User talk:Natalie Erin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Greetings.

I hope you don't mind, but since your user page had been vandalized three times recently, I updated your vandal count from "21" to "24." I thought I'd save you some time by updating it myself. Acalamari 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've been so busy it didn't even occur to me to update it. Thanks! Natalie 22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The user that vandalized your user page also vandalized mine, and you would have seen the message they left on my talk page. I have to update my vandal counter now. Acalamari 23:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're welcome. Glad I could help. Will (aka Wimt) 08:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

YW

You're welcome, and have fun at Antioch! I remember that place.  :) Antandrus (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?

I don't do this much, but I was wandering around and I have to say I'm quite impressed by your range and quality of contributions. Interested in being nominated for adminship? We could use more high-quality admins such as yourself. :-) Best, IronGargoyle 06:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Block

I was blocking vandals, not random users. Michael Norkus 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you aren't blocking anyone. You are not an administrator and thus cannot block people. The blocking message doesn't block the person, it just informs them that they cannot edit. Natalie 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats a crappy rule. Anyway, thanks for the info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norkus007 (talk • contribs)

It's actually a pretty good rule if you think about it. If anyone was allowed to block users than I could block you right now for no reason. I could block Jimbo Wales, if I wanted. It would just introduce a new kind of vandalism into Wikipedia, which would be incredibly hard to deal with. That's why blocking is reserved for administrators. Natalie 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Point. Sorry for the trouble! What can I do to warn vandals wothout being an admin? Michael Norkus 01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a list of warning templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and more information about vandal fighting in general can be found at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Once a person has received the final warning, and then vandalizes again, they can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

On a somewhat related note, I see you have been offering to adopt other users. Given your lack of experience with vandal fighting, I would suggest that you look to be adopted first, and get some more experience before shepherding even newer users. Natalie 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have been adopted before. But sure, I will remove that template and adoption offers I have made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norkus007 (talk • contribs)

You don't have to if you don't want to, it was just a suggestion. Natalie 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you're an administrator so i better follow your guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norkus007 (talk • contribs)

I'm not an admin. Besides that, admins don't really have more authority in the sense that they can tell other people what to do. Admins are users that have been around a while and are trusted by the general community to have access to certain tools (such as blocking) that need to be restricted. Natalie 02:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well thank you for your help and happy editing!

Overlake Church

I'm disappointed that this church has been stubbed out, I'd rather see it protected as some state such as below rather than stubbed out as many of the versions seem just fine and quite informative. From a person who lives nearby but does not go to this church.

Revision as of 15:53, 15 February 2007 (edit) (undo) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.35.224.63 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

You are more than welcome to add information to the article, provided it is attributed to a reliable source. My stubbing is in absolutely no way a final action. I stubbed the page for a variety of reason. Firstly, it was unsourced and concerned several living people, possibly running afoul of the policy on biographies of living persons. (Note that the policy applies to any information about living persons in any article, not just a biography about the subject.) Also, I believe the version at the time of my stubbing was giving undue weight to the scandal. Finally, I think this undue weight was attracting the vandalism, whitewashing, and whatever the opposite of whitewashing is that the article was receiving.

That said, I would more than welcome a sourced article about the church doesn't give the impression that the church is scandal-free nor that it is all scandal, all the time. I do not personally feel qualified to write such an article, but would be willing to help find sources, copyedit, and neutrality-edit such an article. Natalie 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

hooks quotes

Ok, the quotes are long - but I have seen other pages where the quotes are just as long, furthermore the quotations on hooks' page is long already, so maybe then we can trim them off. ForrestLane42 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

As far as what other pages do, that isn't really a good reason, since those pages could also be contrary to policy. If that's the case, I'd urge you to move those quotes to Wikiquote as well. As far as the hooks page, specifically, perhaps we could put one of those boxes that say "Wikiquote has a collection of quotations about bell hooks". I don't know if you've seen those boxes on other pages, but they are a handy way to provide people with quotes without overwhelming the page. Natalie 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tefellin

Can I converse with you here? Is there a better place? Your warning regarding the tefillin page was not necessary. I had got into a big mess and thought the best way out was to cut (ctrl-x) all the article, paste it into a notepad and then paste it back again into the original article after logging out, restarting my pc and logging in. It has worked in the past. My mess was about trying to upload an image - this is the first time I am trying this. My result was just a total mess. My image was uploaded (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Imagelist?limit=500&title=Special%3AImagelist) but apart from that I have had no success. Benqish 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a few deep breaths, got out of my panic and succeeded - little clumsily - at my task. See tefillin for the result. Benqish 20:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FuzzyFive's edit to 1 (number)

Wasn't it funny tho??? :) TheFuzzyFive 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit to U2

But so often people confuse the band U2 with YouTube - See: http://www.shawneenet.net/dispatch/2006/12/u2-youtube.html TheFuzzyFive 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it - they are completely different things with different names that sound somewhat the same. This is analogous to writing "not to be confused with pears" in the article chair. Natalie 22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, two and too are totally analogous, but they are confusing to many a people. TheFuzzyFive 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No pun intended on the third "to" in that sentence, hehe! TheFuzzyFive 22:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well thanks for your personal message on my talk page. You seem really sweet! (By the way that article needs a cleanup, sweetness that is.) TheFuzzyFive 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all blue now!

