article. Thank you also for offering me the rollback function. I have read the rollback rules and promise to abide by the rollback rules to the best of my ability. Thanks for all your help. Mnunes76 (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

I'm not sure why you tagged so many as being checked on at once, but I went through and took care of a few of them. 20-30 minutes seems excessive for these types of requests. I'd recommend tagging one at a time as well. We don't have quotas so there's no need to claim requests. Lara 17:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection question

If you've got a second, I'm curious as to why Milkybar doesn't merit indefinite semi-protection, so that I know how to approach similar cases in future. Very nearly every edit to the article is vandalism from an anonymous IP, and I'd have thought that the nature of the edits ("LOL, my friend or work colleague [insert full name] played the Milkybar Kid on TV, it's true!") would have been a minor BLP concern, as the subjects aren't going to appreciate being a prominent Google result, or having a lazy journalist or blogger paste the list of names into something else.

This isn't just one guy vandalising, it's children and bored office workers all over the UK and Australia passing through once and adding the name of the kid in their class, or the guy in their department, who looks like the Milkybar Kid. --McGeddon (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Although you're correct that there's been one repeat IP recently, this is a blip - the rest of the edits have been from other addresses who've made different edits, and have never returned to the article. Looking back over the history, the article gets three or four anonymous IP edits a month, invariably adding an unsourced name to the list of actors. It's an old joke, and everyone thinks of it independently.

Apart from a slow pace of "regularly many new vandals", doesn't this tick every box of Wikipedia:ROUGH#Criteria_for_semi-protection? --McGeddon (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (US TV series)

You locked The Game (US TV series). I wish you hadnt. I tried to talk to pink but s/he didnt reply on the discussion page. AOL is a reputable source. The colum writer is a noted journalist for AOL, TJMS, TruTV, E online, and more. As a compromise I included both the AOL source and the TV guide source. pink never replied on the discuss page, s/he just reverted. I made other edits as well but pink ignored. Isnt the standard do discuss before a page is locked? 70.108.70.197 (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YAHELITE PAGE DELETION?

- - YahElite - a random question to one of the optional people to contact around here***

I was wondering why there is so much resistance to having a page for YahElite? Surely an established program that was the first or second 3rd party chat client on Yahoo! is a notable subject for a short Wiki article. Chat clients are a pretty large part of the whole chat thingy, and YahElite has been around since the beginning. Unless chat, and Yahoo! are such unimportant parts of society that a client that pretty much spawned an entire industry writing 3rd party chat clients is considered somehow "too commercial" to talk about, it should be able to sustain a very short page.

Look, I get it that Wiki isn't an advertising resource, but I purposely went out of my way to write as neutral an article as I could, considering that if I hadn't found YahElite I wouldn't probably even know how to plug in a computer. I have no profit motive for writing it, I wrote the TOS for it as a favor to the author because of my legalese reading ability, but beyond that, I have nothing to gain, so why on earth would I write a spam article for commercial purposes? Everything I know about computers, damn near, I learn as a direct result of finding and using that client, which put me in contact with all the other chat client writers and gave me an opportunity to learn my craft from them. Literally, thousands of people have been helped by me, as a volunteer problem solver on a dozen different forums, and all of it a result of the chat thingy. People live their entire lives on chat these days - and I cannot believe the aversion to a specific client has spawned such a drive to insure an important part of that phenomena can't have a page, but people can devote an entire page to the use of the word "pwned" in games.

Sheesh, what a ludicrous set of arbitrary standards. I don't really give a damn what you people do about it, but it sure seems like a vendeta, more than a justified reason to be rid of it as "spam". Just my 2 cents worth. Don't feel a need to reply, I only brought it up in case it was a spiteful vandalism thingy or someone really doesn't understand what a chat client means to about 300,000 different distinct users world-wide. IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)IdioT.SavanT.i4[reply]

- Thank you Kralizec!, for your reply to my query. With that said, your listed standard for what is "notable" enough to have it's own Wiki page is SEVERELY lacking. Other than a couple references to "slang" on gamer related websites, there is no "noted or reliable third party" in any of the linkys that references "pwn" as anything other than a slang term used as a MISTAKE, by some people in texting. Typos deserve a Wiki page but an application that was a leader in an admittedly small but important part of the IM industry - and used by over 300,000 distinct users world-wide, 72% of which are outside of America - is deemed less "respectable"? Sorry, I fail to see that "distinction" as being anything other than arbitrary. Given the numbers of people using the YahElite client every day of their lives, and the limited number of people using a slang word once in a while, I fail to see how one is more "respectable" and deserves it's own Wiki page - a Wiki page I once tried to add an alternate definition to, as used in debate forums, and was reverted by the proprietary maintainers of that page as though I had committed vandalism.

- List of "published references & reliable "third party suppliers" who mirror or deliver YahElite:
- messengeroo - most read chat client review site Not many sites review 3rd party chat clients to start with.
- Portable Freeware Reviews
- software informer
- give away of the day
- soft32download
- PCQuest chat client shootout
- About.com
- Finally, if a 3rd party client spawns it's OWN 3rd party add-on software, it's a pretty good sign the client is worthy of the efforts of other people to make it even better. I know of NO other chat client which has had this happen & I've pretty much tested all of them over the past decade.
- As I said, there seems to be a distinct culture of "possessive ownership" beginning to evolve within Wikipedia, and the more apparent it becomes, the less credible the reputation of Wikipedia becomes. It may not be apparent yet, but reputations take a long time to build and very little to destroy. Wikipedia, as I see it beginning to mature, is becoming more "corporate", like they are the evolution of Encyclopedia Britannica, and less like a peer-reviewed neutral source for information. What next? Little ads to corporate sponsors on the side windows? Where once Wiki was deemed ABSOLUTE, in terms of neutrality, already I see people beginning to question it as a source that has bias and has begun to fail in it's indefatigable reputation for fairness.
- I think that is a shame, but as I've maintained all along on this YahElite issue, I really don't shiv-a-git. I had or have no self-interest in it one way or the other and only reformed the page because it would have been useful information for those seeking a source OTHER THAN the various client authors' own self-promotions of their clients. Do as y'all see fit, since it's apparent little of what I think seems to matter. I was just trying to help enlarge the world of available knowledge. Again, thank you sincerely for taking time to reply last time. i4 aka IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI/AIV

