User talk:KyraVixen/Archive 1


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

Welcome
I noticed that you haven't been welcomed yet, so welcome to Wikipedia! You're probably very familiar with things by now, but if you still want one of those welcome templates, feel free to ask me for one. ;) *tailwaves* Happy editing! —AySz88\ ^ - ^ 02:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina
Actually, the original source is quite confusing, as the date of the source itself is August 26, but buried inside of it, it says the declaration was on August 24, so you were indeed correct. I fixed the article already, though. Thanks for keeping an eye out. Tito xd (?!?) 23:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Exchange Rate template
The direction actually varies from case to case. Americans tend to write 1 EUR = 1.xx USD and 1 USD = 1xx JPY. Just habit. And I'm sure there are similar cases elsewhere. I actually have a bigger plan. I want to make a bot that updates the rate. And the style (1 home = x foreign v.s. 1 foreign = x home, symbols, date format, etc) is configurable thru a wiki article. Do you know programming? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my userpage. That guy really hates me for some odd reason... -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  00:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"controversial" edits
Well then can you please tell me how that is "controversial". Last time I had my vision tested it worked just fine, and according to my eyes that is a Nazi salute. Have you got any evidence whatsoever to refute this? If not then I suggest you reconsider referring to it as controversial.\

-- Joel (( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joel5555 (talk • contribs) 23:16, Oct 12, 2006 (UTC). ))

Semi-automatic edits
Sounds like you would be interested in Autowikibrowser. Tito xd (?!?) 22:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability
I saw your question to Mushroom about verifiability similar to the one you posted on my talk page. Mushroom answered much more eloquently than I did and gave an answer that was comprehensive and summed up what I should have said in response to your query. Feel free to create stubs for the providers that can pass the notability criteria (I'm sure that there must be more than the four that currently have articles).

Sorry for being so terse in my reply on my own talk page. Dealing with so many spammers makes me too cynical, hence the semi wiki break. --GraemeL (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Userbox migration scope
Hello! Please don't migrate any more non-controversial userboxes - not every userbox should be migrated, and things like User trillian is one of those that shouldn't. Moving these boxes causes needless annoyance and goes counter to the goal of WP:UM. Thanks! Happy editing. —AySz88\ ^ - ^ 17:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Filecrunch
Why do RapidShare and MegaUpload allowed to have their own page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ganny512 (talk • contribs) 20:28, October 28, 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, KyraVixen! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be paranoid.(regarding Videora iPod Converter)
I can assure you that I am not in any possible way related to Videora company. I just searched for Videora ipod converter, having heard of it on a iPod FanPage, and seeing that no page existed for it, i just roam into the offical videora website, to earn enough info to make a stub on wikipedia, anyway I'd even agree with the deletion because it's true that this program isn't very popular.--SamiKaero 22:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
Can you give me some UBX tips, tanks. --' •Tbon  e  55•  ''(Talk) (Contribs)(UBX) 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, I have not created any userboxes myself, yet, but I will offer some advice based on the userboxes that you have created. I will say that you have done a pretty good job. One tidbit of advice is to choose images that look good when small. Most full size images may not look good when reduced to userbox size. In my opinion, your spices userbox is an example of this. At first glance, it looks more like a jumble of colors, as opposed to an assortment of spices. I do not mean disrespect with that comment, but I couldn't initially tell what it was when I just glanced over the picture. Another pointer is to choose colors that will work accentuate the picture, while not being too bright, or in the case of your Houston series, somewhat push it into the background. I can't describe it well, but the blue seems to slightly overpower the picture.
 * I will say that you seem to be doing well, all other things considered. A few minor tweaks such as the two points I have stated are all that I can suggest for modifications. I hope my answer has been helpful to some extent. If you have any further questions, or a different one, you are more than welcome to ask. I wish you a pleasant day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alpental
Alpental The guidebook information is not included as an actual guide per se,(or more quotes would have been included) but as a historical example of precident setting use of public land at Alpental; which is indeed part of the topic, and is extremely germain to the wikipedia user seeking current information about the valley. MrHyak has a personal beef with what he calls "tree-huggers" and is hostile to anyone who includes information which may not illuminate commercial policies as being in the public's best interest. His efforts at censorship are the actual vandalism here, and he should be blocked acordingly. Otherwise, why would it matter if people believed that these upper lots were the start of the traditional way up the valley. Ullr Siffson -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ullr Siffson (talk • contribs) 03:06, December 24, 2006 (UTC)


