You wrote on my talk page "Hello. You should probably leave a uw-npov1 warning after reverting other editors" I hate to continualy claim ignorance on such things but I am. If you could post back on my talk page. Is there a way to correct my error. Mortsey 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - hope you're doing well. Thanks for the clean up on my contrib to the Sky Financial page. I do admit that I was over the line on the NPOV, but as my small town just lost our financial center just this past week after nearly 60 years, I was feeling a little heartsick. It was especially hard being as I also worked there for quite a few years until 2004. The friends and relationships that were forged from my relationship with the bank leaves me with a hole in my heart. But time shall heal all wounds.

I'm guessing that, given your very nice picture of Lisbon "square" that you perhaps work for Sky?

I live just a few a miles west of Bowling Green, your alma mater. Try and cheer the Falcons on whenever I get the chance.

Cheers! Joe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Westonjoe (talk • contribs) 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the . . . "heads" up. I know there have been many problems with that particular user, but as I'll be away for the next few days I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Exploding Boy 23:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for dealing with HeadMouse correctly --trey 17:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 10	7 July 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news Kentucky subproject promoted California Deletion debates AID restructuring Maryland Featured member GA status Pennsylvania From the editors Notability discussion currently collecting dust
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but after tomorrow, they'll drop back to quiesence, or however you spell that. - DavidWBrooks 16:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were made in good fath. Israel has never been part of the League of Arab States, nor does the Arab League claim it is, it is POV to claim otherwise. I have reverted your revert. I don't normally edit political articles, but this is unjustifiable on your part. Epson291 08:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting Comoros was a mistake, I readded it. Epson291 09:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay in responding. The way it appears is that as if the Sate of Israel's actual 1948 borders are disputed, which is infactual, coloring over an internationally recognized, sovereign nation is not right or factual, and, I'm not sure the Arab League still feeels like that. If certain countries of the Arab League claim Israel is theres, let the article reflect that, but, today, 3 of Israel's neigbours, Egypt, Jordan, and the P.L.O., recognize Israel, and the entire Arab League has floated a peace proposal. And technically, as for coloring the Palestinian terrorties green, they are not even a country, and parts of their land is disputed, as Israel considers some of it disputed terrority.

Anyways, the blue should stay removed , but I don't understand, a league can't control/claim land, a country has to do that, and since the Olso accords the P.L.O (Palestians), have recognized Israel's 1948 borders, so there is nothing for the Arab League to control/claim, because a league can't control land! (and as for the Golan, it's too small to appear on the map anywyas. I think the irony of this might Israel is so tiny you can barely even see it on the map. Epson291 22:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Kralizec. Thanks for the useful pointers. It is nice to have help from someone who knows what they are doing! All the best – Cakepotato —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cakepotato (talk • contribs) 10:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me; however, this time around things just didn't work out. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is duly noted, with apologies.--ukexpat 14:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Please note that as Merbabu (talk · contribs) removes any messages "perceive[d] to be incivility, trolling or bullying" from his talk page, I am copying our (deleted) message exchange from his talk page to mine. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be somewhat low:

Edit summary usage for Merbabu: 47% for major edits and 77% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also note it but without apologies, as I am always careful with courtesy and edit summaries. If you looked at my contribs instead of relying on a bot, you will see this to be the case. And why just the last 150? Please also look at people contributions rather than simply relying on a bot. If you still have a problem, I'd suggest bringing up specific examples with me.

My advice (since it's being given out freely) is to rephrase you comment - in telling me and others to be 'courteous' you no doubt you mean no harm, but it can be easily taken the wrong way. see WP:KETTLE --Merbabu 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies if you perceived my previous message as being impolite or inconsiderate, as that was not the spirit in which it was made. My intention was to leave a friendly request encouraging you to use edit summaries more than your current 47%/77% average. As noted on the WP:ES guideline, using edit summaries makes reviewing watchlists and edit histories much easier for other editors. While the guideline recommends that editors should "always fill in the summary field," it is just a guideline and not policy. Ultimately I hope you extend this consideration to others, but the choice is yours. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dolza from Robotech Macross.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to the Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion#Template:Generations a suggestion to reformat this awful table into a useful navigation box. I'd be interested in your thoughts at the tfd.  ∴ Therefore  talk   12:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tristar-class cruiser.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Freedomeagle 07:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Khyron the Backstabber from Robotech Macross.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Freedomeagle 07:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dolza from Robotech Macross.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

• Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
• TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats}
• master son^{T - C}
• Son^Talk
• (→O - RLY?)

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Firstly I'm not exactly sure how I can save them. I was the person that scanned the images (or stated where I found the images), I noted this and posted all the info I had on the images and yet they are tagged for deletion. I am tired of my images getting removed and deleted after I have tried to follow all the rules to the best of my ability. I use to love trying to spruce up wikipedia but it has just worn on me and I no longer have th passion for it that I once did. Thank you for your kind words though. Dstorres (talk)

Some states have moved up their primaries, not for special privilege or to increase their influence over and above smaller states, but to make what had been a diminished vote of each citizen in that state, more equal to states who previously held their primary earlier. For example, in the 2004 democratic primary in New Jersey, supporters of candidates other than John Kerry did not even apparently show up at the June 5th primary, and Kerry received 94 percent of the vote. Supporters of Howard Dean in that election had no say whatsoever in the outcome. I appreciated citation in this article to the New York Times article which included positive comments on the reasons why New Jersey moved up its primary. I also appreciated the look, feel and professionalism of the article.

If wrote an article for Wikipedia, it would be difficult to erase a personal point of view from the article on subjects I felt strongly about. Part of the accuracy of Wikipedia articles comes not in the form of the choice of reputable sources, but in decisions about which points of view from those sources should be mentioned in the article. If I prepared a Wikipedia article, I may be reluctant to include a blank section entitled "positive opinions," and include a written section entitled "negative opinions," if the sources I cited include both positive and negative opinions. The blank section could easily be misinterpreted as an editorial comment itself, to make the comment that there were no positive opinions. Bri2499 11:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec - received your note on edit summaries. Is there a specific article I've messed up or just in general? Cheers Buckshot06 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 17:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the rules, now I know. It won't happen again. Although I think the last entry is link spam in disguise.

http://www.texascooking.com/fiestaware/

It doesn't take you to the "Forum". It takes you to a commercial site, that has a message board, that you have to 'dig' for.

q

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 11	18 August 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State and national updates Project news Cleanup system revamped Assessment Deletion debates Stubs renamed New York Featured member IRC channel goes global From the editors Minnesota bridge collapses One year after SRNC: A reflection
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 21:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up

sorry about the late response, I have not been able to login for 2 weeks. Mr. Killigan 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on KDY, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because KDY is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting KDY, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 02:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty. I don't think I have the tools to move and rename (yes I was planning on WP:BOLDly trying to fix the article, but there was a small chance of BOLDly screwing it up), but if you're adminified, then it's past time this page was corrected. If there's anything I can do let me know. BURNyA 18:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad joke. Anyway, the disambiguation page looks great. I'm glad you were able to take the time to do it. I'm still a wee bit green and would have taken a much longer time while being sloppier. Thanks again. BURNyA 19:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is NA in regards to "class" for the wikiprojects (military and ships)? I see no such option. Do you mean Not Applicable? In that case, feel free to delete the wikiproject tags. I think I may have been the one to add them, but if I'm adding non-relevant pages I'd like to know, and an explanation on what makes them non-relevant would be educational so I don't cause more rework for others. Thanks! Speficially, I'm referring to your recent edit of Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy. - 20:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ageekgal (talk • contribs)

