User talk:Gwernol/Archive 20

links added
I am very sorry for the links I added. I thought that people suffering from hair loss problems, and looking for information in wikipedia, will also like to have information about resources in hair replacement. What I don’t understand is why the link to the site named: http://haironpieces.com cannot be listed in the external links on the article “fake hair”, since that site fully relates to the essence of that article. Anyway, I am sorry if I did a mistake. The only concern that I’ve now is that I will have to be afraid of doing things in wikipedia, when in reality what I am trying to do is to help others. Sorry again. Justice all the way

Darantz11
My apologies for my earlier behavior. I guess I still feel myself a newbie here and didn't yet know how to do things here. I'll try to learn as much as I can... if you guys still let me and help me to.

Thanks again. Darantz11 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I still need to learn, as I always seem to annoy somebody here for trying to do things right.

sigh Darantz11 15:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

vandel
hey, some one destroyed the norse page, I dont know how to revert it back to what you had edited last, as I'm kinda a newb. If you fix, can u maybe drop some hints as to how?

Cheers--24.83.107.101 05:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for blocking. You're right on top of things. =) → Ed Gl  03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Pie man, or whatever his name is today
Thanks for the help with him. I really appreciate it... --Mhking 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
By my reading of the times, the vandalism on your userpage by User:Lollylollylollygetyour took place after they got their level 4 final warning. I am not yet qualified to block, but it si clearly now appropriate.--Anthony.bradbury 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gosh we need a bot for this.
Gwernol, the IP you recently blocked is from a shared school in Michigan. User:198.110.53.252. Thanks. Real96 18:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User Sparspost
He changed the article Poles to a version that an IP vandalize many times. I tell him, that he has to discuss about this kind of changes but he does it again. I don't want to do an edit-war, so I tell you about it. Can you tell him that he has to talk about this change before he editing again? And can you reverse his change in this article, please? I don't want that someone think that I do edit-war. Thanks in advance!--Plk 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New Award
Hey Gwernol, I just made this award and thought I'd give it to you first! §†SupaSoldier†§ 23:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Gwernol; in the face of the torrent of vandalism to which your user page has been subjected recently, I am quite certain that no-one would feel it wrong if you were to fully protect it. The irrational and unwarranted level of attack is beyond anything in my experience by whole orders of magnitude. And while it is clear that the attacker is psychologically deranged, that does not mean that you have to tolerate it.--Anthony.bradbury 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:68.55.106.131 blocked
Hi. You recently blocked subject user for vandalism. However, he also violated 3RR (after I warned him). He had many more than 4 reversions. Now that he's blocked, should I bother with a 3RR violation report? -Amatulic 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * HE'S BACK! On a different IP now: User: 70.17.235.208 -Amatulic 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake - 'twasn't vandalism. -Amatulic 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for all the advice you have given me so far and your Support, it is much appreciated. I am sure that I will look to you for help in situations that i feel uncomfterable handeling, etc etc. Thanks again for the unofficial editor review which you obviousley took sime time to peruse my edits, it was very much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a template for indef block due to innapropriate usernames per Username? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Thanks much. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, Gwernol. I was just browsing through a list of random admins when I found your name and looked at your contributions. I said to myself, "Wow, this is great!" Thanks for making Wikipedia a happy and reliable place! Cheers, --Jimbo Herndan 04:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Eedo Bee
Has stated on ANI they will continue to vandalise the talk pages of articles he considers to be inappropriately tagge. I gave him a, but he blanked it and is continuing to remove tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffpw (talk • contribs)


 * He's blanked the warning given to him by another editor yet again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for looking into this situation. I hope that I've been acceptably calm about it, and I appreciate you - someone who isn't directly involved in this disagreement- helping to mediate it.  Reading your explanation, I realize that I shouldn't have been so quick to return the vandal4 tag to Eedo's talk page, and I won't do it again. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wanted to thank you, too, for your help, and apologize if I made your work harder. That was not the intention. I had limited time before I had to leave for work (on a break, now), and wanted to see it resolved before I left. Thank you for helping out! Jeffpw 16:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes well done. Now that my ban is over, please stop tracking my edits. It is becoming a nuisance and is not in the interests of wikipedia. While verifying edits is important, just back up OK? It is very immature. Eedo Bee 07:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:GymLeader_Dalton
Thanks for un-vandalizing my boring page which hardly ever gets vandalized. I turned in the user to an admin already. I don't bother fighting with them anymore. Wahkeenah 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for un-vandalizing it again. I see he picked up on my comment, so I'm assuming he's watching with glee. He'll be blocked soon. Wahkeenah 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Oppose, eh? Well, that can be expected, what with our rather...unpleasant business a few months back. I'm sorry about that. ~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for undoing the Revision as of 02:42, 12 December 2006 (edit) by 64.107.190.194 on Edward Szczepanik. I appreciate your work as a recent changes patroller! Tom Szczepanik 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spamming accusation
I'm not quite sure if this is the right way to message you. I got a message from you saying i was spamming because I posted an article about a book i just wrote. Why is putting a link to my book any different from the other books there on the same subject? I thought that it was ok to include links to books that related to the subject? The Anatomy of Mona Lisa is about the Mona Lisa, why is it considered "Spamming" to include it as a book on the mona lisa page? If it's ok could you please list it? I am not spamming —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itsjustlife (talk • contribs).