 * I have stated my reasons for reverting the information on this talk page, and as such, I will not launch into detail here. It is guidebook information, and you confirm it again here. I am not sure from what angle you are viewing directions to 'Lot 4' as historical, but it is not in my opinion. The Wikipedia policy WP:NOT states that guidebook material is not to be included, except if it is related to editing Wikipedia, and is included within the Wikipedia namespace. For simplicity, here is point number four under WP:NOT:
 *  Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks. 
 * Also, I have noticed that this MrHyak you refer to has not edited the Alpental article since October 21st, 2006 at 17:16 UTC. As such, I cannot see how he can be censoring any information within this article that has been introduced since then. In addition, commercially oriented information if it is written as an advertisement is not allowed on Wikipedia. In that instance, be bold and change it to be more to a neutral point of view. Have a wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 23:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm considered hostile because I tried to keep the Alpental and other Snoqualmie Pass articles free of propiganda, and anti Booth Creek ranting. I see there is a new IP doing changes again (might not be the same person?), but anything related to Lot 3, George Gillette or freealpental links is from the person who vandalizes. I won't spend anymore time trying to clean it up since the person doing these changes has made things personal by continuing to post my name on wiki in the comments section and other areas of the web I just don't have time to get into. Good luck Kyra. Mrhyak 06:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing about trying to keep propaganda out of the article leads me to consider you hostile; on the contrary, it seems that you would be in the right for doing so to maintain the neutral point of view Wikipedia has. Doing a WHOIS and a Traceroute on the IP that has most recently edited Alpental, does seem to imply that it is a different person. The locations for each are on the opposite sides of the United States. As for the recently included information and link that the anonymous editor has included, it seems to be credible. A WHOIS on the domain name www.nwsource.com returns the registrant as the Seattle Times company. As such, it would appear to be valid, however you are perfectly welcome to be bold and remove it if you have doubts. However, I am going to assume good faith in this instance and leave it within the article. I wish you a good day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion
Your best bet is to raise it WP:AN/I, where most administrators will see it and be on the looking for it. Thanks! Tito xd (?!?) 08:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, KyraVixen! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot flag for VixDaemon
Hi. Per Mets501's final approval, I've granted a bot flag to your bot. Cheers, Redux 17:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot question
Would it be permissible to try and tweak the delay in AWB (perhaps to nine seconds) to try and bring the edit count up to six edits per minute? I currently have it set at ten seconds and it hovers around four edits per minute, reaching a max of five extremely rarely. Kyra~(talk) 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem at all. I usually run mine at around 7 seconds in AWB which achieves approximately 6 edits per minute. — Mets501 (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Steinbeck article
Hi,and thanks for the help at John Steinbeck. I just reverted to the last version by Guinnog because my reversion (the one you reverted to) didn't pick up all the vandal edits. Guinnog is a safe editor. JFPerry 14:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, just doing what I can. Excellent job at catching that incomplete fix, however. Keep up the diligent edits and have a grand day. Kyra~(talk) 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ken Johnston
Please lock out editing for the page Ken Johnston for the time being. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.67.142.131 (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I am not an admin. You will have to take your request to WP:RFPP, where page protection requests are made, however it does not appear that there has been enough activity within the article to warrant a protection, so your request would more than likely be denied. Have a good day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 14:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the userpage fix. The S 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most welcome. It wasn't my intention for that to happen, but I do own up to my mistakes if I make them and make every effort to rectify them. Again, than you for bringing it to my attention, and have a wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

hi
I was modfying content. I was not trying to vandalize the page. I was trying to add whatever I know. If you feel the content is incorrect or you think should not be there, you are welcome to remove i.e. yahoo groups.

