User talk:Gurch/Archive 10

"With comments" categories
Hi. I don't think the "x articles with comments" categories belong in the Cleanup category. They're not containing articles requiring clean up per se, rather the articles have comments attached to them specifically about their quality for Wikipedia assessments. An article in one of those categories could be as high as FA. No reply needed; cheers. --kingboyk 13:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page
We're thinking ahead for when the archive list's length starts to get out of hand. Its already taking up half an average TOC. Feel free to revert if you think it's going to be a real problem. --Monotonehell 14:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please teach me how to add a wikiproject to the list
WikiProject_Martial_Arts Please teach me how to add to list Project_shortcuts. Tkjazzer 00:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (Issue has been resolved, three times). Hi. For future reference, you should ask questions such as this at the help desk, rather than duplicating the request on every user talk page you can find. Thanks – Gurch 16:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Scratchpad
Hi Gurch. Please feel free to use my new scratchpad for experimenting. Harrison-HB4026 09:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Geez sorry, I wasn't aware that many people had their own, and I was only trying to share my scratchpad and help people on this site who do not have a scratchpad. I apologise and the messeges that I sent were not meant to spam anyone. Harrison-HB4026 00:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Randomness
Hi Gurch. I've (well not me, rather Tewy) found a way to improve the "randomness" factor in Qxz-ads. Replace  with. I just wanted to gain your consent, since, after all, you created the template.  ~  Mag nus   an im um    (aka Steptrip) 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done it myself. I don't really care what it uses, but the wikitext you suggest above would break the template (there's no #expr:), and I don't want to be pestered by complaints – Gurch 16:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's the parser function .   ~    Mag nus   ani mum   16:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that. What I mean is, the code you told me to replace it with –  – didn't include an #expr:, and so wouldn't work. Thanks – Gurch 16:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry. I thought you were referring to the first snippet of code.  ~    Mag nus   ani mum   17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

RFD
Why then is it "redirects for discussion" if it is about deletions? Simply south 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It used to be Redirects for deletion until July 2006, when it was moved . This was done partly to encourage people to treat it like a discussion (rather than a vote), and partly because people frequently bring redirects there asking for them to be deleted when in fact a better course of action is to re-target them, so the nomination turns into a discussion of where best to retarget. If you intend to retarget from the outset, though, there's nothing to stop you doing it yourself. We may as well let the nomination run now it is there, as people may disagree with my suggestion. Thanks – Gurch 22:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

District of Columbia project
Hi, you recently created a page titled User:/WikiProject District of Columbia, which appears to be a WikiProject page. It has been moved to WikiProject District of Columbia, as the original title appeared erroneous; if you intended to create a user subpage, please use something like User:Warlordjohncarter/WikiProject District of Columbia. Thanks – Gurch 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't put a name in after "User:" because I wasn't sure whose name to use; someone else had first proposed the project, and I created a proposed project page for their proposal. However, seeing that the page has now been kind of officially started by being moved into regular space, I'll try to place the banner on the various appropriate pages and hope to get some more members. Thanks for helping light a fire under me to get the project rolling. John Carter 22:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry – pages don't have to have any kind of "officialness" to exist in project space. While articles need to meet certain standards, you can put more or less anything into a page beginning with Wikipedia:, provided it complies with policy (no copyright infringements or the like), though of course such pages may be deleted through Miscellany for discussion. If you're proposing a new sub-project or anything else that isn't tied to a particular user, feel free to use it. Thanks – Gurch 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on proposed change to Template talk:Tfd
Hey Gurch, I posted an edit request to Template talk:Tfd. Would you double check me to make sure my edit wouldn't screw anything up? I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Iamunknown 11:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a bit confusing, but I think adding a second parameter might be unnecessary. As far as I can see, what you want to do is use the  rather that just the   when no parameter is supplied, but you still want people to be able to supply just the pagename as a parameter. Using    would accomplish that – Gurch 11:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was afraid it was going to be confusing. What I intended was: if no parameter were given, it would do what the current default is (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Foo); if parameter number 1 were given, it would link to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Arbitrary_foo, where you get to select what the "Arbitrary_foo" is; and if parameter number 2 were given, it would like to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Meh, where you get to choose what "Meh" is.  I thought it might be good because then editors who do not realize that the template is changed can continue using it as previously (with the default and parameter-one output) but can also insert an entirely arbitrary (#Lorem_ipsum vs. #Template:Foo) template (with parameter-two).  Does it make more sense?  Or less?  :-\  --Iamunknown 11:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Sounds like instruction creep to me, but if you really want there to be three different ways to link to a TfD discussion, by all means go ahead – Gurch 11:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Just wanted to drop by and say "hello" and "thanks" for everything you've done to make things better here. A Barnstar seems too trite and foolish. So please accept some heartfelt thanks. --Dweller 14:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Template hackery!
Good work on the template formerly known as atnhead, I like your clean-up, kudos! --Merzul 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Spotlight banner...
Where's the spotlight banner?  Real96  21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)