There are a series of users who see fit to disrupt the various articles I edit. I've never bothered with reporting to SPI because they can just be blocked by the regular admins instead of there being an extensive sockpuppet report or investigation to deal with them. That's why I've always listed them at AIV.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without a SPI report that can be used to look at and compare edit histories of past socks with current IPs, I have no basis to determine if your report is an IP-hopping vandal or not. While I have absolutely no doubt as to your dedication to improving the project, the only thing you have given me to go on for these block requests is your word, and pardon me for being blunt, but I am unwilling to risk my admin `bit on the word of someone who lost his. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can also provide a series of IPs all originating out of South Africa that have also been a single periodically blocked problem user, unique from the prior ANI report, if necessary:

41.4.83.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.6.62.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.3.68.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.2.178.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.3.103.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.5.145.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.6.99.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.6.235.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.6.187.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.3.130.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.3.73.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.5.242.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.3.42.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.6.238.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.5.103.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.5.196.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.2.25.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.2.241.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.2.8.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.4.241.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
41.3.188.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The pattern is easy enough to catch and the IP addresses are nearly identical.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oh look, a new one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user sockpuppet 94.44.12.90

Cheers for your block on user 94.44.12.90. However, this user (Celebration1981) has been blocked indefinitely, yet continues to evade by using sockpuppets. (See POV-pushing IPs with strong nationalistic agenda.) A longer or indefinite ban is requested. Many thanks!, Rico402 (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page -- very informative. Best, Rico402 (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Query regarding AIV report

Hi, I'm really ashamed with that edition :-( , I've made a mistake. In eswiki we have a three revertion rule and I was thinking thet enwiki uses the same rule (since almost all rules of eswiki are translated from enwiki). I'm really sorry and thanks for notice me, with these messages is how we make it better in the future :-) Best regards Manuelt15 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something's wrong

It looks like you placed this reply in the wrong place. I'm not quite sure where it should be.—Kww(talk) 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI ANI post you may be interested in

There's an ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Breakdown_at_Template:Infobox_Russian_inhabited_locality about a matter you commented on at RFPP.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just left a message on my page without signing it but I think it was you but I dont know what edit you were referring to and why.--Numbersnow (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

07:13 . . Kralizec! (talk | contribs) blocked 98.248.33.198 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ({{anonblock}})

Tsk tsk tsk :) Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And s/he didn't even bother to apologize ;) 98.248.33.198 (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Jeff G, I already pulled him up on the matter. See this. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. After lifting my mistaken block, I took several minutes to collect evidence and leave a query on the talk page of the person who made the improper reverts and block request. Immediately after that I apologized on the talk page of the IP, then came hear to read my messages. Perhaps I should have apologized first, but given the tool misuse, I felt that was the more pressing need. — Kralizec! (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't see the reply on my talk page, I hope you realize I was teasing you about the lack of an immediate apology above. That's what the wink-smiley was meant to convey. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Okay, I'm very sorry. I was not sure exactly what to do in the situation, I'll take note not to restore self blanked talk pages in the future. Kind regards, --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 11:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIV Comment

Hello Kralizec!. I just wanted to reply to your message to me. I was not attempting to disrupt anything; I am not sure who is a sockpuppet and I don't really care to find out. All I know is that my talk-page was attacked, and I hoped that the AIV would make it go away. Perhaps this does not count as vandalism; I leave that up to others to decide. We've had trouble with these users on the Reference Desk, evidenced by this discussion last week - where I was the chief negotiator to end the disruption; and we really hoped everybody could be mature. All I want is to contribute to the Reference Desk without a hassle. Sorry if my request at AIV was viewed negatively. I'll CC this to fellow administrator User:Dayewalker, who left a helpful comment at my talk page. Thanks, Nimur (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at that discussion on User talk:Nimur, you'll see that things were going along fine until the first of the two socks poked his nose in. Nimur seemed to understand what was up initially, then suddenly did a 180 and somehow concluded I was the one doing the socking, and things went downhill fast after that. Which, presumably, was exactly what the socks were trying to achieve. But the socks are indef'd and all appears calm again. It's worth pointing out that there are rather worse instigators on those ref desks, including a couple of rabble-rousers that we got indef'd yesterday, but Nimur has targeted me for some reason. But hopefully we can work things out. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Article edit: Kazakhs

Dear Kralizec,

Please mention that edit was not an experiment or test. The article is about Kazakh people, and the photo is not representative of Kazakh people. It shows 4 presumably nomadic, poor people. The kids and the man look more like Han Chinese. And the yurt is not of construction usually used by Kazakhs. The roof-top structure is different as well as coating.