User:Eedo Bee
Thanks for stepping in and blocking Eedo Bee. I had hopped that he had merely misunderstood what project tagging meant and that the argument could be resolved through discussion. It is a shame he decided to re-emphasise his hostility to LGBT issues on his userpage and tag the Pedophilia article in response. He could no doubt have been a valued contributor had he stayed away from areas in which he had such strong feelings. Ah well, his choice. You made the right call, regretable though it is. WJBscribe 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Eedo's Matmice article
I notice you Prodded it. While he is not one of my favorite editors, could you consider removing the PROD until his block has expired? I have no doubt that the article will never survive Afd, no matter how long anyone works on it, but at least he will have had a chance at it. Jeffpw 10:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thanks (you seem to be collecting them)
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage! —Remember the dot (t) 03:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You and Semi Protection
Hey Gwernol, Thank You for reverting the Vandalism on my Userpage and also....do you think you could Semi-Protect the Ninja article because of Non-stop IP Vandalism! §†SupaSoldier†§ 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Range block
Do you know of a way to do a range block? There is an ip that keeps replacing juimbos pages with a mans ass. the first 3 octets are the same only the final number is changing. I am going to assume the subnet has 256 possible address. 59.91.253.80, 115. I am not saying that a range block is appropriate here but should the same ip address patern continue, is there a way to impose a short term range block? Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I found the reading useful and all those networking classes actually paid off (i.e. i understand it!) Thanks, i will exercise extreme caution should I choose to use such a block. Thanks for the ptompt reply. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Great job
You must do a great job because you piss off vandals and get your page vandalized all the time! The vandals are cowering in fear! Keep up the good work (I am sure the userpage vandalism does not even phase you. lol). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gwernol, I have said it before and will say it again. In the light of the amount of vandalism coming your way, fully protecting your userpage would be wholly reasonable.--Anthony.bradbury 11:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Reversion
Hey. Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I appreciate it. Kriak 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Indef block
Not sure if you saw this, but User:ReggiN kcid's last placement of the block template was done before your post (3:10 vs. 3:11). Thus he didn't disregard your warning (since he didn't add it again between the time you warned him and the time you blocked him). If you knew that already, sorry to be a bother, but I personally don't see a problem with giving him another chance. --Spangineerws (háblame)  03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah, never mind. I just saw his last comment; keep the block on him. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  03:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to this, this gay just left me a, banned from editing label...odd Gavin Scott 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and warning
Just a heads up that I reverted a vandal attack on your page, and gave the offender a level 3 warning. Akradecki 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Review
Gwernol, thank you for your comments. You highlight two failings which I was aware of, and am working to overcome; a tendency to get annoyed with vandals who attack pages which I regard as sacrosanct, such as Auschwitz concentration camp, and a tendency not to sign if I get excited (though I usually go back, sign and apologise). I shall get there.--Anthony.bradbury 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi.
You're an admin, right? Can you please delete the page Team environment? I put the prod template on a few days ago, but it was taken off (despite the article being patent nonsense). Thanks for your help. Ab e g92 contribs ☃ 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you for your policy guidance. Your help is appreciated. Ab e g92 contribs ☃ 03:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How to site my sources?
i was just wondering how do i site my sources? because i thought they meant put it on the wikipedia page but i guess i thought wrong... please fill me in on how to site my sources you wrote me saying i added spam and advertisement wich was not my intention please write me back and let me know! thanksMatteo747 05:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the revert of my userpage (again!!) and for the sprotect - much appreciated! :) - Alison✍ 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

