Please drop all {{talkback}} type messages (aka "I have responded to your message on my own talk page") in this section. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

@PatPeter and Friendly note regarding talk page messages:

Hello, Kralizec!. You have new messages at Marek69'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 DFS454'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 Glasscity09's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

We were still discussing this page. What is your problem deleting it?--ATurnerIII (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for a subjective and inconsistent process. And the fact that you and others have group think and banded together to delete the article is more evidence of the site's weakness. Sure, I can have more 3rd party article written about CFPA and will. In fact, they are being writting now. But, it's too late. This has become a legal issue. I'm in contact with my attornies about antitrusut violations and soon will contact the site's owner. You can't accept other similar groups for different reasons and selectively reject CFPA. It's illegal. And rest assured, when the summons are issued, your name will be on one.--ATurnerIII (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... I'm inclined to extend a little good faith, after reading his talk page message. But he must understand that this is his absolute last chance, and even one slip-up will result in an indefblock with no preliminaries. Blueboy96 15:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that should work ... how many other admins besides us are waiting with raised banhammers for this guy? Blueboy96 18:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering ... I don't think we'd have too much trouble getting support for a ban if it came to that, since the community has very little tolerance for that kind of behavior. So let's present it to him--take it or leave it. Blueboy96 18:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nice message. I appreciate the time you took and your contacting me about it. Have a happy New Year!--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I will add, that was actually a rather impressive hoax attempt. Given the effort that must have gone into writing those lengthy articles, I suspect someone was trying to measure how long a blatant hoax can pass unnoticed here. :) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - it's so uncluttered here, and it takes just a moment to load. I see you take the same attitude towards archiving as the people in the Middle Ages had towards baths - once a year, whether you need it or not!--Kubigula (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanada Yuki-kun (talk · contribs) is requesting exemption from the autoblock. He seems legit. Can you review? Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comment, I was told by another admin ages ago that official block notices should be left on the page, especially whilst this block is in force. this user has had a recent history of extensive vandalism and has been warned on several occasions. blanking the page gives the reader no indication of this. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

come on you fat bitch why are u going round deleting peoples wikipedia pages if were just trying to spread the word of Kosu u little faggot get a life why would u spend all ur time goin round wikipedia editing i mean seriously ur "college sweetheart" must be so fat that u cant have sex with her so u wank off to editing wiki instead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaaaaan (talk • contribs) 10:01, 9 January 2009

Meet my friend WP:RBI. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, This guy is sad, He has go no life so he gets his kicks out of deleting peoples pages and then blocking them because hes afraid of CONFLICT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahorse Kosu (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 January 2009

The December 2008 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) 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm it was only 10 minutes after he had been blocked not 31 hours. The anonblock template only provides more information. I had accidently supplied a warning when the i.p. was blocked so I felt it was the right thing to do. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  11:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look and a message has come up which advises to use that template. A bit too late now. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not under any ban or warning. please do not keep putting the isp banner on my page as it violates my privacy. I will continue to remove it. 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Ronz is continually harassing me on my talk page! Can you please do something about this? He's not an administrator and has a personal vendetta against me. 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this article has been nominated for del.--J.Mundo (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec! (I guess I'm excited to talk to you). Concerning your comment here, how should the user have been warned differently? No worries if you're busy, I'm just curious so I don't make more bad reports. -kotra (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it was very foolish of you to try —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.155.90 (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message; Regarding the policy on removal of warnings from talk pages in [[WP:USER]}...was that a recent change, or has it always been in place? I was involved in a similar case some time ago and the user in question ended up being blocked. Thanks. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you already answered this on WP:AIV, please feel free to disregard. :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out one of the versions of User talk:68.192.223.254 that has the numerous vandalism warnings. The user blatantly vandalized two articles and then decided to be much more subtle in his/her vandalism by changing numbers in articles. The vandalism warnings came after the editor was asked to stop doing that because it doesn't conform to WP:MOSNUM. Despite that, the edits continued. At that point, vandalism warnings appeared to be the only course of action. Hope that helps. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...thought it was just warnings, not block notices as well, that could be removed. Sorry. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have some help here please, a potentially very big BLP problem, I'm trying to keep the material off the article until/if it is sufficiently sourced. WP:RFPP is backlogged. — Realist² 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is currently being discussed on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Severe_personal_attacks_bordering_on_vandalism. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you un-delete Hung (Napalm Death). It was a single by the band, and it was released on a very notable Earache Records. It should never have been deleted through A7. Undead Warrior (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to read this message. I know that you have blocked this user once before, and was wondering if you could do something again. I do not necessarily mean blocking, but leaving a message of some sort as the user continues to delete the "track listing" from the Before I Self Destruct page. I have obviously tried to talk/warn this user numerous times, as have others, but this continues. If you can help, thank you. And if not, thank you anyway. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting my innappropriate edits. I was not aware that anon users were permitted to remove warnings from their own talk pages. I will use more care in the future. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly true. Well, I'll go back to doing my part to keep Wikipedia clean. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Civility Award
		I hereby award this Barnstar to Kralizec! for his great civility, courtesy and fairness when dealing with my inadvertant policy violations. He is a shining example of the Assume Good Faith doctrine and how Admins should act towards users. Well done. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I meant every word of it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted "costly state verification article"? Did you find some definition somewhere that is comparable? Are you qualified to make this judgment? Also, why you haven't deleted the [1] "Complete contract" article? Why you are destroying the work that I've done which very few individuals are capable to do? V sq (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you think would fit your "notability criteria? Simple search on CSV provides over 160 thousands references to papers in major peer-reviewed scientific magazines.

And also, please explain why Complete contract article meets those criteria and this article doesn't.

