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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I guess I didn't need to add those? :) Yankees76 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You pointed out: "User talk:213.113.231.176"
What's with this guy? I declined quite a few requests of his in the past 10 minutes or so. —210physicq (c) 05:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
He's at it again. —210physicq (c) 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ryulong. I would like to semi protect my user page. Can you help me? Where do I go? How do I do it? King Lopez Contribs 05:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I just don't want any vandals to attack my user page in the future. Is it something that only administratiors can do? King Lopez Contribs 05:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok well thanks anyway. King Lopez Contribs 06:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out with this anon user. I really did try to be reasonable and explain why I was reverting them. But, as we well know, it's easier to hit Caps Lock and vent than actually reconsider one's actions. Cheers, Caknuck 06:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Will you stop removing those Jetix shows from Jetix templates & stop removing Jetix category that the shows is only on Jetix? HMR 11:31 Apri 1, 2007 (UTC)
Yes, So I renamed Original Jetix Shows into Shows only on Jetix. 11:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What a mess. Too many edits to too many sections at the same time. – Chacor 10:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting my user pages that were blanked. Koweja 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The April issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
User:TeckWiz/Barnstar
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 06:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please undelete his page. The reasons are stated on his talk page. Peace, -- The Hybrid 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. -- The Hybrid 00:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know the next potential article split is the Negative Syndicate page because that page is now 60 kilybytes long. However at the moment I barely have any ideas in mind on how to split it up. I hope you might have an idea on how to handle this. -Adv193 05:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine but at least now you are alert and I'll treat this as a minor issue. But one thing you should know before I saw your message is that I did a sandbox test by removing the individual clans monsters and Quester Robos I found that there were only 34 kilobytes left, although I doubt that it wouldn't be a good idea to use should it come to article seperation. -Adv193 06:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if I can get to it for awhile since I got to go to bed and then on the next day I have to deal with homework after my college classes tommorrow. -Adv193 06:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What the heck was that supposed to mean, 'You have not learned your lesson, it seems'? Arcayne 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
did you delete the page I made? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dontyoudare (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
See Our Lady of the Abandoned (OLA). I am taking your word for it that these are copyvios: I don't get Google hits on selected bits of text and the link you gave me in Feb don't work. -- RHaworth 05:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I saw this in the logs just now:
Please explain what the purpose/need for that was? Thanks! - Denny 06:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ask a favor while I have your attention? Semi protect this? Asked on RFPP but nothing yet; anons are going nuts on it and with new accounts too. - Denny 06:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at user:Mr.Blyak--Giovanni Giove 09:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No worries, Ryulong. I had to go off-line shortly after but it looks like he stopped, for now. :) Cheers, Sarah 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikitube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- I don't have time to deal with this -- Agathoclea 11:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ryulong,
I object to the use of the term 'Vandalism' on my edit to 4chan on the August 30 2006 (UTC). It was my intention to provide useful information to those who had read about not4chan and a link so that they may be able to view this page. It was my reasoning that a link was appropriate in this instant as it was a topic under direct discussion in the text.
I understand that perhaps supplying a link was not quite appropriate on this page and would have been more useful in a separate page discussing not4chan.
I have read the vandalism page and feel that in no way could my edit be considered an act of vandalism. In the future, however, I will discuss with other page editors before adding links.
Thanks,
--Brerbunny 01:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
How did you set up your userboxes? They're nifty. I think they are separate user pages, but I don't know how you set them up as scrollboxes.... 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you get leave "Geki" alone, plus had you even noticed no one even comments on the arguments we have on the Tokusatsu Wikitalk? Fractyl
Yeah, I'm trying to contact him, but he is not replying (I know he's on Wikipedia now because he's blocking any edit I do to Shawn Michaels). If I make another edit, he's gonna block me. What should I do? Davnel03 09:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have acted unilaterally in reverting the mergers of the murder articles. I also see that you are an administrator. I think that As you are an admin you should be aware of the procedures. THe merger procedures have been followed. If you disagree please partake in the debate on the subjects individually not a blanket revert. Many thanks Lucy-marie 11:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that Dwayne Cameron interpreted him. Kamen Rider - (Can I help you?) 03:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I understand. Sorry. Kamen Rider - (Can I help you?) 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I did in the discussion page. As there was no dissent to my suggestion after some time, I went ahead and made the changes. I am sure if you see the pages as edited you will agree they are an improvement John D. Croft 08:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ryulong, Can you please edit and upgrade an article for Tau Gamma Phi based on the Revision last at 15:58, 2 April 2007 or Revision at 10:09, 4 April 2007 plus 4000+ Collegiate, community based chapter will be modify to 4000+ Collegiate and local based chapter. Thank you so much and we really appreciate your upgrading and protections on Tau Gamma Phi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.17.237.109 (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
Dear Ryulong, just a follow-up regarding on this request "An Upgrade and Effective Article"...thank you.
