User talk:Peter/Archive3

Dustin099
I believe this is a sockpuppet for User:216.233.169.207. I mean User:71.122.202.69. Is that just an uninteresting piece of trivia, or does it get marked on the page somehow? ThanksMikereichold 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look and see. Petros471 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Petros471 21:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

welcoming vandals
Yeah, I've been trying to be less confrontational/aggressive. I beleive this vandal is just angry cause I reverted a vanity addition about him and his friends out of an article as being not notable. I went out of my way to be polite about it too. I guess I should go back to my usual unadorable self. Or just stick with the standard templates. Thaks
 * }Mikereichold 21:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

friendly vandalism
hey, i found my pal's userpage and just did a little friendly vandalism to see if he would catch it and to start a wiki dialogue with him on our talk pages. i changed the word split to spill, i noticed that you reverted it to its original form and the summary had some numbers and stuff, i was just curious, what exactly did you do, and i'm curious about what you do regarding vandalism. Amirman 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on User talk:Amirman. Petros471 23:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * thank you very much - i'm glad people like you are putting in the grunt work to keep open source communities like this as functional as they can be - maybe one day i can help to, i'm learning the coding, like the colon thing i just did. weeeee. Amirman 10:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

XL
Regarding your edit comment for the XL disambig section; I don't agree that (in all cases) entries have to have articles to qualify for inclusion. Rather that (in addition to being useful disambig meanings for a given term) they should either have an article *or* at least should warrant an article (*or* inclusion as part of a larger article).

Just because an article hasn't been written yet doesn't mean a subject isn't important; it might just mean that no-one's got round to it. Whilst it's a useful rule of thumb in borderline cases, I wouldn't use it as a foolproof test for whether an entry should be included.

That having been said, I'd have removed the XL bar entry myself, because it isn't likely to be a useful disambig entry, and also because it probably isn't notable enough for an article.

Fourohfour 12:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree that there doesn't always have to be an existing article before listing on a disambiguation page. There should however be a potential for a notable article, I reverted that edit though for the same reason as you. I certainly wouldn't remove every red link on every disambiguation page. However, on that particular page (XL) I suspect there are *a lot* of things that could be put there if allowed, hence my comment "entries should have articles before listing here". Feel free to disagree with that point, and if any 'worthy' red links get added I won't automatically remove them. I guess I should have worded the edit summary rather better (more along the lines of the specific entry's notability). Petros471 12:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We're pretty much in agreement then :) Fourohfour 13:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect? a link
hi - thanks for helping me learn more previously with FRIENDLY VANDALISM. i was wondering if there was a way for me to make a link for the phrase "myers brigg" to the coresponding article with a different name. also to redirect the phrase "belly dancers" to the corresponding page. this would be useful to link to things from something that can not be changed within context. i hope you can help. thanks again. Amirman 03:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To create a new redirect from diffrent spelling of the page title, create a new article with the 'mispelling' and insert #REDIRECT NAME OF PAGE 2 (see here as an example). Full help on redirects can be found at Redirect and Help:Redirect.


 * If you are simply trying to link from an article to another article, but display a diffrent name then use a piped link (if you click on edit for this section you can see I just used one). You can link to article sections using the format Help:Piped link#SECTION TITLE. Petros471 14:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that clears it up. Thanks! &mdash; ciphergoth 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Asian fetish vandal
Thanks for your nmessage. As it's my first range block, I've posted a request at WP:AN for others to check that I've done it correctly. Perhaps archiving should wait until that's been confirmed. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I admit to being a bit silly with Uncantabrigian; I would say "he started it" but to be honest it's probably as much my fault as his. It won't happen again. As for my contributions to actual wiki articles rather than userpages, I always try my best to be as professional and encyclopedic as possible, and would never knowingly damage an article. I appreciate that messing around with userpages doesn't exactly fill you with confidence, and I apologise for that, but I'm definitely not a vandal. krJDub05 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