I don't want to waste my time "improving" my already well-written article until I get some explanation due for the act of vandalism committed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V sq (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Costly_state_verification. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. V sq (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what was the rationale for deleting it? The log says it's speedy under criterion A7, which does not apply. The comment also says expired prod. Which is applicable? —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatant copyvio - how can you not speedy? – ukexpat (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK you stubbified, no problem. – ukexpat (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at this -- user has added back all the copyvio material. – ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket no. 2009012810027179 refers to the text and NOT the photo. --Zureks (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ;) Inferno, Lord of Penguins 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks on blocking that user. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 2, 2009 @ 00:22

Thanks for the note. I actually didn't know that the policy included anon users too. I knew it included signed in account users like you and me, but I thought when it came to anons they weren't allowed to do so, hence my revision. I learned something there. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 2, 2009 @ 01:14

I am trying to improve the German Shepherd Dog‎ article with a gallery and more and better pictures. The old ones does not illustrate the dog article well, being dark and unclear. User : Ameliorate is reverting the pictures. I removed one because it is uncertain if it should be in the article, (Young Alsatian and Sheperd mix) but the rest should stay.

He reverted them 3 times already :

14:41, 2 February 2009 Ameliorate! (Talk | contribs) (25,448 bytes) (→Description: rv photo back

01:31, 3 February 2009 Ameliorate! (Talk | contribs) (25,381 bytes) (there is more than

13:53, 3 February 2009 Ameliorate! (Talk | contribs) (25,381 bytes) (1) don't add a messy, ugly gallery

That gallery is not uggly. And I think removing it is also constitutes vandalism.

Warrington (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Ok, than that means that it is not vandalism, only an edit war. Sorry. The other editor seems to revert me without dicussing anything. I have to note that have been encouraged many times to add galleries to articles, when there was a lot of nice pictures which were not used in the article on Commons. That because many readers do not know how to find them. A dog article, I belive should show good pictures about the dog breed, I think this is one of the main reasons why people want to read dog articles. I think that pictures are an important part of the articles, wich, if you remove the pictures, will consist of a large amount of text without any visual documentation.

Warrington (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, however, I feel that you as an administrator has abused your authority for the blocking of Klasyays. One administrator declined the unblock request for the reason of a 'direct threat of harm'. When you read the Wikipedia polices to blocking it does not cover the type of comment made by Klasyays as the comment was not a direct threat of harm. Because the comment could have meant anything with no stating threat embedded within it, then multiple emotions could have arisen from the recipient, in this case it would seem the comment is threatening, but blocking someone when there is doubt of there true intentions is unjust to Wikipedia policies and an abuse of your administration. I hereby strongly request the immediate unblocking of this user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawtydoit (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kralizec ! I am completing an article on WP:fr about Donald Thomson , an australian anthropologist (1901-1970) who worked on the ground and fought from the '30 to the '60 for Indigenous Australians rights recognition. I found your beautiful aerial view of Ranger Uranium Mine, and should like to know if you would accept its being deposited into Donald Thomson french article. BTW, what an amazing user's page is yours! Congrats, and hope I'll hear from you soon. --Arapaima (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, "Kralizec!" for your allowance about "Kakadu U*-mine aerial photo". And for your humor & kindness too, which differ notably from "Justin"'s pertness (cf on my user-page, his reaction after I dared to blunder into his article about who founded the first european settlement on Falkland Islands : "I dont wish to dampen your enthusiasm...but I delete").Some tips if you travel again through francophone lands : 1/ blank looks can be easily transformed in latin-lover looks (to be used with parcimony though...). 2/ and here are 3 "phrases passe-partout" (master-key sentences) : with a woman : "Vous êtes trés jolie" (you are so pretty)- & with a man "Vous êtes trés sympa" (you are so nice) - & at the restaurant :"C'était trés bon" (it was so good). As I deduce from your discuss.-page that you are quite stolid, and as you already know "merci beaucoup", you ought to fare well.That's my wish; hope we meet again some other day... --Arapaima (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the Erica Durance page. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote pleased me a lot, as I'm devoted both to Frank Herberts' Dune (read it many times) and movie & mini-series. At first I was a bit disappointed by both movie and mini-series, but gradually I grown to like them both :-) SpeedyGonsales (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

217.41.243.16 (talk · contribs) has received four warnings, how many do they need? AnyPerson (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the second look. AnyPerson (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorming is taking place! Feel free to check it out, and make sure to add your name to the possible attendees if you'd like more information, as this page is mostly gauging interest at the moment. hmwithτ 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where should the Ohio meet up take place? The best option is probably wherever the most people can attend, so you opinion counts. See Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Ohio 1#Location !vote. hmwithτ 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for semi-protecting the Kazuhito Yamashita page, disallowing anon edits. Whosafraidofthedark (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 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) 04:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lame for sure. I'll be five years here in two days time. I guess the responsibility was on me and I should've just ignored it all as I knew before hand what that guy was like, though I didn't know he still bore a grudge. Feel free to add it to the WP:LAME page as my well-deserved trout slapping. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what did you mean by this? You know that his conduct was unbecoming of an admin, yet, you'd have "most likely" cast a stone in the other direction? It would help explain why groups of editors become anti-admin after a while. One rotten fruit can make all of them look rotten; but it's a real shame for the project when that happens. The only reason he wasn't strongly admonished for his conduct was because every admin who wanted to respond knew that it'd have fallen on blind eyes - and I know that for a fact because I was told so by 3 respectable admins who were trying to make sure I stayed calm. Other than mischaracterising my posts, he's been stirring this up from the beginning, and tried very hard at the end, despite Kurykh's message to stop.

First he's going to say something needs to be done, then he's going to make up a grudge, and next he's going to make up something else. Why bother noting that his comments are uncalled for? Howwwww pointlesssss...instead, seeing it's most likely, might as well cast a stone in the other direction, rightttt? Thanksssss...thankssss soooo sooooo muchhhh...words cannot express my appreciation for thisssss, Kralizec! Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Message removed [2] by author, and restored by me since we are continuing the discussion. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was not more clear. I -and probably everyone else- recognize that his extended block was way over the top. However it was fixed in short order and the issue resolved. Everyone makes mistakes, and I see little point in riding people mercilessly when they screw up. However your insistence on "having the last word" with the aggressively worded resolved tag was also way over the top ... which is probably why three different people tried to re-write it to be more neutral.

However since you have not reverted the latest person to re-write the tag using neutral language, I will assume that you have recognized your mistake and decided to stop edit warring over the issue. As I said earlier, I do not believe in riding people over their mistakes, which is why I am not going to cast any stones.

