User talk:Kralizec!/Archive 2010

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) 23:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Bsherr's talk page.
Message added 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

I have replied again.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Taelus'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 HJ Mitchell'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 Immunize'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 Dusti's talk page.
Message added 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^SPEAK!! 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 00:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^SPEAK!! 00:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Bsherr's talk page.
Message added Bsherr (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Tcncv'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 The ed17'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 Mr. Berty's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Userfy Daybreak (folk) Request

Hi, I saw you listed here. Could you please userfy the deleted Daybreak (folk) for me? I need to add the notability info that would have kept if from being deleted in the first place. If it doesn't go there automagically, User:J Clear/Daybreak (folk) seems like a good place to put it. Thanks. --J Clear (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Now where did that stack of round tuits get to? --J Clear (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What happens with the old edit history? Unrecoverable? Magically comes back when moved to (Article) space? Wait until you recover it, too? Sorry if I'm being a pest, but this is my first attempted resurrection. --J Clear (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I will definitely holler with questions. In the meantime, could you also look at two other Oklahoma artists? One is TIMOTHY LONG and the other M.J. ALEXANDER. I also have many more to do and appreciate feedback.

Thanks again,

BLACKMESADANCERZ

P.S. Please forgive my lack of wikistyle...

Blackmesadancerz (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 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) 03:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your help with the anonIP "men" astronaut vandals! Doniago (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim Irwin article

Ah, I just read the article, I didn't see any explicit vandelism, why is it locked?--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. I was wondering what was happening to the articles that dealt with Apollo 15's crew. Thank you for being vigilant on this.--Abebenjoe (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Soxpertise

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
Message added 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your sockpuppet expertise is needed... -MBK₀₀₄ 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not over, and it never will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.215.214 (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
Message added 02:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 02:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This looks lovely: Kral!zec- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needless to say I have blocked indefinitely for block evasion as well as impersonation of you. Another CU might be in order. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse protection

Thank you for your prompt attention to my request for protection for this article. I am, however, wondering why it didn't get full protection as requested. I've been watching this article for years, seen it go through many changes, and it has been under constant attack from vandals. Semi-protecting it for 10 days isn't going to stop them, unfortunately. I know it isn't a very important article in the grand scheme of things, it isn't The Red Sox or anything, but it's important to me, and to many other people whose lives have been touched, damaged, ruined, even, by these churches. That the article stays intact is so important, and only full protection can guarantee that. Anyway, thank you for locking it up so quickly! o0pandora0o (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it then possible to have permanent semi-protection? Keep the anonymous vandals and the non-autoconfirmed from being able to edit? Because they won't give up, they will come back. 82.2.31.240 and 81.138.10.158 have already proven that they will come back after one semi-protect to vandalize. It's possible that, given that their IP addresses are in the UK, and close to the location of Bethel, they may be current members vandalizing with a purpose. So.. Is permanent semi-protection possible? -o0pandora0o (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good deal. Thank you for your patience and time! :) o0pandora0o (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hello again! Looks like they're going to bring up the "Tyre" crap again. The article was written in such a way so that the whole Tyre shop/Tire shop argument could be put to bed. It was hashed out and settled way back in the archives. I don't know if you want to wait and see if they do it again, but last time they went after the article trying to add Tyre in, they kept at it. I know it's just a tiny little niggling thing, but it had been decided upon and finished when Cirt finished the article... Thanks!! o0pandora0o (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, they did it again today. o0pandora0o (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I want to edit religion of Serbs in the right box

I think it should be:

Serbian Orthodox, Roman Catholic (mostly in Dalmatia and Slavonia in present-day Croatia), Muslim (mostly in Raska and Bosnia and Herzegovina), Atheism

Since it is the truth, although today they are mostly declared Croats and Bosniaks, it is not true that they are not Serbs. It is the non-recognition of them as Serbs by Orhodox Serbs which led to their seccesion from their Serbian identity, and the subsequent loss of Serb territory including Dubrovnik, large chuncks of BiH, parts of Kosovo, as they assimilated into Albanians, instead being of Muslim Serbs, which they were.

Also, there is an Atheist population among Serbs, which is about equal to Catholics and Muslims in Serbia separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelja87 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 17 January 2010

Thank you for the message you left on my talk page [1]. Unfortunately given the massive amounts of edit warring and POV-pushing that have happened at the Serbs article, I must decline to lift the page protection early. However if you would like to see something changed, you should feel free to bring it up for discussion on the article's talk page. That said, please note that as per official Wikipedia policy, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (original reply [2] copied from User talk:Zelja87)

Re: Jay Chou

Sorry for making a threat to that page and person, and i understand i had mistaken about JeremyA. --Frontier95 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins

As soon as the unprotection was lifted, it started getting hit again :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Will you stop back by here and see if you feel protection should be returned? Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And you are...?

One would presume you're the ghost of User:William M. Connolley!  : |

1. PERSISTENT disruptive editing? PERSISTENT? (OK, you're probably not Connolley's ghost, because he wasn't that nonsensical.)

2. NO opportunity to appeal the block?

3. NO opportunity to make a comment at the IP-address page?

Dude, zealous prosecution and lax judgment make for piss-poor Wiki-justice. Put down the gavel and hang up the robe. Because you belong down at the end of the bench (by the water cooler).

68.50.128.120 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Random SPI clerk

Hi, sorry, not sure if I formatted the report correctly on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiuser999120 or added it to WP:SPI right... do you think you could take a quick look? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 12:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Spitfire (talk · contribs) assisted me in the end... thanks for your attention, though! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, genuinely, not to worry, it's all fine now! The account in question pleaded WP:BROTHER (groan) which simplified things rather...! ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion close

Hi again. As you are an administrator, I was wondering if you could act as a neutral party and close the move discussion at Talk:Fushigi Yūgi#Requested move, since if the consensus is to move, it would require an administrator to perform it? Thanks, -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User

Please review User:Ajraddatz for repeated vandalism from User talk:65.39.66.203, a previously warned user IP. Red3biggs (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I went ahead and blocked the IP for a week. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Watch Yourself

What you reap, you will also sow..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.232.168 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My worthy opponent, Since you have repeatedly disrupted my logical edits you leave me no choice. Since you have seemed to block the astronaut pages for a month, then I will resort to better methods of editing so that the most acurate truth can be told. It doesn't matter how much you edit Kralizec, I will always be here, and I have found my next series of articles to fix. Before this is over you will have to completely lock those from ALL editing if you don't want them "tampered with", or perhaps you will be banned..... 130.18.232.179 (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Not Gayle Nuffer

Indeed. Meet my friend WP:RBI. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Favour?

