User talk:HangingCurve/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:HangingCurve. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

		The PCHS-NJROTC Abuse Report and Antivandal Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism to Port Charlotte High School!

GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But there's the problem... just because something has a cite on it doesn't mean it should stay up, especially when it's a single cite to a blog. :-) Let me put it this way - imagine you're Ms. Lese and you find that two out of four paragraphs of your article on Wikipedia is dedicated solely towards only a couple negative events in your life? There are two questions to consider here: the quality of the sourcing, and whether it merits half of the article's content. east.718 at 20:25, March 1, 2008

Vandalism is anything done in bad faith to compromise Wikipedia's integrity - so replacing a page with "lol dicks" certainly qualifies, but an IP address blanking the biography of a less notable person might not. I'm sure there's a guide somewhere (probably WP:VAN), but I wouldn't know, not having read a policy page in around two years. :D east.718 at 20:35, March 1, 2008

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! JTRH (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for having faith in me ... I was initially nervous about diving in again after the Archtransit mess--but then I figured I'd be feeding a troll. I won't let you down, I promise. Blueboy96 04:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Tiptoety ^talk 04:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Blueboy. I'm proud to have supported you and argued for you in your past two RfAs. Don't let us down! If you ever need any help, please feel free to ask me. :) GlassCobra 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for your swift actions in this matter. Re: this action you just took, you may want to also tag the account JustaHulk (talk · contribs), and the IP 65.2.75.88 (talk · contribs) (WP:NPA, here). Cirt (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I can't find the relevant part of the username policy which you blocked him for... he's also asking for a review of it at his talk page. Personally I don't see anything wrong with it. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 07:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Four times, but alright. Thank you for pointing out what I didn't realize. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I just proved your point. Five times it is. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I very strongly believe this user created a sockpuppet, User:Xjstudios, in order to spam/troll like he was before he was blocked. Grsz11 (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Didnt realize you were frequenting the AVI board. Thanks. Grsz11 (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had thought about doing that but was following the usual procedures for username blocks. I'll harden it up. Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but I just want to make sure you looked at what they did yourself, what may look like a link to a virus to me(which it did) may not to others. Thanks again--Pewwer42  Talk  23:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You killed yourself on your second day at work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.11.241 (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

First, congratulations on receiving the tools. I'm here because some of your page protections are questionable. Of the eleven page protections listed here, I see issues with five of them.

• Userpages do not need to be fully protected (User:NOAHcheer, User:HinnT, User:TnniH); blocked users can only edit their user talk, not their userpage. If you were concerned that sockpuppets might vandalize the page, then that's another situation. However, that isn't the case here and we don't need preemptive protection, so protection is unnecessary.
• Josquin des Prez was TFA for March 2, 2008. Per WP:NOPRO, it's advised that we only semi-protect TFAs when the level of vandalism is unmanageable (i.e. vandalism every 2-3 minutes, or something like that). For an example of when TFA protection is appropriate, see [1].
• Thomas Crapper has received relatively low amounts of vandalism. If you want to go by numbers, I suggest semi-protecting articles if the last 50 edits contains mostly vandalism and vandalism reverts dating back up to a week or so. There are some cases where it may not be appropriate to protect in even those situations. Some articles like Thomas Crapper are heavily watchlisted, so vandalism is quickly reverted.