Everyone wins when people learn from their mistakes, so personally, I am thrilled that you and Deacon both gained from this otherwise unpleasant situation. Again I apologize for any misunderstandings caused by my lack of specifics. Thank you, Kralizec! (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (original reply [3] copied from User talk:Ncmvocalist)[reply]

I agree, everyone makes mistakes; but that's a mitigating factor rather than a justification. And of course, I'm not blameless; ideally, if I was a user of another status, I wouldn't have cared enough to insist so. I'd have gotten over this by now, but given that this, in my opinion, expresses an intention of pursuing dispute resolution, this is still an issue.

If for a moment, there was a glimpse that he understood what the mistake was, I would've overlooked him refactoring my comment and we wouldn't even have gotten this far. He showed all appearances against understanding the problem and was unreceptive to the feedback he got from no less than 5 users at the discussion. He then tried to hide the problem in the concluding tag by talking about motives that don't exist (in editsummary, discussion, and subsequent discussions - including above!) Other than being provocative, what does that intend on achieving? In other words, he did not act in a way that you'd expect an admin to, even after the mistake.

Dayewalker wound up climbing on a high horse and reverted on the grounds that Deacon is an admin. That was plainly unhelpful in the absence of discussing it with me or notifying me, in the presence of 5 users having a problem with Deacon's action, and given that the tag was written by the most involved user of all: Deacon. Until Alex's intervention, Deacon continued revert-warring.

I would've walked past your message as I considered it closed. But as Dayewalker would've no doubt added your message into the diffs collection and construed it to mean that I'm the sole problem here, I felt a need to speak. I was annoyed that you suggested casting a stone in my direction without looking at the mitigating factors from my perspective. You've talked about 3 users reverting; I'm talking about 5 users opinions on his action, and several other users who strongly feel on his general approach to adminning - merely insisting on writing out this opinion does not make it a personal attack, nor does it warrant having the stone flung in my direction. I made one mistake in reverting; but he didn't merely just make mistakes in his block, and his reverting - he did more than that. Hope you understand what I'm getting at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about a DR or RfC from Dayewalker, then this may help put it into perspective. Regarding your "3 users reverting vs. 5 users' opinions" concern ... having an admin decision reversed via AN/I consensus rarely causes more than a trout-slapping for the admin who screwed up (again, most of us recognize that everyone makes mistakes). However edit warring is against policy and often results in people getting blocked. As an un-involved admin, I see both issues as being a concern, however only one might necessitate administrative action on the part of me or other admins. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (original reply [4] copied from User talk:Ncmvocalist)[reply]

I don't see how the diff you provided puts it into perspective - please explain.

If there was to be prevention, it wouldn't be equitable to make me the only one. Just because 1 other editor mirrored his revert or because he made less reverts or just because he has tools is no justification. (Note: Alex acted to try to resolve the dispute on the actual page, rather than use the same revert) Again, the user you would not throw a stone at was playing games. If you're experienced with dealing tendentious/problem/civil-pov pushing editors, you will not find it difficult to see the edit-war mentality in this: eg will ameliorate the bad appearance of "edit warring" in any random admin's eyes should make your alarm bells ring, along with the rest. Would you be able to justify inequitable blocks in the interests of this project? No. Enforcing the relevant policy in such a manner was not how it was envisaged by the community, yet, if you were throwing stones, you say you'd promote his mentality in the name of a letter rather than what was intended in spirit. ArbCom wanted admins to enforce policy that is both in letter and spirit, rather than just to the letter. This comment may not be worded very well, but I think you'll understand the point it makes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, looks like I pasted the wrong diff. Here is what I meant to say: "If you are concerned about a DR or RfC from Dayewalker (a la [5]), then this may help put it into perspective." Sorry for the mixup. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (original reply [6] copied from User talk:Ncmvocalist)[reply]

Cheers; that's fine - but that diff page will need to be deleted at some point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OD)Luckily, I have Kralizec's talkpage watchlisted, or I would never have known I was being discussed here. Ncm, I began making out that page when it became apparent you were not going to stop your edit war to make your opinion known in the resolved tag. As I said, I consider the entire discussion lame and reverted you once, then stopped. My edit summary clearly said "There's no need to edit war commentary into the resolved tag, [7]" and as such, I wasn't going to. You seemed dead-set on changing the tag to reflect your opinion on the situation, both adding the "punitive" tag and replacing it five more times. You were edit warring, and I filed the diffs away in case you wouldn't listen to reason. When you were reverted by the third different editor, you stopped, and so I did not file a report of any sort. Your comments to me and to other editors (and indeed, above) didn't seem to show that you understood what had happened and that you were edit warring, so I just finished the page and saved it.

I have no desire to file a report on you. I'd much rather not have contact with you again, to be honest. At the same time, if this situation comes up again (as you seem to keep returning to it), I'd like to have the diffs available to show any admin my conduct.

Since this same discussion appears at Ncm's page, I'll also repeat these comments over there. Kralizec!, apologes for taking up your time with this. I appreciate your patience. Dayewalker (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that I'd quite clearly said that this was over, and did not take any further action, you still chose to compile that page; this was the sole cause for me initiating this discussion both here, and Alex's talk page, despite considering this informally resolved. In these circumstances, I see no good cause to have created this page so late in the dispute - but what's done is done. Thing is, if you intend on keeping that page like similar pages you've created earlier (including as far back as December last year), then I will make a move to have them deleted, as some or all or not compliant with userspace requirements. I hope it will not become necessary for me to do so. In this case particularly, those diffs, as well as the accompanying commentary, aren't designed to show your conduct in this matter as you assert at the end of your comment. My views on your involvement and approach to this are already well known so I need not repeat them. The only part of your comment that is worth explicit endorsement at this point is about rather not having contact with you again - that's mutual. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked me for disruptive editing. What kind? Where it is visible?--71.252.55.101 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question on my talk page [8]. You were blocked for disruptive editing as per this report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Specifically for edits to the Jasenovac concentration camp article, after ignoring these warnings. Wikipedia works by consensus, so if someone reverts your changes to an article, you should discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page, rather than just reverting the other person. Blindly reverting other editors rather than discussing things will most likely result in your being blocked again. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reply [9] copied from User talk:71.252.55.101)

