User talk:Xiahou/Archive1

Archive 1 Dec 10th 2006 - 1/2 March 1st 2007

Hello Xiahou! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Khoikhoi 02:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Notability

Hi Xiahou, I've noticed a couple of your comments on Articles for Deletion are perhaps a little out of step with Wikipedia practice. It's fine to be inclusionist, but despite the fact that Wiki-is-not-paper etc., it is still an encyclopedia and there are still standards of notability that must be applied. Please familiarise yourself with the various notability criteria, as when giving opinions in debates it may help the closing admin give your vote the weight you feel it deserves if you can back up your assertions with directives from guidelines and policies. Happy editing! Deizio talk 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• your right it is an encyclopedia full of every little tidbit of info you can think of. Much of what people want deleted already have multiple pages dealing with said subject like the school one for instance. Someone singled out a school for deletion. Thats crazy there are hundreds of schools listed. Heck there is a wiki school project. People are to hung up on articles being to big or not notable like its their money running it. Yet what they say is not notable may to others, something many seem to disreguard. Ive had people say thousands are not enough for notablity. Pfft. If its factual doesn't need to be or can be merged its not huring anyone and if its en encyclopdia form. So be it. Whats notable to one may not be to others.

If someone lists a school for deletion then there is WP:SCHOOL to consider. As I said, referring to policies and guidelines, even proposed ones, will always make an opinion more likely to be given maximum weight. Articles are considered on their own merits when nominated for deletion, hence claiming that "A is ok, so why not B" is not a valid argument, no matter the connection between the two. Taking this one step further and saying "We've lost the battle against maintaining a decent standard of notability so everything gets in" is simply anti-policy. If that's your opinion then by all means express it, but the opinions of a great number of editors have shaped the policies which underpin Wikipedia. Deizio talk 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I saw your comment read your link noticed this --'This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted' and that about covered it.--Xiahou 01:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• 'A is ok, so why not B" is not a valid argument, no matter the connection between the two. ' ---really it is, well pretty much everywhere... Thats just it. A is ok so why are we hunting B if A=B. So if some generic school is fine... then yes if the people make the article they all are. --Xiahou 01:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• So when someone says delete they can just throw out a canned statement but when someone says keep the reverse is not true? One could use the same argument again that if they are so set against said school they better be prepared and be submitting all schools without 'notibility' or its just a witch hunt. After looking into the Irish guy more I can see that one but others especially the school in the keep votes, nope.--Xiahou 01:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are welcome to vote anyway you please, for any reason, but opinions for keep or delete backed up by policy are taken more seriously. I'm not trying to influence your wiki-philosophy. The A / B thing you really have wrong though, an article is considered against the relevant policies, not other articles. No two schools, people, bands etc. are exactly alike, even if they both appear to be "generic". I appreciate you are still building experience in all this and are expressing what you see happening in practice, I'm trying to help you understand the principles that underpin these procedures. Btw, there's a pretty well established "keep all schools" faction who have made schools a special topic in deletion circles so its perhaps not the best topic to focus on when looking for answers. Deizio talk 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't expect the schools to be alike? Who would? If the articles and level of this often cited "notability" are similar then the A=b=c example quite easily holds. The fact that there is a movement that is quite established to keep the schools only strengthens my point.

WikiProject Mixed martial arts article improvement drive

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts is now taking suggestions for the new MMA article improvement drive! Please add your input to decide what our first collaboration should be. VegaDark 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Small world

Small world indeed, I wish you a Merry Christmas. — Seadog^Talk 03:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding Vandals

Thanks for the info.! It is much appreciated and I plan to beat you to it some time :). Thanks! —¡Randfan! 03:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

your on :-)--Xiahou 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandal editing after block

Xiahou,

My block against 72.135.196.106 was a 24 hour block. I haven't had time to fully check, but it looks like it just expired. I've heard that on occasion, the block system doesn't actually block users, but I've not experienced this.

