User talk:Kilo-Lima/Archives/Archive II

Sociological theory
Greetings, I am contending that Sociological theory should not be a disambiguation page as the concepts are too closely related to justify that. Please comment at Talk:Sociological theory. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!
Welcome,, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of KnowledgeOfSelf, JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Prettytable
Thanks for your message &mdash; I've done it. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Re Your Change-
What do you mean?--Woogie10w 16:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Anyway Dengs stuff got copied on my page, he needed help to fix his work. --Woogie10w 16:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Greenpeace & Bush- that is intense, real intense--Woogie10w 16:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Just A friendly comment, I have Real Clear Politics on my Favorites--Woogie10w 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Happy Birthday
Thanks! And happy belated birthday! (If it is later in the year, happy belated birthday from last year!) Howabout1 21:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Moni Aizik
I have radically reworked this AfD candidate article, and would like you to consider changing your vote. Thx, the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E)  21:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
Hi Kilo-Lima! Thank you for saying "yes" to my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 20:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe Cornish
Thanks for your help re moving the article; I have now set up the disambiguation page. Cheers!

Roland Morris Sr
I don't know what is going on or how to talk to anyone. I have no idea how to use your program yet, so it takes a little time to figure it out. There was NO copyright violation on the page I just put up, which was immediately taken down. The Roland Morris page was printed WITH permission. You gave no chance for me to state that fact. WE are the Morris Family. Roland Morris was the subject. WE wrote the articles on both pages. There is NO copyright problem. Could you please put my page back up? I'm supposed to be working on a few other things today and thought this would be a quick, easy operation.

Hello - I am the webamster of the other site and the author of the original. So there is no copyright problem. All I was trying to do was get it posted, as Roland's documentary is showing on cable TV in Minneapolis this evening, and then get on with other things I need to do today. I didn't realize this would be so complicated, but I didn't realize there would be a conflict, and really didn't have time to figure out how to address it. Could you tell me where exactly I go to fix this problem? Morris Family 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures in signature
Sorry but I refuse to remove the pictures. The pictures are small and I don't post often anyway. Also as I only use one picture in my signature (although it appears twice), the picture is only downloaded once but rendered by the browser twice. Also, if I do sign multiple times on one page, the image is still only downloaded ONCE. The browser simply copies it locally for all instaces. Other people have pictures in their signatures as well. The only reason (in my opinion) someone should remove pictures from signatures is when the pictures impair the formatting of text. However the pictures in my sig are too small for that. Finally, the current status of rule regarding pictures in sigs are GUIDELINE only. This means that (accordinjg to my interpretation) no penalties will be administered unless the breach is severe. I will, of course, remove the pictures if the guideline ever upgrades to a formal rule. -- ★ U k d r a g o n 3 7 ★ talk   13:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Serial comma
As far as I know, there's no policy against the serial comma. There are a great many people who disagree as to whether the serial comma is the correct usage or not. Therefore, I suggest not making edits with the sole purpose of removing a serial comma--it seems like a frivolous waste of database resources, and likely to cause (silly) edit conflicts.&mdash;thames 21:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Feudal levy
The above page has changed, and you may wish to remove the speedy deletion tag. --Bhadani 17:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Munster Fusiliers
Hello, nice to have you come rush in when I am just in the middle of setting up the page, which you must have noticed. We can talk about it when I'm done (I just lost a lot of text !!). Greetings Osioni 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Got your point with the opening, thank you, which is fine (only the Munsters were not an army). The British Army was small (just 60,000 that August). I hope I've got it right now. Osioni 19:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

images
Hi Kilo-Lima!

Just read your letter in my user page.

I am so new to Wikipedia that don’t know what happened (I still cannot see any image at all!). Perhaps when I cut and paste Obnusman’s name from her own talk page so as not to misspell it I accidentally cut and paste an image too? I really don’t know what happened...