• The above does not constitute any right for this block. I was open for discussion and did not see any willing for discussion of those who sent 'warnings'. These 'warnings' are mere personal attacks and when calling upon rules you have to weight it against reality and not just exercise your ability to block me. About 'consensus' - many changes done there are done by other without any consensus and against basic editorial ethics. Very bad thing that your accusation like "Blindly reverting other editors rather than discussing" is applicable to the accusers - not to me. What you are doing here -is just throwing blind accusations against me in order to justify your block. Just see my talk page - I am again pestered by people who are not willing to discuss anything - rather to blindly disqualify me. I am even a money contributor to Wikipedia and I am going to ask a few questions Mr Wales about very roots of his idea that everyone can contribute and about Wikipedia's administrators--71.252.55.101 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Techman224^Talk 22:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already has removed my warning. Techman224^Talk 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For blocking the two IPs (socks?) who messed up my user page a couple of times. I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice on my page. It is noted --Sikh-history (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I changed your block time for User:Markvision55 to indefinite, as it turns out it's one of a rash of sockpuppets of User:EnglandIslas. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reverting edits by Java Scriptus because he has seemingly been adding false information. (Please see my talk page for what he wrote to me.) I do think he is a threat and his IP should also be blocked, if not already. Thanks for your attention to this issue. -download | sign! 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasde can you kindly do something about the persistent vandalism on my and other people talkpages.

user:sikh-history continues to vandalise the talk pages of user:jsu and my own talk page on several occasions and perhaps many more with whom he disagrees with. He suggests I am canvassing! When I am simply thanking user:jsu for his input to which sikh-hisstory does not seem to like or agree.

I am simply responding Now how can this be canvassing, if I am not making an initial statement, remark or request? He also suggests we are the same user?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsu&diff=prev&oldid=269291241

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsu&diff=prev&oldid=269383918

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsu&diff=prev&oldid=270179329

The links above show blatant vandalism of user talk pages of user:jsu, now this user is probably unaware of this vandalism because it has been vandalised so many times by user:sikh-history

He seems to be a rather audacious character. Please advise him not to vandalise user talk pages and getting away with POV.

Thank you Khalsaburg (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khalsaburg, please stop being so childish. You have been caught removing ISBN numbers and references that did not concur with your POV. It is not only me that reverted your edits but nearly every editor on the Sikh Wikipedia team, and some others too.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, it is much appreciated. I hope I am able to help and contribute in a positive manner! Jargon777 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple mistake with Huggle, my bad. Thanks for notifying me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please block Cardsplayer4life (talk · contribs) from making any edits. They are editwarring with me through the edits I was making via my IP address, I am not sure if you actually read the edits that were made, you would see that my edits were actually not vandalism, but were improving the content of the article by clarifying the subject in order to help the article reach a better "point of neutrality" which is one of the core concepts of Wikipedia.TheTruthLeadsMe (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake, this editor also appears to be the IP 65.96.67.105 (talk · contribs), who was involved in an edit war at NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship. Dayewalker (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes that user is the registered version of the IP, and 2) I was one of three people (in addition to BCSPro and NewGuy34) reverting the (latest) edits of the user in that article, which is apparent if the edit history of the article is pulled up. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'USAA bank one of largest in world', San Antonio Express-News Published 2/24/2009 1. We are the 28th largest bank in the nation

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.104.150 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could be, however your institution is not on our source list, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's quarterly Top 50 bank holding companies report. Since {{50 largest US banks}} is 100% sourced and cited to the FFIEC list, we can only include the banks they include. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! thanx for considering me for the priveledge. I'll abide by the guidelines & rules regarding rollback and will be happy to get this privelege. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has already been explained and dealt with. In other words, you're a bit late. =/ Elm-39 - T/C 19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you brother for welcoming me. That was quite nice of you. Peace Micro360 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooop! I blocked for three hours as you blocked for 24 and only realised when ec'd by the block message we were both placing on the talk page. I've undone my three hour block back to your 24 (me - I'm a softy :)....) Pedro :  Chat  23:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kralizec!, 31 hours for that vitriol? I know its an IP address, and that I suppose that blocks should not be punitive, and should amount to corrective discipline. But that was a level of nonsense that deserved (IMHO) a real sanction, not a slap on the wrist. You have tempered justice with perhaps too much mercy. Hope that all is well with you. Good luck keeping a lid on, and happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I do understand the limited ability to do anything meaningful. But he was just so 'over the top.' Admin apparently has its frustrations, along with the (presumed) rewards. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Hey there, thanks for keeping the vandalism by 202.134.149.222 and 86.96.226.16 at bay. I've given a warning to the former and reported him, so I hope it is enough. Regards, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