24 hours has usually been enough in my limited experience, but some folks just don't get it. Another lesson, with a longer duration, might be necessary. Thanks for your note! Catbar (Brian Rock) 11:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

NP, and thanks for working on it too! If you ever see a blatant repeat vandal, feel free to list them at WP:AIV for quick blocking action. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

cool thanks for the link. Ive run into a few times where it would be greatly needed. Thanks again.--Xiahou 02:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

vandal blanking talk page

I see you rv'd a vandals talk page. Is that ok to do. I was wanting to do this. I gave them warnings only to have them blank them. Sure seems like they can't, but I'd hate to revert it and be breaking some rule I haven't read myself. Thanks for doing so.--Xiahou 03:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement between various Wikipedia editors and admins about how agressive to get about deleted talk page warnings. As a general rule, though, if someone instantly deletes warnings, then he/she is attempting to hide them, and it's legitimate to reinstate them. The main area of dispute is whether it's ok to block someone because they are blanking warning messages from their talk pages; the consensus for that right now seems to be no. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dog Chapman quote

Hey man, yeah, no problem. I'd love to be quoted. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkcana (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

speedy delete

The bogus pages keep coming in....keep at it!

vandalism

No problemo. :) He also racially vandalised some user pages. Just see his contribs. I have blocked his ass just right. :) - Darwinek 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

yea thats what I was doing going through his "contributions" if you could call them that. Thanks again.--Xiahou 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetic code

I reported the user on the admin board. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

school vandal help

thanks these school articles are hard to rv quicker than the vandal, thanks again.--Xiahou 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, man - I'll keep an eye on it. School are impossible, I know. Sorry about reverting one of your edits. --Haemo 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

no, no thats fine. I didn't catch everything and didn't revert far enough you caught it good.

Yes a typo

Islam in China 81.178.254.21 01:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

probably should fix it then hard to believe a book that came out in 1945 has 1948 facts in it :-) --Xiahou 22:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Heroes (TV series)

YOu recently reverted a vandal who posted dostoyevsky on the page. He switched IPs and hit it again. I posted a Vandalism 4 warning on that talk, but I'm not sure it'll help. I'm just notifying you that there's ain IP vandal with a pattern now... Dunno what, if anything can be done. Thanks though. ThuranX 04:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly right on that one. I just learned that anything edited from our school network shows up under one IP address so when I got onto wikipedia and saw a new message i thought it was for me, not realizing someone else on the network had vandalized the site. sorry about that. i even think i might know who it is and be tell them to stop. i guess i got offended because i occasionally do thoughtfully contribute to wikipedia. sorry and thanks

Regarding 74.107.43.232 at WP:AIV

I would just leave it alone. The Admins know what they are doing :). – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeet Kune Do

Hi Xiahou,

I see you've reverted back edits by 70.128.117.245 on the Jeet Kune Do article. This user has violated the Three Revert Rule several times. He has also been warned numerous times by other admins including yourself. He's just reverted your revert even after you warned him. I've reported him to: WP:AIV Any chance of you blocking him as he's really creating a lot of commotion and unnecessary grief? The user has also used the ip 64.149.40.27

Thanks FrankWilliams 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. If you wouldn't mind helping me keep an eye on this issue I would appreciate it. FrankWilliams 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Me Beating you to Reverts

Do you want me to give you some tools to use while fighting vandalism? Also do you have a IRC client? If so contact me at [1]. Have a nice week and god bless. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 01:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Take a look at my monobook, there is a good tool there. It is a revert button. Also get a IRC client, chatzilla is a good one. If/when you do get one there is a channel called #vandalism-en-wp. You must get permission to use it though. Ask User:Pilotguy how. Have a nice week and god bless. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 01:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

my mistake

Sorry, I misread 23:48 as 22:48, with the warning at 22:49. I've blocked him. Thanks for pointing that out. Bucketsofg 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

...My pleasure. Some people just don't get the concept of "encyclopedia," and I think we're going to be needing RC patrollers for a while. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

from user 207.41.4.132

I apologize that I don't know the correct way to contact you so I'll just talk here. I would just like to say that I did not vandalize Groton School's page and actually support the school and wikipedia very much. Thank you for watching for vandals. That was not vandalism.

Saying "Boys Soccer is the shit" is being a vandal how could it be otherwise? in ref. to article - Groton School --Xiahou 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning tips

Heya, looks like the old warnings are being deprecated in favour of those listed at WP:UTM. Also, no need to tell vandals that they've been reported to the admins. Oddly, it often eggs them on. *shrugs* --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

the new ones are buggy and they are still debating on the layout and if they should have a number etc etc policy discuss, boredom. I will use the tried and true till I can't anymore. As far as egging them on. If they get to that point its not a loss to the community to let a vandal know we won't and don't put up with their behavior.--Xiahou 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

24.77.227.155 - Please Advise

Thank you for the warning regarding vandalism of the Peter Wray page in regard to user 24.77.227.155 - The article has now been proposed for deletion, your advice or consideration is sought in this regard. The user 24.77.227.155 has been attacking this particular page for several days now and without warrant. Please advise.