 * – Gurch 00:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Cheers on the revert to my talk page. Much appreciated. Will (aka Wimt ) 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And thanks too for the revert on mine. Muchly appreciated! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ads
Hey, I created an ad. Where should I upload it to? --Andrew Hampe Talk 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I put it at Image:Wikiproject User Help Ad.gif. --Andrew Hampe Talk 19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's easier if it goes at Image:Qxz-ad39.gif, to preserve the numbering; that way, the template won't have to be rewritten. Re-upload it and tag the current one for deletion, so that your name is correctly listed as the uploader. Thanks – Gurch 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Image added. Make the image link to WikiProject User Help. Thanks for responding so soon. --Andrew Hampe Talk 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Added it to the list of ads. --Andrew Hampe Talk 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact three different places have to be updated; I'll do the other two in a moment. You seem to have dual-licensed the image; if it was entirely your own work, that would be fine, but since it's a derivative of two LGPL images, I think the whole thing is subject to the LGPL and hence can only be released under the same or a compatible license; CC-BY-SA 2.5 is (I think) incompatible with LGPL. I'm not an expert on these things, but it's generally best to be on the safe side; derivatives of images under multiple licenses have caused me a few problems already, as the various ads all end up under different licenses. Thanks for your help – Gurch 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor review/Real96 comment
You have placed an uncivil comment on the editor reveiw for Real96. In the future, I advise you not to make personal attacks even though it is outside the user talk namespace. Regards, ↔ tz (talk · contribs · autographs) 12:06:19, Friday, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read the timestamp on that comment before coming here? – Gurch 10:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that Gurch was acting in good humor. The comment really doesn't qualify as a personal attack.  Real96  23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ... Okay, first off I'm pretty sure that is not uncivil. Second off, why does it matter if a personal attack is "outside the user talk namespace".  --Iamunknown 23:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks can occur anywhere on Wikipedia. As for me, this issue is resolved.  Real96  03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Iamunknown 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey
You're fast. In the good way. Whstchy 16:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Hadžija/Belgrade
Indeed my edits to this page were not constructive. Though it needs to be removed -- it is old, unused, outdated, and worthless. Please put the wheels in motion for this to be done. It seems as if it has been forgotten, as if the voting for deletion ended in no avail.