Hello. Thanks for lending a hand with article assessments in the Military history and Ships WikiProjects. However you may wish to review the projects' assessment instructions (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment) as I noticed that you had performed a couple of non-standard assessments. Specifically in the case of Category talk:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy, non-article pages (templates, disambiguation pages, cats, etc.) are generally given a "NA" designation by both projects for both class and importance. Likewise for Talk:Garcia class frigate, the assessment criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment#Importance assessment indicates that ship classes typically are assigned a "high" importance, with "top" importance generally reserved for ship types (however there are a few notable exceptions). Thanks again for your help, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 12 • September 1, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features WikiProject template system revamped Inactivity report Stub template changes continue	State and national updates Missouri New Jersey New York Wisconsin
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't remember rervting, what I did try to do this morning was unwatch the article so I may have hit revert by mistake. If it hasn't been restored I will go back and restore the original. Cheers. Adam.J.W.C. 01:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored to previous version. Cheers. Adam.J.W.C. 01:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! This is a random delivery of the WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter, the "WikiOkie Reporter". You will not recieve this again unless you sign up.

The WikiOkie Reporter WikiProject Oklahoma's Newsletter Issue 1 - September 2007 Discuss this newsletter	Your second or third stop for WikiProject Oklahoma News Sign up to receive this newsletter Oklahoma Portal Current article statistics
WikiProject Oklahoma releases new newsletter September 2007 brings a new face to WikiProject Oklahoma: a newsletter. As in all of Wikipedia, the new WikiOkie Reporter (tenative name) is intended to be a collaborative effort among editors. Anyone can edit it: this month's newsletter is placed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma/newsletter/aug07, but next month's will be placed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma/newsletter/oct07, with the following month at /newsletter/nov07, and so on. While this month's article's were initially written by User:Okiefromokla, it is hoped other editors will be excited to contribute to articles, content, layout, and ideas. This is a completely new child of WikiProject Oklahoma, and it should reflect the collaborative work of everyone who's bored and has nothing to do for a few minutes. As such, anything can be discussed here: anything - layout, color scheme, pictures, content, etc. The behind-the-scenes workings for the WikiOkie Reporter will be simple: anyone wishing to receive the newsletter in their talk page may place their name at sign-up list, but they are more than free to remove their name from the same list at any time. Anyone wishing to discuss ideas or anything at all related to the newsletter may look no further than here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oklahoma/newsletter/talk. Several WikiProjects already have ongoing newsletters, including Wikipedia: WikiProject North Dakota, from which WikiProject Oklahoma's newsletter has been based. For the time being, Okiefromokla will assume distribution responsibilities for the newsletter, maintaining the template, and writing articles from scratch if other editors have not done so by the 1st of the month. Promotions on the rise For many Wikipedians, summer is a time to kick back, relax, and make an occasional minor edit to their favorite few pages. Not so in WikiProject Oklahoma. Between May 12 and September, editors have been busily working on Oklahoma, Tulsa, and Woody Guthrie, and all three have been promoted. Prior to May, there were only seven Featured or Good articles in WikiProject Oklahoma. On May 12, Tulsa was promoted from B-class to FA class after a few months of extensive editing. Its primary editors were User:Nmajdan, User:SandyGeorgia, User:Okiefromokla, and a handful of others. On August 25, Oklahoma was promoted from B-class to FA class after a month-long blitz. User:Okiefromokla, User: SandyGeorgia, and several anonymous IPs contributed heavily to the article. On June 13, 2007, Woody Guthrie was promoted from B-Class to GA class after two failed attempts at promotion. User:Dannygutters, User:Gaff, User:Maenpong, and a handful of others contributed most to the article.
This month's task: Assess articles! Check out all these unassessed articles to help out!
The WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter is a work in progress so please share your ideas about how the newsletter can be improved. If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the sign-up list.

This newsletter was delivered to you by User:Okiefromokla

Thanks. It's sort of like a rough draft until more people get involved. Feel free to contribute to it if you so desire! Okiefromokla•talk 23:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't worry me. I wasn't the one who originally classed it. I just copied it over from MILHIST. -- saberwyn 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The first comment I would argue has nothing to do with Wikpedia. Perhaps if it was re-formatted to become a discussion based on the criticism of the MNNA policy, then yes, perhaps it could turn into such a thing. But besides that, since it isn't, and since it can't be changed, it is rather just Anti-Americanism and un-needed criticism of a foreign policy without contributing to the page. I guess I'll go criticize Russian foreign policy now then.--24.10.59.229 20:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, TW isn't popping up a userpage anymore (even after browser restart)/cache clearing/etc, and I will remember next time :) Ty ICAPTCHA 19:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! You did the quality assessment, which is more time consuming than importance. I just wanted to give it an importance rating so that it doesn't show up as unassessed for the next bot update. I appreciate it when people add the WPCANADA template and actually take the time to assesses it as well, makes less work for me (I'm trying to assess all the WPCANADA articles except for John Babcock and Eric Peterson, which I worked on myself and thus cannot assess). Anyhow, I digress. Don't worry about it all, it was just a minor fix. Cheers, CP 15:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--TheWikiLoner 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome and the information! I wasn't sure how the system handled that automatically. I'll go fix what I changed and do as you indicated in the future. -- Jalanpalmer 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was an oops. Thanks for catching it. -- saberwyn 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just got around to reading your User page and I had to comment on this:

Pet peeve: Articles that link to disambiguation pages instead of the correct article are the bane of my existence.

One of the first things I did after joining WP:SHIPS was (don't laugh!) go through every shipindex page, check 'what links here', and disambiguate every link. I SAID DON'T LAUGH.

