User talk:KnightLago/Archive 2
 | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Just saw that it made FA. Congrats to all involved! Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
AC
Updated again :) Cheers- CattleGirl talk 10:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Cataneseanthony md.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cataneseanthony md.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. After Midnight 0001 02:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I graduated from FAU in 1987. The page looks terrific! Thanks for doing such a great job on this article. You may want to consider adding information about FAU High School. I don't know enough about it to edit the page and I don't want to mess up an FA but FAU High School is a public school where students attend FAU classes and earn both college and high school credit. It is free except for a $500 activity fee and allows high acheiving students the opportunity to shave off a couple of years of college while completing high school. NancyHeise (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident
You commented on this issue at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#Wikipedia surrendering users' info without a fight. It was stated there that it was not an appropriate discussion forum for the topic of how hard the Foundation should and did fight to prevent revealing the IP addresses of registered users to parties who had been criticized in a Wikipedia article and who subpoenaed the user information. I have started a discussion at the Village Pump policy page at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)# Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident. Your comments are welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brogan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Brogan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
FAU Edits
Thank you for your comments regarding the edits I posted to the FAU article. While I appreciate the importance of neutrality, there are certain facts that should be corrected:
1) FAU does not have "satellite" campuses. Florida statutes (1004.36) uniquley use the phrase "partner" campuses as it relates to FAU.
2) The Harbor Branch Oceanographic Insitution is now officially called the "Harbor Branch Oceanographic Insitute"
3) The University has 10 colleges (added The Graduate College last year) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faumarketing (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I, your prodigal pupil, have been busy in the real world the last two months, and am only now getting back to Wikipedia. I will try to get the latest coaching questions done sometime this week. I just wanted to touch base and let you know that I am still eager to continue my studies. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- :P Sacred cow... :P
- Oh, the last few months have been busy for me too! I've hardly had any time on Wikipedia at all...
- That's alright, whenever you have time :)
- I've got to go now (again!) but hopefully I'll be online a lot more in the next couple of days. Cheers- CattleGirl talk 09:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of University Press (Florida Atlantic University), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: University Press. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at University Press (Florida Atlantic University). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. GreenJoe 02:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- See my reply on your talk page Joe. KnightLago (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops
Sorry, it was an accident. I'm using a new anti-vandal tool and I'm trying to familiarize with it. I thought I had warned the user and the warning was a default or something. I am very sorry. PseudoOne (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
tags
A newbie removed one of your tags; I'll fix that. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Peace | |
| For allowing a newbie to mess up and being gracious about it. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC) |
My request for bureaucratship
Dear KnightLago, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Timothy Shepherd
Ah, I missed that. However, I just found out that he did in fact get charged. See his public jail record. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Shenme (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr.KnightLago..
I would like to make it a point that my edits to the Pell City High School page was not Vandalism, but in fact, in all honesty; the truth. Being a student of the school for two years, I think I would know more about my own school than you; a "Wikipedia edit watcher." Thank you, and please stop harassing me by taking away my dear posts.
The incident involving Shenme, was brought upon by himself, for as well hiding the truth from the masses. Thank you, and good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackFelixRose (talk • contribs) 04:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverts to UP
May I ask how I was going overboard? What is it need to know who the adviser is for a student organization? Additionally it is in the lead as if that information is the most important. What I am getting at is it looks like an advertisement for for Michael Koretzky.
Also I have noticed that User:163.192.21.43, User:76.110.159.118 and User:Jeparsley all have very similar edits I suspect they might be the same person. --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 01:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah maybe I should have wrote a better edit summary. That second statement was for my removable of the line "In 2007, the UP redesigned its online product and added daily news, blogs, videos from Owl TV and music from Owl Radio. It has become the first such college newspaper in the United States to do so .[citation needed]".