Remember that protection is supposed to be used as a last-ditch resort to prevent edit warring, vandalism, BLP violations, or other things. I hope you can work out these issues in time and I wish you the best of luck in the future. Protection is a very tricky issue, so if you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Regards, Nishkid64 (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, protecting talk pages is appropriate if users are abusing them. Sometimes these pages stay protected for months on end, so might you want to put an expiration on these protections. I think few weeks at most would do the trick. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again, but this edit was rather innocuous - changing "aren't" to "are not" in an old talkpage discussion - and there's only the one edit so far today. You may want to keep an eye out, just in case. Argyriou (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there is a backlog at the SSP page and i was just hoping you can take a look at this case i made, [2]. Seems no one has yet looked into it and the user has used yet another I.P. as a vandalism-only account. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up [3]; sounds good to me. My block was regarding the WP:AIV report. Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your fast blocking of the two abusive usernames. I also noticed the timing, and it made me suspicious. User:Starorion20 started out as merely misguided, but he seems to have become frustrated by the failure of the community to come around to his point of view on Superdelegate. I gave him a vandalism warning about this edit. His frustration may have also prompted him to create these usernames. JamesMLane t c 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A big thanks from me as well. I think there is also a possibility that Starorion20 also edits as Starorion5. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Starorion just changed his mind about which number to append to his username. He began editing as Starorion5, but his last edit under that name preceded his first edit as Starorion20. He hasn't used the two names together or otherwise abused the system with them. If your only basis for the block was the 5-and-20 issue, I'd reluctantly suggest that you unblock. If the checkuser confirmed the suspicion that this user created Wordbuider and JamesMLanet, though, then fire away. JamesMLane t c 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someday Starorion will learn to contribute positively. Funny thing is, I didn't even disagree with the idea. I just didn't think the presentation and sourcing was encyclopedic. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No surprises on that. Thanks for the help. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the Buckeyes football article. :) Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Although it is protected WITH the vandalism still on it Bcspro (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On becoming Admin. Keep up the good work! Remember (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

how can i change it then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddfffggg2008 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you rightly blocked User:CliffordRay. I was looking at his edits in detail and saw that he was removing derogatory content on a WP:BLP article. I asked him to let me know what his intent was and if he would abide by Wikipedia policies if unblocked, he answered me via email and I think his intentions were good - even if he went about it in the wrong way. I'll keep an eye out and be his mentor if you would be so kind as to unblock him. I'll reblock if he acts up again... :) Dreadstar † 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man. I totally agree, if you hadn't beat me to the block, I would have blocked him myself...;) You did the right thing. Dreadstar † 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if, given the newest comments, you might reduce the block to 24 hours, and give the user another shot, after some cool down. BusterD (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That was user's first edit. As the person who asked for the block, I was wondering how an admin makes that sort of assessment on the fly. Do you mind a bit of pedagogy this morning? BusterD (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As a long-time user just learning about admin procedure and practice, I can say it's sort of difficult to watch blocking as a process compared to other such tasks. AfD and RfA processes are so refined, it becomes easy on reading to understand what sorts of behaviors are acceptable and what sorts go out of bounds. Clicking though diffs on AIV tells some of the blocking story, but watching very active admins seems another. Please don't mind my watching over your shoulder, from time to time. Thanks again for the timely block. BusterD (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop censoring people, and stay off my talk page. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I put a speedy deletion tag on this page, for no context. Do you think it falls under those guidelines? Ctjf83Talk 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about Wikipedia:CSD#G3 for Alvin and the Chipmunks 2, no sources on the page, obvious hoax. Ctjf83Talk 04:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Blueboy96. fyi, the link you added to Template:ACC fight songs for Miami U is a redirect link to Miami Unversity in Oxford, Ohio's main page. So, I reverted the edit. Gwguffey (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No sooner had I created my account and logged on for the very first time that I was blocked by you. Don't you think blocking me was a bit drastic all you needed to do was leave a comment on my page that voiced your disagreement with my username and which instructed me how to change it. By the way I hope we can put this behind us and move on.

And yes, I have submitted my new name to WP:CHU before you ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind (talk • contribs) 05:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I went to check on 194.239.178.211 (talk · contribs), since I had issued them final warning, and see that they persisted and have been blocked. I am confused, though, that you've blocked them indefinitely. I know that Wikipedia:Block#Indefinite blocks indicates that "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely." The school template on that user talk page indicates that "anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time." Is there some specific reason to block indefinitely in this case? I don't hang out a whole lot in the blocking area, so this is a new one for me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, congratulations! :D Regarding the visceral reaction, I know the feeling. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

75.108.83.180 (talk · contribs) is continuing to make inaccurate/unnecessary changes to TV station infoboxes. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey BB, the whole of his defense, if you look at the Proposed Decision Talk Page Archives, is that this is all a smear campaign initiated by Overstock's CEO and his assistant. I will paste some choice quotes here, you can find the diffs from his comments.