Ironically, I am an IT and healthcare geek too - and my son was born in 2004. Are you my evil twin? Maralia 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am of the female persuasion, so I certainly hope I don't! However, being female alone could be argued as indicative of evilness. Maralia 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have your page watchlisted, and saw the comment below; now we know what's wrong with the government - they use Comcast! Maralia 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 13 • September 15, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features U.S. road editors attempt to achieve the two millionth Wikipedia article WikiProject page revamped Bannered U.S. Routes merged Quality first: WikiWork, stubs, and improvement of the project	State and national updates New York
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 19:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article you have edited contains classified information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.101.153 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thanks for the message. Firstly what the anon ip did was remove referenced material as well as lines of infomation without himself adding a edid summary. However I do not go and warn every user I meet unless the edits are overtly offensive or blantent vandalism. Also it is evident the ip does not want warnings as he blanked the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.254.101.153&action=history. Which I reverted. Have a good day! Phgao 02:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I see you edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Naval_reactor&action=history quite a bit and I welcome you following up on my reverts. Phgao 02:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I always put "r" when I revert. I take that as being sufficient. In addition, I rarely revert contentious edits, always those that are blatent or remove referenced/sourced material or those that remove chunks of material without putting edit summaries themselves. Phgao 03:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add that if "r" is not sufficient, and you would like me to give detailed explanations for each revert, that is not possible as when I'm reverting vandalism every 10 seconds on RCP, a simple "r" does it for me. Also I expect most using programs to assist in reverting would have added me to ignore, not showing my edits. Phgao 03:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no one else has pointed this out to me, I believe I will stick to what I do. Most editors are not babies, and they should be able to understand that removing infomation without any desription of why, will lead to it being put back. Also if I were to place a tag, I would simply place a warn tag for vandalism, which every other RCP person does. Note that the warn tag does not really explain why either, but vandalism is vandalism. Phgao 03:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revert changes to image sizes and addition of un-cited claims

Everyone who can read Portugues can confirme the fact by reading newspapers of the day as I wrote. Should there be sources in the Internet? --Morio 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Against my better judgment I decided to once again try and start uploading images now that I though I knew what I needed to upload them and not have them deleted. Today I get a fair use dispute notice for the following: Image:AOFMrBig.jpg. Can you help me try and save this because I have the feeling that the rest of the images I've spent the last week and a half loading are next on the list. If you can thanks. Dstorres (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kralizec,

I was sent a message stating:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for experimenting with the page Bushfire, and for reverting your edits. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. In the future, please do not experiment on article pages; instead, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I wasn't experimenting, I just deleted some Spam someone put up. I can't remember exactly what it was about but all I did was delete some non sequitur. I didn't revert any edits that I remember.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.45.1 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 September 2007

Thank you for your message [1]. In reviewing [2] the edit history for Bushfire, it appears that I warned the wrong editor. Ooops, sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know about my mistake! --Kralizec! (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't intend to revert those back into the article. Thank you for letting me know about the mistake I made. -- Bidgee 06:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's fine. I wasn't adding personal favorites or anything. Just that I have a lot of Sky Banks in my area, and I know a lot of people who have Sky as their bank. (I myself bank at Citizens Bank.) And they're supposed to be officialy switching to Huntington this weekend. They already have the signs ready and everything, just covered in tarp with temporary SkyBank signs at the moment. I was just getting the template ready since by the end of the weekend, the SkyBank name will be no more. Just another sign of bank consolidation in this country.

And for the record, the other banks on that list in my area are Chase, PNC, National City, KeyBank, and Fifth Third. Strangely enough, we're starting to get Fifth Third in this area simply by them opening new branches as opposed to buying someone out.Jgera5 04:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kralizec!. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:

1. Please update your information at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
2. There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the revamps are acceptable. I can think of various tweaks, but that's inevitable. Do you have problems with them? - DavidWBrooks 23:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not perfect, but personally I can live with it. I'm not sure it really matters all that much; as long as there are enough clear links between articles people can wander around and find what they want. - DavidWBrooks 12:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know? I had a few article deleted, as well... before I fully knew the notability guidelines. And I helped clean up other articles that ended up being deleted as well. I also went through, adding a lot of WP:SPEEDY (and WP:AFD) templates to articles that were deleted. That's all of which I can think...  hmwith  talk 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, yeah, that's probably why. I used to have a bunch of pages in my userspace, which I deleted. I deleted my userpage and started over from scratch a bit back, as well.  hmwith  talk 01:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I did tons of practice edits on it, how to make templates, transclude, colors, etc. The edits were really building it, and it was overwhelming looking through the edit history. I decided that I just wanted to start over with it. No real set reason, really. It's just easier to look through the edit history now, and get rid of all of my random, messed up edits from before I knew that there was an "edit preview" button, haha.  hmwith  talk 14:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I've looked over the edit history of the Oklahoma City article and I'm not sure where the WP:OWN issue is coming in. Except for the picture in the lead that disrupts the TOC, which I see was reinserted after you removed it but I have since removed it again. Are there any issues im not seeing? Okiefromokla•talk 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm just happy someone has finally taken an interest in that article. Its been a long time coming. Okiefromokla•talk 21:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Karlizec!:

The N7W of the world were announced in ascending order, according to the number of votes each of them received. As you can see in the official broadcasting here [3] , the list was constucted in ascending order (everytime a new wonder is officially announced goes down in the list). I also read this in the news, I think that will be the best reference to add to the article, I will look for the sources and paste them. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! No problem; I wasn't aware the ships naming convention wasn't the same as the standard. ELIMINATORJR 18:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to archive, or remove embedded newsletters or something - your Contents list is overlapping embedded stuff. I bet the zombies are responsible for that too. Maralia 18:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for invitation, I'm member now!

Thanks for invitation, I'm member now!

pogo935 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pogo935 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your most recent comments, if you'd like to have a look. Thanks much for responding! :) Girolamo Savonarola 21:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 14 • September 30, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Consolidation of participants list causes controversy Portal structure change Discussions regarding notability	State and national updates U.S. Routes New Jersey Pennsylvania New York State New York County Texas
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 01:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Archive 2008! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for the welcome message. I know that English wikipedia is not perfect, but it's a completely different level... Ozalid 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did a good job with the article. It as all the information of the portuguese one and I don't believe there is much more to say. Maybe the introduction could mention the fact that this event was the portuguese version of the New Seven Wonders of the World event and that it worked the same way (people voted in the Internet and by phone).

I did found one factual error. There is, indeed, a Conselho de Notáveis at the University of Évora, but it has nothing to do with this Conselho de Notáveis. The expression Conselho de Notáveis means something like council (board) of notable people. Here's a suggestion for that sentence: The contenders were further reduced to 21 finalist in four different categories by a board of notable architects, historians, politicians, businessmen, writers and other citizens (Conselho de Notáveis).

This is the source for the architects, historians, politicians, etc. information. Maybe the word citizens would work better with personalities instead. Maybe there is a good english equivalent expression for Conselho de Notáveis that could be used...