Sorry in case it caused any misunderstanding.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.180.198 (talk • contribs) 21:04, January 5, 2007  (UTC)
 * Note: Replied on their user talk page so he or she will be sure to get it.
 * No need not apologize. Thanks for your reply and Happy editing.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.180.198 (talk • contribs) 22:03, January 5, 2007

Fully protected userbox question
I have stumbled upon a fully protected userbox that has no more incoming transclusions, and therefore would qualify for a G6 speedy deletion. However, I cannot add the tag, nor can I follow the procedures for deleting it under the WP:TfD instructions. Any advice on this matter would be appreciated. And keep up the good work with MetsBot. Have a grand day. Kyra~(talk) 06:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it. — Mets501 (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetical
please do not delet genetical it is part of a school project belive it or not. Please I beg you.
 * Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. If you wish to host your content on the Internet, I would suggest that you locate a service suitable for the task. For example, Angelfire is one, and Geocities is another service you can use to host a web page. If you are merely putting it here so you can access it later, you can e-mail it to yourself using an email host such as Hotmail or Yahoo!. Additionally, it is not up to me whether it gets deleted or not, but it is up to the sysops. Have a great day and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

FreeNation
I'm confused as to why you removed the request for semi-protection from the FreeNation article. Equazcion 03:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the text because the location to make a request for protection of an article is not on the article itself. Rather, if you go to Requests for page protection you can make a request, and the administrators who patrol that page will then decide on whether to protect the page or not. I hope this helps to clarify my removal of that text. Have a wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 03:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I get it. Kinda feel stupid now :) Thanks Equazcion 03:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits at FreeNation. It'll be a good jumpstart to build a list of references. I really appreciate it. :) Equazcion 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, you said you wanted some help on the article's talk page so I thought I'd offer a little assistance. If you have any additional questions about the article or how to use Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to ask whenever the need arises, and I'll answer (or help if I can) to the best of my ability. Kyra~(talk) 03:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: World of Warcraft:
Although you said the page World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade wasn't protected, it is (and is listed as being in the semi-protected category)- I can't edit it without logging in. And since this is as you said against policy, I was hoping you or someone could do something about it. I was kind of hoping to change a leftover bit in the system requirements section. 69.85.180.44 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)(non-fixed IP)
 * Yes, I did indeed say that it was not protected, which was true when I posted that message. However, due to vandalism from anonymous editors, the page has been semi-protected. If you decide to create an account, you will gain the ability to edit semi-protected pages once your account reaches the autoconfirm threshold, as well as other benifits. In the meantime, you are more than welcome to tell me what you would like changed. If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire. I hope you have a great day. Kyra~(talk) 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

187
ok im sorry, but i think it is good to let people know what it is. That's what wikipedia's for, no? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.145.52 (talk • contribs) 21:54, January 17, 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but the fact that your edits blanked the entire page is definitely not a good thing, and is more often than not, considered vandalism. Additionally, the page you were editing is about the year 187. The page about the number 187 is located here, which would have been a better location However, the method in which your second edit in the diff displays the information is rather nonsensical to me. Also, if you plan to make more edits, you might consider creating an account here. Not only does it hide your IP address, but you have the ability to vote (form consensus rather) in discussions such as the XfD discussions, as well as the ability to edit semi-protected pages, and many more. If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire. Have a great day and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