I put my posts in 1 section as u ask, but still u deleted it, y? R u going 2 answer my question?Lilkunta 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Ack! Quickly! Put make it *(?i:garfield) .. not "*Garfield", that'll catch every username with G a r f i e l or d! --Iamunknown 05:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Is 67.101.47.82 an open proxy? You've indefinitely blocked this IP and I can't seem to figure out why. - auburnpilot talk 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to see anything with his name spelled in English. Where's the proof that it's Ax Form, not Axe Form? Or am I missing something? Archon Divinus 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The prime user has been in a content dispute regarding the birthdate of this article. All the sockpuppets are deleting the same portion of the article and inserting one birthdate while using the same type edit summary. Ronbo76 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I was glancing through the recent block log, and I noticed that you banned User:There are alot of planets out there. The only comment given was ((Usernameblocked)). The user had made a number of edits to his user page, most of which seemed to be harmless sandboxing; he had not vandalized any articles or engaged in improper conduct. As far as I can tell, the reason for blocking wasn't posted on his talk page. I'm concerned that this block, especially without notice, might violate WP:BITE. Was there an underlying reason I'm not seeing here (perhaps deleted pages in the main namespace)? Also, what exactly was the username policy violation? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for zappin that guy.
The Original Barnstar | ||
For Reverting Vanalism On My User Page Pupster21 12:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
So you deleted most of this article because it was original research. I disagree with this because most of the information that was deleted is factual information. Here are some examples:
The entire section labeled The "Booyah" Video is all factual. It is a brief synopsis of one of Eveready's most famous films. Would this not count as original research if there was a citation to the video at the end of this section?
The section labeled Eveready's Technique merely explains the derivation and common use of a phrase that was invented largely due to the man that the article is about. This is both relevant and factual.
The section labeled Internet Meme and Beyond is very true. If you looks at popular internet sites that college students share information on, such as Facebook.com and Myspace.com, you will find that many students have joined groups that are based on Tony Eveready. Some examples are the groups "Dig tuh china then tone!", "Freak dat bitch out den tone!" and "Awww Tone." If these sources are cited, will this no longer be original research?
My most important point is that the parts of this article that were deleted are very similar to parts of other articles that are allowed to remain. My main example is the article about the recent film "Snakes on a Plane." The Snakes on a plane article has a section that is a synopsis of the movie, and a section entitled "Internet" which explains the online following that this movie developed. These are basically the same as the Tony Eveready article sections that were deleted. The Snakes on a Plane article even has a section about References in Popular Culture, which is also quite similar to the Internet Meme and Beyond section of the TOny Eveready article.
It seems to me like there is some kind of double standard here, and that you are being overly critical of the Tony Eveready article possibly for personal reasons (ie. you don't like the pornography industry). Are you still sure that you can delete the bulk of this article while leaving so many other articles that have the same 'violation' intact?
Sincerely,
Jeff Hofmann
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffw245 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
This user has requested an unblock and as per the reasoning, it does seem like the user was simply removing vandalism. As you are the blocking admin, I thought I would run it by you. IrishGuy talk 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of the vandalism and I am attempting to correct the problem I listened to the show today and heard the comments made by J.D. Ryan himself about the accuracy of the article. I restored the page to its state previous to its mention on the show and removed all inaccuracies regarding J.D.Ryan's involvement in the KKK.I am aware you are trying to protect the page but I believe my edit was accurate. and would appreciate your input on this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cronholm144 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi Ryulong, I need your help again. Today REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:
I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I borrowed the text you tend to use when uploading pictures, about the fair use stuff, for the zord launch pic at Zords in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive; just wanted to let you know in case you minded and wanted me to change it. Arrow 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm looking for a little impartial 3rd party admin advice here. A week ago, I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in Oklahoma and suggested that the discussion be closed and an umbrella nom created. I saw that it was closed yesterday and was going to create the umbrella nom for all (52) the articles in the category, until I noticed the closing note from the admin suggested that AFD was not the right place. So... should I just go ahead and create the umbrella nom, or should I first seek additional clarification from the closing admin? --After Midnight 0001 03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand how time consuming it must be to keep up with everything, so I thank you for your consideration and attention to my situation.