137.191.233.130 is a vandalism IP. What can we do to prevent further damage? (Diagear (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The February 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) 22:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most honorable Kralizec!, thanks for your offer of rollback. I will gladly stick to the only-for-obvious-vandalism rule. You will be proud! Regards, — ¾-10 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to harp about the "wrong version", but when you protected this page, you protected the version that wasn't supported by consensus. An IP seeks to have the references tag removed even though more editors than him think it belongs there. Also note this IP has been recently blocked for edit-warring. Please look over this again. Thanks, Themfromspace (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your blocks hvae been very unfair. You block other users who had done nothing wrong. Is it right to block some users and NOT others?? Is that justice????? NO its NOT!! You blocked user 76.16.103.76 who only made TWO edits!!! How can I have broken the 3 revert rule with only 2 edits!!!! Go on ask yorself... Another user Marek69 made 8 edits and IS NOT BLOCKED!! WHY???!!! We appeal for JUSTICE on wikipedia or I will go higher... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisPro2 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye on this bot? Please tb or comment over there, if you choose to. Thanks. tedder (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kralizec!. Have you remembered your block of the IP "165.139.22.67"? Well I was bored, and copied the whole page. Editing some of it, I'm not really blocked from editing, I just look like I am. But I can still edit. Would that be something weird to do? XD Parappa664^{talk | contribs} 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly ... unusual. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also did that to the user crowdo, and edited it as well. Do not think we ressult in edit conflicts ; I'm just bored. :) Parappa664^{talk | contribs} 1:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How about, you know, improving the encyclopedia? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Kradizec! and Special:DeletedContributions/Kradizec!. Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was responding to an unblock request at User talk:RavShimon. You blocked him as a sockpuppet of User:Klaksonn however I don't see any common edits between RavShimon and Klakson in terms of direct textual similarities. Certainly, you have more information that I am not privy to that led you to make your block, but since I do not have access to this information, I cannot respond intelligently to his unblock request. Could you please make a posting on RavShimon's talk page with some diffs to show the obvious duckworthy connection between him and Klaksonn? Without either diffs or a WP:SPI report to go on, I am having a hard time seeing the connection you saw. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You protected this title after the article was unilaterally redirected without discussion. As Jeanne Boylan is a notable topic, it is completely unacceptable that the article be de facto deleted without any discussion whatsoever. Please consider lowering the protection, so that the article may be restored. Regards, Skomorokh 17:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I protected the redirect in regards to m:OTRS Ticket:2009030410054823. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link is no use to me as it requires an OTRS login. To re-iterate, this article was removed out of process, with neither merge discussion or AfD. If you will not lower the protection, please restore the article to the (admin-approved, squeaky-clean) version prior to the redirect [10]. Regards, Skomorokh 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I do not actually disagree with you here. Normally I would have done exactly what you asked for from the beginning, however BLP concerns coupled with an OTRS ticket means that we must proceed deliberately and with caution. I have contacted another admin who has OTRS access and asked him to review both the ticket and the protection of the redirect. If he determines that the vetted version of the article is fine and does not risk any BLP or litigation issues, I will be glad to un-protect and revert the redirect. However until then, I am going to refrain from poking the proverbial litigious tiger in the eye. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable; I can stomach covering the foundation's ass a lot more than tearing down articles on worthy topics out of BLP paranoia. I appreciate your time, and will revisit the issue in a week or so. Regards, Skomorokh 18:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that we have our answer: [11]. I have no idea why (other than the implied legal reasons) as I do not have OTRS access, however I do have a great deal of faith in both Matt's judgment and his ability to accurately assess the facts on the ground. Unfortunately I do not think there is anything else I can do to help at this point. Additional information on the OTRS process (and how to request a review of OTRS-based decisions) can be found on Meta at m:OTRS. However as the Wiki OTRS page notes, "the confidential nature of [the emails used to create OTRS tickets] makes normal wiki-based dispute resolution processes difficult, and often impracticable in many cases." Sorry I could not be of more help. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP adress http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Komondor&diff=275235311&oldid=275234685 has been warned but continues to edit war without discussing any changes and constantly removing relevant information without discussion that needs to be inserted again, several days now. Warrington (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page [12]. My suggestion would be for you to try engaging the editor with a personal message on his or her talk page. Specifically you could invite the IP to join the discussion on the article's talk page so that everyone can work collaboratively toward consensus. Considering the edits in question, if you were to report the IP to AIV, a block request would probably be declined with a Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution.. Good luck! --Kralizec! (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) (original reply [13] copied from User talk:Warrington)[reply]

Still edit waring, now with an account. Now is this editing? )Komondor dog reed):

IMPORTANT PROPORTIONS • The body length sligthly exceeds the height at the withers. • The deepest point of the brisket is approximately on a level with half of the height at the withers. • The muzzle is slightly shorter than half of the length of the head. HEIGHT AT WITHERS Males: Minimum 70 cm. Females: Minimum 65 cm. WEIGHT Males: 50 – 60 kg. Females: 40 – 50 kg. The breed shows few faults in type and is largely uniform as it has always been bred with the same target.[2]

I go and paint myself pink....

Warrington (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have some. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's me. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for blocking this user! It was a pain fixing their re-directs. CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I feel that only established users should be allowed to re-direct articles. Have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For giving me a funny talk page response (Considering the circumstances, should it be the Barnstar of Goood Humor?) What was with that user's obession with the double O, anyway? Have a goood day. ;) CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the moves look fine so far. ;) I'm of course the master of the typo, so I guess I might not be the best person to ask though... ;) CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page moves look good to me. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh yes, this is why I focus mainly on adding content to Wikipedia, not fixing what other people do. I'd screw up so much! Don't worry, it happens to everyone! :) Even established admins! ;) No problemo on the barnstar, the message gave me a good laugh! Have a nice day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-check the circumstances of this matter. You will see that I made 5 edits immediately prior to your block:

[14] removed copyright material from a user page

[15] removed further copyright material from the same page

[16] added copyvio tags to the user page

[17] added advice to the Copyright Problems page

[18] advised the user of the tagging.

Please advise which of these steps you consider to be "disruptive editing"? They all seem to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks, 220.253.65.80 (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked the user with the evidence he provided. I don't see any acts of "vandalism" here; he was merely upholding Wikipedia's copyright policies. —Dark ^talk 10:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed response is located at User talk:Bingo-101a. —Dark ^talk 11:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.25.182.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not a vandal. They were removing disputed content, are participating in talk page discussion, and all that happened was ignorant editors constantly reverted and accused them of vandalism. Please consider unblocking this editor. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome mate. Happy editing! [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in my response, I got really busy recently. Please explain in detail why you blocked me yet not the other editors who were disputing the article. Elpablo69 (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It, too, was declined by someone else for the same reasons I would have given. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see they are from the same IP - I had noticed four instances of disruption all within the last 24 hours. No worries, Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your protection of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management‎, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrinal Pandey. DMacks (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have locked this article, with the vandalism still included. (The person committing the vandalism managed a swift re-edit before just before you locked it). Thanks for the lock though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by David2206 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