831
i'm probably the last person thats looked at that page in a while. you shouldve at least left in the part about bob saget. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.90.25 (talk • contribs) 00:49, January 20, 2007 (UTC)
 * Bob Saget was not alive in the year 831, which was what the topic of the page was about, ie, events that occured within 831 CE. If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire. Have a good day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

check the talk page
Just check the talk page and read what I took out. The passage is irrelevany yo Armenians in Turkey as it a) pertains to all Armenians and their religious customs b) doesn't  relate to the experience of being Armenian in Turkey. Stop sending automated messages to people and read what you edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.164.144 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Usually, unexplained blanking of information is considered to be vandalism. If you have a reason to be removing material, say what it is in the edit summary box. That is the box underneath where you edit the page's source. Additionally, the material appears to be properly referenced. Directing to your concern of the section relating to all Armenians in Turkey, it only makes sense to conclude that it is not referring to all of them, merely those who celebrate Christmas. However, there are most likely some people out there who might find that information interesting, as they appear to celebrate Christmas differently than other places on Earth; additionally, the deletion of text was reverted by another editor, merely the posting of the warning was done after the edit conflict occurred.
 * And your second point, they are not automated, they are merely templates, used to simplify the addition of text where it would become extremely tedious to type manually each and every time a warning was required to be given. In closing, please use the edit summary box in the future for large removals of text, otherwise your edits may be considered vandalism, and subsequently reverted. You might also consider registering an account, as there are many benefits to doing so. If you have any further inquiries, feel free to inquire. I wish you a pleasant day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

revert
I was trying to revert that vandalism that the IP was making to the article. I found that I should have reverted back two versions instead of one. Sorry for the confusion. Red Director 20:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on Red Director's talk page. Warning retracted. Kyra~(talk) 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
There is actullay spoilers in the character's explanation thing on the Napolean Dynamite page. Please do not revert it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.93.201 (talk • contribs) 23:12, January 20, 2007


 * That may be the case, but we do have a spoilers template that can be used to get this information across to other users. The template that I am referring to would be Spoiler. Also, the way you inserted text into the page did in fact break the formatting of the page, as seen here, and that is the main reason I decided to revert the change. If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire, and I hope you have a good day. Kyra~(talk) 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Break
I'm sorry, I thought I deleted it myself.. Thanks for the sandbox tip. It is a much better place to experiment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.132.172.32 (talk • contribs) 09:26, January 22, 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, I hope you enjoy your editing here. If you have any questions you are more than welcome to ask me. I hope you have a great day. Kyra~(talk) 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Planinska jama
Considering Planinska jama image and the text which was deleted ...I wasn't on wikipedia for a few months as I was traveling... the web site you have mentioned is mine, I have just shared to wikipedia my part of website - including the picture, I am the author of the picture and the text. Lander 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You can still have the article restored if you authorize usage of the text under the GFDL. One place to begin would be WP:COPYREQ. That page details how to ask for permission, but I am pretty sure that you would be able to email the address listed to confirm that you do indeed own the website in question and agree to release the text under the terms of the GFDL, and subsequently have the article undeleted. Of course, you could also make a note on the page that you release the contents under the GFDL and then submit a request for deletion review, and explain your situation there after the notice is up. Keep in mind, I have not delved into this area before, but it seems that either of those two options would be logical places to start. If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to ask. I wish you a good day, and happy editing.

teenage suicide
Hi,

Just thought I'd give you a heads up that you cannot be a transgender person until the age of 21, therefore you cannot have teenagers who are transgender at an increased risk of suicide. Catch my drift? Please put my edit back on the teenage suicide page. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.213.56.44 (talk • contribs) 00:30, January 23, 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, might I inquire what your sources are for that? I mean, logically a person could be mentally transgender before they are physically, if that is what you are referring to; as such, that would enable them to be a teenager, and be 'transgender' at the same time, even if not physically. I am not quite sure I see your reasoning for removing it in the first place if the mental aspect can come into play as well, possibly leading to suicidal thoughts. Perhaps you could explain why you did, or cite a few sources with which to corroborate your claim? I hope you have a terrific day, and happy editing! Kyra~(talk) 00:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the small thing
I have just started using the new templates for vandalism and (since I don't have the new one's memorized yet) I'm cutting and pasting them and forgot to insert "subst:" inside the brackets. But that does explain why it came out looking weird. Thanks. Cynrin 03:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Two questions
First, about the XfD process. It it worthwhile to chime in and weigh the validity of the nominator's claim based on Wikipedia policy to determine if the article(s) up for deletion should be deleted if there are already a good number of editors leaning one way or the other? I mean, some of the articles in question I could read over and either agree or disagree with, but I am hesitant in some of the older nominations to add due to the length even though the wording would be original, the core reason to delete might be the same (ie, 10 editors citing a specific policy/guideline that it fails, WEB for example, and then adding another that says essentially the same thing).