64.107.220.161
Can you please put an end to this nonsense? You blocked this person, but take a look at the talk page history. (jarbarf) 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock of User:Jeff Dorlean
I noticed you were the blocking admin for User:Macdaddys, a sockpuppet of Jeff Dorlean. I've come across another editor with identical edits who I believe is also a sockpuppet of this person. User:Ashley Chiles has already been blocked for 24 hours, but may need another look. Being unable to find a sock report, I hope you can take a look. Thanks,  auburn pilot  talk  18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Block of 207.228.211.35
On Friday, I reported User:207.228.211.35 (see debate User_talk:TigerShark). It had been 3 hours since his last edit so nothing was done. I see you must have caught him today. I am guessing that admins have some kind of tool to flag an IP adress so that when it edits you immediately check the content of the edit. Thus, I am guessing that my efforts are a part of the reason you finally caught the guy. Is it correct for me to claim any credit for catching this guy finally. Also, did you block his sock that I reported on Friday. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger 19:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gwernol
Hey Gwernol, How are ya? ;^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your revert of Squared World, and I was wondering...
Hi. I think you are perhaps more experienced than I in Wiki. Could you explain for me, either here or here, the reason why Squared World has a semi-protected tag, when it seems to lead to a web site consisting of a black holding page, no possibility of checking out notability or member stats, and does not Google in its own right when put into a search? Come to that, why isn't it on the rocky road to speedy delete? I've no axe to grind in particular, I just can't get over its transparent lack of notability. Any throwing of the smallest amount of light would be appreciated. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! That WAS speedy! Forget it, and well done. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply on my Talk. I have only just got used to the procedure for reporting serial vandals, I still have to get to grips with speedy delete nomination. You've a head start on me, of course, being Admin... Cheers. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

why does my tourism section keep on getting deleted?!
hi i made the changes you wanted me to make i got sources and everything BUT WHY DOES MY TOURISM SECTION KEEP ON GETTING TAKEN OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i really dont understand at all so if you could tell me what else did i do wrong.... because i really dont think i did anything wrong and im thinking that if you dont want to allow me to put some truth on that article that contains so much inaccurate information then you should just completely erase it the whole page! because im not just offended im am angry because whats true is not allowed on but the bunch of lies that are on there are welcomed.Matteo747 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Vandal tagging
Thanks for message dear. I will try to be better then I am doing now and will work on your guide lines .Yeah some time I open too many windows so I often forget to sign.Next time i will be carefull .Thanks

Khalidkhoso 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear i can not identify some "subst". if you could help more regarding it. Khalidkhoso 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Got Your Point. Thanks Cheers Caio

Syndromeofadown 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why you were blocking my friend? Now he will be deported because made unemployment by you and he leaving for Kyrgyzstan again next day. Maybe you abuse your administrator power. And stop doing that please for my friend he maybe never I see again. He is maybe tried for making more account and you dont again block him. I am angry for you already.

Askar

I'm sorry I write such things in my userpage, but my friend is deport now and maybe never I see again. I did not for personal attack. I dont know you yet maybe and I dont mean for attack.

Askar

3RR
Gwernol, will you please fully protect your userpage NOW, before I get caught for 3RR.--Anthony.bradbury 13:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism reverts. Personally I don't think there's any need to protect the page, there seem to be hundreds of people watching it for no apparent reason, myself included. Regards, CiaranG 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted a message on Antohys talk page about it. I also blocked the ip address. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
OK, whatever you say. I have been here for only a year (nearly), but have never seen such a concerted attack on anybody. As you are clearly aware, many of us are waqtching your page. --Anthony.bradbury 13:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No problems. In fact I have protected it for a short while mainly to give all you very kind folks who have watchlisted my page a break. I have seen worse attacks (check out poor User:Metros232 for example) but do seem to annoy some vandals. I take it as a sign I'm doing a good job here :-) Best to you and a huge thanks to everyone who has been reverting the vandalism on my user page. Gwernol 13:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK boss.--Anthony.bradbury 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism??
You accuse me of vandalism of AIDS yet all I did was clean up to paragraphs to make them more readable and consise? I find you are very rude to say that my edits were "unhelpful and non-constructive".

''Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to AIDS. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and they have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 10:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)'' Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hne123"

Kindly explain why you consider my changes to be vandalism or else undo your revert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hne123 (talk • contribs).