Thank you for your consideration, Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.24.61.83 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 21 September 2009

The image caption indicates otherwise. If you disagree with the caption, take it up there rather than at the Kazakh article. As it stands, this is one of the few images we have of Chinese Kazakhs, so it should remain. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being constructive. First of all, the article is about the Kazakh people as a nation, not about how Kazakhs live all over the world. I could upload a picture of the Kazakh family of my friend in LA and caption it "Kazakhs family in LA, USA". But this would be absolutely irrelevant just as the discussed photo is. Even if it actually depicts a Kazakh family - on which I absolutely disagree due to the reasons listed before. Even if it did, it only depicts a single family and is not representative of the community or Nation as a whole. This picture has a very low value, also due to it's date, it was made in 1987 which is 22 years ago, so it hardly depicts a present situation and thus has a low informative value. If you think that's the only picture you could get on Wikipedia. I could contact a Kazakh friend of mine in China and get a newer and more interesting photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.24.61.83 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 21 September 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kazakhs, you will be blocked from editing. — Kralizec! (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)---------------------

Now you contradict yourself, you said that I should not touch the image and alter the caption instead, and that was exactly what I did.(Quote:"If you disagree with the caption, take it up there rather than at the Kazakh article.") But you just reverted my edit and threatened me with banning. As defined in the article Vandalism is a a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. In my case I am trying to improve the relevancy of the content in the article to its name. And I am providing reasoning for my actions, rather than mindlessly deleting the content. This is a dispute over the content of the article and as it is further defined - edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism.

It seems to me that you just have an unhealthy attitude towards the article. And you are using your authority and position of an Administrator to scare me, by intending to ban me. I mean how healthy is that? If you disagree with me - prove me wrong, that's the idea of free Encyclopedia. The universal access to editing all the content in the attempt to make Wikipedia better.

What you are doing - you are just using your authority to prevent the edit that you personally do not like. And the reasoning is quite questionable. I understand you are busy with editing and tidying up huge amounts of data in Wikipedia, but your attitude towards this issue is quite unhealthy.

I will try to contact Wikipedia management or other administrators about this specific issue, because I think your opinion regarding this specific article is not objective and you attitude is not the one you would expect form the administrators of a Free Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.24.61.83 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 23 September 2009

As the Kazakhs article itself notes, it is about the "Turkic people of the northern parts of Central Asia" including not only Kazakhstan, "but also found in parts of Uzbekistan, China, Russia, and Mongolia." As such, a photo of Kazakhs in China is both appropriate and relevant to this article. I personally do not have any particular knowledge of or interest in either this article or Kazakhstan, however I was asked to help keep an eye on both as part of a request at WP:RFPP that said POV-pushing was happening to both. As an otherwise un-involved admin, my purpose here is to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (original reply [48] copied from User talk:59.24.61.83)[reply]

If you remember, one of my major arguments is that the picture itself is not proven to depict specifically a Kazakh family. There is no indication of that. The faces of the people as well as the type of the Yurt they use does not comply with Kazakhs looks or Yurt building style. You should understand that there are many Nomadic people in the Central Asian region and parts of China: Kyrgyz, Karakalpak, Jungar - but ut does not mean - they are all Kazakh. That's why I've made and edit to the picture name (which you prevented for no particular reason) - Nomadic People - Not Kazakh. You just want to keep the article as it was - without considering and effort to improve the relevancy of the information presented. The definition presented in the article will need to be revised as well, as it is quite vague. There are many "Turkic people of the northern parts of Central Asia" and not all of them call themselves Kazakh, there are Kalmyks, Tatars, Chuvash etc... You yourself admit that you do not have any knowledge in the issue, then it seems a little strange to me why you prevent my argumented edits. Having lived in Kazakhstan for a while and having studied Kazakh people history, I happen to know some specifics of Kazakh people looks and way of life. I understand that there was a request to protect the article, then the requestee should present his opinion - why he thinks the edit was wrongful. I assume the requestee should have some background knowledge in the domain. Your opinion on this matter is not that of an expert and as far as I understand you are following the procedure, without having ability to analyze whether your actions will do better to the article or not because you don't happen to have any background knowledge on the subject of the article. If your purpose is to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines this also means that you should make sure that the content presented is relevant and will make the information presented more valuable for the reader. As for this particular picture I do not believe that it pictures Kazakh people, rather is pictures a Nomadic family, moreover it was made in 1987 - which I believe should be indicated in the caption(otherwise people should assume it is a recent picture). Overall, I believe that this photo with its current caption is irrelevant to the article. And "an otherwise un-involved admin" without "any particular knowledge of or interest" in this article I can understand that you are not able to be objective on these edits - because you do not have any background on the subject. Then I should assume that your threats to ban me is just the way to accertain your authority and power in Wikipedia.

To put it in simple language you are saying:"I was asked to protect this page. I don't quite know anything about Kazakhs but I can ban you for trying to change something."

As an person with no interest in the article and no background knowledge in the issue, I would expect you to introduce me to a person who issued the requests for Page Protection in the first place. I believe that person should be able to present a well-argumented opinion on why he/she thinks my edits were wrongful. From that point you could monitor our hopefully healthy discussion in an attempt to bring most relevant information to the article to increase its value to Wikipedia readers.

Otherwise, as you stated that you do not know much about the content of the article or Kazakhstan and Kazakh people in general, it seems that your attempts to prevent all my edits do not have enough ground under them. ---- Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.24.61.83 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 23 September 2009

The image File:Kazakhs people.jpg has the notation that it is "Kazakhs people, Xinjiang, China" and as such, this photo is both appropriate and relevant for the "Kazakh minorities in China" section of the article on Kazakh people. Your assertion that you know better because you have lived in and studied Kazakh history is irrelevant as Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits the use of personal opinions and experiences. Please note that I am not attached to this particular image, and I would be just as happy if the article used a different image to illustrate Kazakh people in China. My goal in watching over the Kazakhs and Kazakhstan articles is to prevent the resumption of edits designed to remove or obscure the presence of religious and ethnic minorities in Kazakhstan, as well as the existence of Kazakh minorities in other nations. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC) (original reply [49] copied from User talk:59.24.61.83)[reply]

Block of 199.235.123.238

Hi there. I noticed you have blocked 199.235.123.238 for vandalism; thank you. However, the prior block was only 1 week; yours is 2 years. You may have, understandably, been mislead by the talk page notice which said they were blocked for 1 year; this was later amended to 1 week. Just so you are informed. -kotra (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

It was my impression blanking was frowned upon in all cases. I stand corrected. Thx. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for the Jaclyn Smith protect. Abrazame (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh, sure..