High Icelandic
Why did you remove it from the 'vandalism' page, claiming it is content dispute ? There is not content dispute at all anymore between different registered users, after it survived the AfD... .The only problem is that the original inventor of the language and the article will just keep adding and adding POV propaganda. However, he's not a registered user (he had three registered user names on nl-wiki, but has been blocked because of vandalism), and uses different static ip's, so this thing can only be qualified as vandalism... Talking about the content with him is not possible anymore (which should be clear if you see all his lenghty discussions) ... The subject of the article itself isn't really the problem anymore, as it survived the AfD-process; however adding personal propaganda IS vandalism. If you now another place on the english wikipedia where something actually can be done, please tell so; but in my previous experience with RfC or content disputes, nothing was done... --LimoWreck 10:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on User talk:LimoWreck. Petros471 11:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Sorry for just adding the article, but sometimes it help to get just that little extra attention that is needed. Regards --LimoWreck 12:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed your report from WP:VIP again, as the article seems to have calmed down for now, and you've got my attention (to be honest I don't think you're going to get much more from VIP). I'd be quite willing to report vandalism to the article if any occurs, however any remaining content issues should continue to be discussed on the articles talk page. As always feel free to message me on my talk page if you want any help. Petros471 20:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. I actually forgot to remove it again, sorry. Anyway, the article finally did get some attention by a few people ;-) Regards --LimoWreck 21:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A block
Thanks for blocking that IP! Not sure if you were just busy this time, but in future could you please add a notice to the IPs talk page when you issue a block, to make it clear that a block has been issued, bypassing the need to check the block log (I added a test4 warning after you had blocked, but before I checked to block log). Also there were a few instances of vandalism (including to my userpage, which is how I picked it up, but also to articles) that slipped through tawkerbot. So might be an idea after blocking to check if anything needs cleaning up. Just a couple of friendly suggestions :) Petros471 09:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'm still on the learning stages of adminship I guess. I don't usually go around searching for vandalism, and I picked that one up from Tawker. I should have put the, but I thought Tawkerbot must have cleaned the vandalism after it warned the person a couple of times. Anyways, thanks for the advice, I'll make sure I use it appropriately and check the contribs. next time. Cheers! – WB 10:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks! Petros471 11:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm just dropping by after reading your report on WP:VIP. I noticed all their contribs seem to be a few days ago and Snottygobble has issued some blocks that seem to have worked for now. So is it ok to archive the report or does further action need to be taken? Petros471 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For the offer. Given the persistence of this/these character/s, I would like to have them checked as sockpuppets. Should I report them at Requests for CheckUser, or leave the matter in your hands? Grant65 | Talk 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'd leave a checkuser request for now. There is a backlog over there, and I don't see any need to add to it, as the reported users have stopped for now. I've added them all the CVU bots blacklist as suspected socks, so hopefully if they start vandalising again they'll get spotted an further action can be taken then. For now probably best to just keep an eye out, and report warn/report for individual cases of vandalism. Cheers, Petros471 11:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He's back. I will add him at CheckUser. Grant65 | Talk 11:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeh, that's probably the right thing to do now, it's gone on for long enough to get a proper answer :) Petros471 12:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, I am not Licinius and I am bored with the accusation. I feel that it is hard to contribute whilst I HAVE A SUSPECTED SOCKPUPPET TAG ON MY USER PAGE. Please Could you outline the process for me as I would greatly appreciate it. --The man from OZ 11:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, your accusation of vandalism is BAD FAITH. I think equally so about the accusation of sockpuppetry, but I understand you saying it in the context. --The man from OZ 11:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a shame that the request for checkuser is taking so long, I realise that being accused of being a sockpuppet is annoying, especially if you aren't one! It would be best though if you could just be patient and wait for the result. It's a bit like an article going up for WP:AFD, some good articles get nominated for deletion, and whilst it might look bad for a while the article still survives :)


 * As for your second message, I'm not sure that I've ever actually accused you of vandalism. If I think someone is a vandal I will warn them by leaving a message on their talk page (usually using one of the standard warning templates). As far as I can see I've never edited your talk page before. I do realise that my message to Grant65 I did use the word 'vandalism', however that wasn't directed specifically at you. To be honest I can't remember that far back to what specific edits by whom that was referring to, but please be assured that I'm not accusing you of vandalism. I also note that you haven't been blocked, unlike some of the other users in this case. Anyway, as always, when being accused of doing 'bad things' just make sure all your edits are of the highest standard, and you will be fine. Petros471 12:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