Mmckinnie 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've brought the individual episode pages to afd on the grounds that they cannot be more than plot summaries. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journey of a Thousand Miles. I thought you may wish to participate since you were once heavily involved in Xiaolin Showdown, and still perform vandal watching on the pages. Jay32183 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/April_12%2C_2007#Help_me_plz --Iamunknown 06:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
I voted oppose in your RFA, but now I see that I was wrong. We need more admins like you, Ryulong. Hardworking, diligent, and apparently detectives too. Keep up the good work. — MichaelLinnear 00:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC) |
User:Future54 is another sock of LegoAxiom1007 per Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LegoAxiom1007. Can you indefblock? Nardman1 03:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your block of User:Skult of Caro, it doesn't appear you have provided evidence for your sockpuppet claim anywhere. If I am wrong, point me to the place. If I am right, please provide the evidence on User talk:Skult of Caro or on a noticeboard. Everyking 07:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You have just made a similar accusation against User:Sant99876 and blocked him, again without providing the slightest bit of evidence anywhere. This is a serious problem. Everyking 08:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Because you are an admin, please block User:75.24.110.68 and User:75.7.21.186 for their disruptive edits. Sr13 (T|C) 09:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be an edit war and 3RR violation engaging on Turkey by two users, which done it before, before the page was semi-protected now they have waited for over 4 days and are doing it again. It is extremely disruptive, please block them. Retiono Virginian 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually all sockpuppets of a banned user. Retiono Virginian 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
4 years old? Oh dear, it turned out the article had to be fully protected anyway, as everytime the accounts were blocked. New ones appeared to be coming from nowhere. He seems to have some real issues. Retiono Virginian 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong, my name is CJ King. I am Skult of Caro's adopter, and I would really appreciate it if he was unblocked. For a lengthier statement, please see his talk page. Thanks.--CJ K 22:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The noinclude problems you fixed at ((Ent)) and ((Rf)) - if you check edit hist of user who made that spacing error, there are several other templates edited around the same time (in response to my editprotecteds) that probably have the same problem. I'd go fix them myself, but I'm not an admin. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, because of the dispute over the AfD on ISTIA and the whole sockpuppet issue, the user representing that organisation has a personal grudge against me and has posted false accusations on her (new and allegedly temporary) user talk page. It was the same nonsense that was posted at WP:CN that you removed[2]. I would request for that to be removed since I don't want to be bothered with her again and me editing anything by her would only make matters worse. Thanks. --Strangnet (t, c) 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You'll never guess who's back... ;-) Khoikhoi 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me and fixing my userpage. I created those pages using "\" because somebody told me to use it instead of "/". Well, I would like to ask for your help. Some wikipedians use my userboxes, can you automatically fix the link to the new address? Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. My name is Chris Murray, and i noticed that you were the last of a long line of people to delete the page on Hadouken! the band. The band now are reasonable notable so i think it is now appropriate for the page to be created again. See the talk page for an extended request, I'm just one of many wanting it up again. --SteelersFan UK06 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
In case you haven't seen my ANI addition User:MobyGames is the same as the IP editor, as evidenced by the Paula Michaels edit warring. One Night In Hackney303 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Guess what pal, simply deleting my article without warning, without nominating it, without even leaving a message on my talk page simply wont do, its gonna be tougher than that mr all powerful administrator--0001 09:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI, that IP is a likely sock of User:JJonathan Rlevse 11:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You have blocked Lakers for being a sockpuppet, but the sockpuppet case was declined in the second part, where Lakers came up, and I have seen numorous good contributions from the recent changes patrol from that user. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Would it least be fair to give Lakers a chance to appeal the case? Is there criticially significant evidence that Lakers is a sock, having done so much anti-vandal work?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess there must have been a side to the case that made it evident.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I posted up a suggestion WikiProject Tokusatsu, but no one's other you is answering it. I'm just frustrated. Fractyl
"No one in their right mind would lift the ban on Daniel Brandt. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"
"19:25, 18 April 2007 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) unblocked Daniel Brandt (contribs) (Courtesy unblock, he asked nicely, we are talking about a productive way forward in the future, it has been more than a year)"
-- Ben TALK/HIST 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. Please do not remove comments from talk pages as you did here and and here. Those comments are germane to the talk discussion and removal is not recommended at WP:TALK. With best regards, Navou banter 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This range seems to be used by the Israeli ISP Bezeq International, and I think it should not be blocked for a month since it blocks many users who connect through this ISP. Thanks. – rotemliss – Talk 10:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong, I noticed your block of those new accounts, but from what I could see they were civil, contributing to the discussion, and were not violating WP:SOCK. There is clearly a good reason for them to protect their main account, consistent with SOCK, due to Brandt's continuing campaign of attacks and harassment of our editors. I believe there is consensus to overturn your block, but it would be nice if you could review your actions and hopefully do so yourself. Thank you, Crum375 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
They asked for an unblock as apparently you weren't on hand, and wanted the account so they could talk about the Daniel Brandt unblocking without possible retribution from Brandt directed at their real account and say they'll take care not to appear to generate false consensus (which would violate sockpuppet rules). If it's who I think it is from writing style I think they'll be good for this.