Thank you kindly. &mdash;Jajaja jaga 16:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. A user can request that a user subpage belonging to them be deleted by adding  to the top of the page. In this case, the page appears to belong to someone else, so I suggest you either leave a message with Hadžija asking them to add the template, ask an administrator to delete the page for you, or list it at Miscellany for deletion. Thanks – Gurch 16:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Viceroys of Nova Scotia
I was killing a double redirect between Viceroys_of_Nova_Scotia and teh page you tagged. It cannot be called Lieutenant_Governors_of_Nova_Scotia as it includes a list of pre-confederation full Governors, and it is also really confusing that there is a article called Lieutenant_Governor_of_Nova_Scotia so I changed it. Thanks, though I may suggest you institute a 5 minute pause before reverting something like that... :) WayeMason 15:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Your explanation is fine – but at the time, I had no way of knowing any of that. All I saw was a user blanking a page with no explanation whatsoever. In future, please fill in the edit summary when doing something as drastic as erasing an entire page, otherwise it may be mistaken for vandalism. Thanks – Gurch 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning Vandals
Hi Gurch, thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Windows Vista article. Could I ask you though, when warning vandals, to check for previous vandalism warnings and give the appropriate escalation. The vandal had numerous previous warnings, so he should probably warned with a sterner warning than one designed for first-time vandals with good faith. Keep up the good work! Paul Cyr 00:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm?
So.. whats up? this edit? MrMacMan Talk  00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * haha, alright I thought it was something like that. I was just a bit faster with the revert. Nice to see lots of others on-top of vandalism tho. 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment from wrp103
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 02:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Philly Churches: May 2007
Yo Gurch, Sorry about the page edit you commented against here. I'm still trying to learn the "page move" function. I also may have missed a redirect somewhere. I may make a few changes to the "How to rename (move) a page. Anyway, I'll try and be more careful in the future. Waarmstr 02:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for reverting my userpage. I was expecting that. Dmanning 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for also noticing this. Not quite sure how to fix it; it must be looking for nonsense combinations of caps/special characters. Antandrus (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the bot that's the problem. It's the ignorant administrators who block based on its reports without even taking a few seconds to check the user's contributions. See further up that talk page – Gurch 03:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kudos
I must commend you on the work you are doing today. I find myself in a vandalism revert battle with you. Keep up the good work. Now I must run off and find an automated program to help me. Angrymansr 14:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

209.168.216.90
This person has repeatedly vandalized the History of Earth article, with plenty of warnings. Can we take appropriate steps to have them blocked? We need to give them a final warning next time. Thanks Wikidan829 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If they continue to make unconstructive edits, yes – Gurch 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Sorry I thought i was still editing wikiality.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hpka (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Re: 209.168.216.90
This person has repeatedly vandalized the History of Earth article, with plenty of warnings. Can we take appropriate steps to have them blocked? We need to give them a final warning next time. Thanks Wikidan829 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If they continue to make unconstructive edits, yes – Gurch 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the history of that article, it's clear that they have exhausted their chances. I'm going off the top of my head, but I think it was at least 6 reverts.  Wikidan829 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They haven't edited since your last message; nothing should be done. Please remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. Thanks – Gurch 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say after they vandalized the article 5 times in 2 days that preventative measures were not taken. I'm not looking to have him blocked right now; the point is after 5 times, he should have already been blocked. When is enough enough? (if this message sounds rude, it was not meant to be conveyed that way) Wikidan829 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