- I still disagree what listing the advisor is needed. Who the advisor is doesn't make or break the paper. He is not writing, editing or publishing the articles.--Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The NPOV tag is for the many reverts about who owns what and the list of editors. There is an issue with the article and it seems to be going no where. I am also writing a little more on the article talk page. --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 02:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the UCR article
Sorry if I seemed snippy. It's not that I'm sensitive to criticism of the campus or the article, but the alumni of that school tend to be both it's most impassioned defenders and detractors, and if it wasn't for the huge conflict that took place over that article in 2005-2006 I probably wouldn't have engaged with Wikipedia to the extent that I have, nor would I have bothered, over the long term, to attempt to make that article compliant with the highest of WP standards. In any case, all it's detractors could harp on was the location of the med school program in the basement of a building and some trailers, and some BS comments they wanted to quote from college application message forums, along with Riverside smog and local stereotypes of the 909 area code. Smog is the only input of their's that I kept, as there is, still, overly substantial basis for it, but I've mainly documented that in the Inland Empire (California) article and may try moving that to GA over the next several months, along with several of the other UC articles. Ameriquedialectics 06:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Anytime
SWik78 (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Americablog
Dear Mr.KnightLago:
My citation was to Americablog which has become increasingly anti-Hillary in the past months. I'm not trying to be inflamatory -- I just wanted to state that the writers are against her candidacy for US president.
Rgds, Clintonista —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clintonista (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Editing of Green Bin
Thanks KnightLago! D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.Dekker (talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi KnightLago,
I understand the editing of content to move away from commercial purposes. I did notice that a manufacturer is listed under the Blue Box (container) topic Major Canadian Supplier - Norseman Plastics http://www.norsemanplastics.com
If they are allowed inclusion to the wikipedia, I'm not sure why another supplier cannot be listed. The main goal here is not commercial. My goal here talking about accesibility to the improvement of the environment and not commercial purposes. Thanks, Drew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.Dekker (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you tagged the article as spam, but I removed the tag and tried to clean it up a bit since I believe the subject itself is notable. It didn't look as bad as it was before (I deleted it on one of the occasions), so I believe there was enough content to salvage to make it worthwhile. If you still think it looks spammy, please take it to afd (or leave me a message and I'll do that). Thanks. - Bobet 16:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for looking out. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my userpage
Enjoy! ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 01:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Your communication
Hello,
I am trying to use my subpage as a development area for the page I am creating.
The Page I am creating is Twice Exceptional
The workspace is User:JJJMST
Any help or assistance you could provide would be most appreciated.
Thank You, Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJMST (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Butt Hole Group
hang on.... I just saw your note on my userpage. Go back and check the logs again! I was the one who reverted the pagemove vandalism - not created it! Verify this here.
Witty Lama 14:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have to admit that I was surprised that I could do that. I too thought it would require more messing about than just the simple page-move. It has in the past. Witty Lama 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...
For the assistance on my user page. It would appear that I slightly annoyed a troll. Xymmax (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Request third-party settlement
Sorry to bother you, but this is rather urgent. a user has accused me of libel and personal attacks, wheras I do not see how that has happened. Since you were involved in an area where this occured, I would like to request that you try to establish a truce, as the user in question has threatened to get me blocked when I responded. I read the resolution guide and figured this was the best step I could take.
If you agree, here are the pages in which our conversations occured.
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Uncyclopedia
- User talk:Teh Rote
- User talk:Arbiteroftruth#Re:Uncyclopedia FA Nom
Teh Rote (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- This user has accused me of repeatedly nominating Uncyclopedia for deletion. I have done that only once, and I admit it was a mistake, and that the incident could have been handled better. That does not mean I have done it 5+ times. Slander: proven
- He also accused me of accusing every Uncyclopedia users as vandals. This user deliberately took the sentence he quoted out of context in his continuing efforts to sully my good name. The context of the sentence he quoted was that all Uncyclopedia editors who vandalize on Wikipedia have done nothing other than creating damage and destruction here on Wikipedia. The user in question has also acknowledged the fact that there are Uncyclopedia editors who vandalize here on WIkipedia. Slander: proven
- He also accused me of attacking him personally. He deliberately took this as a personal insult, and used it as a flimsy pretext to escalate the incident. My attacks were against Uncyclopedia editors who vandalize here on WIkipedia, and I have stated at least two times that unless he vandalizes here on Wikipedia, I did not attack him. Which begs the question: Is Teh Rote a Wikipedia vandal? Since he took this so personally.
