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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

==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[reply]

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)[reply]