.. make me look bad, will ya? (not complaining, just observing it was at the same moment) tedder (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cough

Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why image cannot be displayed?

Salam Kralizec:

I am trying to display an image of Hazara man in Hazara people Article but the image is not displayed yet, I have tried many times but no result, Any problem??? can you help me please | - |azaraBoyz (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam v notability

As an admin, would you review the discussion here and give me your feedback? I still don't see how a claim of notability means a spam article isn't a spam article. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk?

recently one of my friends (user:kallie_n_kat) became a member of the Help Desk team on a game called Perfect World UK. This gave me an idea: why not create a wikipedia help desk for people who have problems or questions regarding wikipedia and its contents? The idea being to find someone who isn't an administrator but knows a lot about wikipedia, maybe even make a new user called HelpDesk or something, and make a link to their talk page so when people have questions they all know where to go. You don't even have to make that person an admin, and you don't have to pay them either since the Help Desk is usually an all-volunteer crew. On top of that, other users can see what questions people have and--if they know the answer--help out as well. Anyways, just a suggestion :)
Demonlak (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit: I see you already have one now, guess I need to look around more. o/
Demonlak (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP Block

I know the rules on warning escalation. That's why I was giving multiple level-2 warnings: I wanted it to be clear how much vandalism this IP had done in 48 hours (all with the same modus operandi of adding the name all over the place). I wasn't "escalating," I just wanted to make it clear to the next editor that came along how much blatant vandalism this account had done in the past (much of it reverted quickly by other editors w/o warning). Some of the articles, s/he had to be reverted by multiple times by different editors. And it's obviously not a "new" vandal: the skill s/he shows with using piping to create bizarre redirects shows some experience (among other things, like nicely placing the name in references so it appears like it's supposed to be there, sticking it into film casts just right so it looks proper, i.e., Peter Dais as John Hale in the Crucible). So I placed the warnings as I did. Then, when the IP then clearly maliciously undid my undoing of his vandalism, right after the warning—I gave a final warning and gave up and just cut/pasted the list of the list of the rest of the vandal edits to his talk page. At that point it became clearly blatant. When I report someone to AIV, I do so in a thought-out manner; I have read the policies and try to apply them in an appropriate manner given the particulars of specific situations. I will not utilize a process unless I have some familiarity with how it works; I am not some sort of a loose-cannonball-noob. Furthermore, regardless of my handling of the situation, it seems rather bizarre to decline to block an editor who has made 14 edits of which 14 were vandalism of a clearly insidious and intentional nature. This is not "edit testing" or "sandboxing"—look at the nature of the edits. When there is a blatant vandal, they ought to be treated like a blatant vandal. I was actually being very conservative to start: even though it was clear, I was just giving level-2 warnings for each edit (though clearly redundant, I thought it would at least get the message across that his vandalism "has been noticed"). When the IP then reverted the edit I had just warned him for, that put the button on the case.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 03:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have significantly re factored my warnings; hope that looks better. Was easier to just use Twinkle, but perhaps this is more appropriate.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 03:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, as an example of my mindful use of escalation, the specific message I added to this only warning I just gave to another IP: User talk:67.76.12.101. He got blocked....

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 03:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I am saying this time. First of all, the "productive edit" you linked to was vandalism again, just as I had explained. The IP goes all over the place putting the name Peter Dais where it doesn't belong; which is what I said to you in my first post. Then you link me to an instance of that and say "this edit is productive." Did you even read what I had said about this pattern vandal? Now it's 15/15 edits placing the name Peter Dias where it's not supposed to be! Am I not making myself clear? As I said above, there is 100% evidence to assume this editor is intentionally vandalizing (and has done it before, from a different account or IP), based on the skill he shows with placing the name in the script (i.e., hiding it in references so it looks like it belongs, making false pipes, nicely adding it in a cast list for a film, etc.). This is clearly not an editor who needs to be "educated," this is an intentional, educated vandal! What else am I supposed to say? You nicely educated me blocks are "used to prevent continuing disruption." That's what I was trying to do! I gave him multiple level-2 warnings; then when he proved he was going to continue as vandalism-only by reverting my reversion of his vandalism, it came to the point where the block would be "used to prevent continuing disruption!" Then you tell me what WP:BLOCK states. I know! This editor made it patently obvious that they were clearly a "Disruption only" IP; I gave evidence for this. Then the IP goes and does the exact same thing again and you message me saying he's "productive"? What gives? Thanks for quoting a bunch of policies that I already knew to me verbatim; each of them does not apply as you have quoted them in this context. Each situation requires specific and thought out application of the rules, not verbatim quotes from an editor who knows them to another editor who knows them. Thanks. I don't know what else to say.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 19:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, according to the IP:

Dr Peter Dias is a researcher published in the medical journal The Lancet.

Peter Dias headed the rise of the Taliban.

The fourth mode of the Double harmonic scale is known as the Peter Dias scale.

Peter Dias is a past member of the band Hooverphonic.

The real name of the author David Goodis is actually Peter Dias.

The role of John Hale in the TV production of the play The Crucible was played by Peter Dias.

Peter Dias is an author for the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.

Captain Kirk (James T Kirk, to be precise) is Peter Dias.

Peter Dias is a footballer contracted with Chelsea FC.

Peter Dias attended Galen Catholic College.

Peter Dias is a headliner at the Australian music festival "Big Day Out."