The vanadlism here comes from the content being removed by Dave, who I also beileve is the same person who has been harrasing members of the Frank Turner message board community. Please re-instate the statement regarding Million Dead break-up. Thank you. Jontyjoesph (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaarrghhh. Sorry about all of this Kralizec. If you look through the history of the page (and the content when it was last locked due to the same style of vandalism) you will be able to see what is the vandalism, and what is not. Once again, sorry about all this.David2206 (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you look through David's own talk page you will see he has a history of trying to disrupt pages when he decided to "blank" his own talk page with a false stop. Jontyjoesph (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I have received the warning for that (as a new user I did not know it was not allowed for my own talk page). You recently performed the same action on the Frank Turner talk page, deleting my comments on the validity of claims regarding Frank Turner's involvement in the Million Dead break-up. Anyway, this is immature, and it is too late, and doesn't concern Kralizec. What matters is that the Frank Turner page has been reverted to its un-vandalized state.David2206 (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...except it's *NOT* in an un-vandlised state, is it? You know full well that allmost every member of Million Dead has stated in public interviews that they blame Frank Turner for the break-up. Jontyjoesph (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you previously blocked Detroitwheel (talk · contribs) for his edits on West Memphis 3. Looks like he's continuing in the same path, removing sourced (though probably not as sourced as it should be) content and adding what at the very least looks like unencyclopedic content (diff). I get the impression he's POV-pushing (edits like changing "In 2007, DNA collected from the crime scene was tested. None was found to match DNA from Echols, Baldwin, Misskelley nor John Mark Byers" to the unsourced "In 2005, DNA collected from the crime scene was tested an foreign alleles found on the bindings on Steve Branch, and a penile swab from Micheal Moore were consistent with DNA samples from Echols and Misskelley", and completly removing the section on "Mr. Bojangles"), but I'm not completly sure what his goals are. The article really needs some work, but to be honest I'm not really interested in it besides keeping it "clean" and the revision before Detroitwheel's most recent edits seems OK after I removed some unsourced content. Sorry to bother you about this, but I feel someone should do something about Detroitwheel. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 09:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for at least semi-protecting it, but it's not really dealing with the issue as Detroitwheel is auto-confirmed and he just did his usual edits to the article. If you don't want to deal with it (understandable), where would be the most appropriate place to bring it up? WP:BLPN? Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 20:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for protecting P = NP problem; hope the crazy vandal goes away. You've also protected it against being moved, though, but there seems to be no disagreement on the talk page against moving it to the more common name P versus NP problem, the more common name in the literature (e.g. as used by the Millennium Prize Problems at [19], or by Mathworld, etc.) or even simply because we don't believe P=NP. Could this be moved? Thanks, Shreevatsa (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems there isn't actually consensus for the move, so you can ignore the above comment of mine (and this one). Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This morning, having seen the protection on this page has been removed, I made an edit removing some irrelevant material. Not two hours later someone added the 10/10/100 date again, even with the interdiction by Finell. If I am reading this page right, you placed the vandalism protection on the page earlier. Perhaps it's time to do so again. It looks like someone is obsessed with putting that date on the page and will not stop.

Thank you!

Journeybear (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)JB[reply]

of Special:Contributions/125.168.97.158. This makes me chuckle. Enigma^msg 05:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Krazilec! I too have noticed the vandalism in the call out order of rock of love 3. I did my best to help bring it back to the way it was. One thing of note is that I felt it was important to turn Ashley's elimination light blue in episode 9 (Exes and Ohs) as hers was not a standard elimination. If you watch the episode, you will notice that Bret was all ready to give Ashley the pass but asked the key question that revealed how she truly felt about her ex boyfriend in Las Vegas. Because of her hesitation to answer we all knew she wasn't ready to move on and be there for Bret and it was only then Bret decided to end her tour there. Her own inability to answer and move on from her ex qualifies as a voluntary withdrawal, not a standard elimination. Kimmymarie24 (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Kimmymarie24[reply]

Sorry, I have no clue what you are talking about because I do not watch reality television. The article was protected as per a request at Requests for page protection. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I felt it was important to point this out because the way this episode ended for Ashley is strikingly similar to Episode 6 of For The Love Of Ray J entitled "Bad Girls, Bad Girls Whatcha Gonna Do?" in which the wine glass was available to Cashmere at the end, but her own hesitation to take it because she had second thoughts about the pressure around the other girls (and Ray J was not about to pick it up and offer it to her but there it was) earned Cashmere's elimination a dark purple voluntary withdrawal color on the For The Love of Ray J page. VH1 is fun...give it a try! Kimmymarie24 (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Kimmymarie24[reply]

Hello. The user Debresser removed the protection from the Kazakhstan article. It almost immediately started getting vandalized again. I don't believe it was supposed to be removed, and I'm not sure if I can re-add it or if only an admin can do that. Can you take a quick look? Thanks. Otebig (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page [20]. The removal of the {{pp-vandalism}} template by Debresser (talk · contribs) is perfectly fine as the article's protection expired on the 15th. As the article's edit history shows[21], my semi-protection of the article was just for seven days. While the article has been edited several times since this protection ended, I only count three reverts (including my own just now) in the past three days, which is not sufficiently high enough to justify protection on a high profile article like this one. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC) (original reply [22] copied from User talk:Otebig)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say awesome work you do here keep it up. Cheers Kyle1278 (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please be careful when making edits to WP:AIV, as it appears that you accidentally removed one of my administrator's comment [23]. Thanks — Kralizec! (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I started using Huggle about four months ago, I haven't made a manual edit to WP:AIV. This is not the first time that a Huggle edit overlaid an AIV edit, and I will bring this to the attention of Huggle's developers. Alansohn (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this page User:Equazcion/Zeitgeist: Addendum was deleted when the user retired, but was partially userfied at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Zeitgeist: Addendum. I was wondering if you could userfy the talk page to User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Zeitgeist: Addendum.

Also, what's the code you put in the raw signature box so that if you sign on your own talk page it says (talk) instaed of a link? Many Thannks --DFS454 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is so go great to see people getting involved. It seems that some people truly care about the future of the WikiProject Keep Up the Good work. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 19:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being told to "wait" on a AIV post? The vandalism took place within the hour, so it isn't stale. The user has been given 5 warnings in the past hour as well. A block should be in place not "let's wait and see if he vandals some more pages". - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 22, 2009 @ 21:36

Because blocks are preventative, not punitive and the editor has indicated that the problems have halted. It seems to be sincere, but we'll see. Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's not vandalism, either. Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is blantantly removing information from a page not vandalism? - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 23, 2009 @ 03:31

Apoligies in advance to Kralizec!. Please direct any replies to my talk page.