I still have a lot to learn! Cesar Tort 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know (or have seen) that flag image. Did I really post it there? Cesar Tort 15:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism on my page
You're welcome. tv316 20:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the welcome committee!!!...lol
You might want to think of putting a welcoming committee userbox on your userpage.-- The  i  kiro  id  ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話 ) 18:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Good luck with the exams! I hope all goes well. -- Nataly a 02:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Glock table
hi Kilo-Lima, you once helped to change the tables in the article Liberal Forum. Could you please take a look here at this GLOCK and see if the table is up to code or not? Good luck on your exams btw, cheers. Gryffindor 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hi Kil-Lima. Please don't tag images from Category:Images with unknown copyright status and Category:Images with unknown source for speedy deletion. It is a waste of an edit as admins routinely visit the 8+ day-old categories and delete them straight from there, and needlessly inflates CAT:CSD. Think of the 8 day-old categories as subcats of CAT:CSD, if that helps. Thanks. ×Meegs 23:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you ever considered becoming an admin? You seem like a good editor, nearly 4000 edits, been here about 6 months, never been blocked, very good use of edit summaries... seems like you would be a great candidate at WP:RFA. :) Coffee 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hi, I've added some questions to your RfA. When you have time please take a look at them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 14:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And FYI, some other people have added some more questions. JoshuaZ 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

nike logo
I agree the copyright notice is not a good piece of work (sorry). It is only a tiny image, and a very popular artefact. Hence it can take more than one representation.

It is not modified substantially. Would be nice to get a reply. The user boxes GFX are more than questionable! (IMHO). I am working at it currently (wikipedia:Userboxes). Cheers, thanks, regards. alex 17:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it regretable that it has now disappeared. I do not have a backup (it was generated on the fly). I do not see this GFX violates any rule (it is a logo). If some people need a written "fair use", i do not (i am applying good sense). However i can not put it under "fair use" in the name of nike. In case of no reply i may search for criteria to upload something similiar again (think the NIKE ID program).

thanks. alex 08:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes i get it somehow. Just .SVG is windows (operating system) specific??? alex 12:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Elbridge Ayer Burbank
Hi. Looks like you have e-mail turned off so I have no private way to contact you. Please undo your edits to the Burbank page. You have changed the meaning of the text - not wikified it. Burbank's date of death is now just an unexplained date. His cause of death has been removed as was the reference to the Manx Hotel (where he had lived for many years). His first art instructor's name (Leonard Volk - who made life masks of Abraham Lincoln) has been removed - and he did not "attend school" WITH the named individuals he studied under them. What the heck is "still continued"?

Thanks!

Request for Adminship
Congratulations! Consensus having been reached, it is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review the Administrators' reading list and the Administrators' how-to guide before using any of your shiny new buttons. :-) If you need assistance or advice, please feel free to request help from other administrators at the Administrator's Noticeboard and Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents, or to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay Talk • Contact 04:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me offer you my congrats! You deserve this and good luck for the future! -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see it went well. Congratulations! Enjoy your new superpowers. :) Coffee 07:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Closing of AFD debates
Please note that you are closing the debate in the edit summary as "delete" could just as easily mean someone voting for deletion. Even "deleted" or "kept" is fine. Kotepho 14:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Northstar Academy
Absolutely, an encyclopedic article would be great. I felt that the article just bashed the school and did not comply with policy. If you have a better solution, please feel free to make changes. Thanks for your input.

JaeRae 19:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2Tuff
Please explain this to me. From my perspective, it appears that a nomination was made, qualified with the caveat that it should be discounted if a source for notability claims was given. Then one person said it failed WP:MUSIC and said delete. Then they they said keep if verification of international touring can be shown. Then it was relisted to get more discussion. Five and a half days later without further development either to the discussion or the article, you closed the debate as consensus keep. There is no verifying source mentioned. This is, based on the small number of comments, a no consensus on the side of deletion, but there is no way, IMO, that this is a consensus to keep. Please explain your reasoning to me. &mdash;WAvegetarian&bull; CONTRIBUTIONS TALK &bull; EMAIL &bull; 14:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tracking that down. I assumed that they weren't making it up, but nominated it when I couldn't find any sources. I figured there was some reason as to why you had closed it as keep, but so very few closing admins save things by finding sources for them that it didn't occur to me that it was a possibility. Thanks for your hard work as a new admin. &mdash;WAvegetarian&bull; CONTRIBUTIONS TALK &bull; EMAIL &bull; 17:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Block conflicts
Regarding [ your block of Canderous Ordo] Due to the (unfortunate) way in which the MediaWiki software handles blocks, a user will always become unblocked when the shortest block expires. To avoid this, it's necessary to first unblock, then reblock for the greater duration. — Apr. 17, '06 [13:55] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