I made my userpage so now my talk page and my user page are blue links not red links or question marks by the links. Hehe! TheFuzzyFive 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just one more quick question, why is "Kent Brockman" an insect, according to your userpage? Hehe! TheFuzzyFive 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

gta songs

just added the categorys for all songs that all for anything to do with the gta songs on all games just like singstar songs are categorized User:Jonjoe

thanks its ok you can feel free to talk to me on msn messenger if ya wanna ok ;)from User:jonjoe

hows that

you never heard of an irish baptism (getting drunk) irish breakfast (drinking in the morning) irish coffee (coffee with whiskey in) or irishing up (adding alcohol to something). not everyone is american puritian some of us like a drink, stopping forcing your right wing christian agenda on the rest of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.106.44 (talk • contribs)

a)None of those are slang terms for drunkeness, and b) you should probably visit my college before making allegations of Christian puritanism. Not that I don't find it amusing... Natalie 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

moving entire sections to a new page

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question but... I am trying to edit a very large article (>70kb). There are sections that can be moved to a whole new page. When I try doing that (by excising the sections from the original article and adding them to the new page) I get a vandal notice :P. So this is obviously not the right way to do it. Whats the right procedure here?--TwoOars 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the sections in question have to be removed entirely as they dont really belong in Wikipedia anyway but i am a little hesitant in deleting such a large body on which, obviously, someone had worked very hard. And there has to be some sort of a consensus before doing anything drastic (I know that much :) . So another question... how long is an older version kept in the 'history' section before it is finally deleted? --TwoOars 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okey. Thanks a lot :). --TwoOars 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:African American ethnicity‎

Nice work defending that template! Impressive... :-) (→Netscott) 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My Dearest Natalie

Thank you for your welcome. I have spent many happy hours in Yellow Springs. I hope you enjoy the town as much as I did. Best Wishes, Taragon of Virtue 05:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alas, I was not an Antioch undergrad, but a grad student at nearby WSU. However, Yellow Springs is a charming town with a few charming people. I myself lived in Xenia, but frequently dined at the Winds Cafe, and the other restaurants of YS. Taragon of Virtue 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my edits

Please stop.

Aandhi 05:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my contribution to wikipedia. This is tantamount to vandalism.

If you do not agree with my edits, you have to engage in a constructive debate and seek a consensus.

I am going to put back those pages in. Please explain yourself in a clear and concise fashion why do you want to remove them before taking any precipitous action.

With best regards Aandhi 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As I am not an admin, I do not have the power to delete your pages. I merely tagged them for speedy deletion - an admin did the actual deletion. You'll need to take your complaints up with the deleting admin. Natalie 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you are so bent on splitting hairs, then may I ask you why are you tagging pages created by me for deletion without giving absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Please be advised again that unexplained deletion of other editors contribution violates WP:VAN policy. I strongly encourage you to read the WP:VAN policy page to discover for yourself that your actions conform to the definition of vandalism in every conceivable ways.

Further, if you delete my contribution again, you may be in danger of violating WP:3RR. Thought it was my duty to remind you.

Best wishes

Aandhi 07:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read more carefully. I have deleted nothing, and thus have committed no vandalism. Recreating articles that have been deleted violates policy, tagging those articles for deletion is completely inline with policy. If you are so sure I've violated 3RR, report me. I'm quite sure no one will agree with you. Natalie 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the revert on my user page! Will (aka Wimt) 23:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Stratego

Natalie, like you, I desire to keep Wikipedia clean. That is why I was shocked to see the chages made by Jellyfish. You can go back in this thread history and check my edits (very few). Jellyfish is trying to recruit players to "his site" he has logged onto Metaforge and openly advertised for their site. Regardless, If you look at the link edits (also include Jellyfish's I.P. address edits, it should be clear who is violating Wiki policies. If it matters, I spoke to the head of Gravon.de today, We agreed that if a link were to be on wiki, it should simple say "play online" - in that way it serves as an informational resource. The Stratego Community is small, there are not many sites in which to play. Readers of the thread would generally want to know these details. The General & Probe are also commercial ventures. Metaforge has been linked on Wikipedia since May 2005. There has never been an issue until user Jellyfish started his advertising campaign for Gravon. Once again, like you, I just want the integirty of the Wiki maintained.

Commish

— Preceding unsigned comment added by StrategoCommish (talk • contribs)

The issue really isn't who is adding what, but that there were inappropriate links on the page. And having been linked on WIkipedia for a long time isn't really a reason to stay linked on Wikipedia. If I find an error in an article, should I leave it in just because it's been their for two years? I think not. Also, this post on my talk page is the only contribution you've made, so I wonder what you mean by "check my edits". Natalie 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I am not that "fluent" on the wiki discussions. I just wanted you to be aware that this user Jellyfish had an agenda. I watch this thread, there have been very few edits. If the wiki policies say the links need to go, then there should be two general links. Ed's Stratego Page & The ISF page.

Sorry for the trouble comunicating I am a wiki chat newbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrategoCommish (talk • contribs)

No problem, everyone starts out as a newbie. I'd tend to agree with you that their should be very few links, and the ISF link certainly makes sense. But I'm interested in your logic that Ed's Stratego Page should stay up - what particularly recommends that site? Natalie 01:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed's Site is generally recognized as the #1 Stratego site on the Internet, he has history of the game, strategies etc. Part of the Wiki thread is directly from Ed's site. So Ed's site is a great reference for all players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrategoCommish (talk • contribs)

OK, that makes sense. If the site it being used as a reference than it should be linked no matter what. Natalie 01:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On a go forward basis, will you be motioring the thread. If I see "suspect" changes what is proper procedure? Thanks for you help

Commish — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrategoCommish (talk • contribs)

Well, it depends on what you mean by suspect changes. If you're talking about external links, the very first thing you should do is read Wikipedia's policy on external links, which has some good lists of criteria that can be used to judge the acceptable-ness of links. If an editor adds a link that is clearly inappropriate, you can simply remove it as spam and warn the editor with the spam user warning templates. If the link is somewhat of a gray area, take it to the talk page and ask people what they think there. If a user continues to add an obviously inappropriate link even after they've been given the full series of warnings, they may be blocked for a short while. Natalie 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Will you be making any additional edits to the links?

Commish

Well, I haven't been active in editing the article, and I did just cut a bunch of info out of it, so I'm inclined to leave it be for a day or to. If you'd like, you can propose cutting the other links out on the article talk page yourself, to see what other people think about it. Natalie 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike W. Johnes et al.

