![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thankyou Yamamoto Ichiro! You reverted the vandalism on my user page. It's funny I didn't notice until now. H irohisatTalk Page 07:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I will hopefully succeed in a month or two. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You may want to correct your reason for blocking 74.136.152.23 (talk). Talmage 05:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you were one of the blocking admins for User:Ibm44. I just wanted to let you know that he is requesting to be unblocked. I figured you may want to respond or have input into this matter. As just an editor I believe he should not be unblocked as he has primarily been disruptive and fails to take responsibility, if in fact, his account was hacked. Tiggerjay 00:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Already reviewed and denied by another admin Tiggerjay 06:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting my userpage. Gscshoyru 18:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What information did I remove? I believe the only information was pertaining to Khalid Hosseini's ethnicity, which was false, he is not Tajik as the individual had added on his page, in his own book the kite runner it clearly states his ethnicity to be Pashtun. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.102.242.154 (talk • contribs).
Thank you very much for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I am grateful for all of the advice, and hope that it will help me grow as an editor. Sincerely, Neranei T/C 11:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello
I just created my account not even 2 minutes ago and as soon as I logged in for the first time I got a vandelism message. I can assure you it wasn't me. I think you may have mistaken the edits because I have a dynamic IP or because of similar reasons.
Thanks Sam
This IP has repeatedly vandalised pages recently, and I'm not sure if it's a shared address or not, but I thought I ought to report it. Cliff smith 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I received a vandalism warning... and I've never changed anything on Wikipedia. I also do not share this network with anyone. Not sure what happened.
A ((prod)) template has been added to the article Darkthrone, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with ((db-author)). Argyriou (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I Didn't mean to remove it sorry about that.
You gave me a warning about vandalism but what article was it for? and what did i do wrong?
Thanks for fixing the vandalism to my userpage last May. - Mgm|(talk) 23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yamamoto, I'm wondering if you know anything about Wictionary. I was unrightfully blocked from it for abusing multiple accounts. Since they don't have unblock templates, how do I appeal for an unblock there?
i dont know why i would be blocked,the "information" on the ADL and kent hovind pages are biased half truths that do not represent the truth in any way,thats all im saying,i wont edit them anymore,but i would appreciate it if you removed the falsehoods from those pages,thanks
I recently received a warning from you for vandalism. I'm somewhat confused because although I do surf somewhat often, I have never edited wiki content. Is there anyway you can provide a link to which page I supposedly edited? And if possible the content itself?
Also, this is appearantly a last warning, although I have never received any other warning messages, nor do I believe I have ever edited anything.
I am on a network router but there are only two other computers connected through it, and I have very little reason to believe anyone has ever edited wiki content on either of the other two PCs, as I am the only person who ever uses wikipedia. It is a wireless router but secured through WEP encryption. If for someone on my network did in fact remove content then I apologize on their behalf, but I would still like to know which page/content was vandalized.
Feedback would be appreciated. - Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifrit39 (talk • contribs) 21:05, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
hey, umm i dont know where im supposed to tell you this, but i just received two messages telling me not to vandalise the information about Kelli Carpenter-O'Donnell... i've never heard of her, nor have i edited any pages about her. i was on Wikipedia looking at info about Harry Potter characters, not Kelli Carpenter-O'Donnell, whoever she is. I know all about IP addresses and such, but i think you've got the wrong one. anyways, i know you probably dont believe this or whatever but trust me, i have my reasons to hate misleading information and vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.71.123 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please unblock our IP addresess. I'm trying to teach my students to be good users and we can't create accounts.
- mnolette
Hi, I would like to inquire why you closed this as a "no consensus" rather than a "keep" or "delete". I merely want to understand your thinking. -- Cat chi? 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on MMORPG terms, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because MMORPG terms is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting MMORPG terms, 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 08:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I understand this is a shared IP, but I disagree that a 31 hour block is appropriate in this case. This IP has been blocked several times before, last time for 1 month. Vandalism from this IP resumes upon expiry of every block they've been handed out, even after they were blocked for 3 months earlier this year. I think they deserve a longer block. This IP has had no constructive edits and over 150 unconstructive edits since May 2006. SWik78 (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ohayou Gozaimasu!
I'm a bit confused with your warnings on certain IP adresses' talk pages (regarding vandalism). Could you give a reference to how you found the vandalism (like a "diff" of the page being trashed), so I know what your warning the vandal for? You know, just so I can see if what I'm getting ready to warn the offender for hasn't already been mentioned? Thanks-- Mizu onna sango15 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
I'm not sure if I am doing this right, but I couldn't figure out how to contact you on your talk page.
I was browing wikipedia earlier and was redirected to this message:
User talk:89.242.160.74
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. - Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text ((unblock|your reason here)) below.
- Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I have not even editted anything recently, and my latest edit which I think was on a Superman page, was perfectly acceptable.
Secondly, how can I be on my "last warning" when I never had a first?
And thirdly, why wasn't I told what I am supposed to have done to deserve this warning/block?
Lastly, what on earth is with the date? June?? If I was given this warning way back in June why am I seeing it now?
I suggest you reconsider your decision, as it seems to me you have made a mistake, possibly a case of mistaken identity. I have done nothing wrong and refuse to browse/contribute to Wikipedia while feeling I must walk on egg shells because of this "last warning" buisiness pointing a gun at my head.
Thank you and good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.160.74 (talk • contribs)
i wish i could make a page but u wnt let me. Get a frekkin life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.80.141.11 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Yamamoto Ichiro. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
... for reverting my talk page. Regards Hammer1980·talk 15:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Well done, you've beaten me to a few reverts tonight :D Cf38 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC) |
Unblock me please as I was simply removing irrelevant issues I myself had posted.