- The above facts have proven that Teh Rote has engaged in a shameless, insidious, and tawdry campaign to smear my good name here on Wikipedia, and it is within my right to defend my good name, within the rules of no legal threat on Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to leave a message on your user page, but this is as good a place as any. First, both of you need to take a step back, relax, and breathe. We are all here for the betterment of the project, and this is not helpful. Second, the use of legal terms and accusations is counterproductive as it only puts other people on the defensive. The use of large text warnings and messages is also counterproductive. Third, I would encourage you both to try and avoid commenting on each other's edits. Stick to the content. If I were you guys I would try and avoid each other for a few days, let things cool down, and focus on helping the project and content and not each other. KnightLago (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Virginia PR
You rock! Thank so much for the helpful review. I've already gone about implementing many of your suggestions. Thanks again, Patrick Ѻ 19:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Updates for KnightLago
Hi KnightLago,
I added citations and content to the Busch Systems wiki. Did I do it correctly? Sorry I'm a bit of a newbie! Thanks, Drew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkthecows77 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Mr Niebla
I thought I would bring to your attention that User:Mr Niebla copied your user page over to his along with User:Oxymoron83's user page. Please see the discussion between me and Oxymoron83 here: My notification to Oxymoron83 and His reply on Mr Nibela talk page--Cahk (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Drinks are on me! Ameriquedialectics 03:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
AC
Wow, I am so sorry I've been away for so long!
But I'm back now, so...
I've just read over your answers at our coaching page, and I think you're ready. You know your stuff back to front, you're trustworthy, and even though it's trivial, for those who don't know you, your edit count is impressive. I can put more exercises on the page if you want to, but I don't think you need it. Would you like to advance to an RFA? I'd be happy to nominate you. =] CattleGirl talk 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- There you go :) Feel free to answer the questions in your own time, then transclude it to the main page.
- Good luck! CattleGirl talk 10:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. KnightLago (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Atheism
Dear Mr.KnightLago: I don't understand how my revisions on Atheism have been offensive. Artsandcraftsaremyfriends, 3/23/08 PS- Please respond on my blog.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandcraftsaremyfriends (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 March 2008
RfA
Hey, just FYI, I left you a few question on your RfA. Take your time answering them, cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
East Carolina University
Hello, I am hoping if you could review East Carolina University. It is currently a GA, and I want it to achieve FA status. If you have time, could you please review it? Thanks, PGPirate 14:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
i just ran across this article at recent changes patrol and noted there was a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced negative information in the article about the founder of that blog. I reverted to an earlier version, but I still have questions as to its compliance with WP:BLP. I was thinking of reverting back to your last edit. Do you see any edits later than that which deserve to be kept, from the standpoints of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV? I am not familiar with the person being attacked and even issues of whether he is a Republican or Democrat. Thanks Edison (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Your page
I'm sorry that people have been vandlizing you User page but you have to make sure that people dont put profanity on your page like I found today-- King Rock Go 'Skins! 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your RfA
Congratulations, I'm pleased to let you know that I've closed your RfA as successful, and you're now an administrator! May I suggest you visit the Wikipedia:New admin school to get a few ideas on the best way to start using your shiny new buttons? If in doubt, feel free to give me a shout! Well done and all the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto! Nice work, oh so close to 100. Don't burn down the place.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Rfrenke
Thanks for taking off the db tag I mistakenly put on this user page. I could have sworn I had taken it off myself - I suppose I only clicked Preview and not Save Page. I did at least apologise and remove the warning from his talk page. Thanks anyway! JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. KnightLago (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Please send me a copy of the Steven Willner Article
Dude, please send me a copy of the deleted Steven Willner article. Thanks. At least give me some time to improve the article before deleting it. Thanks.