Mike W. Johnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his socks are actually socks of a long term vandal - see this for details. Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) probably knows more about this vandal than I do, so the next time you come across users performing this kind of vandalism, I suggest that you report the vandal account(s) directly to him. TML 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Haiku

Why exactly are the links I added to the external links section of "Haiku" unsuitable? I mean, I read the guidelines and see nothing wrong with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamsanthanam (talk • contribs)

It seemed to me that the point was to promote the site, since you added two links to the same sight. But if you disagree, please raise the issue on the Haiku talk page. The regular editors of the page will be in a better position to discuss the appropriateness of the link. Natalie 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added just one link now to satisfy your requirement. I added two because they were to different parts of the site (the forum and definitions) which have different content and intention. I've also made a note on the talk page and I will remove it if any of the regular editors object. Thanks for your clarification. Shyamsanthanam 03:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mootoog's Lawyer.

After updating your vandal count, I took a look at this user's contributions, and it seems that this user seems to know (or actually is) a user named User:Mootoog. In fact, Mootoog mentions Mootoog's lawyer on their user page, and Mootoog's Lawyer has even signed Mootoog's user page. I suggest keeping an eye on this (I'm going to) in case this is a sockpuppet situation. Acalamari 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the only weird case I've been looking at; Abbopa left this weird message on my talk page. I looked at this user's contributions, and was led to a strange user/user talk page, as well as three other odd things: Tsubasa wings, Weird Wetland and the user Aboppa mentioned: Jimmy's bananooz (look at their talk pages). Do you think these are odd or not? I plan to take this to AN so some other users can take a look. Acalamari 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here: 1. Acalamari 20:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stratego

StrategoCommish and javabarbarian are affiliated with the online link they tried to put up as an advertisement, and this violates the wiki policy on external links under a conflict of interest. Despite what they claim, I have no affiliation at all with Gravon and merely added the link because of its value to the Stratego page. Unlike Java’s site, Gravon is not a business, does not have ads, and is free to all who visit to play online. It is a great Stratego resource to the general public I stumbled upon and wished to add to Wiki as I believe it fits under the wiki link guidelines of a relevant foreign language site (even though it contains an English translation that can be linked to directly). StrategoCommish is interested in keeping Ed’s Stratego site listed because it links to his page through a prominent advertisement. That being said, it is a fantastic Stratego resource that fits under Wiki guidelines and should be allowed to stay. I am sorry for you having to deal with the petty arguments of a few, I sure you are unfortunately all too familiar with it. Jellyfish84 04:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like everyone that has been editing that article lately has been less constructive than they could have been. You yourself have come perilously close to violated 3RR and have edited someone else's talk page comment, which is generally bad form. I'm personally of the opinion that none of the "play online" sites should be linked, since there are theoretically dozens of such sites and all of them could be found easily with a google search. I hear what you're saying about the potential conflict of interest, which is another reason, IMO, that there should be no external links to "play online" sites. But that's just my opinion, and I'm just one editor who happened to stumble across something I thought was inappropriate. I am in no way an arbitrator or the final authority on links. If you can make a good case for the external link you want to add, by all means please do so on the article talk page. Natalie 05:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My change

Iraq war resisters is a sub category of American anti Iraq War activists.

Isn't there some rule about double categories?

Baddogy 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. JJGD 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me, as well. Jkelly 03:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It apparantly has something to do with User:TenOfAllTrades. Jkelly 03:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ACN

Hello. I have already added comments to the ACN INC talk page and the edit this page portions. I am going to again remove the section called 'Criticism' for reasons already stated. The whole section title is mis-leading and the citation from the BBB is completely misleading as it omits several portions of the citation found on the BBB website about ACN. Please refrain from chaning my edits YET AGAIN. If this change on your behalf is done again you leave me with no option but to report this to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erc855 (talk • contribs)

Chill out. I understand your complaint, but as I said on the talk page of the article, the solution is not the blank the entire section. There have been criticisms made of the company, that information is sourced, and thus it deserves to stay. I couldn't quite tell from your post on the article talk page if the quote was incomplete or the cite was incomplete, but either way the solution is to fix it, not delete the whole thing. And, again, as I said on the article talk page, the sentence does say that the company has a rating of satisfactory.

Also, please do not post on the top of my talk page - new messages go on the bottom, as on all talk pages. And please sign your posts, by typing ~~~~. Lastly, don't forget to assume good faith before jumpming to conclusions. Thanks! Natalie 22:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the solution is to remove the whole section as the title and the quote are both wrong and as of such, the section does not deserve to stay. The BBB rating of ACN is positive and thus can not be construed as a 'criticism'. Beyond that, where does the section have sourced info of criticisms made of the company? There is none, thus causing for the immediate removal of the section. Erc855 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first statement on the article talk page says that "the citation is incomplete", which is not a justification for deletion of the entire statement. I see what you're saying now though - thanks for clarifying. Natalie 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a word

I was at dab's page to return a message that he left on my talkpage when I noticed your message[1] to him. Obviously, he will respond himself, but I thought I should mention that if he hadnt reverted the addition, someone else - possibly myself would have. Some of it is a OR-by-synthesis and some of the rest quotes a writer marginal even among the polemicists on the subject. Its a little difficult to keep track of the many ways in which some people have been using WP to legitimise some doubtful scholarship, and dab does a good job watches those pages. Thanks for your time! Hornplease 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Have this vandal whacking stick for when the mop isn't enough... WjBscribe 23:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Congrats, Natalie!!! Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh...yep. I thought you might be sitting there. Welcome to the next phase of your wikilife! --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Congrats Natalie! I'm glad to see you succeeded in your RfA. Enjoy mopping! :-) - Anas ^Talk? 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Congratulations! IrishGuy ^talk 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Woo!! Congratulations :) - Alison^☺ 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Congratulations- I'm sure you'll do a great job. Have a trusty vandal whacking stick to help out with your sysop duties. WjBscribe 23:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Congrats, now you can block the next Wikinecrophiliac on your own. —dgies^t_c 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Nice one, Natalie Erin; I know you will do a good excellent job. Acalamari 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I responded with: You're welcome; I seen your edits and was more than willing to support you in your RfA. Acalamari 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• You deserve the adminship. Shindo9Hikaru