Perhaps the problematic issue is the open participation in this case by the director of communications and CEO of Overstock.com[29], which is under investigation by the Securities and Exhcange Commission? But that is just a guess, and I see no point in speculating.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you might view this a little less callously if the CEO of some company and his paid stalker were after your bacon.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It might also depend on if the White House routinely used fake emails and forged screen shots, engaged in other dirty tricks, and sent an email to an administrator saying that if "Weiss is banned" he will remove his attacks on the administrator and Wikipedia.[30]. I know, I know, doesn't matter.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You just raised Bagley, not myself, but the fact that the p.r. director of Overstock.com has been pushing for a circus such as this for two years is relevant to this case, just not to this part of it. [1].--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Extreme, I was being stalked by Judd Bagley off-wiki and on-wiki, for the purpose of achieving very much the present case, long before you became an editor. Please don't lecture me about the "tone" that results from that. Have a nice day.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to see Durova's addition on my talk page [4]SirFozzie (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw this user got blocked, a relief to me as I won't have to clean up after his disgracefully inaccurate incomplete and misleading footballer bios any more. Just one question, is he a sockpuppet of Primetime? the reason I ask is because the link on the copyright violations tag you put on his userpage suggests that he is. English peasant 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

see this. Perhaps the pages should be protected? English peasant 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To Blueboy96 Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. --Hu12 (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you protect the above article? People still seem to be deleting vital info and the reverting it... LOTRrules (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking that user. Vandalism really hits home when it's your own [5]. Some folks don't like being told not to vandalise.Olly₁₅₀ 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've undone your revert of Delfish's link and songwriting credit on Flesh For Lulu. The link is valid and I've found a ref for the credit. While many of the edits on the Del Strangefish article may appear to constitute WP:COI they appear to basically factual. I note that Michig, an experienced editor, is adding refs on that article so I'm going to leave that one to him. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine ... it's actually better that edit be associated with you than Delfish, since Delfish appeared to be a role account. Blueboy96 12:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that that is Strangefish himself and, judging by his struggles to add a pic, he's a newbie. But all his edits seem to be in good faith. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to put a block notice on their talk page, which led to me having to explain the reason for the block when the inevitable unblock was filed. I declined it, but remember to give notice next time. Daniel Case (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but MascotGuy isn't connected to Gsnguy at all. The naming pattern is that MG will usually do "Foo Guy" rather than "Fooguy" and that is out of sync with the naming pattern of his various names. Also, Gsnguy's various names have made purile and vile threats against me and anyone else he's felt whose wronged him, and he often more than not will edit TV slogans than anything else; I don't usually see that happening with MG. Also, according to the Gsnguy Checkuser, he seems to be based in Western Pennsylvania, with several of his false edits prevalent to that area, while MG is in the San Diego area so they probably cannot be connected. Sorry about this, but I wanted to make sure that you knew these were two different creatures that we're dealing with rather than one puppet due to the name. If you have anymore questions regarding Gsnguy, let me know. Nate • (chatter) 10:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your email block of Homestead, would you forward that email that caused you to block email sending, to myself or please forward it to "info-en-c@wikimedia.org" and place this ticket number in the subject line "2008032210000018".