A couple of these were reverted by other editors as vandalism, and were just added by the IP again.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stand this place. Why am I going around trying to help out when goofs like this get away with just wasting everyone's time?

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 19:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P&P - perhaps you can calm down a bit. The IP has made exactly one edit today. I assure you the encyclopedia will not fall apart if we warn a vandal one or two extra times to be sure they "get it" before they are blocked. Issuing multiple warnings in quick succession when the editor is not active will still result in only one orange bar. Frank | talk 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HERE HE IS AGAIN: User:124.181.72.223 (a diff.)

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered another one, not sure if you knew about it yet. Both of these (this and the above) have been active very recently (since block for same thing): User:121.219.119.77

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 18:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another!

User:192.148.117.85 . . . here's the Peter diff. I went through the IPs old edits and found vandalism which stood since July.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 06:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awww crap...

User:Jamesistheone

User:121.219.179.189

User:124.181.115.218

I just reverted vandalism to your user talk page by User:I AM PETER DIAS. You might want to look in your history and see it (it's just threatening continued vandalism)

Now just adding slight variations in spelling:

User:180.95.16.17

I don't know if there's any way to protect against this. As I'm not really experienced with coordinated vandalism; I'll just step back and let the people who have experience rooting this out deal with it. It makes me worry how systemic this problem could be (with other IPs with different MOs) for the integrity of the information on the site.

Interwiki hell (seven wonders, etc.)

I'm afraid I know nothing about that sort of stuff; my learning curve was left behind by Wikipedia's growing complexity long ago. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man. Did you protect Stephanie Birkitt's wiki page? It has no mention of her affair with Letterman on it. Shouldn't it at least mention something about it? Even politely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.0.98 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hey there. I was cleaning up the SPI clerk list, and I was wondering if you still intend to be active there, as I had not seen you around in a while. If not, I can put you on the inactive list, so that users looking for a clerk don't accidentally try to get you to help them. If you do intend to be active, we should probably get you a new coach, as MBisanz is currently not around at SPI (I'd be happy to take over though). Please let me know what you want to do. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you've got mail

Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more I go over this in my head, the more convinced I am that I'm imagining things. It just doesn't add up... I'll keep an eye out, but you can probably just ignore that email. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements

On many administrators pages, they have requirements to be an autoreviewer. For example, User:UpstateNYer/Admin. Do you have any requirements? Btilm 02:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dais

Following the vandalism to your talk page I've indef blocked the user and raised the issue at WP:ANI#Peter Dais. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy deleted page request

Hi, could you provide me with a copy of Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic. Also, could you please copy it to User:Ishwasafish/DLNWE#UCTAA. Thanks,

Ishwasafish^{click here!!!}

19:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit filter

Since you're an admin, you can do it yourself - just go to Special:UserRights, enter your username, and check the Edit filter manager box. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for you. :) NawlinWiki (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ruining the article on lebanon

1-The economic damage from the 2006 war has no place in the introduction of the article about the country. 2-The way the info is presented gives the illusion that lebanon never recovered from the war and is still in ruins. 3-not only did the country recover but it also achieved great economic progress during the worst economic crisis in decades.

what i'm asking is, please remove the paragraphe about the damage from the 2006 war immediately soas not to mutilate the article, or you can replace it with up-to-date info from the present i.e the time we are living in. thank you. 91.142.61.4 (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I do not have any particular knowledge of or interest in the Lebanon article, however I was asked to help keep an eye on it as part of a request at WP:RFPP indicating that unregistered editors were attempting to censor the article by removing properly sourced and cited content. As an otherwise un-involved admin, my purpose here is to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You were blocked because you continued to revert the article back to your preferred version despite objections that had been raised on the talk page. The fact that you removed the content in question seven times ([50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]) makes this a textbook example of edit warring, hence why I blocked you for 31 hours. — Kralizec! (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC) (original reply [57] copied from User talk:91.142.61.4)[reply]

NEA on Miss International 2009

While I agree that the page doesn't warrant nearly two months of protection, it does have quite a bit of activity, including unsourced and vandalism. I was going to protect it for a few days to see if it settled things down- do you mind looking at the edit history or letting me step on your toes at RFPP? (I was midway through doing it a few hours ago, got distracted) tedder (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(replied over there, but I wanted to say "thank you" for the background story. I'm fine with your call on it, given the context behind it that I was missing.) Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

Dude, I finally fixed my username, but think I lost rollback (because I cannot get Huggle to work). I do not appear on the Huggle list anymore. Any chance you can look into it? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing month titles from vandal page

I removed month titles from User talk:75.151.43.138. We have been granting bulk users (schools, generic business sites, etc.) leeway by the month. I was not aware that individual users were on such a long leash. It's one thing to bind a school to a month with walk-in users in library who could be just anybody, but why extend this priviledge to an individual who should, one assumes, know better? This user has been asked many times to cut it out. Dozens of times. Keeping his vandalism to less than 3 a month is insufficient IMO. After 20 or so episodes, I think he needs a time-out. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edited Muslim population article

Hey Kralizec I was the one who edited the Muslim population article based on this reference page http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm India Muslim Population: 133,295,077 Pakistan Muslim Population: 125,397,390

[b]Please see to it that you correct the wiki page showing the numbers and statistics of the same nature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.64.72 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that the source you give appears to be a self-published source (which should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles), but it is based on 1971 data. I just do not see how 38 year old data from a questionable source can possibly be better than a 2009 survey published by a reliable, third-party, published source like the Pew Research Center. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia, so what exactly is the problem you mentioned Kralizec? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.168.28 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for protection

Hey Kralizec! Looks like you're doing plenty of good work on the Wiki (as usual). Just a few questions:

I put Karl Marx up for a protection request and you posted that the IP(s) were blocked. I'm very glad that there are that many IP's (and the occasional rouge user) that will not vandalize that article again. However I've been watching the article since I started on Wikipedia and I did put it up for protection once, it was denied (as far as I know), so I decided to wait for a while. Ever since I have seen very few true, constructive edits to the article. The history page is plagued with IP->revert->IP->revert->etc. When I look at the page now, the first 50 edits you see are in that very cycle. I'm not familiar with protection policy, and do not have the time right now to review it, so I'm hoping you can help me for the future.