Slightly belated congratulations :) Good to see you already using the tools. – riana_dzasta 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Belated congratulations!! Daniel5127 | Talk 06:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah. You'll do well. I guess I don't get to process your reports to AIV anymore, eh? Heimstern Läufer 16:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A belated congrats here, too. I only realised your RfA had closed just now when I saw your name in the AIV bot's edit summaries: Blocked by.... Well done, enjoy those buttons. :) Bubba hotep 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just ran into something

Take a look at this [2]. It appears one of your templates is not working right. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No biggie. Trust me, I have certainly made much bigger errors on here! --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just keeping an eye on you. Do you know how to use your "rollback" button yet? It ROCKS...although be vigilant...I have had to roll back my own rollback more than once. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It works when in user contribs pages and page history pages. I prefer the latter. It allows me to roll back all vandalism by the most recent vandal to a page with just one click, regardless of if you are reverting an IP editor or one that signed in. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes'm, you got it. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to say was, you are correct, it just rolls back the most recent edits from ONE given editor. The last one only. Does that make sense? Try it...you can always revert yourself if you mess up. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The multiple user issue wont matter, unless they are editing at the same time on the same article, which is something I have never seen. Don't fret. Just check to see what you reverted after. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See this [3] as my most recent use of it. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There!!! You did it! Welcome to one of the very coolest of tools. It is one heckuva mop, no? Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I will go away before you feel like you have a stalker! Keep up the good work and keep in touch. Ciao, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha...one more thang...ever been here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names? I thought I saw you blocking based on usernames, so I wanted to point you to this RfC. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Natalie

Thank you very much for spotting the problem, I have fixed it now. On 6 February 2007 the contents of Natalie was replaced with nonsense and deleted mistakenly. I have restored it to the correct version.--Commander Keane 00:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Deeporiginal@hotmail.com

I recommend reading WP:U again and unblocking this user. The relevant guideline says "E-mail addresses: As of September 26, 2006, the MediaWiki software has been changed so the users may no longer register usernames with "@" in them. Previously, these usernames were discouraged. Preventing the usage of @ stops editors from receiving spam, reduces work for administrators and prevents hurt feelings due to being blocked, which may have led editors to simply leave in the past. Existing usernames with the sign are not blocked, but editors should be encouraged to change their names as the sign interferes with some MediaWiki functions." Note that existing usernames that are email addresses are NOT BLOCKED. Nardman1 01:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• re your message on my talk page: 'tis ok, as you can see from my talk page I've made many mistakes on wikipedia myself. It's why we all work together. Nardman1 01:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged vandalism?

You've got a lot of nerve. The supposed reference was a spam site that had no bearing on the previous edit. Therefore I deleted it. You should be thanking me rathering than falsely accusing me of vandalism. How dare you? Mi Novelas 04:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No - the [1] in brackets is a link to a spam site. Give the link a try. Why don't you follow your own advice and assume good faith? Mi Novelas 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

30 times.

30 times.... Acalamari 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded with: You're welcome; when I went to your userpage I saw something that I knew you wouldn't write, so I looked at the history and saw I saw correct; so I reverted it. :) Acalamari 18:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: 204.171.48.140

Hey. I see you reporting this IP to AIV, as they had vandalized past a last warning. I've removed the report, since their last warning was 6 days ago and it's an IP address. Also, they seem to have stopped. If you encounter them again today, please report them. Thanks! Natalie 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for keeping me up to date. Cheers, Jonomacdrones 18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Natalie, thanks for the welcoming post to my user talk page. I've got to say, it takes a special kind of person with drive and determination to sift through the new users and post welcomes, from which the least I can do in return is reply.

So, thanks, and I hope you have a nice day!

--John M. McClamrock (Jmarkmcc 18:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Re: AIV

They were given a final warning, though not by me. Please see this edit. Do they need to vandalize past a final warning given by me for me to list them at AIV? Or can I just relist them? I'd really appreciate some clarification there because it doesn't seem to be very clear as to what is required for someone to be listed. Thank you. --pIrish 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the warning that I left them, not realizing that they had removed previous warnings from other users at the time, including the one I linked to which IS a final warning, NOT a level 2. Clearly they haven't learned their lesson if they've continued to vandalize after that. Even worse, they deleted that warning and made a joke out of it! Do you suggest I revert their deletion of my warning and add a level 3? --pIrish 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what to do! --pIrish 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They've already deleted my level 4 warning (and some other message left by someone else that seemed kind of random). Should I just relist them? --pIrish 20:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, somebody already got to it and blocked him indefinitely. Thanks for letting me know that I could replace warnings with higher levels. I wasn't sure if I could do that or not. --pIrish 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reza Shah

Thank you very much Natalie. I am hopping that the intervention of Scott Wilson will solve the problem. Mehrshad123 has blanked several time all contributions relating to Reza Shah's relationships with Nazi Germany. Arguing that these are propaganda bu the US and British, without giving any references. Even when Scott Wilson responded to my request for help from third party, he dismissed Scott's recommendation as being uniformed. This is very frustrating. Any help or suggestion you provide are greatly appreciated. Best Regards 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Natalie. I have incorporated Scott Wilson's comments, and if it is blanked again I will try to use your advice. But I need help since I am not very good at this.