Hey there, How's things, hope yer OK? I've been out of touch with admin duties for quite a time, having been only keeping my eye on the CERN and LHC issues. Could you have a look at the contributions of User:Ironboy11, he created a poorly worded category, but looking through hi contributions, I'm seeing a few unusual re-direct moves, like something is trying to be covered up. Could you have a look as I can't suss it out please? Many thanks. ^Khukri 07:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mborromeo

I have unblocked Mborromeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have come to the conclusion that he was editing in good faith. He appears to be capable of doing good editing if he is patient. Please assist him in any way you can. Fred Talk 17:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Abu Kalam Azad

Good evening dear Kralizec,

I want to complain about some Users who vandalize many articles on Wikipedia and push their own POV´s on them. Some of them are Users like User:Ketabtoon who begin to edite all articles that is somehow related with Afghanistan, it´s people or culture, despite he has no knowledge about Afghanistan and it´s history. If you look on his contributions, you will see that he is always pushing unsourced and unreliable datas on articles and delete scientific and reliable sources, mostly scholarely. Be it about Ghurids, Persian language, Afghanistan, Ghaznavids or Tajiks and many more. He corrupts many articles which is a break of Wikipedia´s law (f.ex. here 1 or 2, 3 only three of many hundred of examples). He was many times reported but somewho he still occur on Wikipedia, although all his edites were banned by many Admins. The further point is, that he is known for beeing an ultra-nationalist Pashtun from Pakistan, who do not accept western, mostly scholaric and objective sources, except sources were terms like Afghan are used, so he can jump up and use it in a wrong context. For example as for Ghaznavids or Ghurids he was keeping the term for Pushtuns, while the term Afghan was used in Britannica for the Tajik people of modern Afghanistan who are also known by the law of Afghanistan as Afghans. He makes use of this point to claim and falsify all articles about culture, history, languages, countries etc. I ask you, as a member of the Admin-Team of Wikipedia and as a represant who is doing this job to provide the world the knowledge it needs, to do something against him. He and the User:119.73.4.199 (who is a banned User and a sock of many banned accounts; User:Khampalak, User:NisarKand etc.) are known for working with eachother. All edites of both Users are not only similar, but to 100% exactly the same, the kind of their writings and the kind how they push their POV´s and even the choise of their not reliable sources. As I mentioned they work together...or User:Ketabtoon is a sockpuppet of NisarKand, User:Khampalak etc. Wikipedia would be exonarated when the Admins would block and ban them from editing. As long Wikipedia accept them, articles will turn to slippery goods on Wikipedia and lose their accurate values.

For ca. 1 year ago, I was reading an article about Abul Kalam Azad, an Indian Muslim politician of Tajik origine. However, the article was using the term Afghan to tie him with Afghanistan, since his ancestors were from Herat, Afghanistan, a Persian/Tajik city. I was looking for sources on library and on the Net to exchange the term Afghan with Perian (Tajik). When I found them, I used a few of them. But some days later, the article was falsified by the User:119.73.4.199 and User:Ketabtoon from Persian to Pashtun, but not even back to Afghan (see on the state definition of Afghan, citizen), as you can see here. He claimed that the term Afghan mean Pashtuns and not Tajik. He did not want to understand the term was used to tie him with Afghanistan, as Britannica and other not scientific and reliable sources do, when it comes to regional heritage or origine of someone or something. For Abul Kalam Azad, I had the following sources where it was stated the person´s Persian origine:

http://www.bharatadesam.com/people/biographies/freedom_fighters/maulana_abul_kalam_azad.php

1. India Wins Freedom; Orient Longman Book-Institute
2. ^ Die politische Willensbildung in Indien 1900-1960; 1965, von Dietmar Rothermund
3. ^ http://www.whereincity.com/india/great-indians/freedom-fighters/maulana-abul-kalam.php His mother was an Arab and the daughter of Sheikh Mohammad Zaher Watri and his father, Maulana Khairuddin, was a Bengali Muslim of Afghan (Tajik) origine. Khairuddin left India during the Sepoy Mutiny, proceeded to Mecca and settled there. He came back to Calcutta

The last source give in addition to the term Afghan as someone who comes from modern-day Afghanistan, his national ethnicity. But it is even interesting to see that User:Ketabtoon uses the same sources that grip on his Tajik ancestory for his Pashtun origine click here. They just jump over the sources and the sourced terms and exchange them with no opponent sources. I want to ask you, if you can give me the permission to correct the falsified paragraph in the article. I appreciate every help from your side. I am going to create an account for myself on Wikipedia and I would thank you very much if I could stand near to you. With best regards, dear friend--94.219.218.209 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR — Kralizec! (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rico402 swindler-boy

This teenager swindler alias "Rico402" uses the identity of an other existing person. It is crime in every countries. This boy doesn't know the very basics of electricity. Please don't support the crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.143.2 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why banned user Celebration1981 chose to trash me on this Talk page (using yet another IP to sock), but here he is. Why he thinks I'm using "the identity of an other existing person" is beyond me. I had an ongoing dialog with him for over a year -- originally as Stears81 (08-08-10 to 08-11-21) and various anon IPs -- before he was finally banned for violations too numerous too mention. Since then he's been using a string of anon IPs to sock, requiring admins to protect various articles. I invite you delete the above post and my reply at your discretion. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely THIS can't be acceptable: "User:Anti-rico"!! Talk about personal attacks. Rico402 (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved ("indefinitely blocked") by Rdm2376. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey discography

Can you please semi-protect the singles one too please, annoying vandalism by Ip's!. Also can you not permanently semi-protect them because it was semi-protected before the discography split. Jayy008 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. However next time I might suggest making a separate request at WP:RFPP, rather than putting multiple requests in the same line. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal request

Would you mind fully protecting my talk page for a few hours or so? I've asked another admin to stop posting there several times and it's getting out of hand. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to, but fear it would not be an appropriate use of my tools. However if I could make an alternative suggestion ... log out for the rest of the day and enjoy a walk in a local park. When WikiDrama starts to drive me nuts, I do this myself and find that it works wonders for putting things into perspective. Good luck! — Kralizec! (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Queen (band)

Hi. Why did you semi-protect the Queen (band) article? I see there was a request from Will1i6am, a new user who hasn't actually contributed to this article. But there is no recent vandalism of any significance on the article. There has been heavy editing of late, and a few differences in opinion, but certainly nothing that you could call vandalism or even edit warring. But consensus is being attained and overall edits have been constructive.