Happy editing!

--Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing it and doing your job! Happy editing! Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 03:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please block

Greetings Kralizec! - At the beginning of the year you blocked User talk:203.177.74.141 - please re-block.--Technopat (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. If IP can't be blocked right away, at least it's being monitored. --Technopat (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace

By all means, re-add the text, although it could be edited a bit (maybe "You should check that the user has made harmful edits since their last warning – the user must be given a chance to see and react to each warning given.") I just wanted to shorten up the intro, which seems to have gotten into the WP:TLDR range, and that caveat seemed self-evident to me, but if your admin experience says otherwise, I defer. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 19:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Empire Bay

Hi Kralizec! This is very kind of you but I honestly think I did little to deserve it. Mjroots did all the work; I just turned up because of my Middlesbrough-spelling obsession, and fiddled with that a bit. Even so, I would hate to reject a kind gesture, so thanks! Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You have been trouted for: Doing a good job and blocking that IP. Also I just felt like it.

List of countries by Muslim population

Ecuador appears twice on the list...

I know I should have left a comment, sorry for this

Best regards

--Laurentleap (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have received your message, but I am currently swamped by midterms. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection for 2009 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team

Hi, you recently added temporary page protection for this article.[58]. Within a few hours of DumbBOT removing the pp-vandalism tag, the article was again vandalized with the same WP:PEACOCK informal language as before. The legitimate updates are mostly being done by established editors. Could we go for a longer protection period? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Deletion of Satan's Cheerleaders Entry

I was looking on Wiikpedia for information on the Satan's Cheerleaders, who were go go dancers with the Flametrick Subs in Austin Texas for twelve years, and have performed with national acts and have a international following. They have a lot of cultural and musical significance, and I am not sure why the article was deleted. Thanks!

05:42, 27 April 2008 Kralizec! (talk | contribs) deleted "The Satan's Cheerleaders" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannalaura (talk • contribs)

Earth Song - article protection

Hi. You protected the article Earth Song from 'excessive vandalism' (a bit of an exaggeration) after a hypocritical (not an exaggeration) plea from Pyrrhus16, a very active contributor who may be incapable of adopting a NPOV towards to any article relating to Michael Jackson. The circumstances of the BRIT awards incident are well documented and were properly referenced in the Earth Song article before deletions by Pyrrhus16. The awards incident should not be portrayed on Wikipedia as if written by a fan of one or other of the parties involved. Thanks.

Constant vandalism and disruption

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik (talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63] He and Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim (talk · contribs) is him.

Rangeblock request

You just blocked 58.8.240.243 (talk · contribs) as a vandal-only account. Within minutes, 58.8.15.238 (talk · contribs) became active and started the same edits. Can you possibly do a rangeblock? The use of multiple IPs is stopping us from reverting due to 3RR. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection just expired, and the anon came back with another IP address: 58.8.1.171 (talk · contribs). Singularity42 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati link

Could u resolve this dispute about this link in the illuminati page ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati#External_links

http://nexus23.org/warfare/content/view/799/38/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp4rt4n (talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism user warning escalations and protocols

Hi Kralizec,

I accidentally erred in repeating the last Level 4 warning for User:24.173.92.65, but, respectfully, since that individual went out of his/her way to commit three specific acts of vandalism on Language Interpretation, two of which defamed named individuals who were the object of his/her scorn, a single bot generated Level 1 warning was wholly insufficient. Each instance of vandalism warrants a response, especially in this case where many Level 1 warnings were issued to that account in the previous month. The anti-vandalism bot software, and frequently other individuals who keep reissuing Level 1 warnings, are allowing miscreants to excessively vandalize Wikipedia to the detriment of all legitimate users worldwide. In that context, multiple warnings for a vandalism spree are more that justified.

Vandalism patrol is an incredibly dubious activity which consumes countless hours that would be better devoted to article creation and improvement and other project work; however its currently necessary in order to preserve what we have jointly create and value –the frustrating cost of a system which does not properly address vandals. In my view its better to place a fence at the top of a cliff (i.e.: effective anti-vandal protocols and registration procedures), rather that an ambulance at the bottom (a/v patrol and cleanups, which collectively consume many thousands of hours). I fully support Wikipedia being a "....free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but not "a free encyclopedia that any vandal can abuse." Kindly help convey this philosophy to other Wikpedians, Admins and SysOps. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, further to your last query, similar to the above, User::207.81.157.1 committed two separate acts of vandalism to Fax, warranting two user warnings. Please also keep in mind that this is a vandalism only account -every edit has been vandalism since its creation, and I believe that was also reported when I requested a block. If that vandal was blocked, it should have been on the basis of his/her being a vandalism only account; the fact that one warning was 18 hours late I find to be somewhat irrelevant. Lets fully document a vandals negative actions in order to reduce and eliminate their impact on Wikipedia. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kralizec!, you stated on my talk page: "This is incorrect, as WP:WARN states (emphasis mine), "you should check that the user has made harmful edits since their last warning – the user must be given a chance to see and react to each warning given." — Kralizec! (talk) 11:14 am, Today (UTC−5)". Would you not agree that WP's procedures are in need of updating regarding vandalism sprees and vandalism-only accounts? I believe those instances warrant aggressive responses different from an occasional sloppy edit or a curious youngster experimenting with the edit process; after doing a/v patrol for several months its easy to spot the difference between the two types. WP's protocols need to be updated to address such issues, would you concur on that? I shall pay more attention to the specifics of wp:warn, however I would ask that you also look into helping WP evolve into a more user-friendly experience which also properly addresses anti-social behaviours. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, more attention can be paid to wp:warn. Can you forgive me for being bold? HarryZilber (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrianBeahr

Heh, seems we both concluded they've outstayed their welcome. I did just leave them the wrong talkpage message though - one of those days :) EyeSerene^talk 12:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help required!