== Re: Comment from User:Iamunknown lulz, so many reverts. WP:RFPP? --Iamunknown 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't think I've seen persistent vandalism from multiple users on any individual page at a sufficient level that would warrant semi-protection. If I've missed anything, my apologies – Gurch 01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, I haven't seen anything requiring semi-protection, no need to apologize. --Iamunknown 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD encryption key controversy
Avoid self-references? There's more to a guideline than its title, I'm sure you're aware... know you any specific text from the guideline to support your position? Now I don't want to start a forest fire, but there is this one page that relates to discussion about the article. Forgot what it was called, though. Grace notes T § 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, never mind. I thought you were removing the whole section again&mdash;must have clicked on the wrong link. I do agree with that one. Lo siento. Grace notes T § 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * /me huggles Grace notes T § 02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If I had to sum up the article, I would say that it was about "activity on the internet about the release of the encryption key". That paragraph fits in pretty well, I think. As it turned out, Wikipedia received a fair amount of mentions... a lot less than Digg, but more than other sites. Grace notes T § 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article should be a short paragraph on HD-DVD. Something happens on the Internet and everyone assumes it's importnat. It isn't – Gurch 02:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not going to stop Wikipedians from gathering every semi-major detail about it. When you have good, sourced, semi-major content, there's not that much you can do about removing it. The thing to do may be to not write that much content in the first place, but you know Wikipedians: "for great justice knowledge!".  Grace notes T § 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want be left alone, that's fine. Grace notes T § 02:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning template?
What warning template did you use at User talk:71.103.69.176? Looks pretty handy. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 05:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * None, I write my own warnings; you are free to copy it, however – Gurch 05:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Qxz, erm.., Gurch. I was wondering if the fact that you are editing, reverting and such means you are not retired, or that you are just semi-retired. Ryan Got something to say?  18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux/JUPE
Yep, it was an old test, I removed protection. — xaosflux  Talk  20:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just trying to keep on top of what we have protected, there's a lot of 'dead' stuff around – Gurch 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There certainly is, I'm ashamed I miss my own there, I was the one who put in the bug fix to add the namespace sorting on Special:Protectedpages, the day it went live I unprotected >100 old old dead pages! — xaosflux  Talk  02:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:User talk:Master son
I had totally forgotten about that protection until you brought it up. I only use expired protection now when protecting pages, but that one was before that was activated. After declining the protection of the talk page (see ), I received another message from the person on my talk page (now archived at User_talk:Royalguard11/Archive_3). At the time it had to do with persistent and mass stalking by an old banned user (due to Highways from what I understand) against many other users. I felt that the best thing to do at the time was protect our editors from attacks (which I still hold as a pillar). So I protected. It can probably be unprotected now (I've recently said that I'm not going to protect anymore userpages on plain requests so others would probably think that I'm just being an idiot and unprotecting them because I spoke against that, so I haven't even looked at Special:PP under userpages at all). Feel free to unprotect now though (I think 4 months is probably enough). Thanks for bringing it to my attention! -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 23:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your explanation. I can't unprotect pages myself, and I don't want to waste time trying to request unprotection if there's a good reason behind it, I just wanted to make sure there was one. Your explanation seems fine, it can probably be left up to the user themselves unless anyone decides otherwise. Thanks – Gurch 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot that you had resigned your rights (I think I read that in RFP sometime ago). -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Matthew Fontaine Maury High School
Hi, just a quick question:


 * (cur) (last) 07:45, 9 February 2007 Thebainer (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Matthew Fontaine Maury High School: article has been the subject of offensive vandalism, OTRS request made [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Is this intended to be permanent? Thanks – Gurch 03:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you're following up on lots of page protections, good stuff! Yes, this one can probably be unprotected now. It was just schoolkid vandalism, but of a particularly personal type, so protection was warranted. But it's been long enough now that they'll have moved on, so I've unprotected. --bainer (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wasn't necessarily demanding unprotection, just considering if and how it should announce its protected status. Had it just been a normal vandalism protection I might have requested unprotection, given the absence of much vandalism in the history (though presumably there was oversight involved) but then I saw the scary "OTRS" in the protection reason, which of course is shorthand for "we know what we're doing here, mere mortals need not know our reasons". :) Thanks – Gurch 03:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No oversight (as far as I know) just deletion: log. Protection wasn't intended to be permanent, just long enough to dissuade the schoolkids; hence semi-protection and not full protection. But thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten about this one. --bainer (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rostrevor College
Can YOU fix the vandalism here please? I don't know how to report it, but there's heaps here, thanks. Just be careful sifting through the backlog, there's HEAPS! 121.45.176.106 13:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Top job buddy, you're a champ. 121.45.176.106 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not admin?
To save me doing the research, any particular reason why you're not an admin? Petros471 14:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Perhaps it would be better if you did do the research – then you'd discover I was an administrator for six months, but resigned – Gurch 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thought there had to be some good reason like that- I just thought it'd be quicker to ask than trawl through a load of talk archives ;) Petros471 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanx
Thank you very much for the revert. :)--Dakota 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You probably missed this
Want it deleted? --kingboyk 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No point, I've just redirected it here – Gurch 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I Don't understand how anyone can not consider a source such as a Graduate of Glendale University. It appears you like the negative and not the positive and when anyone edits something positive it's (go play in the sandbox) I ask you have you or any of your sources graduated from Glendale Universty? Why are you so protective of the positive. Positive can be a good thing – Cushnirt 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes
I sent you an e-mail about this also, but... are you Gracenotes also? It seems like that from the redirecting. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. No, we're not each other. That was just... a bit of fun. (Did you notice the triple-redirects?) Gurch: now my user page redirects to my user talk... guess I'll leave it like that for now :) Grace notes T § 03:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I noticed it. All 3 pages double-redirected to each other. I kept clicking them trying to get somewhere :). (I do find it strange that you started editing when Gurch stopped though). -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA and edit summary usage
What exactly is wrong with judging edit summary usage? I think this is a good trait. However taking into account others factors as well should be used so judgements are not based solely on edit summary usage. Simply south 23:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is wrong is that people stick a user's name into an edit summary counting script and read out a number, and then – for reasons that defy me – actually pretend that that number has some bearing on the candidate's suitablility for adminship. Nice though it is to be able to rely on numbers rather than actually looking at the candidate's contributions, it is not helpful – Gurch 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll know to continue to review more closely.


 * I'm sure that doesn't happen all the time (the username for every edit summary, that is), does it? But it probably, on th same area, is more helpful to look at what they are actually typing in the edit summary, as you've effectively said, then whether figures are high or low. Thanks for the advice. Simply south 23:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, running the script on the candidate's username is pretty much all that happens, much as it would be nice if people actually looked at the content of the candidate's edit summaries. See my own RfA for a demonstration of the problems this causes – the script malfunctioned for some reason and reported that I only had a 33% edit summary usage. I was hit with a question about this, a couple of neutral votes and a couple of "support, but should use edit summaries more often" (which if they'd had other reasons to doubt me may well have pushed them to neutral or oppose) within an hour or so, before someone else thought to check with another script – and saw that in fact my edit summary usage was 95%. This was last June, but attitudes have hardly changed for the better since then – Gurch 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mein user space
Thanks for cleaning up my user space, I thought I got 'em all when I changed my user name, guess not, thanks. IvoShandor 12:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

88.105.70.187
Noticed to told this IP address that they would be banned after any further vandalism. They just vandalised Leicester City so could you do the honours. Jimmmmmmmmm 19:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

24.34.58.82
Vandalized Peridot again. My birthstone, no less! S/he's vandalized about 5 pages at least, recently, and has been warned. Block time

Certain user
There is a certain user on Wikipedia who has been here for a while. It's seems that, on occasion, he is quick to revert edits or delete parts of article, claiming they're "unsourced". Sometimes it can be sourced and he didn't bother looking, or there might be a typo(again didn't bother looking), and is quick to revert. I'm sure he means well. Without coming off as an a-hole, how can I let the user know that they should be a little more cautious? It sure is easier to revert than to fix something, but that's not the right way. Wikidan829 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for your work on the project shortcuts. It is noticed and appreciated. Smee 23:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC).