Thank You Thanks Thanks kittengirlz

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page! :) Rockvee 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

no problem glad to help. --Xiahou 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The warnings :)

Well, they're of my own creation, a combination of the best parts (I felt) of the current warnings. Just add the below to use (note they autosign so no ~~~~ is required):

• {{subst:User:Glen S/Templates/Blanking}}
• {{subst:User:Glen S/Templates/Warning}}
• {{subst:User:Glen S/Templates/Vandalism}}
• {{subst:User:Glen S/Templates/Final}}
• {{subst:User:Glen S/Templates/Only}}

If you check my userspace I think there's actually a couple more :) Hope this helps! Glen 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you--Xiahou 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Copied conversation from ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge - John Wayne Vandal

Where did you get the template for saying they have been reported. I like it. Thanks for the help with that. Love how they say reverting blatant vandalism is biased. There are plenty of article I am personally biased agaisnt but I don't blank them change them or otherwise change them. It takes all kinds as they say. --Xiahou 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent guy LOL. //subst:Non-admin fwarn// replace // with double braces --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, just examining the issue of blacklisting, referring to his having advocated the same as "pro-American ideals" is clearly hogwash. Many law abiding actors -- who were never Communists -- lost their jobs and livelihoods as a result of McCarthyism. I'd be content with just removal of the term "pro-American ideals," without any further discussion about his blatant racist and homophobic views.

Obviously you're a Republican, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and "pro-American ideals" is far from a neutral term. "Conservative views" or "conservative beliefs" is more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.41.98 (talk • contribs)

Obviously he is a good editor reverting said vandalism you kept posting over and over uncited statements such as "Wayne was further known to advocate discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. " no citation and a rather smearing statment. This was the lesser of your vandalisms. How about "and was very homophobic and biased against gays" with no citation. Obviously you need to learn what NPOV means. Sorry ArmadilloFromHell, don't know why he just put this here on yours and not mine as well. As a participant in this I felt obligated to respond. If you have better more eloquent words to put him in his place, enjoy. Thanks again. --Xiahou 02:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow - is it really that obvious, I never knew I was so open in my political party. On the other hand, dream on in fantasy land, not only do I not vote for a president, I don't even live in the USA. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 02:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

haha you don't even live in the US. Oh the irony. Guess you weren't obvious enough. Take care --Xiahou 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From P.B. Pilhet

Yeah, I know, that's annoying :-) I'm using VandalProof, so I can edit faster than most users; maybe that's why I seem to be one step ahead of you all the time :-)

Happy Editing! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. -- I liked that "Nietzsche is dead" quote on your userpage :-) -- 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

yea I don't know where I first saw it. I've always found it funny. Kind of a last laugh kind of thing. --Xiahou 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The guy harassing me

The guy harassing me is editing under the following IPs: 63.3.19.130, 63.3.19.129, 63.3.19.1, and 63.3.19.2. He's been warned and blocked several times [2] [3] [4] [5] for various vandalism cases and is continuing to threaten and personally attack me on my talk page. I noticed you saw this in part also. Is there anything that can possibly be done to get him off my (and wikipedia's) back? --Ubiq 03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

personally If another IP claims to be him start with last warning. I base my warnings off the type of vandalism. If they say they are not going to stop. I start with last. They tend to stop. If they want to or not. Otherwise, Ive learned that these vandals are CLUELESS. Completely. This is the internet. Wiki has a complete history of each user, page, etc. A simple RV/undo takes all their annoying work away. They are powerless. They can be blocked & reverted. All they can do is be a minor annoyance. I laugh at them. All their 'hard work' I click undo and 'poof' its back to normal. Unless wiki's servers are ever attacked. There is nothing a vandal can do that can't be reverted.