I would really appreciate more time for editing and such. Thanks.
--XH 02:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)User:Xinyu
I've editted the article on my user page a lot. I still have much more to add. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks.
--XH 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)User:Xinyu
Hi :) Can you please elaborate on why you think the username is inappropriate on this user's talk page? I must admit I am puzzled (despite some urge to drink orange juice). Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, considering the fact that the user is around since 2006, a heads up could have been better :) (I missed it too, to be honest). My personal opinion is that this is too far fetched, but I am not a native speaker so... -- lucasbfr talk 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, I should have given a better explanation. I am a new so I will work it. The reporter was actually another admin for what it's worth. So, I will leave it to your discretion. KnightLago (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Congrats
Congrats on becoming an admin!-- King Rock Go 'Skins! 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Peer review
I saw your user name on the volunteer page under Society and social sciences. Perhaps you could do a look over for the McGill University article? Thanks, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Peer Review
East Carolina University
Hello. No worries on the peer review. Congrats on becoming a new admin. PGPirate 13:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Avalanched. Seriously, c'mon. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sleep well. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello
I was wondering if you might be willing to provide some feedback on an article I have recently been working on (see King's College London). I am hoping to get the article up to GA status, so maybe you could provide me with some ideas on areas which should be improved. If you don't have time to do this then of course I will understand. Thanks Jamesmh2006 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: J. K. Rowling
The article was being heavily vandalized, with no less than 37 vandalism edits today alone. This is a BLP, and with that much vandalism, temporary semi-protection was necessary. The reason the expiry is set to the end of the day is because MP featured articles are move protected - setting a different expiry time would cause the move protection to fail earlier than expected. We've already had two sockpuppets of a known page move vandal edit the article, so the removal of the move protection is not an option. We can remove the edit protection earlier, but it will have to be done manually to avoid losing the edit protection. I'll leave it up for another hour or two just in case, but then I'll remove it if someone else hasn't already. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Heee46
I was at that in-between point on whether to block indefinitely, but I figured he deserved the benefit of the doubt. (Though I went for 48 hours instead of just 24.) When he started messing with the block notice, that was the sign that yeah, I should've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely. See also his request for his block to be reduced back to 48 hours and my reply on his talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Responded, check your inbox.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
hi there
These guys are vandals can you help me please?
- prede (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)— Violation of Copyright and more than 3 times vandalism with unsourced editionsthe-one Talk♂
- Lord Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)— Violation of Copyright and more than 3 times vandalism with unsourced editions the-one Talk♂
- I'm not seeing it, can you provide differences to support your allegations? KnightLago (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK i tried to delete some scans from an encyclopedia i have and they insist to keep the scans plus bellow you can see the unsourced edits made by them without any proof like scans,i showed the scans who prove i'm telling the truth and everything i get are threats. These guys are friends and their tactic is to intimidate new users and prevent them to tell the truth and respect wikipedia rules with sources. They speak about a book but they never showed proof about that book however i showed real official proof and they call me vandal???????? They are vandals just check
These users are vandals and insist to make copyright violations here [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3716/gruposraciaisd7oy1.gif[/IMG][/URL] and here http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6541/shishinnokendg6.jpg. plus they vandalize this article information with unsource personal opinions like this one reference number 30 ^ "Biographies Tien" (2001). Retrieved on 2008-03-14.-fanboy page here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenshinhan Am i right or wrong?Anyway 12 hours for a report about users who edit a wikipedia page without sources?And the scans are mine why insist to keep them?False accusations like impersonate other users when the user in question stated the same as me the-one Talk♂ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.133.162 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is looking more and more like a content dispute. I looked at 30 and I didn't see an obvious copy violation. I don't speak the language the scans you provided are written in. I suggest you go to the article's talk page and start a discussion about the sections you have a problem with. Also, why are you signing as User:the-one when you are using an IP address? KnightLago (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The 30 is a fan page-unsourced violation. The copyrighted violation is about the french pages who belong to shueisha.They also tried to intimidate me doing false accusations like impersonate another user here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenshinhan#Incorrection-here you can see the user folken said the same as meToriyama didn't write the Daizenshû himself, but he has read it, enjoyed it, and he approved the book for release. We also know that he himself wrote some paragraphs in the book. Thus it's a canonical source. However we can wonder how the "tenshinhan is an extraterrestrial" thing was really usefull, as it has never been brought forth in the manga. But since Gokû's tail makes him an extraterrestrial, why couldn't Tenshinhan's 3rd eye make him alien also ? And the manga didn't specifically state that Ten' was a human. Thus the alien explanation is at least coherent and it should be mentionned in the infobox, at least in the form "human/alien". Folken de Fanel 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC) I'm new so i need a teacher to help me. However this guy rudget is crazy block me for 12 hours due to a report,lol.new users are treated like this in wikipedia.