It makes little difference to me, but I can't help wondering what motivated this user to request protection on a page that doesn't have a problem. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Charvet

I wrote several times to Racconish telling him that his reference to Hugo Chavez ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Charvet_customers ), President of the Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, is based on false information, as appeared in an obscure Peruvian newspaper ( http://www.elregionalpiura.com.pe/editoriales/opiniones/miguelgodos/art_2006/godos_gorila.htm ). This article is defamatory and should't be used as a reference in Wikipedia.

This article about Charvet customers was proposed for deletion on November 2008 for beign not encyclopedic.

This article is being used right now (January 2010) for attacking President Chavez. An article in Wikipedia cannot use references with defamatory information.

As stated in Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can seriously affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with great care and strict adherence to our content policies ...

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone...

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections...

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. "

I think these rules support my objections about this reference to President Hugo Chavez.

Odalcet (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussed here. Racconish ^Tk 17:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

seven wonders of the world

What is it about that article which draws such weird edits? It must get assigned in school classes a lot ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Seven Wonders of the Ancient World revert query - sorry - my mistake. I was tired and was reverting a whole lot of vandalism by an unregistered user. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you help with photos?

Could you help to illustrate National Register of Historic Places listings in Lucas County, Ohio? We at WP:NRHP need badly pictures for the Toledo area (including outside Lucas County), and I (as the only project member in western Ohio) have no chance to get up to the Toledo area. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, except for Henry County (it has just four sites, all of which I got in September; it was the only trip I've ever taken to Henry, Fulton, or Williams counties), all the Toledo metropolitan area counties are lacking plenty of pictures. There's nothing specific that I'd like to ask you to photograph; it's just a request to consider getting pictures for any and every site when you have the chance. I'd guessed that you were in Lucas County after seeing your comment at WP:AN about the NPR predictions of Wikipedia becoming too big, at which you remarked about WGTE-FM being your local public radio; I guessed Lucas County simply because its population is so much larger than that of any surrounding county. Thanks for the reply! Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 04:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Hello K, I'm a bit uncertain about the dos and don'ts of redirect and I'm just curious about something here → is this kind of redirect allowed~? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Cross-namespace redirects are frowned upon, and often get deleted as per WP:R#DELETE. Personally I tend not to get very excited about them, especially since it looks like the editor in question had been doing article development in his or her namespace [3]. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for sorting the whole messy details for me, I understand it better now. And no, I do not see any problem with the editor in question, only just curious about the strange redirect. If it was really an issue, I would tell him/her nicely about the potential problem of it all. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete an article

Hello,

I would like to candidate or to add to speed deletion an article under the name "Vojvodina Academy of Sciences and Arts" because there is a complete article about this matter under a name "VANU-Vojvodinian academy of sciences and art" and there is no need for both to exist. Thank you in advance. Greetings iadrian (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re

LOL. Maybe popular with the vandals. Not the type of attraction I would want ;) --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 05:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Hello, can you tell me please how can i report a user that makes inaccurate edits even if there are many references and sources that say otherwise ? And none that supports his point of view. Thank you.

The article i am talking abut is VANU(Vojvodinian academy of sciences and art) , i am having some kind of an edit war with one user. Can you please review the situation and take the necessary action. I don`t know if it is my or his fault, i just want this problem to be solved because i put some effort in creating this page and i don`t want the first person who comes to ruin it without any sources or proof of any kind while ignoring all the sources and references i presented on the article.

If not, please tell me how to solve this kind of problems.Thank you in advance. iadrian (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New Wikipedia

Hi Kralizec

I am contributing in the running test Wikipedia of Tarifit Berber [4], my question is: Is there any section in Wikipedia where I can learn advanced editing of Wikipedia pages (tables, colors, alignment, fonts)?

Thanks

--Ayt Buyafar (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks

thanks man. --Ayt Buyafar (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Goten

Goten real World Content

-In music, the song "Chīsa na Senshi~Goten to Trunks no Theme~" by Shin Oya focuses on both Trunks and Goten.

-Appearnce as Playble character (Jump stars series)

-Appearance in japenese school supply commercials

Main character

-Majin buu

-Frieza

-Cell

All three of these character have only made one saga appearnces an are main character? wrong Goten has Been through mulitple sagas an actual series through DBZ an DBGT an is a Primary Character of Dragonball series. an has far more important parts then any of the 3 characters above, an is also the only character in the DB series to be on the cover of Dezinshuu alone (Besides Goku)

Necessary Changes

-Goten - Article- Help me out

-Goten main character- place Goten in Main characters, an remove secondary characters like cell an majinbuu

Hey my name is sal an i was wondering if you could help me out with this

(Salito149 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

Bigfoot

Hello - can you send me to some of the bigfoot protection history? I really need to see. I have nothing better to do. Is there a protection log? - I don't know how see such a log. I do see that over 500 people have bigfoot on their watch list. Thanks! 99.150.255.75 (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Extremly Bad Language and Racism

Hi Fellow editor, I have issued this warning, here. I have lifted the language from his comments. This is really really bad language and extremly racist, in the Punjabi language. I feel somewhat embarrassed that a fellow Punjabi has used such language. I recommend that this user be reported to the University of Washington, where this originates. Such racism should not be tolerated. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

BL 8 inch Mk VIII naval gun

Thank you for the kind words about my article. I appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia by undertaking administrator responsibilities.Thewellman (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

fyi

User talk:162.129.251.18 (whom you had just blocked) is at it again.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

and again.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another admin blocked the IP while I was off the past couple of days. Please let me know if you run into any other issues with this anonymous editor. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Return of sockpuppets?