Hi,

I want following images to be deleted:

They had been uploaded by me. Some how I mistook the copyright status of these files. As up-loader of those files I give you info that they are copyrighted by Government of India & can't be used as such. I have placed "no permission" tag on these files.

Please help, by deleting them.

Thanks, --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 07:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Kralizec! (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 18:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking 38.116.200.85

It was bound to happen anyway. I suppose I can just wait for February. -38.116.200.85temp (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shia Islam Stat Change

Dear fellow Wiki-er...

I am from the Sultanate of Oman, and i know that there are definitely no more than 50,000 followers of the Shia sect of Islam. The only people who practice this sect are members of the Lawat family, (see:Al-Lawati.), and the Lawats are only 20,000 people, tops 30,000, add another 20 to 30 thousand people to the figure just to be a bit generous, and you get the total figure of around 50,000 followers of the Shia Religion in the Sultanate of Oman.

Just for the record, the number which was given before I made the change did not cite the number, I simply changed the number because it was extremely off.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.166.196 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message you left on my talk page [64]. Actually the entire table of Shia populations is directly sourced and cited to the Pew Research Center's October 2009 report Mapping the Global Muslim Population. The Omani figures are listed on page 13. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC) (original reply [65] copied from User talk:85.154.166.196)[reply]

Rolback!

Thanks, Kralizec!, I watch pages I edit and do my best to stamp out vandalism when I see it, so it feels nice that someone noticed. I really appreciate your rollback offer; I'll make sure I use it on the side of good! -Glenfarclas (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question

How would The Word Alive be a hot potato issue sir? --Łoshɢooþii ^T.C. 16:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to be perfectly honest, it is because music notability issues are not exactly my cup of tea. So while I think the new version meets criteria #2 of WP:MUSICBIO, I am not sure the listed sources would meet the WP:RS requirement for "reliable, third-party, published sources." Although I am leaning toward unprotection, that still may not save a re-created article from being sent to AfD again because of the sourcing issue. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Careful; you deleted my talk page warning, unread.

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:66.166.183.7, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or shared IP header templates (for unregistered editors). However, it should be noted that these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I see you not only removed the old warnings, you also removed the new one I had added, and the IP has probably never seen. Because I was referring to them elsewhere, and had already just added a note to the IP's page, I thought it appropriate to restore the warnings. But I could have referred to the page history instead, and thereby avoided any possible feather ruffling. But your reversion of my warning was totally inappropriate. I assume it was in error you'll correct when you read this.--Elvey (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. My eyes are playing tricks on me, it seems. :-)

Thanks for Deathstrike

Thank you for granting my request to protect Lady Deathstrike. --Spidey104^contribs 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nothing. This is not an edit dispute but a bunch of guys not able to do simple text searches. See the article /Talk. --91.55.214.168 (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Please admit your mistake, embarrassing as it may be, and fix the article. Thanks. --91.55.214.168 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a coincidence or...?

You chose to semi-protect the article for 50 Cent's newest album Before I Self Destruct for six weeks starting tonight. Well coincidentally that's the rest of the year pretty much! Thanks anyway. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's up?

Why did you leave references of my discussion of someone on the committee to help? I thought it was suppose to be private. Are you following me around? I generally want to know Roger Zoel (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Wikipedia is private. You are accountable for every action. Toddst1 (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vandalism

I just thought you might want to know that I reverted some derogatory comments on User talk:38.116.200.85 by that blocked user. Disable talk page? Thanks, Tom A8 UDI 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team1525 image uploads

I just finished deleting all of the duplicate images and reverting all of the changes in that pointless renaming scheme. The account is probably heading for a block due to sockpuppetry. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

al-Bassa

Hi, a short while ago you semi-protected al-Bassa for 24 hours against a persistent banned user. Unfortunately he/she is much more persistent than that and is back again. Can you please semi-protect it for a much longer time, say a month? Thanks. Zero^talk 06:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Aquaria in North Carolina

I have nominated Category:Aquaria in North Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. RadioFan (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias

Thanks for the help in protecting my talk page! Dayewalker (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who told you that i'm a famed photographer?

Who are you aslan who are you to talk in that way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psamtik 1 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psamtik 1 uploads

Hello. Just saw/edit conflicted with your note to Psamtik 1 (talk · contribs · logs) and wanted to let you know that I have already started deleting any of his images that have watermarks and/or obviously invalid licenses. Depending on his response to either of our messages, I suspect that we may need to delete everything he has uploaded. Your thoughts? — Kralizec! (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just gone through deleting all the obvious image copyvios and tagging the rest, it may be worth noting that quite a few of the images had been previously uploaded (using the exact same license verbage) by Ramsso (talk · contribs · logs) and/or Ahmad Soliman (talk · contribs · logs). Also, not that there was much doubt, but the proof of duplicity from Psamtik is in the images themselves; in File:Giza 7.jpg he states "I (Marwa Morgan) created this work entirely by myself," while in File:Port Said 29.jpg he claims to be "Waleed Montaser" and in File:Shobra Kheima 1.jpg he is "Alaa Awaad." — Kralizec! (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think from your and my investigation it's clear what has happenned and all of the images should be deleted. I will look later today as we either have some friends all following the same silly path, or sock accounts that may need blocking (Ramsso is already blocked). - Peripitus (Talk) 00:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your way is a good solution here. That said, I've just mass deleted about 150 (using the scary tool Special:Nuke) and the rest may as well stay in the current queues. I have seen many uploader's like this who did get the message, and when I've revisited months down the track had not started again so there is much hope. Always better to create an editor than otherwise. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC). Thne again I may have just deleted them all - I got a "This site is experiencing trouble" message and thought it had stopped short. Peripitus (Talk) 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Rainwater Tank