POV question
What is or is there there a policy on POV disputes where only 1 editor refuses to be NPOV and removes tags and is in a constant state of reverting NPOV back to POV statements? --Scott Grayban 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see about this. Another user has posted as well about this on my talk page. --Scott Grayban 15:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on your comment on my talk page. --Scott Grayban 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My comments at the page you refer to have been political, not personal. The topic of the article is political, the nature of the dispute is political, and the dispute therefore naturally involves political criticism. I know nothing about other participants personally and have made no personal comments about them. The other participants are (I assume) adults and can stand some criticism, as can I. Adam 23:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kilo-Lima, I noted that you warned Adam of breaching Wikipedia civility policies. I believe that these breaches have continued since the warning. Would you mind taking a look at the Cuba Talk Page / Adams recent edits if you have a moment? Thanks --Zleitzen 07:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tuatafa Hori
Re Articles for deletion/Tuatafa Hori: you may want to reconsider your closure in line with the evidence presented by RasputinAXP at Deletion review Just zis Guy you know? 14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Plutonium
Your reversion of the error I identified in the article on Plutonium 238 was neither polite nor helpful. See the discussion page. If you had wanted to be useful, you would have added the appropriate Wiki accuracy tag (which I can't find how to do) 81.154.181.130 17:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Question
Why did you remove the photo I added to the Supersuckers band page? I posted where I had gotten it & I got permission from their publicist. I can even give you his e-mail if you wish.

Repy to Answer
OK Cool, I just wanted to know. I have also gotten new info about the photos & will upload again.

Essjay's Monobook
I had to figure out how to get Essjay's user functions tab to work too. It is the css file that is the trick. I modified yours to include what works for me. Happy editing! Prodego talk  20:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio of Phoebe Buffay's songs
Perhaps you did not look at the history of this article. The lyrics of all modern songs are copyrighted, of course. Although I am sure this is elswhere on the internet, any url I would cite would be a copyvio itself. I am not saying this is a copy-and-paste job from another website. Yet nearly the entire content of the article is a copyright violation. I realize we do not have a template for marking non-internet violations so just did that one without entering any url.--Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  20:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user 208.11.222.136
Why did you set the block of 208.11.222.136 to an entire month? It's a shared IP, as the talk page notifies. SuperTails92 21:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I suppose reducing the block would be in order. Also, I'll see if I can prevent at least a small percentage of vandalism from happening. SuperTails92 02:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Nice bit of teamwork there... if a little confusing! Flowerparty ☀ 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, help yourself. I'm off for my tea :) Flowerparty ☀ 18:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Anabasii
At Articles for deletion/Anabasii, you said that even though the consensus was against deleting the article, you thought it should be deleted anyway, due to Wikipedia not being a dictionary. I put some effort into demonstrating that the article had plenty of room for encyclopedic expansion, and it bothers me that you weren't willing to address this at all. Is that how AfD normally works here? I thought it was a place for discussion. Jimpartame 20:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Adam_Carr is still doing personal attacks after warnigs
Hi, I am still having problems with User:Adam_Carr and his personal attacks even after you have warned him against it on his talk page. His comments on Talk:Cuba have now gone to insulting peoples ethnic background. His out-right refusal to be WP:CIVIL is just wrong for this person background and his continued attacks are causing the article to become stale. I have made repeated requests that he stop attacking and being un-civil to users only to be attacked even more. I make posistive statements about Cuba and he call's me a commie or a fidelist and yet I am far from that. I am retired from the USAF and his constant abusive actions is uncalled for. Please do something. --Scott Grayban 09:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In defense of Adam, this guy lied when he said he called him a commie or a fidelista. CJK 13:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam
I think your block of Adam Carr was out of line. Adam has been receiving a lot of abuse on the Cuba talk page and his response was no where near as inflamatory. I think that you should rethink your block. Xtra 13:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for example the following exerpt:


 * suggest you go and edit at Human rights in the United States. The fact that human rights are also violated in other countries is not an argument you can deploy in defence of Castro's violations of human rights. Of course human rights are violated in other countries (although few are as bad as Cuba), but that is irrelevant to this article. Adam 06:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude what is your bloody problem here? I am NOT defending Fidel at all'. Man your just not getting it at all. Your making statements and pulling stuff that is based mostly on American POV and politics. And I'm saying that isn't a good idea. You seem to have a personality issue and think everyone is some kind of Cuban communist lover here the minute they point out something that should be thought about and not vainly used as facts. If you knew one ounce of my background you wouldn't be constantly calling me a fidelist, read my blog or even my user page first. Growup and stop the name calling. --Scott Grayban 06:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott Grayban's reaction was totally over the top and unrelated to Adam's comment. It even included a personal attack "Growup and stop the name calling", yet you are taking his side? I do not understand. Xtra 13:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Xtra. -- I@n &equiv; talk 13:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst Adam's conduct has been questioned by a number of editors, including myself. I believe User Scott Grayban should be blocked for an indefinite period, see .--Zleitzen 13:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Exscuse me? His direct attack on my ethnic background is insulting. I have gathered many diff's on his attacks towards other editors and intend on completing my RfC on him. His actions shows the complete lack of civility among editors. Sorry you don't like it but the fact remains he isn't nice to anyone that even hints on something good about Cuba. I have alot of proof that he violates the WP:CIVIL and that a admin has even incited him to keep it up. --Scott Grayban 13:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam's incivility and your own should be dealt with in a fair manner. Kilo-Lima has been fair to warn and then block Adam for repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, but it should also be neccessary to apply those standards to your repeated violations. --Zleitzen 14:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where have I attacked him other then asking him to grow up and even that is far fetched on being un-civil? --Scott Grayban 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing the fact on you giving me credit to get a NPOV Cuba article and to make it look like I'm the bad guy here Zleitzen isn't going to work. You know darn well I have tried and now you side with Adam? --Scott Grayban 14:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know you tried Scott, but I have retracted that statement because some of your subsequent edits have contradicted this. I urge you not to rise to Adam Carr's self styled "robust tactics", which I agree is difficult (he also made a particular reference to my name being Jewish and asked whether I'd enjoy living under the nazis). All matters pertaining to Adam Carr's incivilty on the Cuba page should, and will be examined in due course. --Zleitzen 14:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam is smart and knows his stuff, I'll give him that. I don't want him blocked but I am tired of him being so mean to everyone. Non of us that worked on getting sources that are good only to get abused by him is uncalled for. There are times when Adam should just face it that no matter how bad something is there is always good to find in it even if its from a indirect result. And I'll be more carefull on how I respond to him. --Scott Grayban 14:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I echo your frustrations. But advise patience and adherence to the policies and guidelines. It's the only way any of us can improve the article. Feel free to email me on these matters if you don't want to go through the normal talk page procedures. --Zleitzen 14:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lacrimosa - Swiss or German?
You rolled back 213.17.40.13's edit on Elodia which 'corrected' Lacrimosa's origin from German to Swiss. As far as I know the band are in fact Swiss - their bio on their official website starts with "In November 1990 the swiss music scene started to get curious about Tilo Wolff's Projekt LACRIMOSA", and their contact details are for Wolff's Hall of Sermon record company, based in Schlieren, Switzerland. For the moment I've reverted it back to Swiss so that it's consistent with the main article and the other albums, but am I missing something? --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

(This is definitely an area for confusion - according to his deWiki bio, Wolff is German-born but currently lives in Switzerland.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if it was wrong, it did look like a bad edit; a deliberate use of incorrect info. What should it really say then? "A European band..."? Thanks,  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 18:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure I actually rolled back the page, looking at the history it appeared that I never rolled it back; ditto with my contributions. Sorry for any trouble.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was on Elodia, not Lacrimosa. Thanks for clearing that up. I think the band definitely qualify as Swiss, since AFAIK Tilo Wolff has been living in Switzerland since at least the time he started Lacrimosa. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Banning Of Me
You decided to ban my static IP for 3 days for destructively making my point. That block will cause a lot of collateral damage to other AOL users. You deciding to block an IP for 3 days when the events had taken place 2 hours earlier, with no sign of resuming trouble is a logical fallacy and pointless. I am dropping by to suggest you remove the block in line with Dealing_with_AOL_vandals. Of course leave it (Or block this IP if you wish) if you're "worried", but you have my word I have no interest in resuming my destructive campaign.

I also wish to ask this question. Do you have no respect for your colleagues Kilo-Lima? Alf decided not to ban and gave some useful advice, and you decide to overrule him (Seemingly impossible when you both are on the same Op level, thus authorisation level) without any context of this situation. In my honest opinion, you're a poor excuse for an admin. Its a shame the criteria has gone so far downhill in appointments of administrators of late.