To make a long story/rant short you could ask for protection from unregistered users. Don't quite know off the top of my head where link is. A search should find it easy enough with more info there. Take care and good luck. --Xiahou 03:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comment re my revert reason. Unfortunately I am not logged in and cannot be bothered logging in so I will forever remain unnamed sorta like those hufflepuff guys in the background in that first harry potter movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.89.150.236 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

IP address blocked. What the heck?

Look, guy, my IP address got blocked for "vandalizing an article on Doug Martsch." The whole thing is messed up. I wasn't vandalizing the article. Someone else had already vandalized it beyond recognition (replacing words in every sentence with 3rd-grade-level curse words), and so I figured it was better just to write over the vandalized version entirely and let someone else redo the article from scratch.

Serious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.211.242 (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I followed up on User talk:24.63.211.242. This appears to have been a misunderstanding; the user was attempting to overwrite existing WP:BLP vandalism in the article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: your message about the block

Blocked users and IPs can still edit their own talk pages. I protected that IP talk page. His block for the rest of the site was correct. Thanks. Academic Challenger 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

shoot your right, I totally forgot that. Thanks for helping me remember. Wondered how he was doing it. --Xiahou 04:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

John Wayne

Hello Xiahou,

Thank you very much for the kind message. The issue attracted my attention after reading an OTRS mail about it (So i confess, i wasn't actually the one who saw it :/), but i'm glad i could help.

Keep up the good work!

Cheers

Vito Genovese 02:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OTRS mail ? whats that --Xiahou 02:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Father Judge Mock Trial

I see that you have changed something which has been posted concerning Father Judge's Mock Trial team. I do not understand how you can favor one unreferenced version over another. The truth is that the team was started in 1998 by Kelly O'Connor and Jeff Shall. I am looking for something to corroborate this fact. Regardless, the version which you prefer is incorrect and must be changed.Hcrane 03:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about??? I changed it to the version you put in. So for arguments sake lets say I am wrong. Then you are to since I based it off your edit. I RV'd a guy who vandals to an edit by a guy who contributes (you). So you may want to check again on who did what...--Xiahou 03:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not put the original Mock Trial portion up. But I see that it has been revised to it's proper version, which was taken down by you. Neither one has a proper reference, but I know which one is correct. I am going to put the correct version up, without erasing the current version, which does still contain information about how the club is run today. In the mean time I will try to find something to reference.Hcrane 03:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on California Gold Rush

Thanks for your recent help reverting vandalism on the California Gold Rush article. As you may be aware, the California Gold Rush article is set to be the Main page Featured article in about 48 hours, beginning at midnight UTC, February 14, 2007. You are probably also know that Main page articles typically undergo substantial vandalism beginning about now, peaking during the Main page appearance, and continuing for some days thereafter. Assistance from all who have helped in the past with this article is very much appreciated during these next five days or so! NorCalHistory 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

67.164.88.94

heh heh, reported twice on WP:AIV within the same minute...just found that amusing--science4sail ^talkcon 03:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

oh yea every day it seems I do something same second as someone else. Be in undo/rv's entering the name for blocking you name it. :-)--Xiahou 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Stange offer

LOL. Still you don't get offers of free narcotics from vandals everyday [6]... WjBscribe 03:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha yea. Didn't feel appropriate to leave it on here...funny but wrong. Moments like this during vandalism patrol make you shake your head and grin. --Xiahou 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Owl

No problems. I don't always spot when vandals have had two attempts at page-wrecking back-to-back, and then I have to do the checks properly and hunt in the history to find a "clean" version to reinstate! But as we were both there at the same time, somehow it worked... That's teamwork for you! Bencherlite 03:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to say thank you for the help dealing with the guy that is vandalizing all of my pages.--Looper5920 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

sure. I was happy to though It was crazy. Different IPs hitting it multiple times so a simple undo wouldn't work. Guy was nuts. --Xiahou 03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks Xiahou. Pleasure RC patrolling with people like you.  :) Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail. 151.202.74.135 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss

Hi there, I am resposible for the deletion of the links on Darrenss' home page, as the links he is propogating are slanderous links that have been deemed as poor quality. He is only concerned with slandering me and the church I attend. I request that you read the mediation case on this subject which is on the Potter's House Christian Fellowship.