Thank You
Thank You for Reverting the Vandalism on my Userpage, Gwernol! :^) :^) :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, me too!  Philippe Beaudette 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why
Why shouldn't I vandalize? I tried to help by uploading pictures to Mandisa only to have them be deleted without a reason as to why. It's not fair that the hard work I went through trying to find them was WASTED. -MFan3 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
The article Arnold Schwarzenegger is vandalized multiple times by different people. Would you consider protect or semi-protect it? Wooyi 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DURAN DURAN
I feel extremely offended for being blocked from editing. I am not aware of my errors or as you call "vandalism". It would be greatly appreciated if you could unblock me and and give me a reason for you actions!! Thank you DuranDuran 06:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lucas
Hello Gwernol. You were very kind to help with blocking Ludvikus last week. Just to let you know, as you were probably aware, there were actually two problems editors in this case, namely Ludvikus and Lucas. The latter has also been a problem lately on other philosophy-related articles. He has a history of blocks and disruptive editing, summarised here. Is there anything you can do? There are a number of good editors that I am trying desperately to keep on the philosophy project, but it is getting to much for them. Again, the page I referred to has full details. Thanks Dbuckner 07:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing the AIDS article
I see that some changes to the wording have been happening, and reversion of those changes, apparently without any discussion on the talk page. When there is disagreement about the wording of a section, please discuss the changes on the talk page. It's helpful to put descriptive edit summaries, which can refer to the talk page e.g. "see talk" or referring to a particular section of the talk page where those edits are being discussed. Editors are not supposed to just revert other people's good-faith changes without discussion or explanation. Rather than repeatedly reverting others' edits, editors are supposed to discuss until consensus is reached before making changes to disputed sections. See Resolving disputes. I would appreciate seeing the disputed wording discussed in an organized manner so I can see what's going on. I'm putting this same message on a few users' talk pages. --Coppertwig 11:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize; since you had already reverted your own reversion, directing the above comment to you was unnecessary.  I was telling you things you already know.  I think the other two users I directed the same comment to were new users -- it was intended more for them.  I retract the above complaint and apologize for any inconvenience. --Coppertwig 13:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way: from my reading of the page history, I think Hne123 was editing the wording, not just re-ordering citations as you said in your edit history. --Coppertwig 14:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When I saw the proxy block tag, I added it to WikiProject on open proxies and indef blocked it per the open proxy policy, pending investigation. If you are sure that it is not an open proxy, then please unblock, and re-block for a time commensurate with protecting the vandalism. Also, I IPprotected the user talk page since the IP was vandalising the talk page as well. Thanks. -- Avi 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus again
Would be grateful for any help. The community is utterly exhausted. See KD's message on User_talk:FT2. Many thanks. Dbuckner 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gwernol. I know Ludvikus would like to perceive it as stalking, but I think you can understand other editors hoping that the agony will be less prolonged this time around.  KD Tries Again 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)KD
 * Thanks also. Dbuckner 08:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Gwernol

The issue was the Frankfurt school. The two historical figures you objected to pertain to the reaction of that school. The Frankfurt school was disillusioned by the prevalence of irrationality in Europe at the time. Anyway - I'm deeply disappointed by the level of attacks upon my person, and that this is not recognized. I'll do my best to keep away from Wikipedia - the behavior against my person is deeply disappointing. --Ludvikus 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Gwernol, although you say that you have wholly protected your userpage, this does not appear to be the case. I have checked, and am able to edit it, though I obviously have not done so. Now, as a special favour, just for me, please totally protect your user page. It is not a lot to ask!--Anthony.bradbury 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Possible semi-protection and he states it's whole or temporary full-protect. BuickCenturyDriver 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly not so.--Anthony.bradbury 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The messages about this are in danger of outnumbering the incidents themselves. I'm sure Gwernol is more than capable of using protection as he sees fit. May I suggest ignoring the clown, then he will stop performing. CiaranG 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

North America
Looks like you beat me to the punch on notifying the IP even thought I reverted. Thanks. BuickCenturyDriver 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Zoey 101
I did not express personal opinion. It was proved facts. Why did you feel the need to remove it? Babygurl13573 01:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness
Gwernol, am I allowed under wikipedia guidelines to send insulting messagtes to User:Ockenbock? I have so far refrained from doing so, but he is really starting to piss me off!--Anthony.bradbury 20:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I knew that really. I have taken no action, except to revert your page once or twice, nor will I. But it is tempting and, as you know, I am occasionally excitable.--Anthony.bradbury 11:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User page vandals
Hi. Can I just express my sympathies regarding this sudden merciless campaign on your user page? I, like many other editors, will be watching your page and reversing this mindless and childish disruption whenever I see it. Cheers. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, i'd just like to say thank you for telling me what to do, i am not sure how to send u a message so i'll just use this. thanks again

Leonardo reference
Hi, Gwernol!

No discussion necessary! I wrote the sentence. And I added the reference.

The process was thus-

It has been changed twice by people who considered that it must be in error. So firstly, I referrenced the sentence. Then I decided that it was better to modify the sentence so that it people no longer disputed its accuracy. Having done that, it no longer need a specific reference. The whole Section has a covering reference at the bottom of the section.

I'm getting a little bit tired of well-meaning people continually changing things that have been very carefully stated, and improving on information that have been checked and double checked.