- Look, I am unfamiliar with this subject matter. I don't know what the problem is here. Again, I suggest using the article's talk page to voice your concerns. If you feel there is still an issue that needs administrator attention, you can make a post to WP:ANI and see what people there think. As for User:the-one, I checked his block log and he is not blocked. Since you are editing my page, you are not blocked. KnightLago (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
NCDave
The blocking admin was actively involved in editing an article that NCdave was also editing, so it was inappropriate for him to throw a block in this issue. The only reason I declined the first unblock was because of possible sockpuppetry, but once I learned he'd been cleared by Checkuser ... Blueboy96 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Markreidyhp sockpuppet issue
I notice that you blocked Markreidyhp after him proving that user davxs was not a sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreidyhp42 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Kudos
On the suicide stuff. You did good. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha
Bad timing... sorry, dude. Graft | talk 05:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Message
|
Thank you | |
| I would just like to say thank you for your efforts regarding the potential suicide thread on ANI last night. This may have been a poor taste message or hoax, but if it wasn't hopefully...... we may have made a real difference. So thank you and if ever there is anything I can do to help you in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. Khukri 07:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
EDIT
Request edit. KnightLago (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
trolling
Hello! You just accused me of trolling for the first time since I joined wikipedia. More interestingly, when I made the obligatory-standard statements about the purpose of the project namespace (documenting wikipedia best practices), the method of editing pages (the wiki-process, as stated by the foundation issues), and my opinion that people are wikilawyering (which they have been, there are several statements about process with no content about moving forward towards consensus), it seems that those are the statements you are accusing me of trolling over?
Is that actually correct? Is that truly your opinion, or were you simply somewhat heated at the time?
If it is the former, I shall take your answer most seriously indeed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Unblock
You deleted my unblock request without even reviewing it!! and by the look of this talkpage you aren't a very good admin!192.122.218.42 (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
re:
User:Markreidyhp192.122.218.42 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Meatballs
Yeah, I looked it up just after I made the comment, Faggit redirects to Faggot, which is a disambiguation page containing a link to Faggot (food)...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Vanity Pages
Okay, that's fair. I didn't intend it to be "bitey," but I see what you mean. Cheers. C1k3 (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Grandpa
You have to admit -- for all his manners, Grandpa's verbosity is a riot. --Kizor 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aye. Levity towards his kind is the mark of a humble editor, but you will be devoured if it stays your hand from the smackdown. --Kizor 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Template deprecation
Hi, KnightLago...I saw your un-deprecation of {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}. I hope you can tell me the best way to proceed - that template does not transfer correctly when images are moved to the Commons (that template was deleted from Commons in favor of {{PermissionOTRS}}), and the OTRS ticket number gets lost when the images are moved. I'm hoping to prevent any further images from being tagged with that until I can figure out how to go back and clean up the old usages. Kelly hi! 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- How exactly does the "ticket number get lost" when you move the image to Commons? ConformationImageOTRS includes the exact ticket number... Cbrown1023 talk 02:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I un-deprecated the template per Wikipedia:TFD#Template:ConfirmationOTRS. We had a user changing the templates and in the process losing all the information. KnightLago (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- See the section below, just wait for the database to update and it'll update the category correctly. Cbrown1023 talk 03:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I un-deprecated the template per Wikipedia:TFD#Template:ConfirmationOTRS. We had a user changing the templates and in the process losing all the information. KnightLago (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:OTRS Templates