I haven't written or spoken in english for more then ten years, and, as you can see, my english is a bit rusty. That is why, for the time being, I don't dare to edit directly on the articles. But you can use this informations any way you think it's best. I'm sorry for not being able to be more helpful then this... Ozalid 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, British and United States military ranks compared, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and United States military ranks compared. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help at ANI - I appreciate the positive and constructive way in which you contributed. I'll be steering clear of that page for a while, as I really can't cope with the atmosphere there at the moment, and there aren't enough people like you contributing! Best wishes, DuncanHill 13:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a recent change in policy; one of my first actions on Wikipedia (2-3 yrs ago) was to remove a welcome message or comment, and I was kindly told my another editor to leave it on my talk page, as a record of communication. Also, I've seen countless example of vandals removing user talk page warnings, only to be blocked by an admin. A user talk page is kind of meaningless if an editor can select which comments to keep and which to delete, let alone ignore. Regardless, I'm just going to follow up on that on a related RFC. --Madchester 01:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages" bit has been in the WP:USER guideline for 249 days [4], and it has been part of the official WP:VAN policy for at least 649 days [5]. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you'd be interested in helping us out but we've got 165,000 articles needing tagging. It's all explained here. You seem to have mastered AWB and you could just eat through them. Many of untagged WPSHIPS articles too. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 23:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I look forward to having you on board :))) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 06:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might appreciate a break from your assessment obsession, so I offer: one of the most amusing fanboy pages I've seen on here...and the resultant website created in response to the article cleanup by the "boat loving sinner Maralia". Sadly, I have yet to receive the promised visit from the "army of midget Oleg warriors." Maralia 19:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been declared inactive at USRD. If this is in error, feel free to restore yourself to the list, but only if you are truly active at USRD. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that--learned something new. Dppowell 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy assistance! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you as well for bringing it there. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I ran into the issue, I was surprised no one else had taken it to WP:SSP, especially since another editor had said as much [6] weeks ago. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because obvious cases don't need to be reported there. You can contact any admin (especially the admin who blocked the sock master) w/o filing a case. Also because The problem is that the SSP is so backlogged and w/ the increasing volume of cases, admin actions takes a bit longer to be executed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info. Next time (and after reading the previous SSP cases, I have little doubt there will be a next time) I will skip straight to an admin. Thanks again! --Kralizec! (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time and i know it will happen again bring it to. I was the admin who dealt w/ Mariam83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since the begining by blocking the sock master account and all of her/his socks. No worries about that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant for a user's talk page, to which I have removed it. Daniel Case 03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On October 29, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raspberry Island (Alaska), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I removed any content. I simply corrected spelling. Can you let me know what I allegedly removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.25.3 (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of islands of the United States by area, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--chaser - t 16:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be an idiot. My edits are constructive and are correcting spelling errors. I doubt you even looked at my changes other than the comment.

Don't act all high and mighty. You are clearly wrong in this situation. I am going to continue to _FIX_ this page until you offer a reason why I should not. Douchebag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.25.3 (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not given a justification for why you are reverting my changes. You keep giving a vague, boilerplate response. Use your brain and come up with an argument for why the name of Hawaii should be misspelled? The official name of the state is "Hawaii", not "Hawai'i".

Also, get off your high horse. You may think that because you spend a lot of time on wikipedia, you are somehow above other people. You are not. That is the point of wikipedia.

Think about the effects your actions cause on others. What if I were a person who has never used wikipedia, and I went in and made these changes. Some person comes along and scolds me for absolutely no reason. I am going to stop using it and stop making changes. So your tactic of giving no justification for reverting somebody's changes is quite counter-productive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.25.3 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit from my talk page: "Hello. Just curious as to why you changed [7] a reference in the B-25 Mitchell article out of the existing citation template? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Hi Kralizec!, thanks for your note; as you can see in the revision, I have moved the same information into a "scratch cataloging" entry when I noted that the citation template you used had a dissimilar date convention. The only way to change the submission was to rewrite it to keep the dates consistent with the rest of the article. No real change other than rearranging stuff. FWIW Bzuk 16:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I find that the citation/reference templates are so "buggy" that I have resorted in most cases to simply writing in the submission "long hand" or in "scratch cataloging." The date issue is one that an aviation project group has grappled with and by agreement, it was established that the "formal" style of dates was to be adopted in order to address problems with browser preferences as well as deciding which country's format to use. FWIW Bzuk 16:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It’s a fair point you raise, it just seemed a little unfair to me, but that is a subjective view. I cited no references however common sense (which I regard very highly) dictates that it is probably controversial to have two wonders from one race of people (one which many people haven't heard of) while leaving out the second biggest race of people (Indians) and their wonder which I believe many more people have heard of. I thought it was general knowledge, I accept (and pity) that it isn't, but this is the way of Wikipedia, chauvinism of one type or the other always creeps in in the most subtle inconspicuous ways possible.

Regards, 81.99.235.249 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, thats the problem, I can't back up what I said and I understand and appreciate that you had to revert my edits. Nevermind. 81.99.235.249 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the second and third paragraphs, as well as the Recent acquisitions sections needed to be done. It shouldn't take a good contributor very long to fix these five paragraphs. ~ WikiDon 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (and I thought my talk page had a lot of items...)[reply]

I simply removed that sentence because it does not reflect the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.96.90 (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) which has now closed as "keep". I think it's worth having a more general discussion as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs and I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Follow-up. I'm inviting all the AfD participants, both pro and con, to join in with their thoughts on the topic. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K-- thanks for your hard work on adding and updated assessments. It occurred to me that vessel type may be ambiguous. I posted a reply at Talk:Turret deck ship. Regards, Kablammo 14:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It actually has been taken to talk on Seattle SuperSonics because there has been a slow revert war on that page and also on Oklahoma regarding the same material. The user was simply removing material that is still being disputed in discussion on Talk:Seattle SuperSonics. Feel free to join in if you'd like, thanks again. This is a sock puppet of User:Okiefromokla 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a comment to the discussion page about the canal issue, and would appreciate discussing it with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vttale (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't mourn the loss of Trip pilots at all, which AfD are you saying this has been deleted under before? Cheers --Pak21 (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G4 explicitly does not apply to material deleted via speedy deletions. I'll remove the tag. --Pak21 (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky :-) While I happily admit I know basically nothing about the subject, I think there may be an encyclopedic article on "trip pilots" waiting to be written. What's there at the moment isn't it, though, but the question I'd ask is whether deleting what's there would actually improve the encyclopedia. You could take it to AfD, although I'd possibly just be tempted to merge the little encyclopedic content there into a more general article (not that I've looked for one of those yet either). Cheers --Pak21 (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw this discussion at WP:MFD. However, since templates should be nominated at Wikipedia: Templates for deletion, I've closed the discussion and open one there.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Khukri 13:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drat - Khukri beat me to it. I had just started reviewing your history with a view towards nominating you. I guess I'll have to be content with a co-nom.--Kubigula (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not prepared to comment a RFA, but I must say that I was wondering for some time why on earth you aren't an administrator. I wish you a successful nomination. Ozalid 10:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ready?--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) P.S - you may want to consider more frequent archiving of this page, particular if the RfA goes well.[reply]

so if you agreed with me on the proposel i have one question.

do you agree that we should etheir make more awards for the ship project or should we hold an election every year for a new barnstar? --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored to receive the WP:SHIPS barnstar. It was fun creating the stars and I hope that it will serve the project well. It doesn't seem to be unanimous, but I think it has a good look and a nautical theme appropriate for the project. --Dual Freq 05:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tute on that. I'm getting the idea... WP:UTM has a lot of templates.  :-) Regards, JohnI 20:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting that at all! Thanks so much for thinking of me; it's good to know that I'm not just driving everyone crazy with my attempts to get people motivated :) Maralia 13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

75.21.169.111 has done some vandilisng of a user page twice then he attacked mine canyou block him? hes a nussinceANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I was just about to do that. I was just going through the various socks to see what damage had been done. All the edits are presumably the same person, going by the style and content. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to your message) Yeah, that's what I was thinking - and not from the area - with the added suggestion, that if he is a current student, he might want to think about transferring somewhere else. :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you, Kralizec!, anyone who complains about DuPage Women is a sexual predator!!? How can you say this?! DuPage County is the rude capital of North America! Worse than Boston, worse than Newark, far worse than New York City! I live in the hellhole, disabled, and trapped here like a caged dog in a sinking ocean liner! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.216.2 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--ANOMALY-116 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)reltion to anomaly-117[reply]