Best Regards Artaxerex 21:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

vandal

hey, i think you got me wrong on that last edit. wikipedia goofed and i reverted the page. i'm not a vandal. hope it's some bot that posted that on my talk page, cause i think the situation is obvious. have a good one! -chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswalker7 (talk • contribs)

No, it was not a bot that reverted a warned you, it was an editor. Bot accounts generally have "bot" in the name. When someone challenges an edit you made, please don't simply revert and claim that Wikipedia is corrupted. Natalie 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, nat, i think you need to lighten up a bit. there was a browser or wikipedia error that i didnt notice before saving! thanks for the help! keep your eyes sharp! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswalker7 (talk • contribs)

Trying to fix page

I was trying to fix the page you reverted. Some of the stuff doesn't belong like the sites used as sources. Where's the permission from those sites to use them as sources? You have no clue what should and shouldn't be on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbsoluteZero7 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

There is no permission needed to use a website as a source. Please do not remove information from articles without good reason. Natalie 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking a site as a source with no proof that the site sources the page is good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsoluteZero7 (talk • contribs)

You definitely misunderstand what is meant by source. It means that we are using that website as a source and are acknowledging, not that they are using Wikipedia as a source. Natalie 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hellothere19

why did you block my change?!?! all i added was that he was jewish! HE IS!! jeeze! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellothere19 (talk • contribs)

Re: Thanks

Of course. ;) I don't remember where the problem started at, but I've seen a few pages get blanked in that fashion. And, as you said, they're obviously not new, either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New user prepping socks?

Hi there. You gave PeacePenguin (talk • contribs) a warning for some vandalism. That user just created two new users, Peacepenguin24 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Adam Haverstock (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). It may be nothing, but I thought I'd let you know. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll keep an eye on them for the next little while. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thief!

For blocking troublesome users before I get a chance.

In the past 5 minutes you have stolen 3 blocks from me! Therefore I think you deserve the WikiMedal for Janitorial Services.I still think you're a thief. James086^Talk 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

UI&U Page

Just wanted to say thank you for cleaning it up and keeping an eye on the Union Institute & University page. Jikaku 13:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick question - I'm the webmaster for UI&U and we would like to use some of the historical content that a previous user added (but was removed for copyvio reasons) to add a little more depth to the entry. Is there anything specific I'd have to do to avoid the copyvio issue? Thanks for all your help! Jikaku 06:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to you on my talk page. This message is in case you don't have my talk page on your watchlist, or you are an IP who doesn't have a watchlist. --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@

Please see my talk again. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is probably getting a little annoying, but you have another reply :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandals Whacking.

I've updated your vandal count to 34. They're really hammering on you at the moment, aren't they? You may even want to consider semi-protection, since your user page has had dialy vandalism almost for the last few days. I had mine semi-protected when it had daily vandalism for a week, and it's still semi-protected; I've still had a couple of cases of vandalism, but less since IPs and new users can't edit it. :) Acalamari 22:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

63.152.13.57, Rachel Corrie

You blocked User:63.152.13.57 for a 3RR violation at Rachel Corrie. I'm concerned that the user is now continuing to revert using a previously-established account, User:Naoko77. Would you mind removing the "anon only" flag from your block, please? It appears to be a QWest DSL address and it doesn't appear to be shared. I suppose the other approach would be to request a Checkuser. Rhobite 23:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser isn't needed. The user is describing the IP block on his user (no IP) page. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

TY

Thanks for the intro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThaIceman73 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Natalie Erin, I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar in apprechiation of your great vandal-fighting. Keep it up! > Kamope < 00:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mop and bucket.

• It occured to me you hadn't received this yet. Also, you might like to know I just whacked another vandal; your count's up to 36. Acalamari 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

duplicate warnings?

Sorry, my mistake. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and am still learning the ropes. Who did I sent a warning after you had already blocked them? Thanks --1312020Wikicop 18:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks a lot for your help! 1312020Wikicop 22:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that

...some editors (not referring to you) don't think we should put welcomes on unless all editing is above board. In that case, the new editor does not seem to understand how things work here. This is why I added the welcome mat. Hopefully it will help. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems we were writing each other at the same time. I will watch over it. If he/she continues, we will try a short block to get the message across. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to butt in, but instead provide backup. Sometimes, editors need to learn that they are being watched by many many other editors and thus do not have free reign to post whatever they want. Hope you have a good day...is it warm up there? It is HOT down here today. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK...I cleaned it a bit and caught one more random change (just now). Try 97 degrees for hot. Daaaaaaaaaang. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All You Have To Do Is Be Nice

Is that so hard? You call me a sockpupteer, but if you didn't block I wouldn't create another account, I could use mine. Why are doing that? It does not make sennse. It does not work. It just blocks IPs for other wikipedians. Maybe you should think about the damage your actions are doin to the project. First ohnoitsjaime does it, then you jump in. Is that what they teach you in Admin school? Be mean? Jeez. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AllYouHaveToDoIsBeNice (talk • contribs) 05:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

No Offense But

That has to be one of the stupidiest things I have heard. I have one account and it gets blocked (stupidly) so I create a new one. I have a sockpuppet of nothing. I have one account. You aren't blocking a sockpupet. You are blocking my only account.

Stop blocking and there wouldn't be a sockpupet. Duh... NoOffenseBut 05:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you hadn't had used your original account for bad purposes than you wouldn't have been blocked at all. -- Hdt83 | Talk 05:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent block of WikiBeNiceWiki

Hello. You recently blocked WikiBeNiceWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and they have asked to be unblocked. Are there any specific reasons why you think this user is a sock of a blocked user? I admit that his "I didn't even edit yet" defence is a bit of a giveaway. Thank you, Sandstein 08:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Images: Fair use and copyright issues

hi, i have some doubts regarding the use of cover images in book infoboxes...