I see you must get hundreds of such reports, but it appears another sockpuppet may have appeared, this time one of Msa1701 (talk · contribs). I've explained in a little more detail here, if you wanted to give your opinion? Benea (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bethel Church Article again

Hello again. The Bethel Church article is being tweaked again. Back when Cirt was writing it, there was discussion about one of the pastors in Connecticut's business, Sam Wibberley Tire. Cirt had originally wrote that Sam owned a tire shop, and someone came along and changed it to tyre, in keeping with the UK spelling. After some discussion, Cirt ended up just writing that Sam owned a business named Sam Wibberley Tire, and left it at that. Since then, people had been coming in and adding in that it was a tyre business. Up until you put the semi-protect on, I had been taking the "tyre" back out. And now there is Qaysie who is putting "tyre" back in. I've been taking it back out, but jeez. It was all hashed out, back on the Discussion page, which is now in the archives. I don't know. Can we block Qaysie, or warn them, or something? o0pandora0o (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Now there's Donald VX pulling the same shenanigans. He was doing this before you had put the semi-protect on. o0pandora0o (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, FDJoshua22, award you this barnstar for preventing vandalisms at the article The 39 Clues. Keep up the good work! FDJoshua22 (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mandelson

Hi, lots of vandalism at the mandy article and the election is coming up there is only going to be more partisan vandalism, would you extent the semi protection for another month or even two please as that will keep it stable. Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Transformation fetish

I don't particularly disapprove of the protection, but this article was not subject to vandalism - I think edit warring is a more appropriate term. Both sides appear to be acting in good faith to try and improve Wikipedia, they just have differing views on what "improvement" is. GreenReaper (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal

With all respect, I, and other OTRS agents (volunteer email response team members) which answer emails to that address have expressed that we emphatically do not want those types of emails, nor are we equipped to handle in the way that template encourages them. It is difficult to see how the consensus driven process can effectively determine what type of emails we can or want to handle. You might not define it as urgent, but the queues are made larger by emails that we really don't desire, for reasons specified on that talk page. I don't understand how this is hard? Warm regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Friend, consensus does not dictate what emails we are willing to handle. The proper way to contact OTRS is the contact us page. Do not tell blocked users if they feel legal action is warranted, to contact us, we don't want that. This is one of those areas you are going to have to use common sense, Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kralizec!. NonvocalScream asked me to take a look at this. I would have to agree with him in this case. I'm not sure if you've ever worked in the info-en OTRS queues, but one of the first things that is stressed to you is not to handle the legal issues. Danny said it well several years ago: "Finally, there are the legal phone calls. These come in two varieties. People I can speak with, understand their problem, and resolve it, and people that I cannot help. Of the latter kind, one good indicator is when people call and say "What is your fax number." I ask them why and they tell me that they are sending us a fax. I tell them I would like to know who they are before theysend us a fax, and they tell me that they do not want to say who they are. I then tell them that I cannot give them our fax number. That is when they identify themselves as a lawyer and they are suing us. As instructed by our own lawyers, I tell them that our fax number can be obtained from our website--we are not obligated to make it easy for people to sue us. The discussion begins." We try to throw all of the legal issues to formal processes so as to reduce the number of complaints we get. NW (Talk) 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning...

I'm not going to insult you by templating your page. But I will say this Sir, you assumption of bad faith here is beyond the pale, and contrary to the principles of our project. Perhaps you should ask me on my talk page if and the context of my request to NW. So... you believe that I went to him and said something like "Go vote for me" "Go support me"... no, I wanted a sanity check. "Could you take a look at this please?" To ever think that an editor is not permitted to ask for a second opinion, or a sanity check outside the wiki, is looking at the world in rose colored glasses. Please retract your accusation, lacking evidence, and assume better of me. For all the work I do...

Consensus or not, we do not handle legal emails. That is not a consensus issue, that is a we really don't handles those, please stop encouraging users to send them issue. Common sense, I thought. I'm not railroading, I'm telling you, wrong queue, wrong type of email. I don't need consensus to tell you, that we don't do those emails. We just don't do those emails.

I never did disruptive canvassing, see my above on that matter. Warm, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tyresome edits at Bethel Church article

I understand you're familiar with the history of disruption at Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse. Another account – Luixxa (talk · contribs) – has appeared to continue in a similar vein. Your intervention would be appreciated. --Ibn (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for Military history Project Coordinator elections open!

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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Lindsey Vonn

Hi, I was just wondering why you felt Lindsey Vonn needed semi protection on BLP grounds. I have the article on my watchlist and have reverted a bit of vandalism on there but I had a look at the history and saw only 5 or 6 acts of vandalism (and some IPs making constructive edits) over the last 4 days, only one of which could be considered potentially defamatory. I wonder if the semi protection is really necessary or am I missing something? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 22:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Is it mandatory to leave a comment in the discussion page when you change a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickramj (talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey there, thanks for the assist with the "Moon Man Sockpuppeteer". That person's certainly tiresome. Doniago (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Be Ready —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.203.8 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

BS

How is it that saying what is in each reference is not a neutral point of view? They all say that it is an urban myth. Not my words, not my opinion, how it is presented at this moment is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.220.249 (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The dark side of the force?

This is weird, according to the log, you semi-protected George Lucas yesterday, but it does not show up in the edit history of the page and the ip who was causing the problem is still able to edit. I'm, going to try again to add the same protection, but I have no clue why it didn't take the first time... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The shows that I protected that article on February 10th, not March 10th.  :-) — Kralizec! (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not very observant this morning am I? Never mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Block

You hardblocked this user however you left {{anonblock}} as the reason, did you mean to hard block and left the wrong message or left the right message but the wrong block settings? Q ^{T C} 23:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One of Gayle's IPs requesting an unblock? Now that is different. Looks like I screwed this block up in more ways than one. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Honda Enoch

I was looking through the unblock requests and came across the above user's request.

I see no SPI on the user or their alleged sockmaster - I was just curious to know why you blocked them as a SP? Am I missing something really obvious (I am a new admin, so I want to learn anything that will help me!)

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

75.147.20.77 on AIV

I reported this user on AIV about 25 minutes ago. Your response was "Re-report once the user has been warned sufficiently". This is incorrect as the user was sufficiently warned. Please reconsider your position on this user. Having an elementary school with plenty of vandalism warnings, already back at vandalizing, it isn't a good position to have and I don't have time or energy to watch over them like a hawk. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/99.239.87.231

Thanks! Dlohcierekim 00:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Person you blocked has come back..