Thanks and I hope we can work this out, I have fought tooth and nail to remove slanderous links to people who say I am a homosexual and am no longer a Christian. I may not be using correct protocal but these links were previously seen as poor quality. Potters house 03:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your anger if someone were to say that about you, but then wouldn't it not also be a conflict of interest here then if you are directly involved with the said article? Anyway keep it on the discussion page till wiki says otherwise and an admin will take care of the user page, not a regular editor unless they give permission otherwise. But you can discuss it all you want on his discussion page. --Xiahou 03:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I would prefer to mediate or get an admin involved as you suggested. I hope that there is not a conflict of interest, I am involved in the church but that is why much of the article has been written, simply because I know alot about the church and its structure. Also Darren Smith is a former member of the church, i.e. he also has a barrow to push in a sense. I don't mind him having his say, but I to object to the inclusion of the poor quality links being placed on the article and also on the user page. I have at least 6-7 pages I could also add on the article in defense of claims by people like Darren, but one included a site about Rick Ross and was deemed as poor quality. The irony of it was that the man who made the anti Rick Ross site also made the anti Potter's House link that was permitted and was of lesser notoriety and quality. So in other words, Rick Ross supporters hate the links I want to put up, and fight against them, but the links Darren put up are of lesser quality and permitted because they don't affect Ross. That is why I previously mediated. I wouldn't mind having ALL links allowed, because I have links that show strong counter arguments, but Ross' friends won't allow them. It is a bit of a catch 22, but things were running smooth until Darren came along, obviously to push his anti Potter's House views. Anyway thanks for the help. Potters house 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

gotcha ok- --Xiahou 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Much was also written on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Potter%27s_House_Christian_Fellowship

Also I stated above that I wouldn't mind ALL links to be allowed, I suppose the one directly linking to the person who claims that I am a homosexual, watch pornography, and am no longer in the church, I would strongly protest. If it was allowed I would have to pursue it legally with Yahoo and Ken Haining the author, a situation of which I hope to avoid. Potters house 03:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

why wouldn't it be allowed. Its America land of the lawsuits. And if those things are said about you and are not true then go for it. Though again now my interest is piqued again that if the links are about you and not the article then the should obviousl be deleted but if they are about you as in you are in the article. Basically I don't want to ask or pry for your real name but if you are directly involved in the church enough to be a target of links allowed or your real name is in the article then it is a conflict of interest. --Xiahou 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to open discussions about this and am happy to have someone else look over it. Please note user: Potters Pouse changed it again. I have never made any slanderous comments to the said user, there is a difference between personal attacks and constuctive criticism that people can benifit from. I have commented already to user: Potters House on the discussion of his homepage and have not made any slanderous remarks and I am not interested in slandering the user or the Potter's House Christian Fellowship but acurately informing the public as to the nature of the criticism of the church and providing current up-to-date information for people to follow up on if they so desired. user:darrenss 14:20 February 2007

..............

I deleted a bunch of back and forth arguing of these two - Gee I am glad they are debating this on my talk page. Guys I wash my hands of you. Please use the page in question talk page or your own to discuss and debate this not a 3rd party such as myself for your sounding board. --Xiahou 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing Bethereds User page

Hey man, thanks for watching out for me, but that was an edit I did myself without logging in. Sorry for the confusion. I find it interesting that you are watching my userpage though.Bethereds 05:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

sure no problem. Any edits by an unregistered IP that work on User (nontalk) pages is something I occasionally patrol while doing RC patrol. Easier to see actually just selecting show User pages and hid registered users and there you go. IPs shouldn't be messing with User pages since those are for the users. So its 'usually' vandalism. Though apparently as you stated yours was not. Worked out all right I took the warning off your IP. Thanks again for the info that it was you. See you around here --Xiahou 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your message

Thanks. I am always glad to hear that I am doing the right thing. In the past, most admins including myself were more careful with blocks because established users could be blocked if they were using the same IP. Now that we can block anonymous users only, there is no excuse for letting longterm vandals continue to edit without long, long breaks. Academic Challenger 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail

You've got mail. 151.202.74.135 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you

For doing cleanup at User talk:Thebainer. I'm so sick of this one. It's refreshing to know that I don't have to be on guard at every moment. =) — coelacan talk — 08:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply about Qtangel7772

I don't know what is going on with that discussion and user page. It's not supposed to be used for that reason, but I think that an admin should be the one to delete it. If it were on an article page, I would do it. Unfortunately, it is her user space. I guess, we should take it to an admin, but I'm not sure who. If you know one, you might alert them to what's going on there.