Your meddlesome editing is compromising the content of the articles that you have chosen to edit rather blindly. You very clearly know nothing about the Arab World yet you insist on reverting edits that enrich the information. I urge you to rethink your behavior and wikipedia's mission- which, believe it or not, is not to appease your personal whims but rather to inform. The enmeshing of Mediterranena North Africa with an alien, sub-saharan culture is pseudo-intellectual and based on fiction rather than fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.76.51 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kralizec!, thank you for reporting the vandalism being made by multiple IP addresses. Like you, I'm thinking it's the actions of a blocked user. Not only am I reverting the vandalism and blocking the vandal IPs, but I'm also protecting the articles as I clean them up. It makes for a long night, but hopefully it curtails the vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the sockpuppet list: Wow. Why some people get their jollies by causing everybody else so much pain, I will never know. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. More socks have arrived, but I'm cutting it off with some protections. Keep up the hard work though! :) Jmlk17 09:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you are not an admin? :) Jmlk17 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Kralizec! I'd just like to thank you for your many valuable contributions to Wikipedia. They are certainly appreciated! Kepp up the good work. Love, Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

After unanimous support in your candidacy, I've now made you an admin. Have fun with the new tools and continuing to make this a better place. Spend some more time on the admin reading list and be conservative with the tools. It's better to try to de-escalate a situation than block for example. I'm sure you'll do well, keep up the good work, and keep writing articles. - Taxman ^Talk 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, well done. Unanimous is always good! (Wikipedia:New admin school was a big help for me.) Good luck. Woody (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo hoo - congrats! Feel free to ask if you need help, but I'm sure you'll do fine. Do remember that it's all too easy to get caught up in the admin stuff and forget about writing articles.--Kubigula (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well crap, I was planning on looking at your edits later tonight when I got home to see if I could give you one of my "coveted" support !votes. I doubt I would have found anything amiss, so consider this a support-in-spirit. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, piece of cake. ×Meegs 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, and you were worried there'd be an oppose vote ;) I'm sure we'll stay in contact (I never did tell you I read the same books and have a 6ft tropical tank in my living room did I?) All the best, never hesitate to ask for help, and no questions are daft questions. Cheers ^Khukri 07:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey nice mop, Kiddo! JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your action today against the multiple IP attacks. It seems the person may be on, perhaps, dial-up, and can change their IP address by disconnecting and reconnecting, for example. If these attacks continue, do I have to report each one each time, and can I refer to today's blockings for administrators to take into account before acting, even though different IPs may be used (but obviously linked)? Thanks again, and in advance.  SEO^{75 [talk]} 12:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comment. This probably isn't a good thing, but it hasn't actually been discussed as such I personally think it would be better archiving when and only discussiona are resolved, sometimes discussions can go 24 hours without comment, yet still get archived, even if no resolution is in sight. Should such a change be discussed on the board or not? I personally think it is better to only archive discussions when they are resolved. If you want to bring it up on the ANI board, please do, as I'm sure others may have a different opinion on the matter. Besides, I think the board will be not under as much "stress" as it was before. If you wish to bring it up somewhere else, please do. Thanks for your concern. Cheers! :) Davnel03 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the problematic edit history of the page; it appears that surprisingly, we managed to find a compromise. However (sorry, this is the part where I bug you) it still appears that we have one or two indefinitely blocked users using a bunch of sock puppets to make nonconstructive, arbitrary, often abuse-laden edits to articles related to gothic subculture. In addition to the subsection that I created on the notice board which you've already seen here, I also created a subsection on the Incidents board over here, given that we're looking at a case of repeated block evasion and sockpuppetry. All of the anonymous IPs making these edits fall into a specific range, in which IPs have also been identified (and some recently so) as sockpuppets of User:Breathtaker, another user notorious for making nonconstructive edits to pages relating to gothic subculture and using sockpuppets to evade his indefinite block. Sorry if I'm champing at the bit for quick action, but this is a user(s) that has been really abusive and created a lot of trouble for a lot of editors on a lot of pages. --Halloween jack (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar that is. Always nice to know your efforts are noticed. I don't do it for the glory though, I do it for the love of the subject. And the glory. And perhaps because I'm a little odd in the head. Did I mention the glory? Anyway, thanks very much indeed! Pip pip, Benea (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Colbert's elephants
stampede Wikipedia
Must protect, protect

Wiki fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings free
But fiends are about

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Thanks for your support in my RfA -- I apparently passed muster with the Khabal notwithstanding my comments^[9][10] in your own RfA!

As well, congratulations on your own successful RfA -- perhaps we can take turns accidentally deleting the Main Page this week.

Enjoy your haikus,
--A. B. ^(talk) 13:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewjewrange (talk · contribs), obvious sock puppet of Jewjewrangers (talk · contribs). Thanks! --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many warnings are appropriate before a block? This is just for my information as 206.196.121.13 has been warned twice. will381796 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message; I was already in the process of writing this explainer, so I hope it answers your questions. Looking at the contributions history, here is the time-line I see:

• • IP: article vandalized at 08:45
  • Will381796: first warning issued at 08:59
  • IP: article vandalized again at 11:00
  • IP: the IP's final edit removes the auto-sig on the AfD at 11:01; no additional edits have been made after this point
  • Will381796: message saying the issue will be reported to WP:AIV left at 11:05
  • Will381796: reported to AIV at 11:07
  • Kralizec!: declined to block at 11:09
  • Will381796: a "last warning" issued at [11:12

From my perspective, it appears that the vandal only received one low-level warning at 08:59, then was reported to AIV after their next edit. In your message on my talk page [11], you said the IP had already been warned twice, however your 11:05 message to the IP was not a warning, and your 11:12 warning was issued five minutes after your AIV report and three minutes after my decline. Even if your 11:05 message to the IP had been a warning, a block would not have been issued because the IP stopped editing at 11:01.

Except in the most egregious cases, editors should receive at least a couple of user warnings regarding their edits, with at least one of those warnings being a level-3 or level-4 "last warning" before a block may be requested. If the editor continues vandalizing after a warning is issued, step up the the warning to the next level. (Please note that warnings should only be escalated if the editor continues to vandalize after their previous warning; making four vandalism edits at 08:05 does not mean that four levels of warnings can be instantly issued.)