I don't know where else to go with this, but maybe you can point me in the right direction. Back in February, you had blocked Luixxa (talk · contribs) for vandalism of the Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse article, as well as another user's talk page. Well, they're back, and have been messing with my talk page now. They were going by their IP #, 90.204.70.225 (talk · contribs), but decided to create an account to mock me, O0pandor0o (talk · contribs). I had deleted some content from my talk page that they had put there as Luixxa (talk · contribs), and they keep returning to put it back. I had some random help from Kingpin13 (talk · contribs), who undid their edit, but this is just getting silly. I issued a bit of a challenge, and they admitted that they were indeed Luixxa (talk · contribs). So yeah, I'm not sure where to go with this. Since you're the person who blocked them, I'm bringing it to you, but is there a certain place where I ought to be complaining at, officially? Please let me know. Thank you so much for all your help!! -o0pandora0o (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -o0pandora0o (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking articles

I need your help. I can't seem to figure out how to protect articles so that they can only be edited by registered users. Since I see you blocked the Fred Rogers article, I figured that you would probably know. Thanks!-VarietyPerson (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you

Block a user when there was a discussion about their behavior? I'm contesting the block. Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor above (Special:Contributions/69.86.238.39) is pretty clearly User:Ian McGrady, editing while logged out. Ian has edited since the block, so it probably doesn't require undoing. I've left a note on Ian's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Austraki

Why did you delete my page? The term Austraki is real and is used in London. It is not racist in any way and should not percieved to be. Please can you just leave the page alone. It is not a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibby356 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ibby356 / Austraki

You've blocked User:Ibby356 once for disruptive editing. He had apparently posted Austraki, then removed a speedy deletion tag (see his talk page). He's now reposted that article and again removed the tag. I replaced the tag, resulting in the article being deleted by User:Hersfold immediately after I replaced it, but thought you would want to know. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Some members of "hurrchan" seem to be determinedly advertising their site on imageboard, despite no *real* third-party sources to prove they are notable, and repeatedly reverting when the article is corrected. I tried to give them the vandalism warning, the second time for one of them, but to no effect, is there anything you could do about it? Thanks! Chewwy225 (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Armed Forces of Kazakhstan

Please unlock this page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbofet (talk • contribs) 07:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? It is being targeted by someone who insists on adding their preferred links to the article, regardless of the fact that they do not meet our guideline on external links. — Kralizec! (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

THANKS FOR FIXING "Cathy McMorris Rodgers" AND "WASHINGTON STATE"

I am not an editor but like to fix things as I use it. Thanks to you it is correct! I like that as a Wikipedia consumer.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.0.55 (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that 71.114.0.55 is a sock-puppet of banned user User:Fraberj (aka Charles Michael Collins) SteveBaker (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Fresh off a block by you, User:216.45.176.82 is again engaging in ugly vandalism. See [[5]].--Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Oz template.

Hello. Regarding your edit to {{User Australian states and territories visited}}, it seems like most of the "this user has visited provinces/states/territories" templates listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel do have the total number listed. Examples include:

<snip>

In fact, their precedent is what I based {{User Australian states and territories visited}} on when I created the template in 2007. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. Change it to whatever you think best.

However, given that, depending on definition, the total could be 8, 9, 10, 12 or 16, I'd personally suggest not putting any particular total in there.

i.e. I used a bad arguement to justify my edit - I guess I just should have gone to bed an hour or two ago. (I guess it would be wise if I did so now.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer we go with something like "six states and two major mainland territories" ... similar to what is used in the first line of the States and territories of Australia article. That said, I do however rather like your elegant solution to the number issue. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I must quickly acknowledge that the root of the idea was User: Oliver Nouther's - for me to claim sole credit for such an elegant solution would be dishonest.

Anyway. I think it's very convenient that you like that solution, because I think that whatever number you choose for whatever reason, and no matter how eloquently you justify it, somebody will disagree with you.

Using current business jargon, avoiding the issue looks like a good "risk mitigation strategy". Anyone who's interested will click on the box for more information.

And it will avoid problems with people who have visited "11 of the 8" states and territories - after all, can you (more relevantly, do you really want to be in the position of having to) justify why, although they've visited 11 of them, you're only willing to provide a template that acknowledges 8 of them? To me, that sounds like a problem, and a likely-to-be never-ending-discussion that I, personally, would devote considerable effort to avoid being involved in!

In short: Avoiding the issue seems, to me, to be an adequate solution, and seems very much like "the path of least resistance".

But I have the impression that you had already come to that conclusion yourself, anyway.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I liked the anomoly that the original Userbox mentioned 8 States etc and the linked article mentioned many more. We could be specific and limit it to the 8 main states and territories (poor Cocos Island) or leave it open to interpretation. I favour the later. There could be a couple of variations for Users to chose from. Anyway, it is just a user box. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 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) 22:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Jigglyfidders

Hello Kralizec, just stopped by to ask you to reexamine the situation with this editor. You blocked them for disruptive activities a while back and they don't seem to have realized the point, despite numerous attempts in several different ways by several editors to get through to them. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Thanks!

No problem :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Message

I just wanted to apologise for my wrongdoings and thanks for sorting things out. I feel I need to leave so I shouldn't be any more trouble here. I am giving this barnstar as a small token of appreciation.

		The Original Barnstar
		For looking the project and helping thing run smoothly. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 315° 3' 45" NET 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Farewell, Set Sail For The Seven Seas 315° 3' 45" NET 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

OKC Bombing Reward

		The Original Barnstar
		For bringing the minefield of OKC Bombing up to FA status Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to thank you for all of your effort in helping to improve this article and now seeing it on the main page. I'm going to do my best to revert vandalism on here today, but I will likely be unable to assist while at work tomorrow. If you can keep an eye on the page, that'd be great. If not, fortunately it can be fixed later. Thank you again for helping to maintain the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Soy issues

You xxxx zzzzzzz I'll be back on 4/29... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.21.111 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And I was just coming by to see if you would add semiprotection to Soy milk, Silk (soy milk) and textured vegetable protein. Apparently it's not over... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As an FYI, I've re-requested protection for a couple other articles [6], and Excirial was kind enough to oblige. In case you wanted to review. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your follow-up as well. I'm just hoping the anon starts to actually engage in a substantive, rather than accusatory way. The anon has (as above) promised to revisit the issue when protection expires, but that's something to address when it happens. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

True to their word, anon seems to be back; [7] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks, wish it wasn't necessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WIKIPROJECT OKLAHOMA

--Steam Iron 22:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring report

I have reported Canada Jack for edit-warring and your name was mentioned in reference to past conduct. Be advised I did not report you, but your conduct may be questioned as a result.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 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) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:193.62.51.5

Re User talk:193.62.51.5 : Time to issue another block, perhaps a little longer this time. Could you do the honours? The genuine constructive edits to the University of Worcester are made by registered users.--Kudpung (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy of User:Interchange88/Sandbox

I have been referred to you by Beeblebrox to retrieve a copy of User:Interchange88/Sandbox.