Thank you for your help,

NonvocalScream (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Already sent ... you have a chance to check it yet? Blueboy96 18:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it. When someone uses a ticket number in the subject, its supposed to go where I, or whomever wants it to go, but for some reason it did not. :) I found it. Thank you for helping on that. I would go ahead and leave the email block on. Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Which one? We've had to do about 10 separate rangeblocks on Wikzilla... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You blocked me for what? You can't just block me simply because I put in a section about terrorists in a terrorist organization article, it was perfectly common information with cited sources. That has nothing to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan nor the Armenian Genocide-- hence I violated no rules, and I demand that my block be lifted, since I do not believe you can block me on something I didn't do. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While looking at recent changes, I picked up on edits to Physician Assistant by a new account, Bobfran160 (talk · contribs). I then noticed in the article history that an account with a similar name had also edited that page, Bobfran (talk · contribs), whom had been blocked by you for vandalism a couple of weeks ago.

I'm not sure whether the edits made to the article constitute vandalism, but the similarity of names seems suspicious. --Bragen 14:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can a user remove a sock template from their page after the block has expired on their other accounts they've used to edit war? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, putting the name of the person being harassed in the block reason so that every anon who tries to edit will see it is probably not a good idea. [6]. I have fixed them. Cheers. Thatcher 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:McSweegan.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Answered on my talkpage (feel free to remove this after reading). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand why you deleted this. The user just registered their account today, and posted a profile of themselves, which is what user pages are for. I also don't understand how this is a "promotional username" or why you blocked it, since the username is just the username of the person, it's not a company or anything like that. You seem to have gone way overboard here -- remember WP:BITE. Mangojuice^talk 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quick to give indefinite blocks to vandalism only accounts, but I am curious how this username is obscene or which user it imitates, or how it is clearly only for vandalism. An indefinite block after the one blatant vandalism seems kind of quick. I like to give'em a bit more rope before the hanging. Thoughts? Edison (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So how many reps of one syllable would you allow? And do you think I have been too lenient? I have been giving a level 3 warning for a first vandalism such as this user did, followed by a level 4 and then a block, or in extreme cases (maybe this was) a "final warning" followed by a block. Edison (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

back in the day when I was a student of psychophisics, I might have been tempted to use the descending method of limits to find out how many reps of one syllable were permissible. Edison (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Blueboy. I have read the long thread on WP:AN about your banning of Justanother, and am afraid I find the basis of it insufficient. For one thing, very few users have opined about it; for another, they're predominantly old adversaries of JA. This is not how community banning is supposed to work. Please see the more elaborate rationale I will soon post on AN. I intend to wait an hour or so for more community input, and then, unless a real community consensus for banning forms, to unblock Justanother. I hope you have no objections. Best regards, Bishonen | talk 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Hi. Please check contribs of 85.211.3.239 (talk · contribs). Another IP from the same range reverting articles with no explanation. Grandmaster (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Bb96. I noticed your revert of WBTV's change of ownership. The FCC has approved the transfer, and wbtv.com lists the ownership as "WBTV, Inc." instead of Lincoln Financial. I didn't find any specific mention of Raycom on the site, but I think the change is complete and official. Just FYI. Best, JTRH (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Belated congrats on you adminship...now, since you seem to be the only admin active in the television communiity, could you please look into 75.108.83.180 (contribs), whom you blocked one month ago but continues to vandalize several articles, particularly WSAZ-TV and WVVA, despite numerous warnings. Thanks. Rollosmokes (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please revert your block of my user account Cynical Apathy. I have addressed this with another admin, and she stated that although my actions resemble those a possible "meatpuppet", an indefinate block was a bit harsh and not something she would have done to a first time user. I will no longer edit any part of the Don Murphy talk page, nor anything related to it, so please... unblock my account. Cynical Apathy 75.163.195.192 (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw your block (thanks) but Soccermeko has already hopped to 4.154.56.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Kww (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blueboy, you blocked this IP back in March for adding false info. I'm not familiar with radio stations, so I don't know if the edits are vandalism or not. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Spellcast (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see [7] and [8] William Ortiz (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how involved you are with Wikipedia as a whole, but here's something you might find particularly interesting: here EaglesFanInTampa 13:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

...for helping me out on the Bandit5257/WVVA issue, And my apologies again for taking the request off your talk page and onto Firsfron's; at that time he was online and you weren't, and I needed some ASAP admin action. But thanks for coming through.