 * You'll want to thank Gracenotes as well, then – he's done more than I have. And he wrote the script – Gurch 23:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Script redirects
Hi there. Why did you change the redirects for User talk:Mike Dillon/Scripts/easydom.js et al to point to my user talk page? Was it just because User talk:Mike Dillon/Easy DOM didn't exist yet? Mike Dillon 01:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Redirects to non-existent pages can be speedy deleted, and while I can sort of see why they were pointing there, if I left them alone they would probably end up getting deleted. I figured it was best to point them to a page that did exist. I guess you can just create User talk:Mike Dillon/Easy DOM and point them there; I was considering that, but didn't want to create pages in someone else's userspace. Sorry about that – Gurch 01:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I figured. I've created a placeholder page at User talk:Mike Dillon/Easy DOM. Thanks. Mike Dillon 01:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yow!
Man, you're under pressure tonight ... - A l is o n  ☺ 05:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings
Hi there. Great job on the reversion. Would you mind giving warnings as well, since it's hard to go to AIV when a user hasn't been warned at all. Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That all? No threat of a block for not following policy playing the vandalism game the way you like it? Shame. Ah, well. You've got me. Quite why I need to issue a full set of warnings to a user who first impersonates me and then creates an army of abusive socks to [ continue vandalizing] and [ directing abuse at me], I'm not sure. My sincerest apoligies – Gurch 05:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as trite or rude. I reverted a couple of people who had had earlier edits reverted by you, but there were no warnings on their pages. Before I left you the first note I checked out your contribs and there wasn't a single warning issued on the first page. I left you a note as a gentle reminder, not to threaten you. I'm just reverting vandalism here, too. Although I usually look at the contribs of the vandals I revert, it helps when issuing a warning when there's something else there. That's all I meant. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed there were no warnings on their pages. It baffles me why we need to tell someone who has just vandalised an article that they have done so. They already know. They also know that we don't like it, and that they will eventually be prevented from editing if they carry on too long. We don't need to tell them this. If they carry on long enough, then they will be blocked, and that will be the end of that. Leaving warnings is at best unnecessary, and at worst enourages a user to continue. Do I want to save myself a thousand edits a day, or tolerate the occasional message on my talk page telling me to warn users more often? Tough decision. For now, you should be satisfied, unless you've found something else to pick on. Am I not using the right "level" warnings, now? Am I reporting users to the administrator intervention page at the wrong time? These errors and more have been pointed out to me in the past, and to be honest I'm quite sick of it, for all the difference it makes – Gurch 05:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, now I know. For what it's worth sometimes they do stop, but you're right, they often don't. Anyway, I know where you stand on the warnings issue now and you shan't hear/read another word about it from me. Happy vandal whacking! Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your previous comment suggests to me that you should perhaps reconsider your approach to the issue – specifically your use of the words "happy" and "whacking". Though this view does not seem to be shared by others – ny apologies, again, for not conforming to apparent expectations – Gurch 06:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Vandalism Information template
Please leave a comment and sign if you change the status please Af  648  10:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? What information does that convey that isn't conveyed by the page history and the automatically-generated "Low to normal levels of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users."? – Gurch 11:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Antisockpuppet fight
Thanks for fighting the good fight against the many sockpuppets hitting Mario Batali and other articles last night (er, last night in my timezone). --Myke Cuthbert 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[Gurchzilla] You have been blocked.
You have been blocked for breaking the 3RR on the article, Campbell's Soup Cans. This block will expire in 24 hours. Please refrain from breaking this rule in the future. -- Thorpe | talk 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblocked, this account made the following edits to Campbell's Soup Cans in the past 24 hours: All of them were reverts of vandalism. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, though you could have lifted the autoblock... logging on to find myself blocked wasn't very amusing. Not sure how that happened; it seems administrators don't even check the user's contributions before blocking any more, which is very worrying – Gurch 03:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for neglecting to lift the autoblock. The block was so surreal to begin with that I thought someone was playing a cruel joke. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly not. It is interesting to note that in 19 months of similar edits using this account I have never been blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. I have to wonder whether the outcome would have been the same had I been an administrator, or someone whom the blocking administrator recognized – Gurch 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I am sorry for the mistake made. I will make sure I won't repeat this in the future. I hope you can accept my apology. -- Thorpe | talk 06:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC
Well that was unexpected. Sorry to...well...wake you up in such a way. ~ G1ggy!  Reply 03:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)