on the Skull and Bones article
Hi, I'm responding to your post on WP:RFI. Could you please try and break down that massive body of text down to make it a bit more readable? A few initial comments from what I have read: I fail to see any use of admin powers by Will Beback on the article you mentioned (abuse or otherwise). He is acting as an editor, neither as a member of the mediation committee nor as an admin. Also I cannot see any attempt by you to contact Will on his talk page, to discuss any problem you may have with his edits, which is the first step in dispute resolution. Feel free to point out/link to anything that shows otherwise, but that is my first impression from looking over the relevant talk pages etc. Petros471 11:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there. That was fast. I have now split up the commentary on that investigation page like you requested. Where do I respond? here or on your talk page then? I'll put this in two places? Actually we have been talking on the Skull and Bones discussion page about his plans to "roll back" extensive factual information of two sections which is just vandalism on another level of course. Several people are working on editing it up to split the article into smaller sections, though his ideas would be to purge two very documentary heavy sections. Check the discussion page for the article, as well as a pattern of behavior I find to be only cloaked POV subjectivism of him abusing his admin status aimed at a certain class of articles, not just this one. More detail at that other page description I originally placed. --ReSearcher 11:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Replying on my talk page is probably best as I will get new messages. I'll copy replies over to my page anyway, you can do the same with your talk page if you wish.


 * I did take a look at Talk:Skull_and_Bones. One of the issues raised there is of article size. If you think topics need to be covered, it might be best to create a related article and link to it. See Chemistry as an example of introductory paragraphs, linked to articles on sub-topics. Also you will need to make sure the content is not a copyright violation, or original research. It is not vandalism to talk about rolling back the article, it is being discussed on the talk page to gain consensus. Feel free to join in the discussion about that there, but as far as I can see it seems like Will is acting as a normal editor, discussing how to develop the article. Petros471 11:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm shocked though so far I would tentatively agree. My comments about Will Beback's very questionable biased application and cherrypicking use of his administrator power still stands however. I don't think that can be questioned. As long as "splitting up the article" is not a code for destroying verifiable content (by his rather hostile edit history as I detailed on the "complex issue" vandalism complaint page, I don't see any issue yet with me and this article. However, there is still the issue with him, in the history I detailed, as well as my request that his administrative power be reviewed somewhere. At least be aware that the use of administrative power for such political goals does indeed happen... Cheers, --ReSearcher 14:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

sorted thx
''Just dropping by from WP:RFI. Is your report about Urshyam still needed there, or has it been delt with by the above? Petros471 12:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gnangarra"''

Thanks for stopping by problem fixed Gnangarra 15:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Leelkase
I've added that article to the CVU bot watchlist. Also you might want to try putting a message on the article talk page about why the edits aren't appropriate, then you can point to that when reverted. If it gets really bad you can ask for page protection (WP:RFPP). Cheers, Petros471 15:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! I have updated Talk:Leelkase as you suggested. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What you put on the talk page looks great, thanks. Also worth noting, if you need quick action against a particular vandal (after warning them) see WP:AIV, though as you pointed out before that can be very difficult if IP addresses keep changing. Petros471 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Perhaps I should've pointed out that I'm an admin, myself, and had already blocked one of the IPs. I sought help for this one because I wasn't sure the edits in question actually constitute vandalism, i.e. there was no intended disruption, rather it seems more likely the person is ignorant of his own actions. (On the other hand I feel like a chump for giving the editor the benefit of the doubt.) I thought if I established some precedent this way, then I wouldn't be accused of 3RR myself when I clean up after the editor. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry for treating you like a newbie! I'm not even an admin :) Petros471 17:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. I really wasn't sure about this type of scenario. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for the message, I was battling it out with Roitr and his buddies/clones, and I am glad to see improvement in the situation. On the admin. thing, I've been thinking about becoming one, although I admit I've done some pretty suboptimal things here. I guess I'd accept a nomination if given one. ε γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  22:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 23:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

UPA
Yes non-esperanza pages can be nominated. KnowledgeOfSelf 21:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Then abide by Wikipedia rules