And, by the way, Bandit5257 isn't listening to anyone. ([9]) Rollosmokes (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re fixing the block notice. Our stock templates sometimes leave a bit to be desired... Orderinchaos 20:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardblocked? For having a long username? With no edits? Really? --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that the AfD on NASIOC was started by a ring of sockpuppets, and that several of the delete !votes were also sockpuppets from the same sock farm. Given that fact, I don't believe that the AfD process done on the article was credible, and I have undeleted it. This is without prejudice to another AfD being launched. FCYTravis (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've argued the alternate view, in which we can ignore the invalid stuff and consider the valid arguments only. In my opinion, you made the right call in a tricky situation. But, if there's disagreement, we have deletion review for that. FCYTravis shouldn't have just undeleted. Friday (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't just be undeleted, as there were as many meatpuppets involved trying to Keep as there were sockpuppets trying to delete (see the NASIOC blog I linked at the top of the AfD). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of taking it to AfD. Not because I believe the deletion rationale was incorrect or that consensus wasn't reached...but the more I thought about it, the more I thought that our logic may have been swayed by the sockpuppetry/SPAs. Our big contention was the lack of secondary sources...but the Subaru magazine may have actually been a reliable secondary source, as its not really a primary source since it's not affiliated with the organization. --Smashville^BONK! 19:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I tagged this as spam yesterday and it was deleted and eventually salted. The author Daw44 (talk · contribs) has put on my talk page a long message here - it goes down more than a screen - and I have replied (at the bottom several sections down) referring him to you and Cobaltbluetony as the two admins who deleted the page, and urging him to read WP:BFAQ before he asks you for permission to re-create. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You will find it re-created with some improvements as BYU Accounting Ph.D. prep track. I tried to edit it a little further in the hope of making it keepable, but I don't think it is. If you agree with me, I think it will take AfD to definitively remove it. DGG (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your change for two reasons: 1) you're reintroducing a word to avoid, and 2) you've readded material which is unsuitable for Wikipedia, because either a) it's poorly sourced, or b) it's quotes. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And there was no need to go history diving, either. Edit -> remove the top tag. I'm not touching that removal, but I have the rest. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this was a helpful way to handle it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What about OrangeMarlin? What sort of precedent are you setting if you say incivility like his is okay because 'at least he's not a racist'? OrangeMarlin is just as guilty as GStS. HalfShadow (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think OrangeMarlin was indeed over the top but only in how he so emotionally expressed himself. Since he was reacting to a somewhat stealthy anti-semetic slur I think it's ok to let his over-reaction slide some. OrangeMarlin was not promoting hatred through his article edits, so the two editors aren't much alikened at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this, referring to an apology from GStS as 'Neo-Nazi baiting', referring to GStS as a 'neo-nazi' no fewer than four times... I'm not saying GStS wasn't wrong, I just want OrangeMarlin to understand that his behavior was just as wrong. HalfShadow (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't like his reaction either, nor did I agree with the wording, but I understood what he meant emotionally. Hopefully he'll learn from it but I can hardly blame him. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

funny Igor Berger (talk)