1. Is it ok to scan / photograph a book cover and use it? Would it be copyright infringement?

2. Would it be considered 'Fair use' if i used an image from a website (say, Amazon.com) because i would not be using the picture to get a profit, nor does it hurt their business? Thanks for your time. TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 14:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did ask someone else who (i think) knows better about copyright issues (Kevinalewis). But he hasn't been online for a day or 2 now. And I saw that you are active on your talk page, so I asked. Thanks anyway. :) TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

do you know

why you are trying to stop me from creating an account? I don't. What on earth did I do to make you Admins act so foolishly?JustWhat 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, maybe? Or trolling? As long as you continue to do this, you will remain blocked, or even banned; whichever you are. Acalamari 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think it be important to know why a user should be blocked rather than just blocking. It seems ignorant to just do it without knowing why. Just because someone tosses out a label does not make it right to carry out a campaign against a user.Collector345678 03:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser.

Natalie Erin, a checkuser is a very good idea; I helped deal with an extremely abusive sockpuppeteer sometime ago. That user didn't stop until a range blocked was introduced (and it's still likely that the user is around, just keeping quiet). Users like PoolGuy/WikiBeNiceWiki, are not likely back down simply by blocking the accounts. This PoolGuy person continues to leave messages on talk pages, including yours. To me, this is another example of a master sockpuppeteer. Acalamari 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy mackerel, this kid guessed it. I am Starwars1955! Just like I am whatever made up demon people want to pretend me to be. All I did was ask an Admin not to act like such a dick, and a more admins come along acting like dicks. It would be nice if one of them acted like a nice person and used their brain a little. Doubtful it will happen.Collector345678 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mootoog's Lawyer

This person has been using a name I use to edit articles to vandalize. I have written more on their talk page. I would like to ask if anything I have suggested there is possible. Sorry to waste your time otherwise. Thankyou, Mootoog 09:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Amehbahlou

Sorry, i hadn't even checked the user's block logs- it didn't even cross my mind. Cheers, Jonomacdrones 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why was I autoblocked yesterday? That was not very nice if you ask me. King Lopez ^Contribs 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia: autoblock, which contains a concise explanation of how autoblocks work, as well as instructions on how to have an autoblock lifted if this happens again. The following is especially relevant:

It is important for users to understand that administrators do not set autoblocks; they are set by the MediaWiki software. Administrators are not notified of the autoblock unless they happen to check Special:Ipblocklist. Autoblocks do not appear in administrator's block logs. Administrators do not have the ability to shut off the autoblocker, nor are they able to access the IP address of the user. (Wikipedia's privacy policy requires that IP addresses be hidden from general view, including from administrators.) When IP addresses are autoblocked, they appear in Special:Ipblocklist (but not in the admin's block log) with a special mask that prevents the IP from being seen.)

And don't forget, always assume good faith! Natalie 03:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

links

I thought I was deleting some links that didn't have pages that they led too. Isn't that what a red link is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaTime! (talk • contribs)

Good work

I've noticed you've been deleting vandalism on WP:AIR ariticles lately, and just wanted to say thanks! Keep up the good work, and you just might earn a pair of {{Wikiwings}}! Again, good work! - BillCJ 05:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: duplicate warnings?

You wrote on my talk page:

I've been blocking a lot of vandals you reported today, and I've noticed that you often give multiple final warnings within minutes of each other. Is there a particular reason you do this? I know it's not wrong or anything, but it seems like a less ideal use of your time.

Hi, Natalie. Yes, I do log an additional warning every time I revert a vandalism edit after a current final warning has been logged. I thought that would help document a problem editor's impact, and would show when an editor is ignoring a final warning (or doing worse, like taunting). If you think that's not necessary from an admin's point of view, let me know. As you mentioned, not logging the additional warnings would save some time. Take care...Joe. --JFreeman ^(talk) 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I rule yo mom Vandal.

I gave him a warning after he vandalized your user page; then he vandalized another article, and then he decided to vandalize my user page. Obviously that account has been around for more than four days, as that's the only way my user page could have been vandalized. Don't worry, the vandal has now been reported to AIV. :) Acalamari 22:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Links labeled as spam

Hi Natalie, I want to understand why you labeled as spam my external links I added to a few television shows. I linked to sites where the shows in question could be seen completely and freely. It seems to me like this is a good resource for people wanting to find out more about the particular show (for instance, by watching the show). Please help me understand your actions.

Additionally, since I am a new contributor, do you think it was a bit hasty of you to give me a final warning on my first contributions?

Thank in advance for explaining,

Ben —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benhood (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Good job

A little token of appreciation for catching this vandal you filed a checkuser on. Looks like you've discovered a whole slew of sockpuppets. The guy has been vandalising for months, and some of it survived until today. Good job! Lupo 12:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User Mudaliar and his junking

Hi Natalie,

I requested your help in resolving a editing issue about the group Sengunthar about a month ago.

There are multiple editors working on this article Sengunthar and User Mudaliar has gone crazy and reverting all the edits by different users. Similarly he is hell bent on slandering the group Sengunthar in the article Mudaliar which is the title used by the group Sengunthar.

I am tired of reverting the junk User Mudaliar is creating. I edited this article last Feb 18. After than many users have tried to clean up the junk, however the User Mudaliar is very much psychologically affected in this regard. He has been playing the revert games for over 3 months now. So as a editor of this article and the articles kaikolar kaikolan and Sengundhar. I suggest we merge these articles and lock this article up.

For this purpose, we need a mechanism to identify all the genuine editors and all the sock puppets of user Mudaliar.

If we cant agree after 3 months and 1 user is trying to junk an article, we need a solution once and for all.

Venki 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

user Mudaliar and his revert games

Hi Natalie,

Looks like the user Mudaliar is again reverting. I have called for a discussion. He is unwilling to be involved in a discussion and insists on reverting my changes and my call for discussion. Can you please conduct a moderated discussion on this article? If you look at the history of this article Mudaliar Devadasi and Sengunthar, you can observe the reverts he is doing consistently for the past three months. I dont want to get involved in the revert wars again. If you look at his contributions, you probably can see he is doing the same thing for over 3 months with different users. Further he thinks that they are all sockpuppets of me.

here is the change he made to article Mudaliar 20:54, 22 March 2007 Mudaliar (Talk | contribs) (reversion due to vandalism by User: Venki123)

I've been very patient with this person and many users have dropped out of Wikipedia out of frustration in dealing with this person.