Second, regarding WP:N. More often than not I can tell if a subject is lacking notability, and I try to distance myself to not let my own ideas influence the decision (same thing I do on all of Wikipedia). However, according to the core notability guideline, a topic is notable if it is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable published works. To use an example, I weighed in on an AfD on Ergophobia, and was not able to find multiple and/or non-trivial sources with which to verify the notability. Another editor said (copying here for simplicity):
 * Notable here means WP:N "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Therfore it is immaterial if it is on google or not.

And I am not trying to dispute that. However, according to WP:N it needs to have sources, and since I could not find any, I !voted to revert it to a redirect. The question is, do I have a decent grasp of WP:N, or is my understanding somewhat skewed? I wish you a great day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 22:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Kyra. As far as your first question, it is generally unnecessary to say Delete per nom or similar if there is already clear consensus as to one side or another.  If you have good new arguments, then they should definitely be added, but "going with the masses" and repeating the same argument is not something that needs to be done.  As far as the second question, I refer you to my second RFA, in particular the first oppose vote.   W.marsh wrote:
 * "…Maybe it's just a pet peeve, but if something gets no Google hits, it's unverifiable... not 'non-notable'. This apparent confusion over a core concept of inclusion (basing it solely on notability) makes me uncomfortable supporting the candidate at this time.…"
 * to which I responded
 * In my opinion, a search is one way of testing for notability and possible verifiability of a subject. The verifiability part is pretty obvious: if there are many search engine hits, then a subject can most likely be verified. As far as notability, I don't use a seach engine past the first few results. Basically, if no one on any web page anywhere has mentioned a term, it is obviously non-notable. I don't usually use a search engine to say that such-and-such only got 1200 hits, so it's not notable. For notability, I'm just testing if anyone has used a term before.…
 * Basically, I believe that a Google search test should never be used as the basis of a delete vote for lack of notability or verifiability, but can be used to demonstrate notability or verifiability. Just because something is not on Google doesn't mean it's non-notable, as some things (particularly from developing countries) can escape Google but still be notable.  But if references can be found on Google for something, then it is obviously verifiable and if many references are found then it can be considered notable.  I hope this helps a bit :-). — Mets501 (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

chili
Concerning a reverted edit of mine on the Xalapa page. Jalapeños are chilis. Pepper is just a knickname, though popularly used (just as, if I thought you were hot, I might call you a pepper). I would expect Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, to use more accurate (technical) terms. Vandalism seems a harsh word for an action intended to formalize, technicalize,, or otherwize clarifize...However, I apologize. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thismute (talk • contribs) 22:51, January 24, 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I have caused any confusion. As the page on Jalapeño's says, it is a chile pepper, so perhaps I jumped the gun on that revert. Completely my fault, and I have undone that reversion, and removed the warning. Thank you for bringing that mistake to my attention. I hope you have a wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki: Overclock.net
Why do you constantly recommend the deletion of the Overclock.net wiki we are trying to startup? This is several times now this has been done and I personally have made mods so that it would not. Please express your reasoning behind this constant action as I find it quite rude. Thank you, Ictinke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ictinike (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[Edit]

I've now gone through the history of edits and see vandalism as well additional markup from non affiliated users of both Wiki and overclock.net. Reading the policy on validity and your comments about non reputable sources I beg to differ as the community for this forum is massive and I as well as others who participate would gladly verify it's reputability, less you don't take the daily users opinions of this wonderful forum and asset. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ictinike (talk • contribs) 23:56, January 24, 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that the forum is not famous or not important. I am just saying that with the information provided within the article when I saw it did not seem to have any information that confirmed it was worthy of being noted, or attracting notice, as the notability guideline states. To quote the primary notability criterion, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". I was not able to locate any pages online which seem to satisfy that, but of course there could be offline sources which would indeed satisfy the notability criterion.