You may now send me an email. Thanks for being prompt and friendly!--Interchange88 ☢ 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hocking River at Logan, Ohio

Hocking River at Logan, Ohio <<< where exactly was this picture taken? I live right here in logan and i want to visit that location and check it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.28.10 (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCookies and other awards

I User: Anthony_Morgan_Peters am Officialy Awarding you this WikiCookie Award for providing Excellent service Helping me with my goodfaith yet wrong edit on the redirect of NAR to the article NAU and aptly explaning why it was wrong all while helping me learn something new.

		The Third Opinion Award
		I User: Anthony_Morgan_Peters am Officialy Awarding you The Third Opinion Award for providing Excellent service Helping me with my goodfaith yet wrong edit on the redirect of NAR to the article NAU and aptly explaning why it was wrong all while helping me learn something new.Anthony morgan peters (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC) — Anthony morgan peters (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Shia Muslims in Pakistan

Hello, i understand that you are an admin and you primarily focus on demographic related article and stubs and only accept sources meeting WP:verifiability, but brother the source over here and this link says its 30%, and fulfills both the WP:NEWSBLOG & WP:verifiability requirement you need to understand my claim. According to "Gall, Timothy L. (ed). Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture & Daily Life: Vol. 3 - Asia & Oceania. Cleveland, OH: Eastword Publications Development (1998); pg. 612-614", Pakistan's Shia Muslim population was more then 37 million which is actually a statistical figure of the past two decades. And according to the CIA factbook Pakistani Shia Muslims are more then 20% hence PewForum 10% -15% stats are no where near to the respective 20% and 30% figures. And Pewforum states "Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate estimate", and since Pakistan never really had a census based on sectarian division Pewforum's report is not a Legitimate truth, rather a rough estimate. While Shia Muslims of Pakistan claim to be one third of Pakistan's Muslim Population. You should understand me claim here Talk page. Would please take my reasoning in consideration and kindly mention both facts, all have sources claiming it. While that claim of Shia in Pakistan to be one third of Pakistan, you still think thats a made up number? Please realize this, i am not lying or making stories. Regards! SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am still awaiting your response. Please reply me asap. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

concerning percentage of islam in egypt

Hello,

Concerning the article Islam by country in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

I believe the percent of Muslims in Egypt 96.9% are incorrect. Simply because there any many evidences that prove this percent is very exaggerated. 1 - At first in another article "Christianity In Egypt" the percent of Christians in Egypt is from 10% to 20% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Egypt

If percent of Christians in Egypt is 10% at least, percent of Muslims can't be 96.9%. Please note there is no shared faith. The Religion in Egypt is written in Identification Card. Either Muslim, Christian Or Jewish. That are the allowed Religions there (Some kind of human rights infringes anyway)

2 - Going back to the article mentioned above "Christianity In Egypt". In the article as mentioned Christians are Coptic Orthodox,Coptic Catholic, Evanglecal,etc... Since Coptic Orthodox is the most in numbers lets count on it only. Coptic Orthodox are from 12,000,000 to 16,000,000 people at as mentioned. Other Christian Sects are about 500,000 People as mentioned in the same article. That mean number of Christians in Egypt are from 12,500,000 to 16,500,000. But lets count it on number of Coptic Orthodox only for simplicity.

If the number of Egyptians are 80 Millions (this is mentioned in the same article), the number of Coptic Orthodox Christians only will be from 15% to 20%. That will mean muslims are less than 85% for sure if not 80%.

3 - Similar percentage is mentioned also in another article "Religion In Egypt" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Egypt It is mentioned that number of Christians are from 15% to 20%

4 - Other articles with less percents but more than in wiki article "Islam_by_country" https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html It is estimated that number of Muslims are 90%.

5 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Egypt Estimates the numbers to be 90% muslims

6 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria Number Of Coptic Orthodox are estimated to be 11,000,000 in Egypt There are tones or articles that proves number of Muslims are much less than 94.6%.

7 - http://www.coptsunited.com/Details.php?I=47&A=398 this is article about the different in statistics and debate about it.

At last I'd like to conclude that the numbers of Muslims in Egypt mentioned in the article subjected to controversy are all but correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.238.221.142 (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Islam in Kazakhstan

Hi, I edited the 'Islam by country' page by changing the figures for Kazakhstan. According to [8], Muslim peoples inhabiting Kazakhstan constituted 68,5%: Kazakhs - 63,1% Tatars - 1,3% Uzbeks - 2,8% Uighur - 1,4%

Multiplying the ratio of Muslim peoples (0,68) by the population of Kazakhstan (16,005,000) equals to 1,096,000 Muslims. I'm going to amend the 'Islam by country' page. If you have objections, let me know. Thanks. P.S. Although the population of Muslims in Kazakhstan exceeded 11,000,000 people this year, I am not going to insist on that, as the census has not yet been translated into the English language.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marryagent (talk • contribs) 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) 

I think you should remove "47%" and the link you provided, because the CIA cites the 1999 census. Also, their methodology is not clear. Now don't have anywhere near 30% Russian Orthodox. Much less - 20-25%%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marryagent (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If the table represents data collected by the Pew Reasearch for *2009*, then why are you citing data for *1999*? With such an approach you could cite the data for 1979, when Muslims comprised only 35% of population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marryagent (talk • contribs) 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The data you cite is not even of 1999, but of 1989. "According to the All-Soviet census, there were 7,640,600 Muslims and 8,258,400 Christians" - translate from Russian to English via the Google translator [9].

"By 1999, the percentage of Muslims constituted 60,7% or 9,100,000 people" - translate from Russian to English [10]

If you still don't believe, then you should point to me where it says that the data are of 2009 or show me their methodology. Without methodology, even the CIA is not authoritative. I cannot understand how you can argue with me without even spending a day in Kazakhstan. The ethnic and religious face of Kazakhstan has dramatically changed for the last 10 years. Believe me.--Marryagent (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Looked at the Kazakhstani data in the 'Christianity by country' and it's clear to me that the Muslim numbers are deflated and the Christian numbers are inflated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marryagent (talk • contribs) 13:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed from 65 to 69 before receiving your message.--Marryagent (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, the percentage of Muslims has exceeded 70%, but I leave it up to you to pick 65% or 69%. Whatever. Change it back if you want. P.S. Not only does the CIA deliberately fabricates the US national security reports, but also uses outdated data. HAHAH!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marryagent (talk • contribs) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 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) 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

wrongful edits

Hi, here is a User talk:WKTU who i suspect may have a conflict of interest. Several editors have tried get through to him but he won't listen. Your input would be appreciated.