I saw edits like this that would be tough to say were deliberate attempts to compromise Wikipedia - especially after the editor's comments about holding up since s/he was contacting a RTN representative. I'm not known for shying away from blocking folks (probably the contrary), but I'd have a tough time defending a block there if it were challenged. Toddst1 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 pretty much summed it all up for me: as per WP:BLOCK, the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. In light of the IP's commitment to stop, any block I levied now would be punishment. However if this anonymous editor breaks his or her word and continues removing content, then a block would be entirely appropriate as to prevent further disruption of the project. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with it, I will respect it and keep an extremely close eye on the WVVA article (the one the user seems to vandalize more than anything) and the users contribs, but I wouldn't be surprised if the user doesn't switch IPs between now and then. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 23, 2009 @ 12:19

Fair enough. However, even if our anonymous friend switches to another IP, please let me know (especially if you have diffs showing different IPs making the same edits), as I would be more than happy to semi-protect the article. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the user jumps IPs, I might have you do that....and trust me, I have plenty of diffs :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • March 23, 2009 @ 12:26

This user was temporarily blocked by you, but now that the block is off he has now returned to harass me on my talk page. Can you do anything? J Bar (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not until the IP makes a more substantive threat than to leave you alone [24]. However if you can provide diffs showing that this is the same pattern previously used to harass you (or that "leave you alone" is how he/she begins a new wave of abuse), then I could block based on that. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After an admin reverted the same thing that I reverted, he told me "since removing referenced content is considered vandalism then you are permitted to revert them without penalty." [[25]] Why are you warning me, then? This article was written by what seems to be a PR corporate shill, and he is doing everything in his power to block something which might portray any of his subjects in an unfavorable light --Nacl11 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aegis or not, this guy obviously has some sort of self-interest in this article. It is blatant and obvious. LessHeard vanU recognized this. I wish you would also. This editor has used socks to try and get around the 3rr rule and an admin edit. He's written a glowing fluff piece about someone who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar in a very public way. Look at some of the editors other articles. They all take on a similar tone and fairly reek of being the work of a public relations intern. They are mostly about little known business executives and former politicians. (btw, the New York Times Caucus blog has been recognized as a reputable source before). But if a situation which is so obvious on its face is re-cast by you as something about editing technicalities (and your an admin for crying out loud), directly contradicting another admin, I don't really have much hope for this contribution. Thanks. --Nacl11 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any reason you would like to articulate for the block or was it just a general show of force? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding, but the 3RR rule expressly refers to three reverts in a 24-hour period. Since this was clearly not the case, is there a different reason you blocked me? I attempted to defend the cited content that I added to the article on the article's talk page as you suggested, but the other editor kept deleting the cited content. Please explain. --Nacl11 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, thanks a million for that block, my head was starting to spin Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your rationale for blocking User:Manwithvan? I could only find one warning on his talk page. I do not believe that due process was exercised here. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manwithvan (talk · contribs · block log) was reported to WP:AIV as being a "vandalism only account." However I declined to block indefinitely because the user had not been warned sufficiently, so instead I blocked for 31 hours [26]. The block was based on the inappropriate creation of four articles failing WP:NN and WP:BLP. I see that since the block expired, this user has created Emily Ambrose ("most famous for her awesome tennis skills at the well renowned earls colne") and Rebecca Drakeford ("likes a drink on a firday and is a bit of an alci"), as well as the prod'ed Pyronecrophyliac. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you protected Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. I also see that the protection was requested by User:VitasV.

I monitor this page, and do not feel as thought he edits Vitas is complaining about were vandalism. As near as I can tell they were actually anonymous edits by a registered user who appears to have simply not logged in. On the article's talk page, you'll see a comment from Wesp5 who asks that people stop changing his edits. I'm pretty sure the IP edits in question were his.

The edits in question looked to me like valid content, rearranging a section of the article discussing patches to the game.

Further, Vitas said in his PP request that an IP editor had removed portions of the talk page. I don't see any such edits in the history of the page in question. -FeralDruid (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have spent the last few days cleaning up the citations, adding more sources, removing multiple unreliable sources, and moving information around for the article. I have definitely learned a lot since first working on this article to get it to GA. I would like to get this to FA in time for the 15th anniversary to be featured on the main page. First, I want to commence an A-class review with WikiProject:Oklahoma, and since you are a member, I was wondering if you knew of how A-class reviews are handled by the project. I didn't see a nomination page (such as WP:FILMS A-class page). Would you be able to copyedit the article and help me set up an A-class review with the members of the project? I want to get rid of errors/inconsistencies/formatting issues before heading on to FA. Thanks for helping to maintain the article, and hopefully it can be improved further. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand. I'm currently job searching right now, and I think once I'm employed I'll be running out of time here on the many projects I have. Would you still be able to give it a look-over? I never catch my own mistakes, and it would benefit from another set of eyes ensuring everything makes sense. I guess I'll just open up an A-class review on the talk page and then leave a message at the project's main talk page. I'm also not an expert on FA, only having completed one (as well as one FL with one in FLC right now). I had wanted this article to be my first FA, but I didn't really know how the process works and there was continual reverting/editing related to the conspiracy theories section. Fortunately I found some reliable sources for that section finally, and if the article is deemed too long, perhaps that can finally be split off. So I'll take this one step at a time, and hopefully I can reach the goal of getting it featured. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which betters a lot my article about FrDonald Thomson. May I use it again in my future article about "Shibumi", a 1980 book by Trevanian who tells of the struggle between a man ( a modern samurai) - and a secret organization trying to monopolize the world ressources ? I have quite finished FrShibumi & am completing the En article . The caption would run :"Kakadu uranium mine (Northen Territories, Australia). This kind of mine-stripping used to shock Nicholaï Hel" Merci d'avance, bonne continuation Arapaima (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any reason you would like to articulate for the block or was it just a general show of force? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding, but the 3RR rule expressly refers to three reverts in a 24-hour period. Since this clearly was not the case, is there a different reason you blocked me? I attempted to defend the cited content that I added to the article on the article's talk page as you suggested, but the other editor kept deleting the cited content. Please help. --Nacl11 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	I seem to have drawn a crowd of support!
	I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
	A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.

