User talk:Kurykh/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with Kurykh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| < Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 > |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - ... (up to 100) |
Your username ...
Just wondering about your username; is the 210 perhaps the atomic weight of a certain recently high-profile isotope? Or was the number chosen for other reasons? --Cyde Weys 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering...
Is it bad to link to diffs in ArbCom votes? [1] --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 4th.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 49 | 4 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn
I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your time.--MONGO 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
When you have nothing else to do...
If you feel like making another round of typofixes, there are quite a number of instances of "sherif", "sherrif", and "sherriff" running around wikipedia that could use changing to "sheriff", some of them legitimate, most not... If you feel up to it... Tomertalk 00:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
AWB made nonsense
Hi. I'm sure you're not aware, but AWB (under your supervision) made nonsense of the page Calendar date by changing the section (in particular, the third line):
This sequence is common to the vast majority of the world's countries.[citation needed]
- 16/11/2003, 16.11.2003, 16-11-2003 or 16-11-03
- 16th of November 2003
- 16th November 2003
- 16 November 2003
- 16 Nov 2003
into
This sequence is common to the vast majority of the world's countries.[citation needed]
- 16/11/2003, 16.11.2003, 16-11-2003 or 16-11-03
- 16th of November 2003
- 16 November 2003
- 16 November 2003
- 16 Nov 2003
I have reverted. Don't worry, I've made plenty of AWB cockups too :) Cheers - Euchiasmus 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Changes to Kit Carson
I noticed your changes to Kit Carson: I'm curious as to why the link to mountain men was removed. Do you consider him to not be a mouintain man?Richiar 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Regards
Hi, wanted to thank you for dealing with the matter of this anonymous IP so promptly~ BooyakaDell 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Many thanks too, for clearing my name of the scurrilous allegations made against me. 81.155.178.248 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Can you tell User:Hu12 (and Booyakadell) not to keep reverting my page please? Hu12's page is protected from anons, so it's been difficult...... 81.155.178.248 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Resolved, put a welcome on your Talk page. sorry for any misunderstanding. happy editing --Hu12 01:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Mountain Men feeling better
OK. My mistake. What with the mountain men having to do stunts for CitiBank commercials and such, they get kind of sensitive and overreactive sometimes ! :) Such is life in the modern world. Thanks for that ! I liked how you put the line through the words. I just found out how to do that ! Richiar 07:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Oops. I meant Capital One. "Whats in your wallet"?Richiar 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
California Gold Rush FA - thanks!
Many thanks for your assistance on this article, which was instrumental in its achieving FA status. Thank you! NorCalHistory 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 11th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 50 | 11 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you a respondent in this case? Alan.ca 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Health Wiki Research
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.
Please consider taking our survey here.
This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.
We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.
Thanks, --Sharlene Thompson 19:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Careful using AWB...
You used AWB to clean up Common Gateway Interface, but in so doing, you removed the underscores from links such as mod_perl, etc. Those underscores should not be removed, so do be careful. :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
Hi, I am Daniel5127. When I looked at your user page. I really have big question about the something that shows Idealist, Cultural Creative, Romanticist, Existentialist, Fundamentalist, Postmodernist, Modernist, Materialists. Is this(Things that I'm mentioning) in Wikipediholic score? This material made me so curious because I saw something that I mentioned in other wikipedian's user page. Or is it in different area of Wikipedia? Just Curious. Anyways, I hope you could reply in my talk page. Cheers!!! Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 18th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 51 | 18 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Check your e-mail.
I sent an e-mail explaining the problem to you. Please respond to it as soon as you can. Made of people 02:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
User: Netscott has been tirelessly reverting my good faith edits, as indicated here and here His reasoning is that because I am a suspected sock puppet, which I freely admit to now, he has the right to revert all of me edits. These edits that he has reveted include constructive good-faith edits to article pages, petitions and attempts to contact other users by reverting my edits on their talk page, and even going as far to attempt to DELETE petitions that I have made to administrators, here. The issue is no longer whether or not I am a sock puppet or not. As, I have explained on this page, Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Made of people, my original incidence in which vandalized was months ago, and I have no longer vandalized since then. Netscott has repeatedly gotten my "sock puppets" banned over and over again, even after the point where I had reformed, given up on the fued, and only wanted to constructively edit wikipedia in peace. If you look at Special:Contributions/Made_of_people my contributions, you will see that I have a history of nothing but constructive edits prior to this event with Netscott.Made of people 02:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
In short, the issue is that I have reformed months ago, yet Netscott insists on stalking my edits and accusing me of being a sock puppet, even accusing users who weren't even really my sock puppets, such as User: TechJon. It is obvious that Netscott does not want to actually improve wikipedia, he simply hates me because I disagreed with him on the Michael Richards article, an event in which I somewhat recklessly attempted to add another point of view to the article, which caused my original 48 hour suspension. I was unaware of the sock puppet rule, made another account because I stopped caring about the michael richards article, and since then Netscott has been trying to get me banned for being a sock puppet. This was a long time ago, and it is obvious that I no longer vandalize wikipedia, and since, according to my user contributions, I have only made constructive edits. I tried to reason this with Netscott, but he does not reply to either my emails or my petitions on his talk page. He wants to censor me as much as possible and reverts my edits whenever I try to talk to other administrators.Made of people 02:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Netscott does not realize that I am no longer a threat to wikipedia. Rather than do what is best for wikipedia, he would rather cite rules such as "no sock puppets allowed" and "sock puppetry = indef ban" to get me banned, simply because he does not like me because of our disagreement on the Michael Richards article, and the fact that I would let just sit down and let him revert my edits. He doesn't realize that I am not the typical vandal that he has to deal with a day to day basis, and I admire Netscott for relenentlessly pursuing the vandals who actually want to destroy wikipedia, though now I have doubts as to the reasonableness of his character and whether or not he has treated others as bad.