I have'nt added any templates. I am changing the Templates from ConfirmationImageORTS or ConfirmationOTRS because they are in the Category:Pages using deprecated templates which says PermissionOTRS should be used instead of the above templates. I tried to give an example but could'nt link it. Kathleen.wright5 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- There are still a lot of pages in the above Category, what should be done with them? Kathleen.wright5 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, it probably shouldn't have been in that category. (I think we've fixed it.) Cbrown1023 talk 02:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for getting involved...I had made an effort last week to cleanup and organize Category:OTRS including duplicate or redundant templates. I was surprised at some of the resistance, so if the OTRS volunteers don't mind having redundant templates, or information being lost when images are transferred via CommonsHelper or other bots, I don't mind either. I think I may have misstated on {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}, that template may still exist on the Commons (I think it was {{ConfirmationOTRS}} that was deleted over there. Unfortunately some volunteers still use that template to tag images in addition to articles. But I'll stay away from the OTRS templates, sorry for stepping on anyone's toes. Kelly hi! 03:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but it would have been better if you had actually discussed it the OTRS volunteers (the people who use the templates) beforehand. Cbrown1023 talk 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cbrown, you may want to check Category:Pages using deprecated templates. The only common factor I see for all those is the OTRS template, and I can't figure out how they are being put into that category. This is how all the changes got made in the first place. KnightLago (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Database update lag, from Special:Statistics: The job queue length is currently 11,177,584. Cbrown1023 talk 03:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cbrown, you may want to check Category:Pages using deprecated templates. The only common factor I see for all those is the OTRS template, and I can't figure out how they are being put into that category. This is how all the changes got made in the first place. KnightLago (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but it would have been better if you had actually discussed it the OTRS volunteers (the people who use the templates) beforehand. Cbrown1023 talk 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for getting involved...I had made an effort last week to cleanup and organize Category:OTRS including duplicate or redundant templates. I was surprised at some of the resistance, so if the OTRS volunteers don't mind having redundant templates, or information being lost when images are transferred via CommonsHelper or other bots, I don't mind either. I think I may have misstated on {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}, that template may still exist on the Commons (I think it was {{ConfirmationOTRS}} that was deleted over there. Unfortunately some volunteers still use that template to tag images in addition to articles. But I'll stay away from the OTRS templates, sorry for stepping on anyone's toes. Kelly hi! 03:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, just making sure. KnightLago (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Doppelganger accounts
Do you know what happened here and here? I'm assuming (from the deleted edit that Lucasbfr pointed out - 19:21, 9 July 2006) that this is someone impersonating User:CBDunkerson, but I'm confused over the unblocking and then reblocking? Was that to disable e-mail? It's really weird that someone pops up again like that nearly 2 years later. Also, the account was marked as a doppelganger (see the deleted history at User:Conrad Dunkerson), but it got deleted! No real problem, but I am going to raise this as an example of user page deletion that shouldn't have happened. I suspect a page protection would have worked better, but I'm struggling to understand why it was deleted at all, as it was that deletion that has caused confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ihaterory
Names that are a form of attack against a person need to be blocked immediately. I am at a loss as to why you removed this name from WP:UAA as "not offensive". I have hard blocked this username as it was clearly used only to attack someone named "rory". (1 == 2)Until 17:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocking of User:DailyBuildBot
Hey there, I am not sure that a block was really needed in this case. The account does in fact violate the username policy, but that does not mean we have to block. The user has made no edits, and (as was I) is completely unaware that a username policy even exists. I know that we loose hundreds of potentially great users because of "just being new to wikipedia", and once they see the blocked message they are unlikely to try and work through all the bureaucratic process to get their username changed. Maybe just leaving {{uw-username}} would have been the way to go, ask them if they are willing to change it and go from there. Of course if they are unwilling to do so, or continue to edit, then we block them. But at least wait until they edit. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, I guess we differ in opinions there. Why can we not extend them at least a little bit of good faith and not be bitey? How are they to know they are in violation, and how do we know they are unwilling to change it if we ask? Other users that have bot in their username have not been blocked, and I think that showing a little good faith can go a long way, take a look at this. Tiptoety talk 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the Article hit counter Hits counter.