Venki 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User Mudaliar conflicts with many independent editors

Hi Natalie, User Mudaliar conflicts with many independent editors all over the world from US, Canada, Australia and India. He is probably out of job and hence has the time to revert the edits continuously. What is the solution step when there is one editor against multiple editors?

Venki 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Caseworker article

the lines in question do not seem relevant to the article. I will explain on the talk page. SamDavidson 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Hey, thanks for the advice and pointers...I appreciate it. SamDavidson 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by Venki123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Natalie,

Check this :as of 20:50, 22 March 2007. Deleting randomly over multiple edits is vandalism. Moreover this person is deleting heavily referenced sections. User:Venki123 uses socket puppets to revert and vandalise the above mentioned articles and then makes unfair allegations that I'm edit-warring with multiple users when in fact I'm only restoring the sections(which are referenced using research papers et al) he deletes without any proper reason. This is not acceptable. Moreover he continues to abuse me and other editors whenever I attempt to use the discussion page: Check:as of 20:27, 22 March 2007.

Mudaliar 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mudaliar does not allow even a dispute resolution survey to be conducted

Hi Natalie,

Can you atleast allow me to start a dispute resolution survey to be started on the article Mudaliar? The user:Mudaliar is mindlessly reverting any edits I do. I have left a message to him saying that I am not changing his edits but still my edits are gone. I have started a mediation request AMA. In the meanwhile I want to conduct a survey. Can you help out on this? I want to build a consensus on this one. Also how can I detect sock puppets and avoid them?

thnx Venki 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN#help_with_dispute_resolution

Would you consider this situation an appropriate candidate for an experimental option? See WP:CEM. Please reply to my user talk page (I'm very busy lately and wouldn't want to forget to follow up with you). Cheers, Durova^Charge! 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Username Block

Just to let you know that I tagged User:Amylouhadapoo's talk page with {{indef}} and {{Username}} because I caught an inappropriate username on WP:AIV and knew that the username was going to be blocked, so there was no need to redo the {{UsernameBlock}} on User:Amylouhadapoo's talk page. Han Amos 01:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

Whoops, I made a mistake there. Forgot to thoroughly review contribs. Well, we're all human aren't we? (except bots)Shindo9Hikaru 02:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That won't stop him.

He'll be back in minutes. He's been doing this all day. HalfShadow 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, shouldn't someone contacts his provider? This is practically terrorism now. HalfShadow 04:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting

My userpage from vandalism!- Hdt83 | Talk 05:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Turok & Shadows

P.S: Turok is back again. Check out User:Godguy. Also see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Turok_19 & User_talk:Persian_Poet_Gal#Them_Turok_socks and you'll see why this guy is causing us to go insane.

Another probable sock to keep an eye out for: User:Super Shadow 3- Hdt83 | Talk 05:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Never mind, its been taken care of.

Block of User talk:Lobsterkins

I may be wrong, but it appears you jumped the gun on this user a bit. Contributions look more like a newbie than a vandal. The user is currently requesting unblock. Patstuart^talk·edits 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon, didn't see the AN thread. Patstuart^talk·edits 06:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

VSEN-TV

Why was article VSEN-TV deleted by you? I put a hangon and discussed it and you deleted it without any sort of reply.Emsley 15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As the speedy deletion tag says, it is a very short article with little or no context. Wikipedia doesn't want articles that just say "It is a fucking television network" (and that version is being deleted also). You're welcome to recreate the article when you can actually add some content. Natalie 15:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It did have content I told of its programming and affiliates and planned to add more but it was deleted anyway, and I don't feel like rewriting I just wanted an explanation of why it was deleted. I assumed the hangon and the discussion page you would at least provide a reason to why the ORIGINAL article would be deleted.Emsley 15:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your original article consisted of "This is a television network. They show like old movies and boxing and stuff. Oh yeah, and Three Stooges and Lucile Ball and stuff like that. I can't find a schedule though. It's kinda bizarre to be honest. But there are great old movies like with Audrey Hepburn and stuff shown all the time. There is no website at the moment, but at one time the site www.vsentv.com was functional, albeit with little content," and the names of two affiliates. That isn't an encyclopedia article. The reason for deletion was given on the speedy deletion tag, which you obviously saw if you added a hangon tag. Also, a reason is given in the deletion log (in this case, it refers to criteria listed in Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Explanations aren't added on the talk page because that would create a talk page with no article, which is ironically another criteria for speedy deletion. Hope that explains everything. Natalie 15:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

why god?

it took me a while why are you deleting this??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bewarethebob (talk • contribs)

Re:Dates

Thanks for info Natalie, I actually did not know that! It's cause when I visit the specific dates articles, it's always set to Month-Day so I thought that was the standard version. Thanks again. - Fedayee 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Red scare?

Dear Natalie: I see you know a lot about the Red Scare. So, can you stop being so scared and let this meme live a natural life?

Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzlucas

I think it might be time to wield the banhammer... —dgies^t_c 21:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Prairie fish

Hello Natalie,

The whole thing is nonsense. It's an elaborate hoax and rather jolly in its way, but there are *no* lungfish in the US and haven't been for literally millions of years. That any fish would amble about on land eating nuts and berries should be a clue that this is very much a joke. The picture, by the way, is the Australian lungfish Neoceratodus forsteri.