The template I used is on this page down near the bottom. It looks like this {{notaforum}}. This page also has all of the updated vandalism templates. It is a very useful page. I bookmarked it for easy access. Cyrus Andiron 13:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, you might think about archiving your talk page. It's really simple to do. Also, it will make it easier for you to read your messages because you won't have to scroll down so far to read new responses. By no means is it a requirement, but it is convenient once you get it done. Cyrus Andiron 14:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

comment from User:72.240.155.123

I thought there was nothing noteworthy about Those who you call "Vandals", but you keep watching me. 72.240.155.123 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

its called a watch list everytime you (me) edits something. The next time its highlight if any changes. I did an RC search for any recent IP only edits of user talk pages. Any removing characters are usually vandals removing their warnings. And low and behold there yours was highlighted do to the fact I had edited you page in the past. Reguardless, you could learn something and realized that wiki is a serious project and vandals won't be tolerated. Vandalism is quickly reverted. It doesn't solve or accomplish anything. So please be a good editor make good edits or just read wiki you don't have to edit. --Xiahou 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

IMCRAZY

hi, Xiahou. ummmm, just wondering who u are. Im new in Wikipedia-land. r u just some dude who likes helping peeple, or a staff man?

• ok, thx. i guess your advising that i stop annoying Sparkiplasma? well, it would be hard for me to do.. but i guess i could. im not that much of a loser.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.71.110 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

since your new let me tell you that what this IP and your other are doing to Sparkiplama's talk page is considered vandalism. He said so himself "We know you're crazy. and it's OK, because in the end you'll end up blocked or something. Sparkiplasma 03:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)" So please regardless of the IP you are using don't be a vandal to wiki. To answer your 'question' I am 'some dude who likes helping people' So let me help you by saying be good. Read wiki, do constructive edits to wiki. --Xiahou 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re your comments on talk24.116.200.178

Yes he does, and as I pointed out here [7] which was once again ignored, its quite clear who he is.--Crossmr 16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

glad he's being caught for this. Wiki doesn't need blatant vandals like this. Doesn't need vandals period but blatant are the most annoying. Hope it all works out. Thanks for the comments. --Xiahou 22:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Upper Canada College

Thanks for the comment you left on my page on this. Please, I beg you, leave a message on the Upper Canada College discussion page to voice support on this. Thanks. Jonawiki 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to leave a note to for Snowolf to. There is NO reason you got 2 warnings for removing. Taking devils advocate you could get 1 for taking out the crest section but you put Back IN the scandal section and got a removal warning?? --Xiahou 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the issue isn't about information being deleted: the scandals, etc. are currently mentioned in brief on the main UCC article - the detail that Jonawiki inists be included in the main article was shifted to the article History of Upper Canada College. I hope this sheds some light on the situation. --G2bambino 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy rocks and rules the world

Should which page have the template? I'm not sure which of the group of pages for this non-notable you'd like me to change and what you'd like me to change about it. You can go ahead and make any changes you feel are necessary. --Strangerer 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ohh, I see what you're saying now. I added the {{prod}} tag, which made it a candidate for proposed deletion in 5 days. In retrospect, you were probably correct in adding the other to the list of speedy deletions, but I wasn't completely sure who Jimmy Lavallée was and thought I'd give it a little more time. --Strangerer 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for noticing that. It is appreciated. Best, Dar-Ape 03:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Damage Inc

Can you please tell me who "this guy" is? And calm down, this was probably done, as the messagebox on my talk page suggests, by my accidentally reverting an article to an "impure" state by using either VP of the Anti-vandal Tool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steptrip (talk • contribs) 03:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

thats why I don't use tools so I know who I am waring for what so things like that don't happen. It happens though I understand. Just seemed odd to see a helpful IP get penalized like that. --Xiahou 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the above comment, and I also truly wish that VandalProof could be foolproof.  ~Steptrip 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

yea Ive been debating on it. But 2 things, accuracy (situations like this) and plus currently at work and really don't want to install anything. I may at home give it a whirl just to see what these tools are about. But till then I plod along the old fashioned and somewhat fun way. --Xiahou 03:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

WP:AVTRIV. The WP:Air wikiproject also has its own "no trivia" policy. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage Vandalism

Thanks for the reversion of vandalism on my talk page..--Cometstyles 12:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)