Hi there. You might want to read this part of the guideline, specifically the part about removing notices from user talk pages NOT being a recommended course of action. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For the AfD fix. (I knew it was deleted, but forgot to change it when copy/pasting the template. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blueboy96 -- I imagine you watchlisted his page, but there's no evidence that NCdave evaded his block. Raul appears to have done a checkuser and cleared him, as you'll see on the user's page.[10] You might want to check it out again. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why you unblocked NCDave? He was blocked for disruption by Raul654. His block was then reset to another week when Fight the Clique appeared. Raul654 ran a CU and determined that they were not the same person. I reset the block to the original expiration date. You have now unblocked him completely with a note referring to a CU case. Did you mean to completely overturn Raul's block without comment? KnightLago (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your rationale. KnightLago (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with the rationale you provided KnighLago. Whether he used socks is one thing, and whether Raul should have been the one to impose the first block is another thing, but the fact remains he was blocked for disruption, and has a long history of such disruption, and doesn't seem to be learning his lesson, as I explained here. Seems to me that if you feel Raul was too involved to be the blocker than you should pursue sanctions against him, but that shouldn't let NCdave off the hook for his continued problematic editting. Yilloslime (t) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The article talk page is a mess, and NCdave was blocked for an edit that wasn't disruptive, for going on four days. I'm pretty sure he'll take a hint, or find himself in trouble again. The fact is when you're blocked for a reasonable edit in that situation, there's not much more you can learn anyway. A little slack here seems to me beneficial. Mackan79 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't support the unblock or the rationale behind. I actually thought he had mistakenly unblocked after learning that Dave was not using socks. That is why I asked. I agree with the admin who originally declined to unblock. Dave has a long history of contentious and disruptive editing. I myself would have declined the unblock, but Blueboy beat me to it with the sockpuppet comment. I think this case is an example of a user successfully gaming the system. By complaining loud enough, and long enough, somebody will eventually come along and unblock. No matter that other admins have already declined to do so. KnightLago (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this conversation about me, with Yilloslime and KinghtLago's accusations against me. I'll ask them the same thing I asked Raul654 & FeloniousMonk, repeatedly, but fruitlessly: What edits of mine do you believe were disruptive or uncivil or violated any Wikipedia policies? (Yilloslime, are you still mad about this?) I strive to follow all of Wikipedia's rules, to the best of my ability, even those with which I disagree. Is it "gaming the system" to want to know why I was accused? Guys, if you ever see me make an edit which violates any Wikipedia policy, you may be certain that it is inadvertent, and if you tell me about it (specifically!) I will self-revert it. I ask that you assume my good faith. You both have much more experience on Wikipedia than I do. I've been here a while, but I'm still discovering new guidelines, templates, features, etc., and I have a mentor, and I am always glad to learn something new. But I can't learn anything from unspecific accusations like these. NCdave (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of one of your most prolific WP:DE tactics -- continuous edit-warring to reintroduce or reopen settled, off-topic and/or WP:FORUM discussions, and continual WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Blueboy: This article was deleted based on one review, which claimed there were no notable sources. But the article was very dense with sources - about 15 citations for a shortish article - and most were from major newspapers such as Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Tribune, Tehelka, India Today, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Globe and Mail, etc. The only non-newspaper source is NOT a blog, it is the South Asia Terrorism Portal, which is a well-edited 7-year old portal, and anyway that was a source for only one or two points in the article.

The delete citation also said that googling him as "Lakhbir Singh Brar Rode" gives only 30 citations, but actually he is more often referred to with either Brar or Rode or just as "Lakhbir Singh". Googling him as "Lakhbir Singh Brar" gives 766 citations [11], and "Lakhbir Singh Rode" gives 390 separate ones [12]- almost all of these are referring to this person and his terrorist activities, his interpol red corner warrant, his listing among India's top 20 wanted, and other details. There are some other articles in Wikipedia itself linking to him. Do take a look at the article itself, if that's still possible for administrators. I am not too familiar with the deletion process, and this is the first time I am arguing against deletion. mukerjee (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you recreated the page as a redirect. It's not particularly important, but the new redirect renders the other one at To boldly go technically redundant. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 02:15, April 14, 2008

You might want to take a look at the Deletion review for Susan Hubbard, [13] -- DGG (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, HangingCurve. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:OriginalFox4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Came across this on new page patrol added tags but not sure if it should be speedy taged or what, thanks BigDunc (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you mean to only allow sysops to move the page? Because as of now, only autoconfirmed people can move pages anyway ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You deleted National Christian Choir. I don't particularly care about this group, but I saw the article before it was deleted and it listed a number of albums that the choir had released, which is at least an assertion of notability. It appears to tour regionally. See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22National+Christian+Choir%22&ie=UTF-8 --Eastmain (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)