 * Also, when you say "we are trying to startup", do you mean members of the Overclock.net forum? If so, there might be a conflict of interest, as it is sometimes difficult to maintain a neutral point of view when creating an article about an organization or a group the author belongs to.


 * Moving to the part you added, it is not enough that the member base of the forum is large, or that the members would attest that they are notable. Rather, if the forum is noteworthy, there will be published sources that mention it. If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire. Kyra~(talk) 01:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:68.201.34.101 just made the same edit to Charytin
Don't know what to say why her age is being contested without citing a source. If you see her on Escando TV, she looks to be about 52. The only source I have found on it is IMDb. Ronbo76 21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing the edit to my attention. I have reverted it, and warned the editor. However, the amount of time that passed since the last revert could indicate that the person operating the computer is different from the last instance of the edit, so I am going to assume good faith on this edit. However, the history of the article seems to suggest that there were two dates used, one 1950 and one 1954. As such, the source that I used to initially determine whether to revert or not (ie, IMDb) seems to suggest it is 1954. As such, unless another source is found, I'd suggest staying with what is listed on IMDb. I wish you a wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User 65.106.79.226
You have noticed this school vandalising pages before, and warned it that it would be blocked if it continues. It's still doing it (last one was today on Robot). I tried to ask for this IP to be blocked, but nothing was done. Do you know why this might be? Many thanks. Rocketmagnet 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the IP in question was blocked for six months according to the block log. The history of Administrator intervention against vandalism contains the record that the IP was blocked for six months by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. The person who reported the person for vandalizing initially is not notified, as that would take too much time to do so for each individual person. However, rest assured, that IP is currently blocked. I hope this helps to clarify any misunderstanding you might have had, and if you have any further questions, you are more than welcome to ask. I hope you have a wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I'm still learning how things work around here. Rocketmagnet 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume that, after 6 months, the students will quickly begin vandalising again. Shouldn't something longer term be done about it? Maybe the school can be contacted? They could set up an account, and that IP could be blocked for a longer period? Rocketmagnet 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the type of block put upon the IP was an anonymous block, and an account creation block. Those two in conjunction mean that any user who has registered an account from home is able to use their account from that IP. However, blocks on Wikipedia are preventative, not punitive. So just because one or a few people from that school decided to do something rash, doesn't mean we aren't willing to give the editors who want to edit constructively a chance, they will just be informed when they try to edit that they need an account to do so. That's where the anonymous only part of the block comes into play.


 * And yes, in chronic cases of vandalism where the IP has a significant history of such, an abuse reporting page exists so that the ISP can be contacted with the findings of the investigators who research the IP's patterns. I have not delved into that specific area however, so the above might be slightly inaccurate. I hope this fully answers all of the questions you posted (always open for more!), and I hope you have a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:204.14.14.157
Hello! When leaving a vandalism warning, make sure that it fits with what's already on the page. If, for example, there is a string of other warnings and blocks, a first-level warning is inappropriate &mdash; at least a test4 should be used (and paerhaps an alert to an admin). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do, and I go by the date; in this case, the last warning on the page was dated November 2006. After about a day or so, it is hard to determine who the person at the computer is (as the IP address may be shared), so the person making the edit which has been reverted may not know a thing about Wikipedia. Since we do not want to scare away potential editors, I always assume good faith, and hope that a polite reminder stating that the type of edit they made is not looked highly upon here will change their behavior. If the behavior continued, of course the warning level would increase. Thanks for the information nonetheless, and I hope you have a most wonderful day! Kyra~(talk) 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the principle, but you must have misread this page, I'm afraid; the last message was a block on 19 January 2007 (by me), and the six before that were also January (four of them in a section headed with "17 Jan 2007"). Still, never mind &mdash; no harm done. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Overclock.net
Hey KyraVixen, thanks for the heads up ! Just wanted to ask, how do you add something to the deletion review ? I wanted to add it but then told me a bunch of things forbiding me to edit the page.., Thanks for your time User:F2002yann —The preceding unsigned comment was added by F2002yann (talk • contribs) 06:11, February 2, 2007 (UTC)
 * The steps for listing an article for deletion review can be found here. I think you were trying to edit the main deletion review page, which is why the text within the source was telling you not to edit it; here is the direct link to the edit page for today's log, where you can add the text. Just be sure to put the text underneath the HTML comment, which is after the "-->". If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire. Kyra~(talk) 06:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Fyi, and thanks for the support. --HailFire 16:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dred Scott
Yes it was unintentional and I do sincerely apologize for the mistake; I was copying some content and used the cut facility instead of copy. I will be far more careful the next time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.135.40.211 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
 * No worries, mistakes do happen! I hope you have a most wonderful day, and happy editing! Kyra~(talk) 21:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas White
The vandal keeps removin the speedy delete tag on the article when its obvious the page is nonsense. -- [|.K.Z|]  [|.Z.K|]   03:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this I have noticed. I have warned the user; since that, the user has desisted from removing the tag. Thanks for the heads up. Have a wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 03:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Salk School
Hi,