Cheers, Neale

Okeley dokely, have changed the thing at the top to "hoax" template instead. Either way, it is rather a nice hoax. So please share and enjoy before someone deletes it! Cheers, Neale

Sure! If there's a place these things can be stored, I'm certainly all for that. Whoever came up with the thing has a suspiciously deep knowledge of early American exploration and lungfish biology. There is actually a "real" lungfish hoax from the 30s or 40s where some scientist said their wife had accidentally ate the only specimen of a duckbilled lungfish but he published a description of it anyway. I'll try and dig up the details. Might make a fun entry. Cheers, Neale

A new policy proposal

Hello Natalie! I have proposed a policy Wikipedia:Readability#Policy_proposal, you are welcome to join the discussion here. Thank you! Wooyi 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

PhyDelity, Inc.

Natalie,

I noticed that you just deleted my page... PhyDelity, Inc. Would you please explain why it was done without any material review of the subject matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsquarred (talk • contribs)

Dialog v. dialogue

Huh. I consider myself to be fairly familiar with other dialects of English outside the US, and I don't think I'd ever seen that spelling used before. Thanks so much for letting me know!

I like that "recent changes patroller" userbox - think I'll stick it on my page! PaladinWhite 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for taking action on Ripman and Burori. I'm fairly new to anti-vandalism work and am not always sure about the right way to proceed. Should I have taken these directly to AIV? I've usually worked on reverting/warning IP vandalism and it seems like the burden for blocking IP users is pretty high (must be actively vandalizing, received final warning), but I guess that's related to portability of IPs, so named users can be blocked faster. In any case, thank you. Rickterp 15:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A Fish Called Selma

Why did you take the Laszlo Panaflex cultural reference off the Fish Called Selma page? It is a valid cultural reference, with at least as much support as other references included on the page. Laszlo Kovacs was major cinematographer and the reference to him is clear: he was the first to use a Panaflex camera, and the star has a picture of a movie camera. Laszlo Panaflex 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

50.

Here. Acalamari 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I responded with: You're welcome; I decided to watch your pages round about the time you became an administrator. I figured that you good do with an extra user watching your back. It also seems you also earned yourself what Persian Poet Gal calls a "spoofer"; it's when someone uses your name in their own. My spoofer sucks compared to Persian Poet Gal's spoofers. Acalamari 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wait a minute...my mistake. I should have paid more attention: the vandal moved your user page. It was not a spoofer. Sorry! :) Acalamari 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the name of the message title is wrong: I didn't count all the vandalism on your user page. I missed 11 cases, bringing the tally to 61. Acalamari 21:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Mudaliar and dispute survey

Hi Natalie,

I conducted a dispute survey. The User:mudaliar who has been consistently deleting evidences of other groups has not forwarded any reason why he deleted it so many times over many months. I have asked him over 3 times to state his reason. He has been active in reverting the article and slandering the Sengunthar group. However he has no arguments in his favor. I did a check user on him and his sock puppets and they have been identified as either socks or coming via proxy. Please see check User page [4] . If I edit anything he is going to revert it and call it vandalism. This has been going on for 4 months now. So I suggest that we don't waste any more time. As a result, I request you to advice me on the next step of this survey.

thnx Venki 01:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on Barbora Bukovská

Was placing the hangon tag my correct course of action in this circumstance, or should I have simply removed the speedy tag myself (as I am not the creator of the page)? I wasn't sure what was proper procedure (and/or etiquette) in such a case. JavaTenor 23:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, this is not a page I created - my only contribution to it thus far has been adding the hangon tag. I wouldn't have created such a page without proper sourcing - I'll see what I can do to improve it in the future, however. JavaTenor 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your action

Your deletion of the Bulbasaur Mansion article is greatly appreciated. You have helped to start the cleanup of the vandalism of the user Ghost-robber. Although Ghost-robber isn't blocked yet the deletion of this article is one step closer to reversing all the damage he has caused. Xtreme racer 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Uncivil edit summaries

I appreciate the personal response. Thank you. But I _do_ think that perhaps it might be best if something other than Oversight exists just for edit summaries. I mean, what if what I had to say in an edit had merits, but I made some snarky remark? And I have, once or twice, as have many others. Granted, some are less incendiary, but shouldn't there be a way to do something like: "Edit summary suppressed by [[User:Admin]] due to defamatory remark"? Just a thought. --JohnDBuell 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much overhead that would put on the databases either. It just seems to me though that any field in a database record (and the edit summary is one) is something that should in someway be editable. But again, the overhead for conducting those modifications for, as you point out, small and probably uncommon executions of that kind of change is probably much greater than it's actually worth. --JohnDBuell 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

TNX!

Thank you for so promptly correcting the censprship of the article on Phi Kappa Psi! I have notified the admin who earlier protected the article that the vandalism has begun again. —SlamDiego 03:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Best Vandalism Yet.

Have a look, you'll love it. :) Acalamari 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kent State

I'm moving the debate on Kent State to WikiProject AntiWar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.250.152 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Vandalsim

Any ideas on who your vandal is? I have to admit to finding it amusing, but wow--they sure have more time on their hands than I do. --David Shankbone 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea who they are. The person who just vandalized Natalie's talk page put "love, Acalamari" at the end of every message I've put here. Acalamari 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This IP address is the same for the entire Vancouver Public Library Central Branch. Please don't block it. Is there anyway you can block one computer without blocking the IP address? 209.53.181.74 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Season 8

Whoa, I didn't realize that you were an administrator. Congratulations on that. Anyway, myself and Gran are currently working on getting Season 8 to Featured topic status. We're about a third of the way there. If you own the Season 8 DVDs, it would be a big help you could work on a page or two. Find out more here. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We really don't have a schedule, we're just doing them when we have time. It takes me about 2 hours to get an article to rough GA status, then I'll do a bunch of checks. -- Scorpion 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Shanel blanco

Sorry, I may have tagged the article incorrectly - it has been deleted three times before as a hoax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Shanel_blanco

Thanks, Duke of Whitstable 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric Peters

Thanks, Natalie. I think I'll send a message to the original author first, to see if he or she can come up with some more independent sources, because right now there's not enough to prove notability. If the author can't come up with more, then I'll put it up for AfD. Thanks! Realkyhick 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)