If you give four levels of properly escalated warnings, I can guarantee that virtually every one of your block requests will be implemented. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Will381796)[reply]

Thank you very much for the information. I will try abide by these. will381796 (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help! Do not feel bad; it seems like we decline at least 20% of block requests for this or similar reasons. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any other questions, and thanks again for your vandal fighting! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Will381796)[reply]

• Thanks for blocking him. Not only did he again vandalize the article and made the personal attack on the AfD discussion, but he also vandalized my talk page with a personal attack. will381796 (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec, I thought the same thing. The IP did stop after the final, so a block wasn't really needed. Anyway, good luck with the tools. I think you'll do just fine with it :) Spellcast (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that's a much easier template to use. Thanks for that, I'll use it in the future. Spellcast (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue if I could ;) Nice to meet you! Brianga (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the problem :) Feel free to directly revert me in the future :) I've reblocked the ip with the right duration. I still don't understand why sometimes the script works and others doesn't :( (By the way, remember to sign ;-)) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um...what? This person is a sockpuppet of Dingbat2007, obviously doing an end round his block. So......why isn't he blocked? I am supposed to help that I am the first one to see it and report it?...and I am supposed to help it takes admins awhile to get over to AIV (not like they are sitting on the page all day). Sockpuppet of indef blocked user, means they get blocked too. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message [12]. I declined the block of 76.212.140.203 (talk · contribs) because this individual's last edit was at 20:28, which was 74 minutes before your AIV report at 21:42. If this address had been active five or ten minutes prior, I would have no problem issuing a block. However since this IP is one of thousands from an ADSL address pool used by AT&T, applying a temporary block is kind of pointless when the banned editor is not even using the address any more. Dealing with banned editors can be very frustrating for everyone involved, and we all appreciate the efforts of folks like you who work hard to protect the project from vandalism. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Neutralhomer)[reply]

Please see this discussion: Talk:HMS_Vanguard_(23)#Switch_from_.7B.7BWikiProjectBannerShell.7D.7D_to_.7B.7BWikiProjectBanners.7D.7D. Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 00:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ANOMALY-117#harassment this is the link. um a summary of the problem as far as i can tell is that jack told Ring to change his signature but ring dosn't need to nor does he want to change it. i've tried to help ring to tell jack to stop harrassing him and to quit worring about people's signutre. ..mabye i was a little.. ok mabye i was harsh but harassment is harassment i'm gona take the back seat for a little while but could you help me out i would really appricate it.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware a consensus was needed in such a matter. I was intending to save space, especially on the Simpsons talk page - • The Giant Puffin • 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. My reason was a response to the statement Mariam made on the page, that we couldn't block, etc. I agree that the action wasn't practical as such, only symbolic, but my mind was in the same vein it gets when I see a new account annoucing its intent to be nothing but a vandal. It does seem to be a futility, and in hindsight I suppose I should have only given it 3 months! ;-) Cheers, --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an experiment, it was a bold edit. I'm putting it back on unless you can make a valid point (i'd settle for almost anything less than a generic template) as to why my edit is not proper. 64.230.92.27 (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the temporary block. Is there any faster way of reverting these edits? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rollback! I'll continue reverting the rest. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had declined to block, you should have put a comment underneath the report that they had stopped. However, policy notwithstanding, I generally take a dim view of vandals removing warnings from their page while vandalism is ongoing, or immediately thereafter. It suggests a desire to make themselves look more well-behaved than they're actually being, in anticipation of future sprees.

Over and above the warning removals, the user seems to be generally inclined to disruptive editing and kidding around, without any real desire to contribute productively or even a misunderstanding of what that entails. Note that he has just made a threat to vandalize my user page (so I'll be semi-protecting his for the duration of the block). If this were a registered user I'd be indefinitely blocking as a VOA. Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like another IP has stepped in to revert the article after you blocked the last user. If I revert again I'll be going over 3RR, but its clearly reverting the article back to a state that's clearly of inferior quality, removes information, and adds a dead image. --Strothra (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that seems a bit odd. Was this to prevent them from further disruption during a work break or what? Benjiboi 23:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I answer your question [13] with another question? If so, how long of a block do you feel 172.189.30.254 (talk · contribs) should have received? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Benjiboi)[reply]

12-24 hours? 15 minutes seems pretty meaningless and this edit seems to demonstrate user has an advanced knowledge of wikipedia including templates. If "sneaky vandals" have their own category I would nominate this one to go into it. Benjiboi 01:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Benjiboi)[reply]

Wikipedia's official policy on blocking states that blocks are used to protect the project from disruption, not to punish users. Since the IP in question vandalized zero articles are their block expired, it would appear that blocking for 15 minutes worked perfectly. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Benjiboi)[reply]

You know what's sad, Benjiboi? Had you or I made those ridiculous edits, we'd be blocked for at least a few days. Maybe we should start editing as IPs. ;-( Jeffpw (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Benjiboi)[reply]

Had either of you made those two edits and been reported to WP:AIV, I would have absolutely declined to block. While jumping straight to a {{uw-bv}} warning may be questionable-but-allowed with an anonymous editor, doing so with registered editors who have a clean edit history would fly in the face of WP:AGF. To be honest, I doubt you would have received much more than a {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-error2}} warning, so I fail to see what you hope to gain by making snarky comments about an admin who is actually on your side. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Benjiboi)[reply]

lol. I have to agree, whether we're on the side of snarky sodomites on not I did learn something about the nature of blocks. I used {{uw-bv}} because that's exactly what those little gems looked like. Regardless I appreciate your time on this and wish you the best of the best during the solstice. Benjiboi 20:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Benjiboi)[reply]

Excuse me?Would you mind discussing the problem with the article?Stop assuming ownership of wikipedia,that leads to problems... All the information i have posted,i have posted with reliable links. What part of the article "exactly" you have a problem with.The one you reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alihasnain (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		For your excellent and unfailingly precise work on everything from templates to assessments, I am happy to present you with your very own copy of the barnstar that, like so many other things here, exists largely due to you. Well done, sir! Maralia (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how am i vandalizing this page? why is the original article so acceptable? i'm not writing anything inaccurate. i'm pointing out incorrect usage of a word, meaning-wise and grammatically. it's true that 99.9% of the people using this term this way are ones that are ignorant of the true meaning of the word. what makes the difference that the word has been used incorrectly in english for like 30 years now? it's still incorrect. i'm actually educating people.

i thought wiki wanted to be taken as a serious online encyclopedia? no standard print encyclopedia or dictionary includes this usage of this word. or is it just a place where people can post silly little high-schoolish clique and fad meanings for words? good luck being taken seriously with that philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.225.72.215 (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kralizec, I have noticed that you have taken an interest in User:Paki90. I have just flagged two of his images as copyvios. Quick look at some of the other images related to my area of interest aviation and I suspect that they may be a lot more copyvios. Is their a method of marking all the users uploads as suspicious or do we have to disprove each one individually? Any advice appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I realized a bulk of the images were easily accessible on Flickr and I was feeling a little obsessive-compulsive. 98.204.112.111 (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your welcome comment and helpful tips. Thanks! Kcren (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but did you take off the list of languages on Seven Wonders of the Ancient World?