Thanks for listening 172.214.95.161 16:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to your rant:

''"I don't know which IP address you are using so I will post on both IP address: I do not call any of the following good edits:, , , , , —wait, in fact, you entire contribution list has not one good edit. I cannot find any recollection of you stating you would stop such action. Wiki alf cannot block you becuase that would be a violation of the blocking policy: "You may not block a user you are in a conflict with"; so, as it may come to your suprise, I do have rescpect for my collegues: personal attacks are disgusting. You may be glad to know that I, since you seem to be with AOL, I have reduced your block. Since you said [...] events had taken place 2 hours earlier—does that mean if no vandilism is taken place within two hours, we a never allowed to block someone? It certainly does not. Please don't ever insult me: If you think I am a bad admin, that's you position and point; and I am certainly not a "poor excuse for an admin". I am who I am, and If you don't like that fine. Good day.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 18:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)" ''

No, none of them are good edits, but that was dealt with by a response by Alf before he had even seen the "message" I left for him. On that basis, you should have noted that case closed and "assumed good faith" (i.e. That I was planning a visit on the Villiage Pump). You cannot justify the block using the previous edits. You also didn't need any "recollection", the contributions were 2 hours old. With a clear static AOL IP, the best thing to have assumed was that I had logged off already. I have now (That is as clear as day) and the chance of me getting the same IP again is extremely small. Essentially, the current block, may actually be blocking an innocent AOL user from making contributions.

The personal attack, was, admittely, uncalled for, and Alf gets my apologies. But he didn't seem to care and was happy to continue being helpful regardless, so, you should have left the position at that closed there too. I also have no idea where you've got that conflict quote from. I take it you took this: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited." From the section on where blocks cannot be used:

 "When blocking may not be used

Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith.

Self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited. Sysops also should not block themselves for testing unless they have an unshared static IP because the resultant "autoblock" may affect other users."

It says nothing about insulting remarks by "vandals". Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?

On the block. I didn't say you weren't allowed to block people 2 hours after the events, I said it was pointless as the events had subsided. What can you hope to gain by blocking an IP for 3 days, which is clearly noted as being static in Wikipedia doctrine is without comprehension. Punishment? Hardly, with such a static IP address (Also outlined at dealing with aol vandals, and even pointed out by an anonoymus user).

I think I have an answer to that last paragraph. You simply wanted an excuse to use your banning powers and wanted to firmly take advantage of your new powers since receiving them not long ago. This could be backed up on the "Adam" dispute above. It also actually justifies my point that you're a "poor excuse for an administrator" with tangeable evidence, which makes it not an insult, but a point of view that can be backed up with sound reasoning. Reasoning involving a confused analysis of the Wikipedia policies and doctrine and a confused idea on what respected the decision of other admins means.

Thanks for your response. "Good day." 172.214.95.161 19:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ernie Kovacs Images
Hi.....I noted that several screenshots I had uploaded were removed from the Ernie Kovacs page by you because they had been deleted from the server. I'm curious as to why they had been deleted in the first place -- they all come from the same source (screenshots) as the remaining images, and were all specifically used to illustrate items in the text. Trying to bring up the deleted images simply brings up a message that no such file exists, with no explanation of the deletion. I don't see any distinction between the deleted images and the ones remaining, so if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. (I'd like to reupload them, but not if they will just be randomly "zapped" again.) Thanks.

''Hi, images must be deleted after seven days becuase they are criteria for speedy deletion (see Image 4). The images did not have a valid copyright tag to go with and, therefore, must be deleted. I was actually suprised it was not deleted far earlier than this. You are certainly welcome to upload the images again but:

a) Make sure the image(s) have a valid source. If you got them on the internet, state the URL; if you took them yourself, state that. b) Have a valid copyright tag, see WP:ICT for more info. ''Hope you understand. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)''

The point I was making (and will reiterate) is that ALL the images on that page were fair use screenshots, and all were attributed as such (the deleted images as well as the ones that remain) -- there was one where I neglected to indicate the licensing, it was pointed out to me very quickly, and I corrected it while also double-checking all the others, which were fine. If somehow the licensing attributes were not present when you deleted the images, then the licensing tag was changed after I uploaded them.

Re your recent editing of Ammonia
In your editing of the Synthesis and Production section of Ammonia, is it really necessary to use the same reference 6 times? Once for each of the country production amounts? Would it not be sufficient to just place that reference once at the end of the paragraph? What do you think?

By the way, I like your expansion of the second paragraph in that section ... where you added more information about pre-World War I ammonia production. - mbeychok 17:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dutch
If the name of the person or object in question is in English it's pronounced the English way.  —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested images
With requested images, you listed the rectus abdominus muscle. I have pictures of feline rectus abdominus muscles (I'm an Anatomy/Physiology student). Would you like these? (I know I could have posted this elsewhere, but I need an answer ASAP so that I can get the best picture possible. I'm almost finished with the musculature) Thanks! Verloren Hoop 12:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Block of 205.154.159.1
I notice you've given this IP a three day block. This does seem a bit excessive given it's a shared IP, has made only one vandal edit today, and has received no warning. David | Talk 20:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)