I am quite positive User:WKTU is a Sunni who is overrepresenting unfairly and unproportionately in favor of boosting figures for his own denomination, for example ;

- He has boosted Sunni proportions on the Sunni Islam article here with obviously bizarre figures where he bundled Shia, Ibadi, and Ahmadiyya altogether make up 10% and Sunni are 90%. (without such reference)

- Here is another instance where he boosts figures for Sunnis while simultaneously DELETING reliable sources giving lower stats.

- User:WKTU this time undermines a wellsourced Shia source here in order to undermine non-Sunni sects.

- He doesn't even leave the map comments alone here and again mentions the superiority of Sunnis with the term 'overwhelming'

- In this edit User:WKTU is showing obvious signs of emotion (with an exclamation mark), whilst falsely proclaiming there are only 2 denominations within Islam in the edit summary.

- Despite the fact this user makes controversial edits, in the edit summary he says here that there is no need for consensus (in his case), even though here he's asking me to do exactly that 1 day later.

You can see his replies to my accusations here

Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All the top sources say Sunnis are approximately in the 90% and below region [11][12][13] so obviously when you meet a Muslim he/she will 90% chances be a Sunni and what's the big deal with that? That's like calling a white man a Christian. This shouldn't be viewed as me boosting one sect over the other. I've researched this subject and I haven't found a single source which would contradict any of the sources (Pew Research Center, Encyclopedia Britannica, University of Oxford or "The Oxford Dictionary of Islam", and others). So now I ask you to please stop your false accusation, and all those edits I've made on Islam's page were done to help and improve Wikipedia.--WKTU (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Grand Lake St. Marys State Park

Thanks for asking me to work on Grand Lake St. Marys State Park. I agree and it does need some work. I can't promise that I will fix it, but I am thinking about it. Dincher (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! The article is a mess. Lots ands lots of copy and paste stuff. I am working on it. Dincher (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Done and nominated for DYK here. I wouldn't get in the water. Dincher (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Dincher (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

They're at it again!

Thought it was over with, but of course, it's not. We have a new person, (or possibly an old sock with a new IP) 79.76.19.209 (talk · contribs) doing pointless edits to the Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse article again. I undid this most recent one, but seeing how it usually turns into an edit war, I'd rather bring it to you. See if you want to lock it down again temporarily or whatever. Thanks! o0pandora0o (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet another person, Rorr Styy (talk · contribs) doing the same edits to the article. The same "Tyre" thing that Luixxa (talk · contribs) and Qaysie (talk · contribs) and Donald VX (talk · contribs) were doing, that was brought up here and here... o0pandora0o (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again!! :) o0pandora0o (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Got another stalker or sockpuppet or something.. Probably Luixxa.

Back on my Talk page, I think Luixxa (talk · contribs) is back, with another new IP address, 94.11.228.192 (talk · contribs). They are now actually advising me to "set a checkuser on" them. They also say they have access to plenty of IPs.. Soon after they posted on my page, Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) came along and undid their edit. I don't know why they would have done that. They seem to have been here a while, possibly not having anything to do with this. Anyway. Thought you'd want a heads-up on that. o0pandora0o (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, there are more socks, now they are attacking my userpage. Deleting my text and replacing it with just one word, "Arse". O0pandura0o (talk · contribs), which is an obvious mock of my own username, and 94.10.163.145 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked by Tide rolls (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. Also, 94.11.228.192 (talk · contribs) is only being blocked for a week, starting July 4th, so I'm guessing they'll be back on July 11th to start trouble again. I'm sorry to keep bothering you with this, if there's somewhere else I should go, or someone else I should be reporting to, please let me know, ok? Thank you for all your help!!! o0pandora0o (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Will only report attacks on the Bethel page now. Thanks for the protection on my talk page. o0pandora0o (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Luixxa is another version of Tile join, who is known for obsessively editing via socks and IPs. The named socks are using typical Tile join handles, and the editing over a single word is very comparable to the long-running attack on Witton Albion F.C., where he has tried to install a preferred datum for the stadium capacity since the spring of 2007. Also, this latest IP to attack 00pandora0o's page was caught by an edit filter trying to make this change to Witton Albion as well (which is how I stumbled onto this). Filter 47 does a pretty good job on most of Tile join's other known targets, so you might consider having Bethel Church added. J. Spencer (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG, I thought this person was doing this on purpose to drive me crazy! So glad that's not necessarily the case! o0pandora0o (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is Tilejoin, on 94.10.200.40 (talk · contribs) as well as vandalising O0pandora0o's user page, he also re-inserted copyvio onto Winshill - one of his previous activities. CT Cooper · talk 09:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Add O0panodraO0 (talk · contribs) to the list. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What?

I have no idea what you are referring to, and I have never edited the Tulsa, Oklahoma page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.109.238 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

145.99.131.226

"Willy on wills" vandals don't get 4 warnings- Long-term abuse. Tommy! [message] 15:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

replied on my talk Tommy! [message]

RPP

There aren't any blocks in the log for Mauricio Rua (the accented version), but there have been three for Mauricio Rua which was only just moved FROM. Here is a copy and paste of the page log:

• 03:52, 18 July 2010 Luizdl (Talk | contribs) moved Mauricio Rua to Maurício Rua over redirect ‎ (Portuguese orthography)
• 23:22, 22 April 2010 AlexiusHoratius (Talk | contribs) protected "Mauricio Rua" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 22:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 22:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (Excessive vandalism) (hist)
• 17:47, 25 October 2009 Ged UK (Talk | contribs) protected "Mauricio Rua" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (Excessive vandalism) (hist)
• 00:11, 9 October 2009 Tedder (Talk | contribs) protected "Mauricio Rua" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 12:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 12:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (Excessive vandalism) (hist)

....hence my comment about a few month long protections. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

KAT-TUN wiki

I'm sorry but Akanishi Jin is still a member of KAT-TUN. And to prove my point, you can see it in their website. That's all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leenkath16 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Unless it is stated in their website, he is a member of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leenkath16 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

meetup?