Apparently there's more than one admin using a pseudonym in that discussion who's fallen to an autoblock because of a blocked pseudonym.
Anyway, this one should be fine I think. Probably there are others that will, but I'm going to bed now and hoping I don't wake up to a mess where I have to mutter that fatal word: "oops ..." - David Gerard 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
With the utmost of respect, I'm unblocking ForPrivacyConcerns (talk • contribs) as you are still away. I don't mean to tread on your toes, and I apologize in advance for any offense, it's not my intention. We can discuss this in more depth if you'd like when you get back, but the person contacted me privately, and I understand why they have fear/concern for their safety. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You may allready be aware of this, but I thought I should let you know that it looks like User:Cascadia has started a RFC about you. Just thought you should know. -Mschel 00:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong, WJBscribe suggested that the RfC I opened in regards to your actions today be postponed, and I agreed.
There is an enormous issue with the actions that you've taken today in blocking editors using sock puppets within the guidelines of WP:SOCK. The editors using those temporary sockpuppets, including myself, did so to prevent any undo harassment as a result of commenting in the discussion at WP:CSN. I've been the victim of off-wiki harassment before, and decided this time that I would not open myself up to that. It was clear from the beginning that people had issues with these preventative measures by myself and other editors. Claims of trolling and attempting to alter the debate spread like wildfire. All editors using such socks explained that they were independent users acting to prevent backlash.
Your decision to arbitrarily block all users you perceived as sockpuppets (and I say it this way because I understand one of those blocked was an actual account) was one that could have had drastic implications for those involved. In effect, by blocking those accounts, you were calling the editors out. Something that the topic of the discussion had done in the past: Outing-editors. Only you didn't out real names and other information, you created a situation where editors had few options: Out themselves, or try to find a sympathetic admin to unblock. To make matters worse, you disappeared. Other editors who were not directly involved in the block asked you to revert your actions, but you had already gone. Other admins were forced to clean up the situation.
Your actions showed blatant disregard for not only policy (WP:AGF, WP:SOCK), but a disregard for the privacy and safety of those involved. As such, I personally find your actions inexcusable.
My personal preference of moving forward would be for you to voluntarily desysop. I also admit this is asking a lot of an admin, but I feel your actions warrant such a request.
I will continue to discuss this issue with you until discussion comes to a dead end. Thank you. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 02:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I apologize that I was not here when all of the major discussion was going on. I had left to go to dinner and a club meeting this evening. If I had the chance, I would have unblocked all that I had blocked, and remove the autoblocks myself. I realize my mistake now, and I apologize to all of those that had been affected by my wrong action.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
(ec)The more you know: University of Dayton: Cybercrimes Wiredsafety: Cyberstalking / Harassment Cyber-rights.org, Cyberstalking Articles. There's more out there, just some jump-off resources. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 04:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No hard feelings, just slow down on the itchy block finger. ;) FWIW, the stalking is pretty crazy. Even romantic interests (not just employers) were in some cases tracked down, as well as family. Thanks for understanding, Infodmz 05:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but you were the first active admin I could find right now. Would you please take a look at the article I referenced in the header; I've tagged it ad a db-bio, but the article claims that she is the sister of the Virginia Tech shooter, and if this is so, I think it should be removed as soon as possible. The poor woman has enough problems without this. Deor 03:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed no tags were placed on either blocked account. I don't mean to step on your toes, but I went ahead and added them. User:Century1901[12] and User:Centurypr[13]. Thanks for fixing the "article" I pointed out. Anynobody 07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I know that they are blocked whether or not the tag is there, I wanted to practice placing tags and thought it'd be courteous to let you know (since you initiated the blocks). Thanks, Anynobody 08:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Your reply prompts the question: Why does the tag exist in the first place? Wouldn't it make sense to simply delete the template? Anynobody 08:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand, you meant in this case not in general. If you feel the pages were more appropriate they way they were feel free to revert me (also part of the reason I let you know). Anynobody 09:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you take a look at an unblock request from Megaversal (talk · contribs)? He/she is blocked from an IP block you made with the comment "open proxy (ThePlanet)". It looks like it results from a range block of 69.93.0.0/16, and I don't want to just unblock the IP because that would undo the whole range. Are you certain that this is an open proxy and not, as the user claims, an ISP? Can you review and either accept or decline the request? --BigDT (416) 14:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Please sign the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal member list. Thanks. J. D. Redding 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Need some help with regards to PLA military ranks pages to keep malicious editor (Roitr) from continuously making bad edits. --Aldis 90 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aldis90 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
It appears that Reddi was just leavign a message on my talk page. Why did you remove it? - Bagel7 06:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong,
You probably remember that the Tony Eveready article was mostly removed a few weeks ago, but then we agreed that it was actually valid, and it was restored. It has now been removed again by Shanel, and protected in its removed state by Pathoschild so that it cannot be restored. They seem unresponsive to my comments. If you could do something to help restore the article and prevent other wiki editors from removing it again, that would be great.