--Amandajm 04:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Stoopid of me!
I have just realised that the reference that I removed was the primary reference and removing it must have stuffed up every single reference to the same book! Thanks! --Amandajm 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User 65.13.229.183
This account has continued to vandalize entries after you posted a warning message to him. I am confused whether to post a warning message on his Talk page (and, if so, which level of warning), so I'm passing that buck to you, since you're an Admin. Thanx! Caliban 11:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Brf00
Thank you for fixing. I was trying to figure out what I did to irritate this guy. It has to do with reverting (on 2 different occasions) his POV-pushing of placing a picture of some asian type burning a U.S. Flag, on the U.S. Flag page. In the talk page for U.S. Flag, I contended that it was offensive to show flag burning on any country's flag page, but that it could arguably be put on a page that specifically discusses flag burning. (Which User:ChrisO had already done, on 9/11/06). That minor debate was a month ago so that guy's a little slow on the draw. Thank you for fixing my page, yet again. :) Wahkeenah 16:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Black people
Ok. if you like the article on "Black people" then do so. Now i have to go and talk to my Black friend /matrix17

Black people shouldnt have their OWN page
Its fine with me if wikipedia.org wants to realy make a statement and devide black and white people. and i sooo like the african masaj highest up on the black people article. /matrix17

was it you who just wrote sista pvarningen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matrix17 (talk • contribs).

Ok. but i have done that and i cant see who did it. its called Sista tillsägelsen. look if you can see. thanks/matrix17

Sorry what i ment was that someone has wrote that on my discussionpage and even if i look at the historypage i dont udnerstand who wrote that/ matrix17

mm i found it out myself in the end. but thanks for the help. /matrix17


 * It's not really dividing people, just that most ethnic groups have pages on Wikipedia. People have an article. ;-) --Jatkins (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Should this be removed from this talk page? It could be seen as offensive to some people. --Jatkins (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom
I'm laughing at the idea that I broke a Wikipedia policy by adding to the UK article that the UK's economy grew faster than any other major European economy since 1999 to present, which it did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.86.234 (talk • contribs).

Recent vandalism to your userpage
Looks like you have a fan from Florida State University. Would a temporary range block for 128.186.159.* be possible? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope so. I'm tired of reverting that idiot's nonsense. - Alison✍ 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Euro statements in UK history section
Please see Talk:United Kingdom. Thanks/wangi 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent block of 131.123.48.225
I commend your fine work in this situation and add that 131.123.48.225 is definitely not my IP address. Burpen 13:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:MerddinEmrys.jpeg
Was reviewing the FR Locomotives table and the picture against Merddin Emrys caught my eye since it looked the wrong colour. On detail look I note that is actually David Lloyd George. Main identifying features are the length of the nameplate, the "tomato soup" colour scheme and the narrow cab sheets. ==Stewart 19:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon user blanked your page
So I reverted it. --Matt J User 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And he did it again at 22:17. Where are admins when you need urgent blocking carried out? Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I retract the above statement - that was pretty quick blocking! Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, good work by my fellow admins. Such a shame that a vandal continues to sully the name of Florida State University. Gwernol 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I was pretty close to lodging a complaint with the FSU IS&T department after certain comments. I wouldn't normally do that, but that was just malicious. Not funny. - Alison✍ 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Florida State University
Gwernol, it's your call; it's your page. But is it really not now time to contact the University, which I know we can do, and encourage them to discipline their students? Because it just goes on and on. Graduation day is, I guess, July/August some time? I did take note of your comment about them getting eventually bored. My question remains valid.--Anthony.bradbury 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm wondering about that and/or a range block on the University IPs. Gwernol 23:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sensible course seems to be to contact the University, and, dependent on their reaction i.e. positive or negative reply, there then lies their future ability to edit Wikipedia or not, as a collective. Surely? Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If contact with the university does not produce a useful response, then a six-month range block might make our point. No? --Anthony.bradbury 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to do a one-month range block? All they need is a cooling off period, not 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 23:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can range block at any length. If we go down this road I think 1 month would be right in this instance, probably with account creation enabled to allow the legitimate editors to continue to work. Gwernol 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. So long as it's long enough that everyone there gets the message. And yes, of course, let account-holders work. Do it now.--Anthony.bradbury 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll second that! - Alison✍ 23:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thirded (?) ! Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The FSU range is currently blocked for 24 hours. We'll see what happens once that expires. Gwernol 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He or she is back. -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see there is now a week-long block. Any reply yet from the University regarding control or otherwise of the users of their IT equipment? Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 14:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As you noted, I've range blocked the FSU IPs for one week. Nothing heard from the University. Gwernol 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a warning, I saw an FSU vandal a few minutes ago here. He's from 128.186.128.*, so that's out of the blocked range of 128.186.40/24.  FSU seems to own the range 128.186.0.0/16. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bunch of vandalism on your user page from 128.186.159.* lately. Perhaps block 128.186.159/24 or 128.186/16. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Userpage Revert :)
Thanks Gwernol for reverting this piece of nonsense. Better check the vandal's talk page...he argues a very strong case for unblocking :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a look at his talk page - no reply registered there as to his block - where did he put his "argument" for unblocking if not here? Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 14:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted it since it was clearly bad faith and contained a number of exceptionally nasty personal attacks. if you really want to see it, its in the history. Gwernol 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Eedo Bee (again)
Please see The ANI discussion. Jeffpw 07:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Syndromeofadown4
Please go to above as there is abuse posted. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Already indefblocked. Gwernol 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. Thanks, taken care of, Gwernol 18:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

On Personal Attacks
Dear Administrator Gwernol,
 * The following user claims to be a psychiatrist. He has made the following remarks about me. Do you consider them to be personal attacks at the Philo. Talk Page? If so, will you take the appropriate action?