It doesn't matter, because I'm putting them back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ky-Guy (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 January 2008

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Re:your message - you are most welcome, but thank you for going to the trouble of deleting all those dodgy images. I managed to get some obvious copyvio ones deleted a fortnight or so ago but the uploader seemed not to understand and instead insinuated I was somehow anti-Karachi even though it was his images that were causing the problem. :)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For devoting so much time to deal with a lot of copyvio/dodgy images uploaded by a particular user. :) Green Giant (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news The Intelligence task force has been created. The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome! {{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Albuera Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) Battle of the Gebora Constantine II of Scotland Francis Harvey Vasa (ship) Wulfhere of Mercia New A-Class articles: 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.
Awards and honors Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles. Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic. For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007 Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows: 1. Bedford — 7,600 2. TomStar81 — 5,500 3. Parsival74 — 5,200 4. FayssalF — 3,500 5. Roger Davies — 3,000 6. Ouro — 2600 7. Kateshortforbob — 2250 8. Cromdog — 2,200 9. BrokenSphere — 2000 9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000 9. Maralia — 2,000 12. MBK004 — 1,340 13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250 14. Sniperz11 — 1100 15. Burzmali — 1000 15. Cplakidas — 1000 15. Gimme danger — 1000 15. Raoulduke471000 15. TicketMan — 1000 15. Welsh — 1000 15. Blnguyen — 1000 Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some criticism about your recent block.'

Yours Truly,
Compwhiz II 02:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I'm Sorry. I didn't see the age of the prev warnings. Compwhiz II 02:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So whats your deal?

Jerome R. Corsi is a staff reporter for WND. He received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including his latest best-seller, "The Late Great USA."

Corsi has also co-authored Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders (with Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist), published in August 2006. This book heavily criticizes President George W. Bush for deficiency in enforcing border protection laws and for furthering plans to create a North American Union.

Jerome R. Corsi is NOT an "arm chair" theorist! Corsi is a Harvard alumnus. Corsi is a well respect Journalist and Commentator. Why must you insist on trivializing his legitimate political research as "conspiracy theory"?

Source: Jerome R. Corsi own WIKI - why don't you go and edit that to fit your own political views? If you will cite politicians as legitimate "sources" for information, why not Harvard journalists that are independent and work toward the public good!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoTheorem088 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message [14]. If you are not familiar with Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability, it states in part that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Edits should be sourced and cited to reliable, third-party, published sources. The sentence cited to the International Herald Tribune's article The amero conspiracy meets all of these criteria.

For future reference, this should probably be discussed on the article's talk page so that other interested editors may participate in the discussion. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:EchoTheorem088)[reply]

Calling Barack Obama the "negro" senator is a content dispute? From someone who has multiple warnings? ([15] [16] You know what, I'm stopping the diff collection. You have wasted even more of my time than the vandalism did. I see that someone has blocked him for 48 hrs.indefinitely. Thanks for nothing, R. Baley (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Striking and add: please be more careful at AIV in the future. thanks, R. Baley (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled too, but you don't have to be so mean about it. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to issue a trout slapping here. I'm not sure if you realized it, but when you rejected this AIV report, you were calling this a content dispute. -- tariqabjotu 03:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; it would appear that I erred on the side of assuming too much good faith. My first screw-up as an admin ... if only it were my last as well. Sorry. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec, sorry about the post I initially placed. Everybody makes a miscalculation every now and then, and I was too harsh. Thanks for the work you do. Sincerely, R. Baley (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eric Violette. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kallahan (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thank you. I am new at this Wikipedia editing, but I am learning fast. Thanks. DPCBOSS (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)DPC BOSS[reply]

No reason you should have noticed. I don't keept track of other editors, to be honest ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, back when I was admin-ed, it was basically "do you want to be an admin - OK!" ... I probably couldn't pass the current system, which seems tougher than my last job interview. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll admit that my last job interview was 21 years ago, so I supposed that was a bad example - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As i said in the page i have done zero changes on strangelet in the past week, all i want is the info to be there if some people are editing better so lets do it, please remove your innacurate warning, from my page. i have not edited and i only repost once a day strangelets and ice-9 which is within policies, and again, what is rude is to erase all info instead of putting altenrative info. All i want is the info not to be censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talk • contribs) 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message [17] on my talk page. If you are not familiar with the three-revert rule, it states in part,

At 07:48 on 11 January 2008, I left a message Please be careful not to violate the 3RR rule on Large Hadron Collider on your talk page [18]. Your reverts to the Large Hadron Collider article in the preceding 24 hours are as follows:

• • 21:24, 10 January 2008
  • 00:47, 11 January 2008
  • 04:22, 11 January 2008
  • 05:04, 11 January 2008

Thank you for heeding my warning. I feel that you have the potential to be an excellent contributor to this article, and I am glad to see that you chose to stop reverting before being blocked for disruptive editing. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Homocion)[reply]

The link that this goes to on the Wikipedia Page is also the same person under my DJ alias Phuture Digital namely myself Eddie Gordon so its not an infringement but a copy from my Wikipedia page placed on my own company's website as I own www.music2mix.com also.

It there any rules about duplication I have removed the copy from my own website but that seems a little unnecessary really.

Please assist

Thank you

Eddie Gordon Richmond5252 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)richmond5252[reply]

Can you please undelete the Eddie Gordon page now its not duplicated elsewhere? The page is a biog of a man who has made an impact on millions of lives in a positive way. Thank you Richmond5252 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond5252 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replacing it, thank you very much. Could you advice how to categorize the article please? Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond5252 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 January 2008

Again thank you for your help with the categorization and tips. I will spend some time on the page and Wikipedia to tutor myself with the correct procedures to ensure that I upgrade from Start. Your time is very appreciated. Richmond5252 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Habhab38. I am considering unblocking him. He seems contrite, and the block served its purpose: it got his attention. COntinuing the block at this point seems punitive. If he continues, we can always reinstate it. What do you think, since you blocked him? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Mangojuice declined it, saying it was only 31 hours so he could wait it out. I am not in a mind to openly disagree with Mangojuice on this one, but since you were the original blocker, I defer to you to unblock if you choose. I still think he has probably learned his lesson, but I will leave it to you to handle from here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, i've separated Garibaldi in Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1936) and Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1961) as today because i think is better separate. Excuse for my english, i wrote Garibaldi in italian language and in italian language are separated good bye--Gaetano56 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can i separate Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1936) and Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1961)? I think the ship are different. In italian language after discussion were separated--Gaetano56 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can separate the ships because there are too many differences. Light cruise didn't have pennant and guided cruise had pennant. All the gun were changed completely.....In it:wiki were separated, but in en: wiki i don't know.... Greetengs--Gaetano56 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, which was unexpected but greatly, greatly appreciated; and to be sure, if there's fault to be assigned in our back-and-forth, it's shared. As a relatively new contributor, I appreciate the example you've set in continuing to contribute to articles over which you've had disputes as well as doing the odds-and-ends on other articles, extremely necessary work that oftentimes doesn't get the credit it deserves. Hope to see you around the pages again soon. --Kallahan (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just used this script for help.   jj137 ^♠ 18:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it helps.   jj137 ^♠ 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much indeed for the offer. The drive is now officially closed though there's nothing to stop you tagging unofficially if you wish :) We have another drive coming up in a couple of moments and input then would be a great help. If that incidentally could be closely coordinated between Milhist and Maritime, some very productive cross-tagging can take place! I entirely understand that you have plenty on your plate and that makes your kind offer all the more appreciated. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. When I noticed the revised Top 50 list, I had to start the FBOP article and finally kill the ABN AMRO North America listing in the template after it was absorbed by Bank of America in October. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. major my bad on that one. I thought I had checked all of those, but apparently not. My apologies. (runs under table...) Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check Template:Uw-huggle, everything's explained there. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for my english, but I,ve copied the contents of Chilean frigate Almirante Condell (FF-06) page and pasted it into another with the name Chilean frigate Almirante Condell (PFG-06) because she was the same ship, because Chilean frigate Almirante Condell (FF-06) will be the new frigate Type 23 and not the Leander class frigate. Excuse me if sometimes i mistake.