Jeffw245 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, friend! I figured you flubbed the subst, which is something I do myself on occasion. No bad faith intended (or perceived, I hope). -- SwissCelt 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You semi-protected this artile almsot a month ago, though I am not sure why. There is no semi-protection template on the page. I see you semi-protected the article after this edit. That IP is now blocked as an open proxy anyway, so does this page still need semi-protection? If not, please unprotect it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salahx (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
No mate, blocking a user, who could easily be considered a "newcomer", given the changes that Wikipedia has had over the past two-plus years, without warning after recreating a userpage is a severe misuse of the block button. As I mentioned to you over IRC before unblocking the fellow, the proper course of action would have been to blank or delete the userpage and explain WP:USERPAGE to the fellow, while keeping the page on one's watchlist to ensure that he takes the advice to heart. I've gone ahead and implemented this, and as such, will be correcting your misuse of your administrator buttons gaillimhConas tá tú? 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The scan says... Second Kamen Rider, The name is Zeronosu. I don't see how it can't be any more clear. And there are other scans that hold the other forms floating around as well. Its no more crystal balling the than GekiSabers or Gekifan is. Floria L 01:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And there's this, if you believe the text was cut off. [14] Floria L 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
but I think it's time you consider CAT:AOR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.28.151.2 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
I was open to recall, however as a result of activities following my RFA (a couple of weeks) I removed myself from the category. And this is resulting from an editting dispute in which I have not used my administrative abilities in any way.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw your protection comment of "Why not do this?". The reason is that it would create an extra link at protected delete pages, both Wikipedia:Protected_titles/April_2007 and Wikipedia:Protected_titles/April_2007/List which may confuse some users. If the "list" page is being left "unprotected" (i.e. only under cascading protection of the "main" page), it would direct everyone to that page instead of the list page, which would convey more information. The list page of other months are not protected directly too. --WinHunter (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The question is not the "better" image. The question is between the free image or no image. And this case is quite clearer than the Scooby-Doo TFA, because we know a free portrait of the man almost certainly exists.--Pharos 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added the id-0 template in your userbox because I found that you have an account in the Indonesian Wikipedia, and in your userpage there you put id-0. So I think you should do the same here! --Edmundkh 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
OK OK. But what about Chinese? You also have one account in the Chinese Wikipedia, and you do put a zh-0 over here. Why do you choose to put your statement regarding Chinese but not Indonesian? Did you create accounts for fun in other Wikipedias in languages that you don't understand!? --Edmundkh 04:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? "Said language"!? What's that!? --Edmundkh 04:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did people think you are a Chinese or Japanese!? Is it because of your username? And I found that you put ja-1, so how can you say that you know nothing about Japanese!? --Edmundkh 04:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Stops 15-17 noted! Fractyl 18:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Attempted Stop 16, Come Running (耒走, Suki Sou) Fractyl 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Any particular reason you reblocked Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently? He's asking the Arbcom to let him try coming back. As usual, I don't remember much. Fred Bauder 02:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thought you might like to see this. Nardman1 05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
To note, since the Lesson 12 title is almost identical to the one Dukemon had up, doesn't that mean he may be right about these?
Fractyl 01:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you please tell me why you deleted the category Wikipedians who collect airsickness bags when there was no consensus and the guidelines are NOT to dlete in the case of no consensus. Also you deleted my userbox This user supports the UK Independence Party (UKIP) for no apparent reason. Barfbagger 16:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Gen. von Klinkerhoffen
Holy gosh, he's doing non-bad so far. Nice to see. Cross fingers! - David Gerard 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. Even though such things don't bother me much, I still prefer to have a normal-looking un-vandalized user page. ^_^; 夢の騎士Yume no Kishi - Talk 07:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You protected the following articles on March 31 with no comment; can they be unprotected now?
CMummert · talk 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)