FANSOFFANS1983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans1983 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Yamamoto,
I recently saw this when I went on the Wikipedia website to look something up:
"Current revision
Your edit to the page Heart rate was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - Y.Ichiro (会話) 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)"
I've never edited a page on "Heart Rate," nor any other page on Wikipedia. And I do not share my computer with anyone. I am confused.
Can you explain what the above comment from you is about?
Thanks,
Minga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.31.3 (talk • contribs)
I was told by you that adding nonesense is Vandalism. Vandalism is only counted as vandalism if I were inserting nonsense into articles, which I wasn't. Furthermore "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". I would have appreciated if you would have allowed me time to cite my sources before you removed the page I was working on.--Jeff —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it difficult to see how there was a consensus to delete when only 3 out of 7 comments actually voted delete. Feel free to reply here. --Rumping (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain more fully the reasoning you followed when you concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida facilitator?
Yes, I realize the opinions expressed were overwhelming for delete. But, if I am not mistaken, ((afd)) is not a vote. Participants make arguments, and the concluding admin makes a judgment call, decides how to close the discussion, then briefly summarises their reasoning in a concluding comment.
You didn't give a concluding comment.
If I am not mistaken, the concluding admin is encouraged to discount arguments advanced that are counter to the wikipedia's policies. It seemed to me that most of the deletion arguments advanced were counter to WP:DEL. I am disappointed that you didn't state, in your concluding comments whether or not you agreed with my concern.
If you read through the discussion you will see I changed the conclusion I was advocating from keep to move to a title with a broader scope. In my user space I started to work on that broader article. User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/list of alleged al Qaida officials.
If I am not mistaken, among your choices, as closing admin, would have been to ignore the counter-policy arguments for deletion, and base your decision around a different presentation of the material.
If I am not mistaken if I were to start an article like Llist of alleged al Qaida officials, your voice would not carry any more weight than any other administrators. But I would like to be able to say that I took into account whatever comment you made about this idea in your concluding statement on al Qaida facilitator. Of course I can't take the comments from your concluding statement into account. You didn't make one.
Can I look forward to having you give some thought to explaining your conclusion? Is there any way you can see your way clear to offering comments on the reworking of this material, to take into account the criticisms from the ((afd)) which were not contrary to policy?
I'd also like your advice on the actions of the nominator. The date-stamps on the nominator's contribution history strongly suggest that this nomination was made out of anger, rather than out of the best interests of the wikipedia.
I had left what I thought was a civil, reasoned response on Talk:al Qaida facilitator just a few hours before this nomination. Rather than give a reply the nominator initiated the ((afd)).
The nominator's lack of a civil reply, or any reply, initiation of the ((afd)), and lapse in not following the recommendation of the deletion policies, and giving me a courtesy heads-up all strain my ability to WP:AGF.
Unfortunately, just as in real life, it seems to me that some wikipedians just can't stand having their judgment challenged, no matter how civilly it is expressed. They see even the most civil questions about their judgment as insults, and react accordingly. I am very sorry to report that it has been my experience that even some administrators react to question about their judgment as if they were being personally attacked. I hope you won't interpret this note that way.
Yes, I know, some people think calling for an explanation for that which "is obvious", or "should be considered obvious", is an annoying burden, or even an insult. I wrote an essay on obviousness. I don't subscribe to this theory of obviousness. I am willing to risk triggering angry reactions asking for explanations of what some consider obvious, because what lies beneath what is claimed to be obvious is often the deepest, most fundamental, most useful questions.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a duplicate (or a POV fork) of Local churches. Could you give some guidance on how or whether to merge these pages? Your closure of the AFD said nothing on how to proceed. Incidentally, the vote count is two unexplained "keeps", three "deletes" and a "keep, notable" that is easily answered by "sure they're notable, that's why we already have a different article about them". Can you look at this again? Thank you, Kusma (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
to look into my request and grant me rollback powers. I am so powerful now!:) Seriously, thanks. TableMannersC·U·T 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
You closed the AfD for this article as delete but didn't delete the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please undelete Shane Minor? The AfD was related to an actor named Shane Minor, and was properly closed as delete. however, someone else moved Shane Minor (singer), a page I created, to Shane Minor over a redirect after the AfD had closed. The content of Shane Minor (singer) clearly met notability guidelines (multiple reliable sources, chart hits on two major Billboard charts) and never should've been deleted in either form. Could you please fix this? Thanks! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe you closed the AfD on Userbar in error. Notability issues aside (and the "google test" is not a barometer of notability), the larger issues with the article are the fact that it violates WP:NOR and WP:V which are core content policies. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that no reliable sources exist on this topic. Wikipedia, simply put, cannot have an article on a topic for which no reliable sources exist. I invite you to reconsider your decision on closing the AfD. - Chardish (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why the article I wrote for Jseamless was deleted? I complied with all rules submissions, I modified content based on suggestions made when deletion was suggested, and I followed up when any questions were asked. Further, there were others that agreed that the project had a valid place on Wikipedia. Finally, there are competing projects to jSeamless that exist on Wikipedia and have not been deleted. I posed the question what was distinct causing this entry to be suggested for deletion when the others exist but rather than getting valid information to help fix the entry I get it deleted instead?
I must admit I'm quite frustrated if this is the process of submitting content to Wikipedia. Please explain what I could have done to keep it from deletion and if there's anything I can do to get it back. Darkfrog26 (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)