Quite clearly, the page should be unlocked as soon as possible for more comments and new editors should be allowed to edit. I find semi-locks strangely and biasedly enforced on this page. It would have been quite easy to block vandals using an approach that I find Wiki administrators using on other pages where:

1. Administrators could block IP addresses of vandals 2. In case vandals use multiple IPs, administrators could use the facility to block IP ranges, which I believe they have. 3. Block user ids of vandals and proxy ids too. Though I do appreciate that there has been a temporary semi-protect placed some time back, I believe this is a good time to remove it as (and I quote from Wiki policy), "Page protection should not be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." And I hope that this is not the case currently going on with this page as I find it strange that editors who have registered beyond three months are still not allowed to edit. I request administrators to kindly remove the edit lock.

Sincerely, Dean.A.Sandeep (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined as the article has a long history of issues. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--commenting out {top icon | imagename = Toiletpapier (Gobran111).jpg | wikilink = April Fools' Day | description = Toilet Paper for the Port-a-Potty. | id = |width=42 | icon_nr = 0 |extra_offset=0}-->

The March 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) 03:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting Fantasy Ride for a while. The level of vandalism was getting to a shocking level. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed, did you notice his edits post block which caused me to protect the user talk page? -MBK₀₀₄ 18:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was being used by a cross-wiki password reset vandal. I was just running a check in response to a CheckUser-I thread regarding an unnamed vandal, so I'm not sure if this involves Qwertgb. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for stepping in regards to the user Shannon Rose, [27]. I noticed that he/she removed the temp. block notice with [28], and another user commented that notices like this should be kept (the edit was since reverted). I'm not really familiar with policies regarding this, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention, just in case. Regards, Spring12 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Rose's page was protected, but according to this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination)&diff=281769543&oldid=281767429) he/she contacted another user to provide a link to the comments made after being blocked (regarding an AFD discussion). The user (Chillum) that protected Shannon's talk page said I should notify you on direction. Should I respond or try to ignore it? Thanks again, Spring12 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify exactly why you immediately contradicted the close I made on the first America's Top Model request on this second one in response to one IP vandalizing? Without at least letting me know? One IP editor is not enough for semi protection. Prodego ^talk 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because three different contributors to the article had their edits reverted in the past day? By my book, that is good enough for a 24-hour semi. My apologies if you felt I was stepping on your toes; I was looking for un-processed requests, and was not aware that the previous declined protection request had been made just 72 minutes prior. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72 minutes prior and only 3 requests below... That is very light vandalism, mind that you are blocking a lot of people from editing that article. Prodego ^talk 03:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please adjust protection settings of America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12 for two months? It is a two-month fashion-themed reality show airing in the United States and the finale will be in mid-May. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One editor is not a high level of vandalism. Prodego ^talk 02:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the edits of three different users have been reverted in the past day, that is not enough activity to warrant any more than a 24 hour protection at most. The IP from the latest set of edits has already been blocked (coincidentally by me, when I was processing WP:AIV reports before coming to WP:RFPP). If there is a problem again when the 24 protection expires, we can try a 36 or 48 hour protection. Skipping straight to a two month protection is out of the question. Sorry, — Kralizec! (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am E. Joyce Moore the owner of the page you are planning to remove. I am a member of this organization and have the responsibility of creating a page in your website. As you can see the document has some pieces that are similar but the document clearly is not the same as the original. I have added significant third party resources to address your concerns. Please advise. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guvnur (talk • contribs) 11:08, 8 April 2009

Hello Joyce. Thank you for the message you left on my talk page [29]. In regards to your statement there, the actual "owner" of the page in question would be the Wikimedia Foundation, as they own the hardware and software that Wikipedia is hosted on. As a guest on their web site, we are all obligated to follow their rules of conduct here. Specifically, the CFPA article does not assert its notability via reliable, third-party, published sources, as in accordance with requirements for organizations and companies. The existing article is essentially the same as the previously deleted CFPA chicago article, which was itself a repost of the original article that was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Film Producers Alliance. I hope you have a more enjoyable Wikipedia experience than your predecessor Andrew (who had issues trying to follow our rules). Please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC) (original reply [30] copied from User talk:Guvnur)[reply]

I would appreciate your assistance. I am E. Joyce Moore, a writer and a member of the Chicago Film Producers Alliance. I have a new role as public relations for the organization and as a part of that, wanted to pursue the inclusion of our organization in Wikipedia. While some of the material in the article is similar to the original, it is definitely not the same and addresses your initial concern and I quote: The result was delete without bias as the article does not establish notability as per WP:GROUP. Kralizec! (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I have corrected the article accordingly and welcome you to advise me of any other concerns you may have.

Kind regards, E. Joyce Moore--Guvnur (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His edits can be seen using proxies User:84.255.131.37, User:84.255.131.37, etc. - see edit history of 'Aql. To get around the anon-IP ban, he just changed IP. Ogress _smash! 18:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user is new and does not appear to understand procedures. Might you consider userfying the article to User:Guvnur/sandbox/Chicago Film Producers Alliance so that it may be worked on and corrected over time? I really do not think the user understand how to create or use a sandbox, and I'd hate the article to get a "blck mark" becuase it was brought back too soon and in the wrong way. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that went unnoticed... Oh well, if I am going to accidentally block myself every April, I wish I at least had the comic timing to do it on April 1st. On the plus side, I am not the only one who likes to block themselves.[31]

Hi, I nominated this article for GA and it has been reviewed. Unfortunately it didn't pass. One of the issues raised at the GA review is the fact that there is no source quoted for File:HMS Archer (D78).jpg which you uploaded. Would you be kind enough to provide a source for the image? Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]