Comment on Lukvikus
"The comments by Lukvikus at (17:52) seem digressive with incorrigible perseveration, there seems to be veiled hostile insinuation, the questions he raises have been exhaustively addressed already and I feel do not warrant further comment. Richiar 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC) " Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS1: What's the meaning of a "veiled hostile insinuation" alleged by self-described "psychiatrist" Richie?
 * PS2: Do you think it's appropriate for me to be "analyzed" by another Wikipedia editor?
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"This user is certifiably completely normal"
"Just in case you missed it, I had entered a message earlier and it might get buried in the mass of information: "

"No, no hemlock my friend: maybe a round of drinks for all for this fine discussion ! I have done slightly more research since my posting of yesterday, and now can respond to your message here. 1) I am not formally trained in philosophy, I have my hands full as it is, but I find I cannot function very effectively in this world without some grasp of philosopy, so I try to educate myself, and this Wikipedia effort is commendable. 2) I was not making an accusation as you state above, but experssing a personal concern that came from a momentary impression just at the time when I dropped into the discussion. I wish to now say publicly that I withdraw my concern, and that I am convinced the issues being discussed are from people with sound minds. The debate is legitimate, and the discussion is legitimate. There is some emotionally charged expression which may have rendered the appearance of fanaticism, which is what may have triggered my concerns, but a little bit of communication and research has cleared this up for me. I would formally like to withdraw the concern about Bipolar Disorder. Please, everyone do continue with your work on the discussion here. Richiar 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"

"At the time I jumped in, Dbruckner had just made an internal link to the Elders of Zion, and I looked at that, and thought it seemed freaky; then I went to your user page, and saw all of these repetive links to Wittgenstein, and it felt like I had entered some freaky shrine, but then I noticed a connection to Andy Warhol, and perused some of the communications, and now I feel quite at home: either everyone is as sick as I am, or we're all quasi-normal. Cheers for philosophers !! I definitely think I can learn from you.  Richiar 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"


 * Above is User:Richiar's prior "certification" as to my "normalcy". I'm very curious as to whether you consider this a "personal attack" on my person by another Wikipedian. --Ludvikus 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So to consider someone as possibly suffering from "bi-polar disorder" is an "extremely mild incivility", and not a personal attack? --Ludvikus 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Administrator Gwernol,
 * I am a minority voice on the Philosophy Talk page. I have successfully written & edited literaly hundreds of Wiki pages elsewhere. Nowhere have I had the trouble I've had as at Philosophy. It is actually a very difficult subject to write about. If you look, you will find that I'm no longer making any changes to the actual page - as this may upset the majority. If you also look around, you will find that Administrator User:Mel Etitis and I have successfully written a page together on John Passmore.
 * At this point (through your prompting) I have completely re-read the Wiki policy statement as to what constitutes a "personal attack". And I am completely surprised that you believe that describing, or evaluating, someone in psychiatric terms does not constitute a personal attack on Wikipedia. If it does not, than it should! Do you really mean that if I call someone (Wiki editor) "crazy" you will not ban me from Wikipedia - at least for a day? I think describing someone in any psychological/clinical terms is a personal attack. And if you think not, can we get a third opinion on it? --Ludvikus 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this may be helpful to the issues: User:Richiar describes himself as (1) having no particular knowledge regarding Philosophy, and (2) that he's a lay psychiatrist (who has also taken a break once to take his "Prosac", he once informed us). His contribution appears to be to engage in psychological evaluation of contributors - me personally. Is that not "bizarre" Wikipedia behavior? And you do not consider that a personal attack? What I've shown you is that it is his practice to analyze my contributions from the standpoint of psychiatry. And you only think that that's an extremely mild incivility? --Ludvikus 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's what you first said to me today:

"No, I don't think they are personal attacks since they comment on your actions,  not on you as a person. At the most they are extremely mild incivility   and I don't intend to take action. Gwernol 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)" Is that not accurate as to what you think? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A Train's RFA
I notified him. I'm puzzled at as claiming to be an admin, but no RFA. Uninsureddriver 21:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi this is the person who messed with ribosomes, i am writing in here because i dont know how to leave a message, i just want to say i am sorry
. Rationalism vs. Empiricism First published Thu 19 Aug, 2004 The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge. Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they constuct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an  alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists   cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge. And by the way, no Wikipedian Philosophy editor has presented any cited support that Rational[ity] is unrelated to Reason. So we must take Rational Enquery as in fact dependent on Reason.
 * It's very odd - to say the least - to see Rationality and Reason revived by Wikipedia. So what is this mysterious Rational Enquiry which has nothing to do with Rationalism, or Reason?
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake - for some reaso, I thought I was on the Philosophy Page when I was here.
 * And smart attitude, I might add - keeping away from the Philosophy Page. Had I done the same, I would have had more Wiki friends than enemies - don't let yourself be dragged in - into that quicksand page of troubles. --Ludvikus 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:PraderWilliSyndromes for comments
He created his user talkpage with disparaging comments directed your way. FYI. Ronbo76 06:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And he's also posted abuse on his User page. Can't you justifiably blank it? Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Another of a series of sockpuppet accounts, in the KKKondom and Syndromeofadown series. I've indef blocked it as another abusive sockpuppet. The odd thing is I've no idea who this user is, but clearly he has a bit of a problem. Oh well, Gwernol 12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua & Related Articles
Hi. I wanted to drop you a question comment about user 190.53.15.171. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and trying to clean up some of the POV and vanalism that seems to pervade the Nicaragua artilce and others relating to Nicaragua. Particularly problematic is this user (190.53.15.171). He/she continues to change the article and add irrelevant and biased info. I notcied you had added a warning in their talk area but they pay no mind to it. There is also people trying to make it a toursim and Nicaragua promotional site. Any though on how to handle this situation?--Agrofe 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Talyllyn Railway page.
Hello mate, I'm not a great Wikipedia user so I apologise if I've deleted someone elses work.

Regarding my edits of the Talyllyn Railway page: The Talyllyn is a state of decline. It loses more passengers every year, year on year. To say that it is a popular and well-liked railway does not reflect the reality of the situation that the railway is facing. It is a poor performer in a area heavily used by tourists. I believe that what I wrote was accurate and your edits only paint a picture that does reflect the railway itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.106.90 (talk • contribs)

Surely though what you put is also pure speculation and pushing the POV that the TR is a successful and popular railway when the truth of the matter is not. I resent your remarks regarding my involvement with narrow gauge railways. I have been a volunteer on the Talyllyn Railway since 2000 and an ardent supporter of the Ffestiniog Railway. Who are you to cast asertions and judgements about my experience on the narrow gauge railway scene in Wales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.106.90 (talk • contribs)

Ludvikus yet again
I am sure you're heartily sick of the subject, but Ludvikus continues to harrass and browbeat editors: []. I see you had a dose of it yourself above. I think we all know he's not going to stop of his own accord. Sorry to bother you again. KD Tries Again 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)KD
 * Just noticed this untrue charge against me. Saying that I "harrass" and "browbeat" is plainly untrue - if you look at the remark I made, in response to Db's prior comment.
 * It is depressing to find such dishonest remarks about me - in this secret effort to get you to take action against me.
 * I came to your page because someone made a comment about you on my page - and I do not kmow why.
 * Have a nice day. --Ludvikus 05:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wales
Hi, I just tried to reorganise the Wales page but I see that you reverted the changes for some reason. This has caused the page to become quite distorted if you have a look now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.77.39 (talk • contribs).

Wales
Can I just ask why you have taken away the part of Wales history 'medieval Wales' and 'nationalist revival'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.77.39 (talk • contribs).

Wales
For your information I haven't deleted anything from the Wales page and was just tidying up the history section which you immediately revert for no reason. Also the section on the economy you have changed it to say 'Wales does not attract high value added jobs' - this is your POV please use links to support that argument. Also you say Cardiff is significantly small, please support that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple 123 (talk • contribs)

User page
Thanks for the reverts. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

82.144.243.116
Hi. Any quick way for you to report this idiot? It'll take me ages. He just went to five (at least) vandalisms (last one - Bryan Robson). Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Impostle???
Gwernol, I've heard you called lots of things, but "impostle"?? Is that like "apostle"? I've been keeping a quiet eye on Thomas for a while, now, and just couldn't resist sharing a chuckle over that one. Akradecki 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You should block the editing of Christian brothers College High School, due to vandals.

Another category
Hello, Jesusmyth has created the category Category:Bahá'í prophets. I was wondering if the previous discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4 regarding Category:Manifestion of God covers this new category as well, especially given that the Baha'i concept never really calls these people prophets, which is a different concept. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

hey
hey, gwernol it's patelco and i need some help. first of all, my talk page2 was recently vandalised by a guy named: User: Mad Game1. I also know that mad game is a sock puppet of User: Korean history. but, please do not block korean history3. anyway, hopefully this problem can be resolved.