The bottom line that supports my argument is the fact that I have already reformed and my contribution history reflects this. Netscott would be more in the right if had chosen to wait for me to actually commit vandalism before coming after me, and using that as an excuse to attack me, and use that precedence to justify that I have no reformed. Unfortuantely for Netscott, I never will vandalize again, and he realizes this, so he decided to attack me now regardless of what is good for wikipedia, simply because he has a vendetta. He needs to realize that he is doing more harm than good right now in these personal attacks against me that can bring no good. His reversion of my good faiths simply because he does not like me undermines the values upon which wikipedia is based on, having quality information. I do not see the point to these reversions, nor these allegations that I should banned based on a history that I have already recanted. Made of people 02:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- This individual is a liar and I would caution for falling for his lies. The "not even my sockpuppets" line is classic... what he's saying is that they indeed were either his sockpuppets or the equivalent meatpuppets. Also he talks about losing interest in the Michael Richards article. This again is another lie. He continued to edit with regard to that article using the sockpuppets User:Juror 8, User:Reasonable doubt1 as well as User:TechJon. This individual has been denying all along the sockpuppet nature of his numerous sockpuppets including these rather disruptive ones. This user is bad for wikipedia and should remain banned. (Note User:Yamla's block review message on User talk:Made of people). (→Netscott) 06:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hey Physicq, I just wanted to thank you for the various Ottawaman/Canuckster blocks, reverts etc that you did today. Thank you also for putting the proposed community ban back on the agenda. I really appreciate all you did today. Thanks. :) Sarah Ewart 07:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for implementing the community ban. :) I had trouble wording it, but I just edited the WP:BU entry a little. He did get much worse and started to focus his attention more heavily on me after the disruption block, but it had actually been going on for months before that. I think I first became involved around June/July, but he had been at it for a while before that. I was wondering, since we now have the community ban in place, would it be appropriate to conclude Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman? If so, would you be happy to do it? Thankyou again for your help. I really do appreciate it very much. It has been such a relief to finally (hopefully) reach a resolution. Cheers, Sarah Ewart 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fantastic! Thank you. :) Sarah Ewart`
Thanks: vortex
Thanks for stepping in and handling the vortex-related AfD and side effects. Over the last few months the gamers creating and protecting a small set of articles have had a hard time working with more experienced editors and don't seem to want to discuss things constructively. Again, thanks. JonHarder talk 02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is it OK to ask that the content copied from my user page (User:JonHarder) be deleted from the history of User:MonHarder (here)? It doesn't seem appropriate to be masquerading as me, someone may check the history and be confused. This user has done similar things in the past, but never copied a whole page. JonHarder talk 02:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. JonHarder talk 14:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
California Flag
Hello, Khoikhoi (t c) has referred me to you because he said you were active in the discussion over use of the SVG California Flag versus the PNG flag. I have made some changes to the SVG flag to more closely match the PNG flag, and would like your input about whether the current SVG version is sufficient to replace the PNG version. You can compare them here. I'd be interested in any feedback you have. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Non-Latin Username Blocks
There is some dispute as to whether these blocks are supported. There are many active editors who do just fine contributing with non-latin names. Per the discussion here, there seems be support for reccomending for to people creating a username at en.WP to not use non-latin characters. But does not appear to be consensus for blocking people on sight who already have a non-latin account at another Wikimedia wiki. Will you please start taking these non-latin username through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names in order to better gather opions on the mattter? Thank you for your atttention to this matter.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, you edit conflicted me twice while I was closing this AFD. :-D I hope you don't mind that I closed this over. Regards,--Húsönd 04:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
No Offense Intended
After you blocked User:$295,040.16!? I CANT BELIEVE IT!!, I asked him a question. I did not intend any hostility towards you or him, I was just curious about something he said. Just H 20:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
Please read my response to yourself and Just H. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%24295%2C040.16%21%3F_I_CANT_BELIEVE_IT%21%21 MyTemporaryNewName 21:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
AntoineJ RfA
Hi. Is that supposed to be a Support or an Oppose !vote here? Newyorkbrad 21:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Never mind, already closed by Essjay. That was quick. :)
Signpost updated for December 26th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 52 | 26 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for the reverts to the vandalism of my user page by Bigbubbaray. I reverted some of his vandalism edits a couple of months ago, and he's been on my case ever since -- even sending me nonsense email recently. Anyway, I do appreciate you reverting his vandalism and then shutting him down. --JFreeman (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
They huffed, and puffed, . . .
 |
Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
Just to let you know...