Many greetings --Gaetano56 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to help with WP:Articles_for_deletion/Ice-nine_fusion? Ice-nine_fusion seems to have been created as a competitor to the strangelet page.Dark Formal (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kralizec!/Archive 2008, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem! :-) Kirill 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for pointing me at Gimp. Now, if I could only stop using it occasionally, like, to sleep. . .Maralia (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been outstanding, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your welcome message. It will be a pleasure to continue to add constructive and hopefully useful contributions to this incredibly informative web site. BrettFairbairn (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't know how that got reported, but I'll definitely use the guide you've suggested now and in the future. -- Kallahan (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice on WikiProject. I have joined a project and also have taken the opportunity to set up a user page - I hope you do not mind me using the layout of your user page as a starting point for my own effort. BrettFairbairn (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you placed a six hour block on this IP on the 13th. Someone using it has continued to vandalize articles (here and here) in a pattern that seems consistent with the previous vandalism. I realize that this is just an anonymous IP, but might I suggest a longer block? so sayeth Lucky Number 49 ^{Yell at me!} 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page [19]. I would be disinclined to re-block 24.176.13.139 (talk · contribs) due to the fact that since my previous block expired on January 13th, this IP has received zero warnings, let alone the required sequence of properly escalated warnings. Also please note that as per Wikipedia's official blocking policy, "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." Considering this IP did not vandalize another article until six days after their six hour block expired, I would say that this short block was quite successful. I should also note that applying long blocks to DHCP addresses such as this are an exercise in futility as changing IP addresses is as simple as clicking "release IP" and then "renew IP lease." --Kralizec! (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (reply copied from User talk:Lucky number 49)[reply]

Okay, no problem. Thanks for your time :) so sayeth Lucky Number 49 ^{Yell at me!} 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PauliGunther

1. My mistake was only counting the states in the Democratic section, as I was forgetting that two of the twenty-four were Republican-only.
2. Why is this such a big issue that it belongs in a section on my talk page? It's fixed now, isn't it? Write me when there's a real fire. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kralizec!

I'm writing to request permission to use your Super Tuesday map to illustrate a blog entry about the events of Feb. 5. There's no commercial aspect to my blog; I have a banner of Google ads there, but haven't earned any money from them; the blog is primarily a sounding board for my viewpoints on a variety of topics. It doesn't get very much traffic, but it tries to look good. Your map would certainly help in that respect.

If you look at it, you'll see that I'm diligent -- almost maniacal -- about extending photo and image credit where credit is due. Use of your map would result in the same.

My blog is culchavox.blogspot.com.

Thanks for your time.

Best,

Michael Ross

CULCHAVOX

Enlightening, annoying and enraging since 2004

Kralizec!

I'm writing to request permission to use your Super Tuesday map to illustrate a blog entry about the events of Feb. 5. There's no commercial aspect to my blog; I have a banner of Google ads there, but haven't earned any money from them; the blog is primarily a sounding board for my viewpoints on a variety of topics. It doesn't get very much traffic, but it tries to look good. Your map would certainly help in that respect.

If you look at it, you'll see that I'm diligent -- almost maniacal -- about extending photo and image credit where credit is due. Use of your map would result in the same.

My blog is culchavox.blogspot.com. My e-mail is michaeler@gmail.com

Thanks for your time.

Best,

Michael Ross

CULCHAVOX

Enlightening, annoying and enraging since 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.45.250 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The January 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) 00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krailzec!

Per your approval, the map image is live on my blog: culchavox.blogspot.com.

Thanks again.

Culchavox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Culchavox (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the identical .png image I copy pasted from the Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Culchavox (talk • contribs) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going though the and at a glance the pages looked like stubs. On a second look, it seems that disambiguation 'DAB' would be more appropriate per the assessment instructions. I apologize for my mistake and will go back and correct it. Ndunruh (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your image?

http://www.3cat24.cat/noticia/252236/mon/Que-es-el-superdimarts

Copyright violation? --Cameta (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the licence that you have used with this image is not legal, in my opinion. As you state it is a derivative work of Image:Map of USA.png which is released under the GFDL and therefore your picture should also have this license. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the pupose here is to discuss the actions of hdt83. It appears that he is acting as several users who are all Admins. When I try to edit a post (correcting errors) he not only changes it back to his old post then he blocks me. It appears that he is also Gogo Dodo among others. Please look into this as it hurts wiki. Think about what happens when one person can have access to 5 or more admin accounts and changes correct posts to his only incorrect versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.59.241 (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the statement that a NA currency union is a conspiracy theory given is the article on IHT.com, which actually states:

The North American Union is a supranational organization, modeled on the European Union, that will soon fuse Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a single economic and political unit. The details are still being worked out by the countries' leaders, but the NAU's central governing body will have the power to nullify the laws of its member states. Goods and people will flow among the three countries unimpeded, aided by a network of continent-girdling superhighways. The US and Canadian dollars, along with the peso, will be phased out and replaced by a common North American currency called the amero.

And:

The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics.

The conspiracy theory is that there is a supranational organization being formed from Canada, the United States, and Mexico that would subvert national sovereignties. The currency union is only one component of this supposed organization, which would also implement unimpeded trade and expand continental road frameworks (given the opportunity). The current opening sentence excessively emphasizes one possible means of implementing the currency union (through a secret conspiracy) without any consideration of the purely academic discussion on the pros and cons of the matter. Kelvinc (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Cheers. Kelvinc (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec! There's been a discussion going on at Wikiships for a while now on fields for the new ship class infobox. Your input would be very much appreciated if you can find the time. The relevant thread is here]. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My removal was intended, as you well know from my summary line. It was perfectly legit and above board. The content I removed was trivial and idiotic and adds NOTHING to the article or to the understanding of Super Tuesday. 216.231.46.147 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More: Why don't you THINK about the article and what it is for and who is likely to want to look at it? Does "Tuesday of Destiny" increase ANYONE'S understanding of the subject? No, it doesn't. It HINDERS it, because it drives the actual content about what it is and what happened on it further down below a mountain of cruft. It's TRIVIA. It harms Wikipedia. If you READ some of those links, you will see that they are MAKING FUN of the bogus names that have been stuck on this event. 216.231.46.147 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. --Kallahan (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I work for the NPIA and have not vandalised anything, in fact most of what is written on the NPIA page is my work.

If you look at my history, there are only two pages I have added to or have any interest in adding to, one being the NPIA, the other SOCA.

I certainly don't need people from America and god knows where telling me about my own country England or my agency the NPIA.