- ₪Patelco☻ 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1= User: Mad Game

2= User talk: Patelco

3= User: Korean History


 * I reverted back to your last reversion; I see only vandalism since.--Anthony.bradbury 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus again
I made a suggestion to Banno here. I would welcome your thoughts on the matter. The question is, not the behaviour of this particular user, but the methods in general available to deal with this sort of disruption. Welcome your views. Dbuckner 08:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And still it goes on. See the Talk:Philosophy page.  He is now starting to edit the article again with nonsense comments that we are having to revert.  Plus strange rambling comments on the talk page, veiled invective against users.  PLEASE DO SOMETHING I IMPLORE YOU.  Dbuckner 06:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the message you sent me aboutthat transport museum, i was not awear that i had nominated it but i think i had left my computer (logged in on wikipedia) and i think my brother went and changed it, sorry for teh Inconvenience User:Robin99 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

please?
User talk:V2ja vandalised again after his final warning. could you please block him/her? thanks. :-) Ilikefood 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Important: Minor user needs help
I got the following message on my talk page. From my scans, we have a minor who believes he or she is about to be blocked or have their user account deleted from the system. However, because of the minor status, it appears someone only wants them to rework their user page to remove private information. I gather older edits would then be deleted. Any suggestions? I am learly of jumping is as others have already attempted to explain what is going on without success. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

*crying* HELP ME!
some one wants me gone! i did nonthing wrong! please help me! i dont wana go will i want to stay! please talk to them! please!--Lolicon(Down With Child Porn)Saikano 07:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC-6)

User 70.176.14.107
Could you check the recent edits of this user please - you last warned him/her on 10 February, but as far as I can see, most of the edits since than have been unconstructive. I don't know whether you feel an immediate block is appropriate, or another warning.– Tivedshambo (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User: 70.88.10.41
I noticed that this user has been vandalizing recently and that you have warned him a few times in the past. Could you please block this user from Wikipedia. Thanks.Hurleyman 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Club Penguin article rewrite request
Hi Gwernol. I believe you were the admin who semi-protected the Club Penguin article - thanks, someone needed to. Having looked through the article, a lot of the content does not appear to be encyclopedic, merely a game guide written by kids. Also, the talk page is getting ridiculous - I've seen sections asking about the Lighthouse game. I don't want to seem harsh on new Wikipedians, but if you've got some time, I really think this article needs a re-write and continued semi-protection. Don't worry if you can't, but do you think this is a good idea? --Jatkins 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a lot better now, and I think what I said above no longer applies. By the way, I just wanted to thank you for all the work you've done on Club Penguin and reverting vandalism on Wikipedia in general. Its just a suggestion, but you might want to semi-protect your user page -- I see there's been several incidents of vandalism. Once again, thanks. --Jatkins (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:manstaruk
Hi DC- hope u enjoyed your visit. Have add u to r contribs page for the photos & additions you have done. Cheers Keith 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello. You don't know me but I stumbled on your page checking Ronbo 76's page history, because of vandalism. Anyway, I saw you were an admin and was hoping you could help me. My situation, described below in my original AIV and Noteboard posting on the incident, has gone unresolved up to this point and I was hoping, perhaps, through direct personal interaction with an admin I might be able to get some assitance.

Original report: Situation: First I filed a report at AIV, which this situation was beyond the scope of. Here is the original report.


 * : Kinda long. I would like someone to monitor this situation. This user has continually inserted information about a non notable arcade into the DeKalb, Illinois article. Two editors have explained why it shouldn't be there, this action screams of an attempt to use the Wiki as an advertising service. After the explanation it was reinserted and a long screaming post appeared unsigned on my talk page from the user. The information first turned up about two weeks ago from anonymous, which was warned once. After the user Jazz reinserted the info I did give him a harsh warning. If someone could please monitor this situation I would appreciate it.A mcmurray 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

''Essentially this user is asserting notability for a non notable random business. See my talk page and his. I am trying to defend the Wiki against what I see as obvious spam. I mean the information he was inserting was ambiguous and ended with something like "the owner serves his guests a big bowl of popcorn." I was unsure of what to do so here I am. Any help? Thanks ahead of time.A mcmurray 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically I was hoping someone could watch this situation and/or explain it to the user. I am not quite sure how to.A mcmurray 13:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

''

I unsure of how to approach this because the user brought me back two sources and placed them on my talk page, I am not even sure I am citing the correct policies here. I am trying to defend the Wiki against obvious spam, any help would be greatly greatly appreciated. Thanks ahead of time, your partner in Happy Editing, A mcmurray 18:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Housecleaning
The article needs to be called Housecleaning. It was only categorized as a workpage since it's not finished. It's title needs to be reserved somehow, and since it was only categorized as work page I see nothing wrong with it being called Housecleaning. Furthermore, somebody deleted three of its illustrations, and they need to be undeleted, because there are needed for the article. Therefore, please undelete the Images and put the article back into the name Housecleaning where it belongs. Chuck Marean 21:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Housecleaning, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuck Marean (talk • contribs).