User talk:Lakers/Archive 1

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support on my Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0. Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....(check my userpage).
cheers, Casliber \| talk \| contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The road to admin....

Well here am I talking with less than 24 hours experience but I have seen a few RfAs over the past few months (you may get in with less than this but then gain, may not). The minimum prerequisite seems to be 4-5 months and a few thousand edits. Also, if there has been any time you've lost your temper and argued with someone that seems to really' work against you bigtime. I've only had a look at your overall edits which is only 387 or something thereabouts now. The other thing is maybe getting involved with a wikiproject collaboration on something you are really interested in and making a Featured Article. Doing some DYKs is probably helpful too. Can you point out the worst wiki-dispute you've had so far?cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if that is the worst, then that should be OK - just remember to focus on being constrcutive and forward-thinking and you should be fine. Any idea which wikiprojects you'd be interested in? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my areas a re way non-controversial compared with that but I guess I feel as the whole pointo f this is building a mega-encyclopedia that evidence of doing that via creating or improving articles goes down pretty well. When there's 3 of you rapid-fire edting an articel to FA it is a pretty amazing thing to watch...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar. Amos Han ^Talk 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote at RFA

I was amused to see that you have the RFA chart on your userpage, and the chart says you voted twice on XDamr's RFA. I'm sure it was an accident, but if you want to correct it yourself, I'm letting you know. :) YechielMan 02:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cross out the second one. No problem. YechielMan 02:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, and other tasks.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 03:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your recent post to AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Heimstern Läufer 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm not totally sure what the question you're asking is, so I'll just give you a run-down: when you revert vandalism, leave a warning message on the vandal's talk page. You don't necessarily have to start with level one; if it's obviously deliberate vandalism, you can start with two or sometimes higher. The general rule is don't list at AIV unless they've received at least a level 3 (and it's often good to go for level 4, too) and vandalized after that. Note that the three-revert rule doesn't apply to reverting vandalism, which may be what you were asking about in your second question. Hope this is clear to you. Keep on reverting vandalism! Heimstern Läufer 05:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Hi - thanks - I've already blocked him and reversed his moves. Rama's arrow 04:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion on Talk:Vladimir Shamanov

Did you even click on the link? Why would you want to delete a talk page, anyway? This seems absurd. 75.18.208.221 05:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly claim that the link to the David Corn blog I added, which appeared in a The Nation column,[1] is not relevant to Shamanov? And kindly refrain from deleting complaints about your editing behavior from your talk page, please. 75.18.208.221 05:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]