Hi there,

I got your name from the Wikimedia:Meetup/Ohio 1 page. I will be in Columbus Aug 8-11 and was wondering if any Wikimedians would be interested in meeting up then. I started Wikipedia:Meetup/Ohio 2 for quick planning if so :) best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

no worries, I hope you have many meetups in the future! best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Boddole Zer

I have nominated Boddole Zer, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boddole Zer. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fleet Command (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Soy POV pusher back

Hi,

Remember back in April you protected soybean, textured vegetable protein and soy milk? Yup, they're back, pushing the exact same edits. Would you prefer I take it to RPP? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've brought it up at RPP, so don't worry about it now. Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, RPP is always my preferred option because the process is more transparent. I only dropped a note on your talk page because I hate formatting the templates! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Putnam County Courthouse

Thanks for the compliment! Since the time I asked you to try to take pictures in northwestern Ohio, I've been able to get a driver's license, so I ended up getting pictures for nearly all of the National Register sites in the western two tiers of counties north of the Dayton metro area. My most productive day yielded this old post office, but I'd gotten Putnam County on a different day — I wanted a good picture of St. John's in Glandorf, so I didn't want to go to Ottawa on a day that wasn't nice and sunny. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonblock - SVG image idea.

While it doesn't look exactly like the PNG, it shares the same idea. Similar key, similar shirt, and similar positioning. mechamind90 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Kralizec! (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit - War Need Help to reach a conclusion without any harm to any user

Hello,

It seems there is edit war gig between several users including me, we have notified each other and have stuck in tagging, re-tagging articles and authenticity of sources. I request you to mediate and help reach a consensus on article like Shia Islam in Pakistan. So that there is no hamper to any editors. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Block Request

Please Block User Codf1977 for his repeated disruption of articles, geting into discussions and leaving it without reaching a consensus after multiple Warnings, this user even removes warnings from his talk page and is engaged in business of threatening and accusing, repeated request and Warnings have been deleted by this user like this [14] and this [15] from his talk page. All edits of this user are more or less based on no logical reasoning and without notifying the reason on talk page. this user is engaged in all these behavior leave no signs of discussion on talk page and then threatens to block me rather than discussing politely. Please review my request and take an action. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Review Request

AllahLovesYou has generalised me based on sectarianism which I never revealed about who I am and has multiple times used provocative language like blocking and vandalism, i request you as an administrator to review the actions of this user and history of edited articles y this user. AllahLovesYou tends to vandalize articles by deleting sources rather than asking. AllahLovesYou was warned by me and then started discussion but uses inappropriate language based upon sectarianism. User made some religious based comments. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I should have added that there's also a debate at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Talaris Institute

I think it might be worth reconsidering the spedy deletion of Talaris Institute. The author had requested hang-on, was adding references, and had noted on the talk page that they were still working the article. Some of the references show promise. ALthough I don't think notability has yet been shown, I think we should give the article some time. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(moved from Talk:Tcncv)

Thanks for the message on my talk page regarding Talaris Institute. I went ahead and reversed my speedy deletion. Would you like to decline the speedy? Presumably the nominator will send it to AfD, but that will still give the author time to try and bring it up to WP:CORP. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I was borderline on whether to decline, but I think a run through the AfD review process is justified. I also saw that the editor was blocked for deleting the notices, but has requested unblock. Could you take a look? The user appears to be a good faith editor who is encountering a few bumps in the learning curve. Thanks. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Kralizec!

I semi-protected your userpage, I hope you don't mind. If you prefer it not be done, let me know and I won't semi-protect it in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Script kiddie clarification

Is the 3 days semi-protection just the usual starting point, or was it based on an assessment of the vandalism? Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent explanation and judgement call, thanks! --Lexein (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

protection for Jerusalem Cricket

Hi. You had temporarily protected this article; the IP-hopping vandal is not going away, and protection from anonymous edits would be helpful. Given that this vandal has been posting for nearly a week, we can assume their attention span is at least that long, and protection should be no less than one week. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I had protected it longer than a day ... but I edit conflicted with another admin who set it for 24 hours. As such, I deferred to his or her judgement. However since the protection has expired and the IP vandal is back, I protected it for longer this time.

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The same exact vandal is back, making the exact same edit again. This person is not going to go away, evidently. Maybe a month protection this time? Dyanega (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of six weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

you are teh roxx0rs!

so, ages ago i had (and technically still do have) an Everquest character named Khiron Kralizec. And behold the coincidence the user who entered khyron on wikipedia is kralizec and is also from Ohio (I'm a cleveland native) so, you must, therefore, be awesome. Big up to you and your kids! omg this tilda signing crap is silly... i'm not a wiki person or whatever but if you like you can find me on livejournal as khiron1416 209.64.25.3 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection of SharedIPPublic

Kralizec, would you consider semiprotecting Template:SharedIPPublic? It only has 452 transclusions, which I think casts doubt that its a high-visability template. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

November vandalism by 216.162.23.68

Please look at the continued vandalism by this "editor" and do something about it. Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection of astronaut articles

Hi. I have a number of the Apollo astronaut articles on my watchlist, and I noticed you semi-protecting (or renewing semi-protection on) what looks like just about all of them. I look a quick look at the history of a few and perhaps I am missing something, but I'm not certain I see that such long-term protection on so many articles is necessary. I don't usually object to semi'ing articles with a history of vandalism, edit-warring, etc., but frankly this looks a little light as such things go—however, the odds are I am probably missing something. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this (feel free to respond via e-mail rather than here if this is a WP:BEANS situation or the like). Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Brad's talk page. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes Protection of Phil Hendrie

Hello Kralizec!, I was wondering if you could remove Pending Changes protection from Phil Hendrie. It is not experiencing vandalism or BLP violations. All but one of the edits that have been made since the PC protection have been positive, and there was very little prior to protection. Thank you, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that it could be unprotected? Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected Thank you for both your patience and persistence. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Code

I see that in July, you cascade protected {{Code}}. While I'm not disputing your judgement that it's a Highly visible template, I don't think that cascade protection is necessary here. I think that the protection should be reduced to a normal full protection, allowing transcluded pages (such as the documentation) to be edited by non-admins. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Ooops, that was my mistake. Thank you for catching it and letting me know! — Kralizec! (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi Protection of Bangalore

Hey, this is regarding your recent semi protection of Bangalore. I have been watching the page from a long time, and I do not think there is a lot of vandalism from IPs as such. Even in the case of vandalism, some or the other editor usually reverts it quite fast. In any case, I do not think the page merits an indefinite semi protection, because it could as well prevent legitimate editors from making edits. Have a good day! MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 14:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok. Great! :) MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 15:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to salt for good?

Ionuţ Caragea was created in May 2009, deleted at AfD, created and speedied in February 2010, DRV'd and deletion endorsed in November 2010... and now recreated yet again. It's clear this guy will stop at nothing before he has a page on en.wiki. Might it thus not be advisable to stop him from doing so permanently, or at least until he can show notability prior to being allowed to recreate? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)