[2] I don't know what you want to make of it, but I felt you should know about it. I'm going to go archive my talk page now so it doesn't get discussed there. -Amarkov blahedits 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Apology?
(removed due to sensitivities. I have read the entire message and have responded accordingly)
- I have dutifully replied on your talk page with my deepest apologies. I therefore accept the consequences of misbehavior related to this unfortunate incident. --210physicq (c) 21:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Physicq, I accept your apology with good faith. I know you did not know my history as it is a very touchy subject I yet am trying to get over. I apologize myself for allowing work and other factors to influence my mood when posting and allowing my feeling outside of wikipedia to affect my comments towards you and others. I honestly believe you are a good editor and have made many worthy, quality edits to wikipedia. My comments were out of line and I appologize for that. I hope you can accept my apology for my uncivil behavior. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 22:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: Apologies exchanged and reconciliation of differences worked out on Brian's talk page. --210physicq (c) 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you ...
for moving my misplaced post. I would have sworn I clicked in ANI to make that post. - Donald Albury 01:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello...
Thanks, I understand, maybe try in a few months (as other have stated)? Yes? I will try to improve everything that people have asked of me. I understand and I have willingly renounced the voting. However, I hope that this does not prevent me from further adminship nominations. Thanks a lot for answering. Vseferović 04:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Your comment on a specific page title
Re [3] - I'm afraid the article's talk page would be a better place to go. The page title itself is not related to the query I put up on the administrators' noticeboard. :-) — Instantnood 21:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Algerian Aviation Vandal
Hello. I just want to notify you again of the activities of our friend here, with regard to the articles on Air Algérie and Houari Boumedienne Airport. I believe this user has several registered accounts aside from the IP address, and Velentine has just been served with a last warning. Just to let you know. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 22:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
User Page
Your user page looks great, Happy new year!--Hu12 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- New yars rolls around in six hours from this post for me, It's dark already here. Be Safe --Hu12 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 1 | 2 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
207.168.161.13
I don't think that that is an open proxy so an indef block may be uncalled for. JoshuaZ 01:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, I was told soft blocking for a week is enough, at least until the case is solved and something like indef soft block is decided. -- ReyBrujo 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, it was a mistake. In my haste, I accidentally put it at indefinite instead of 31 hours. --210physicq (c) 01:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for taking care of the persistent Whitney Houston vandal. 207.69.137.34 05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 2 | 8 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your prompt response. What would you think about blanking RW's entire talk page? That way there'd be nothing that could be objectionable. -- Samuel Wantman 08:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Fool
Cock. There'll be more Sneaky Vandalism across Wikipedia where that came from. Punish me? I'll punish Wikipedia. Check and see what you've created. Have fun fixing everything. 88.104.202.232 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Trip the Light Fantastic
Hi, I read your comments on the Administrator's noticeboard contemplating a permanent ban for user:Szhaider. I think that would be very unwise. As someone who has done his share of battling with Szhaider, but as someone who is neutral in the India-Pakistan edit-warring issue, I think the picture is not as simple as it might seem. Also, I don't know if I regard user:Rumpelstiltskin223, the original poster on the noticeboard, as entirely nonpartisan in this issue. Here is a copy of the post I left on Dmcdevit's talk page:
- Hi, I noticed that you blocked user:Szhaider for another two weeks and I'm confused about the reason. His talk page says something about the Talk:Taxila page. Since I am the person he traded comments with on that page, I'd like to say that I certainly didn't think what he said there was either particularly anti-Hindu or particularly uncivil to me. So, I don't understand the block. Two weeks seems a little over the top to me, but maybe I don't understand the real reason. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- PS Please also see my two posts on an earlier blocking admin's Talk page, especially the second post, which lays out some of the dynamics I have observed. Please also see Nichalp's reply on my talk page. I think admin Rama's Arrow seems to be a little trigger happy, but I could be wrong. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please also see my comments on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Anti-Hindu_remarks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 | 15 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Mediation
Will you agree to mediation? 70.23.199.239 17:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
71.157.140.230
A one-day block probably won't do. He's a sock-puppet and has been a problem for the last half-week. Just saying. Apparently, he uses a rotating IP to get around blocks. [4] HalfShadow 03:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Re reporting IP vandal
Sorry about that (re: WP:AIV report User_Talk:71.104.92.159 - I thought the vandalism just happened; ;didn't look at the timestamp... thanks... KatalavenoTC 04:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comment accompanying your vote, even though it was probably written while you were supposed to be studying. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)