 * Could you please not edit war about warnings on IP talk pages. 67.163.110.126 was carrying out vandalism, and therefore it was quite proper to warn them. If you had comments/suggestions about the exact nature of the warnings the proper place to discuss them is on Scaife and your talk pages (I see you did, but discussion should have remained there). Also please be careful not to violate WP:NPA. Thanks. Petros471 21:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You CVU guys seem to enjoy bending Wikipedia rules in regards to going straight to a test4 warning. You guys do not have that authority.  No one is disputing the edit in question was vandalism, but the most scaife was allowed to do was use a test2 warning or possibly a test3 warning.  And if I recall correctly, it was Scaife who was personally attacking me on the anon's userpage and who reverted 3 times.  But hey, don't let the facts get in your way whilst you are busy shilling for your CVU buddy.  BlueGoose 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I probably wouldn't have gone to test4 from test1 (i.e. probably used 2 or 3 first). I was saying was that discussion over this should have been kept away from the IP talk page. Could you please point out the personal attack against you by Scaife on User talk:67.163.110.126? You could probably point to Scaife calling the IP "the perp" as out of order, but that was on his discussion page when talking to you. Petros471 09:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have never had any dealings with this guy before, not do I want to in the future. My placement of was routine in the fact that User:67.163.11.126 has a history of vandalizing pages, in my experience this works and usually makes them stop (note however I still warn more than once before moving to WP:AIV). What seems to have occured it that I stumbled upon an anon user that has BlueGoose as a mentor, friend, etc. BlueGoose was offended in some way and decided to "make a test case out of me".  This was preceded by a revert war on my template on an anon users talk page and subsequent attacks on me on my page. BTW perp is short for perpetrator, now while I will agree that it wasn't the best choice of words and was in the heat of the moment, it is nonetheless accurate. Perpetrator simply means someone who has committed a harmful or illegal act, within the scope of wikipedia, that is accurate. Cheers! --Scaife    (Talk)  [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg|18px|]] Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight. Scaife initiated communication with me on the user's talk page, not me, and also started the revert war. So to say that I started the edit war on the page is disingenuous, if not deceitful. Second, look carefully at the initial edit of vandalism. It was a retort to a POV passage in the article that should have been edited out long ago. Whilst vandalism is not the way to handle such problems, improperly escalating the situation doesn't make the situation better. Sometimes, it pays to pay attention to the actual problem rather than simply slapping tags on out of order. At any rate, I don't see the benefit in discussing this further. All we risk is inflaming emotions over a small issue.

On one final note, I do sincerely apologize for making derogatory remarks against the CVU. That was uncalled for.

Anywho, I'm going to go watch Fever Pitch now. Have a good day. BlueGoose 06:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Friendly *poke* (about AC)
I don't want to rush it, but I keep coming across situations were admin tools would be rather handy. For example I've been doing quite a lot of work on WP:RFI recently, and whilst there is quite a lot I can do there it would be nice to have that final resort of 'block'; as well as all the other fancy anti-vandalism stuff that comes with the mop. So what I'm basically saying is would you mind taking another look at my AC page to add any further feedback, and maybe an indication as to when to go for RfA (after sorting out any other suggestions you come up with first of course!). Thanks :-) Petros471 20:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that! Work got a little busier than usual. I left a few comments but I'll try to give you some more detailed ones tomorrow. You'll make a great candidate! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Zerida report on WP:RFI
It is important to note the line on the protection template that says "(Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version)". Protection is only there to force editors to talk about changes rather than continually revert them. In this case whilst Zerida has removed messages from their talk page, Zerida has given explanations on the category's talk page and you should continue to discuss the issue there. The length of time that a particular edit has stood for, or the 'original' version of a page, does not really matter (as Wikipedia is continually being edited and hopefully improved!). Possibly a Third opinion might be useful here. Petros471 15:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. The reason I listed the situation is to have a third opinion (usually it's hard to get one in a category talk page). Since, I suppose, you are familiar with the subject matter now, would you like to give your opinion? Thanks. - Eagletalk 15:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't dive in with my opinion as I was trying to stay neutral. However as you asked and this does seem to be a fairly simple content dispute I will attempt to give my views over on Category talk:Egyptian Americans. Petros471 16:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User Medule
I've copied your request over to WP:RFCU to allow a checkuser to be run (to find out if all those usernames are the same person). Other areas for you to explore: WP:3RR (three revert rule) and WP:AN3 for reporting 3RR violations. Dispute resolution- I see this has been linked to above. In this case a request for comment might be useful. Hope that helps, my talk page is always open for follow-up. Petros471 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Petros471 EurowikiJ 22:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Petros. First of all, thank you for your explanation regarding the investigation of user Medule that you left on my page. Also, I would like to inform you that the results regarding this user have been published on the WP:RFCU : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Medule_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29   EurowikiJ 11:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A small addition: given the results from the WP:RFCU the user has been repeatedly breaking the three revert rule on a number of pages. EurowikiJ 11:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I managed to get an admin's attention to block the checkuser confirmed socks. I've also given Medule a 3RR warning (as generally admins don't block without warning first). If Medule continues could you fill in the 3RR violation report on WP:AN3? Petros471 13:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much Petros for your message and all the effort. I hope Medule will now take heed of the warning. EurowikiJ 14:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Allen Hall redirect
Thanks for joining Wikipedia! However the article you created, Allen Hall, isn't notable enough for Wikipedia, so I've placed it up for proposed deletion. Feel free to get back to me if you have any queries. Petros471 16:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Petros471,
 * I am a new user and author of the Allen Hall student accomodation page which is nominated for proposed deletion. I am contacting you to point out that the Allen Hall page is of similar subject matter to existing articles (such as Oak House), and to question therefore, why 'Allen Hall' is to be deleted. If this is not acceptable, will it be possible to merge 'Allen Hall' with the larger 'Owens Park' article, by simply adding the article to the existing stub?