I wonder if you would consider the more general aspects of the question of how people find what they need from Wikipedia and whether sites about US subjects should have precedence in the use of ambiguous titles. There seem to be a lot of mildly notable biographical articles sqatting on the names of globally notable non-American people.
The future audience of en:Wikipedia is likely to be much more global in interest than the record of past hits indicate. However, perhaps your perception is the reverse.
Florida Atlantic University is a fascinating article. Perhaps I need to get to grips with how the US tertiary education system works and its peculiar terminology. Vernon White . . . Talk 08:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Your prot of 169.'s user talk
A full-protection isn't necessary for an IP abusing his talk page. Semi-protection is adequate. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Deleting my article
I see you deleted my article about Brian Perone twice. He is actual a significance in Hackensack, NJ. People know him as a Uderground rapper representing Italian American Culture. He has a fan base here in Bergen County and places across the country. He's trying to make it big and he needs help to make it big. So if you could please allow the article to be submitted, that would be nice. Thank you for your concern and give me a responce please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BjerseyP (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry...
Erm, I'm sorry to bother you again, but the last peer review got archived before you could post your comments on McGill University. Could you please do it again when you have the time? I'll try to keep it up until I feel satisfied with the replies. The second peer review Thanks once again, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously....
....how was this vandalism? We discussed this on IRC and I believed you were neutral in unprotecting - how can I still think that with the edit you made? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sock Puppets
Hi there, I noticed that you struck out some comments on the Sandra Lee Discussion page due to your belief that they're written by sock puppets. I just wanted to let you know that I have only been posting as IP 71.80.139.112, I forgot my password for wikipedia, and I'm posting anonymously until I get around to resetting it. Hahaho3 is a seperate user, and simply because we have the same opinion doesn't mean that one user is posting under multiple accounts. In addition, the use of Strikeouts on a discussion page is fairly contentious and is, as I see it, inconsistent with Wikipedia's "assume good faith" rule. I understand that it is frustrating to have people disagree with you on a subject that you seem to care very passionately about, but it isn't cool to strikeout other people's opinion's just because you disagree. We're all working towards making this article accurate and informative. Please revert your strikeouts. Thanks!208.54.15.11 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say that CheckUser was incorrect in this case. You seem to be fairly adamant about this issue, so I'll concede my argument that the Article should be moved. I'm not quite sure how else to show you that I haven't been using this particular user's account, and your actions seem to be inconsistent with protocol: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppetsCloudyskies41 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Peer review request
I noticed that you have designated your preference to peer review university-related articles, and I have have just submitted a request for someone to review List of Brigham Young University alumni. If you have time and are willing, your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking
It was wise decision do not rename me. Thanks a lot.Qqzzccdd (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
External References
Image:Example.jpg It is noted that 3 out of 4 external references point to web properties or content provided by a single Vendor. I think this is inappropriate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Serviceguy (talk • contribs) May 21, 2008
Hogan
In fact, if you read my addition to the FAU article, I made specific reference to why her visit was particularly notable--she made a widely publicized disparaging remark about FAU. I did not claims she was notable simply for visiting, as you alleged. Interestingstuffadder (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Request for Peer Review help
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.
1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...
2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.
3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.
Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Block
Thanks for taking a look at that, I must have only looked at the most recent edits and didn't focus enough attention on the other edits. Thanks for alerting me, and I'll keep a more cautious eye in the future. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)