Hi. On the 6th you advised me, via my IP talk page, not to remove content citing an edit to Rainwater Tank. Since neither I nor the sole other user of this IP recalls even visiting this page (confirmed by a check of browser history) can I check whether it was actually my IP. Just in case someone has breached my network security to...vandalise articles on water tanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.195.71 (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit war by Das Ansehnlisch

Your old adversary is at it again. User talk:Das Ansehnlisch is edit warring concerning content he is trying to change in the Past Masters (The Beatles albums) by removing critical details essential to the article about the songs in this compilation double album. Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi 1997/Peppa Pig

I disagree that the user was inappropriately warned. If you look at the first bout of vandalism 26 November, the initial vandalism was reverted by A man alone. Five minutes later Naomi 1997 vandalised the page again, which was again reverted by A man alone. Naomi 1997's edits added spurious names to the cast list,clearly malicious in nature, and part of a definite pattern of similar vandalism to this page for many months. It seemed pointless adding multiple warnings in response to repeated vandalism in a single incident, especially when Naomi 1997 had so quickly reverted A man alone's revert, so I added a 4im. That the same user has now returned to the same page and made substantially similar vandal edits in many respects justifies that level of warning. I would be interested, however, to hear how you think they should be warned this time around - or indeed retrospectively amending the initial warning - in any way that would have any effect on preventing them from returning and making similar vandal edits in future? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs

Thank you for protecting the article. Would you do what I can not, and double check the population number--I think the article may be locked in the vandalized state. Many thanks--I've watched long -term edit wars over this, admittedly, rather trivial issue, which strikes me as unfortunate, for all that it symbolizes. Thanks again, 99.155.206.57 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

letting no good deed go unpunished..

This was quite amusing to me. tedder (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I found it humorous as well, and hope that my follow-up request above not be viewed as querulous....so much as pedantic. As much as possible, I just want to get it right. Cheers, 99.155.206.57 (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure films

Hi Krazlizec! I think you were looking at an old redirect of the list of adventure films when I was requesting protection. Could you check that out again? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Umm..has the block been activated for the 2000s page yet? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the welcome!

Thanks for the welcome, it is good to be back. Interesting interface (beta). I am rather used to the old, but lets face it, it is about the tools capabilities, not the way it looks.

Thanks again for the welcome.

Lance Strzok (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 68.196.93.32

It might be worth reviewing the block on 68.196.93.32 (talk). The only edits were on a talk page (not the article) and the statements reflect what is being reported on MSNBC. (I don't think the 4im issued by Elizabeth Bathory was justified either.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know ... I agree with you completely. As such, I have unblocked and apologized to the IP [66]. Thank you for bringing the issue to my attention! — Kralizec! (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I suspect those who are trying to maintain the article are dealing with a lot of frustration from all the chatter on the talk page – close to 500 edits in the last several hours. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thank you for pointing it out, which I've corrected only minutes after I wrote it, thanks to you.

That clarification changes things a bit. It's not that only 10 people support Mr. Weber but that he does support some candidates, albeit only a few.

I've asked him to not push the limits and asked others to have a clarity period in January 2010 because this is such a huge mess now. If Mr. Weber refuses the clarity period, that will only harm his case. If he accepts it, it will make it easier for others to assess the situation. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:P

HAH! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Wiki Greek Basketball

I understand you blocked him for 31 hours, but is it just me or does this sound like a legal threat? I'm not sure but he is surely not getting the point here. Also could this seem like an unintended threat to other users? Momo san ^Gespräch 15:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first is not clear and could easily refer to a RfC or even making a complaint to ArbCom. The second can probably be attributed to the frustration of being blocked. Personally I tend to have pretty thick skin about these things, and recognize that people often need to blow off some steam when they are blocked. However the key is venting now, not later when he or she is no longer blocked. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I thought it did sound that way but I guess I was misunderstood about ArbCom. I guess he was frustrated too much, looks like he won't be back for a while, Time for him to take a Christmas break as it's already been done. Happy Holidays. Momo san ^Gespräch 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

Hi, sorry for not signing my new post on that page; I normally do, but I'm not at my own computer for the next 10 days. Instead I'm using a laptop with a dogy keyboard; it keeps dropping letters and occasionaly moving back along the line. Plus it's got MS IE6 which is nowhere near as good as Mozilla Firefox3.0 in its handling of CSS; things get hidden (the ast two lines o every page get hidden by the category box) and I've occasionally kind-of assumed that if I can't see something, it is in fact there. Sorry --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing

This isn't vandalizing. Stop pretending like you own everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.216.145 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiking

Hi, you blocked Kiking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24h due to his uploading of images without licenses. He started up again after your block expired this morning... thought you ought to know. Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 10:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I went ahead and indefinitely blocked the account, then speedily deleted all obvious image copyvios. Any images we are not sure about will need to follow the standard process. Thanks again, — Kralizec! (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something a little weird

There is something weird about this. This was an IP you blocked back in November, the IP is not blocked and it's still showing at the top that the user is blocked. Not sure whats up with that. Momo san ^Gespräch 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a hiccup in the system, as the IP's 55 hour block would have expired by November 15th. Despite what the header says, the IP obviously is not currently blocked. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]