 * Please contact me as soon as possible, in order to discuss the matter before the deletion date.


 * Sincerly,


 * O1iward


 * Thanks for your reply. If I'd seen the other articles I'd have probably put them up for deletion as well! Personally I think a section under the main University of Manchester article is enough, but I guess merging Allen Hall Oak House and Owens Park into Fallowfield Campus might be ok. Notability guidelines on Wikipedia (expect for a few cases like biographies and music) are fairly imprecise (such as Notability), but even though Wikipedia does not have the constraints of a paper encyclopedia, it is still an encyclopedia- and therefore there has to be limits in how local an interest articles can be. PS, to sign on talk pages type ~ which generates this: Petros471 17:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your help with that warning and the welcome. Good to meet you. --Strothra 17:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal Information
I have a question for you. I posted information which could be potentially personally identifiable information about myself and another user on a third party's talk page. I went to remove it but he reverted it back. The user is refusing to allow me to remove that information. How do I get rid of it? I understand that even if it is deleted it will still be in the edit histories but still if it's not overtly posted on his talk page then it's not as readily available to the public. You can see my talk page for the discussion and the link to his talk page. Thanks. --Strothra 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC) User_talk:Strothra


 * Sorry, but I'm not sure I can help you too much with that one, as Schuminweb is unwilling to voluntarily let you remove the info (can't imagine it would make much difference if I tried). I suggest you don't try and continue to do so, if for no other reason than the more edits made, the more chance that someone will spot them in an edit history/your contributions. It is possible for admins to delete selected parts of the page history (used when private information is posted and needs to be removed), so you could try asking an admin to do this- however I would have thought they would be more likely to do this if it was someone other than you that posted it. Finally I don't really see too much problem in what you put- it might allow people who know you already in real life to find out your Wikipedia ID, but not anyone else (and it doesn't really reveal that much more than can be worked out by your article edit history). Petros471 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Croboy on the Stairs dilemma"
I just wanted to thank you for assisting me with that issue. Hopefully everything will get cleared up soon. - Conrad Devonshire 22:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"All U Queers"
Ur a queer Petros471. The Ed Z page was an enjoyment for all. Who really dedicates their life to Wikipedia? U R A FAG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ninjas (talk • contribs)
 * I think I'll let this comment speak for itself :) Petros471 20:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help with the investigation. I appreciate all your assistance. --JACooks 13:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Fighter page(s)
This is a notice to let you know that Bugs and Feature Requests have been moved to sub-pages for Vandal Fighter.

If you still have open discussions in progress or would like to keep watching those discussions, you can add User_talk:Henna/VF/Bugs and User talk:Henna/VF/Feature requests to your watchlists.
 * -- That Guy, From That Show!  (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry :(
Please be sure to always WP:CITE sources when making edits of this nature, or they are likely to be suspected as vandalism, which is not acceptable. Petros471 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * hi sorry about the edits because ive seen te sales of One Touch from the past so sorry. By the way can you tell me how to join wikipedia please i need to know how to join

thanks ;). —This unsigned comment was added by 213.132.224.235 (talk • contribs).


 * Ok, just be careful in future :) To register all you have to do is go here and sign up for a username and password. Welcome aboard! Petros471 22:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Benon RfA
I reverted your edits to Requests for adminship/Benon2 because the RfA had closed. --Durin 13:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Guess I must have avoided edit conflict by hitting preview, and somehow missed it. Oh well, I'll drop a note on his talk page instead. Looking back now at the history I see Benon withdrew before a couple of other votes- do they count? Not that it makes much difference either way. Petros471 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * From my chair, it's not a matter of whether they counted or not as the RfA was withdrawn, but rather that those comments were made before the RfA was closed out by me, and yours was after. Ultimately doesn't really matter, I just think we want to stop closed RfAs from being updated. --Durin 16:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, thanks for letting me know. Petros471 16:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)