I noticed that you contributed to the AfD debate on this school. I have made a contribution to this debate in which I discuss why the school is notable, and edited the article a bit. Any comments you could make would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your help with this.

Sincerely,

WMMartin 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the kind comments and passing my Average Joe article. I am very glad you enjoyed reading it! Happy editing!  Signature brendel  21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thanks for all your hard work fighting vandalism. :) alphachimp  00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

English cuisine
Hi you left me a message, sorry about that, it was accidental, I was trying to edit the errors I had highlighted. Why is this article not changed, it is complete rubbish from one end to the other and clearly written by someone who has never seen the majority of the food they are describing. Nor ever set foot in England, much of it is straight out fabrication. I'm sorry but if someone cannot understand why Welsh rabit is not an English dish then should they really be writing a page on English cuisine. And the talk page has racist comments and random arguements about who has the best food. Is there a way to get a second page setup which is factually accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clarissamary (talk • contribs) 21:37, February 9, 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, mistakes do happen. The page can be changed, by anyone. However, it is possible that you are correct in that case that they haven't had the food mentioned. If you wish to correct the errors that you have encountered, then by all means, so do. However, please keep in mind the policies on no original research, verifiability, and writing from a neutral point of view.
 * And yes, there most certainly is a way to make a factually accurate version! You can either edit the article section by section, and inform others of what you changed by using the edit summary box underneath the edit window, or you can make a copy of the article and work on it in one of your user subpages. For example, you could use User:Clarissamary/Sandbox to work on it (Just copy the source from the page, but don't save the original article if you do that). If you go with the second route, I'd advise letting others take a look at your modifications by posting on the article's talk page first. Doing that allows other editors to weigh in on your proposed changes to build a consensus.
 * If you need help with copying out the source or creating the sandbox page, or any other problem for that matter, just inform me and I will be more than happy to assist you to the best of my ability. I wish you a most wonderful day, and happy editing! Kyra~(talk) 21:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

VP
Felice Torelli, a major Italian artist in all the standard books, was marked as a speedy by your VP What does the program do?. Does it just call possible articles to your attention? (Not being the author, I removed the tag, so there's no need to go back and fix it.). DGG 07:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine that you removed it, it seems to be quite fine now. However, at the time that I tagged the article, there was no clear assertion of notability. As to what exactly 'VP' is, it is short for VandalProof. It is a tool that enables the user to do a good number of things, though the main task is to revert vandalism, not that I considered the article in question that. Basically it enables the loading of the recent changes list, and then lets the user view the items, and if they are questionable, they can rollback the edits and post a message to the user who made the edit. So in essence, I guess you could say it brings articles to the user's attention, but there is more to it than blindly clicking; actual viewing of the changes is needed to determine the intention of the edits made. I hope this answers your questions in their entirety, however if I missed something, or you wish to inquire about a different matter, you are more than welcome to inquire. I hope you have a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 07:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.