User talk:RadioKirk/Archive03

Possible innocent user blocked.....
I didn't know who to contact so I chose you since you're on and you're an admin. Here's the quick rundown, User: Filmfreak contacted me and said he was blocked b/c at school him and a couple friends made user accounts and supposedly one of the users went rogue or something and got them all blocked. I'm waiting for the reply of the pasted block message and other users but I'm unsure how to help this user? Well whatever help you can give would be nice Thanks, Mahoga ny


 * Sorry for bringing you into this but all is clear now, I'm the one who stopped him and all his vandalizing meat/sock puppet friends. See User: Martin Van Buren Mahoga ny

Sorry about swearing!
Hi, got your message. Couldn't help wondering if there is some sort of 'automatic profanity counter' happening here? (Three times and a red light comes on a mission control -something like that?)HappyVR 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes - thanks for responding - I'm suprised User:xino was blocked indefinately - (first offence I think) - I thought a short ban might 'bring him to his senses' - I honestly don't believe that but people should be given a chance. Just my opinion.HappyVR 20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup!

 * Ceiling Cat never lies. ;) -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / !?  22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cchan199206
Did you notice he's alomst 14? Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 03:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

EWS23's RfA
Hello RadioKirk! Thank you very much for your support at my request for adminship. I hope to see you continue to duck under rotten tomatoes! :o) Thanks again, and if you ever see me doing anything that I could do better, please let me know. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Expert" Sources
Hi RadioKirk,

First of all thanks for the quick response to my earlier message regarding the removal of external links in the Eternal Darkness Wiki. Before I go any further let me be perfectly clear, the purpose of this message isn't to argue a case or to try and convince you to reverse your decision. I fully understand your reasoning and the logic behind it.

I'd like to raise a related, but wider issue that occured to me whilst reading this portion of your message to me:

"Generally, for a review site to be acceptable as an external link, the reviewers either must be recognized within the industry as experts (and I can't find any such indication), or be directly quoted by the game and/or gameplayer manufacturers, in which case the correct link would be to the official site containing the quote. "

Putting your first point to one side it strikes me that if Wikipedia is attempting to be both factually accurate and neutral in its content then including material that has been "quoted by the game and/or gameplayer manufacturers" isn't the right thing to do. All I'm saying is that when there's millions of dollars riding on a games success as a publisher I'd do everything in my power to ensure that game was critically well received.

Which brings us to the issue of "experts" as interactive entertainment videogames require a completely different method of assessment compared with more insight and experience based mediums such as literature and film. whereas a film expert can pen a completely valid and in depth review of a film after a single sitting would their depth of understanding and appreciation increase with two screenings? ten screenings? Possibly, but if they're indeed an expert then a single screening should be enough. The problem with videogames is the experience isn't as well contained as a film. Let's take Street Fighter III Third Strike as an example. A game which requires hundreds if not thousands of hours to understand all the layers of depth within the game's system. How do you review that effectively when deadlines are fast approaching? Essentially you can't. This is why videogame journalists get it so very badly wrong a lot of the time and the very reason that the 'experts' are rarely trusted by serious videogame hobbyists (myself included).

I'm sure some of what I've outlined above applies to other industries that feature in Wikipedia too.

P.S. I've opened an account on Wiki under (Madbury).

Madbury 11:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking vandals
Hello, I've noticed that admin's have a higher threshold for blocking than I have for reporting to AIV. Can you give me some guidance there? I don't want to waste the admin's time by reporting fruitlessly. Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 15:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I figured. I'll probably be more patient and give 'em more Test3's before AIV'ing. Thanks again, :) Dlohcierekim 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tots TV vandal and IP 82.45.55.31
Just a heads up on the vandal you blocked today at IP 82.45.55.31. This was the Tots TV vandal. This guy has been running for a couple of months now. He edits a variety of British TV show pages, making subtle, inacurate, edits. Once of his core targets regularly is Tots TV, where he always changes the sex of a particular character. Thus the Tots TV Vandal nickname.

He generally attacks once or twice a day, and is done for the day once blocked. Occasionally he'll find a second IP in a day if the first is blocked, but usually not.

Anyway, the point is that this is a unrepentant vandal, not someone who is likely to "learn" from blocks. He's been blocked every day now for a couple of months, and has yet to learn.

As it is, though, we don't expend a huge amount of effort on him. Several of us admins who have been following him have some of his favorite targets watched and, when we see his regular vandalisms, he gets blocked at once. No warnings once we know it's him. 95% of the time it's Curps who spots him first, and gets him blocked.

It was unfortunate today that none of the admins in the know spotted him for a while, and he had over an hour to make edits. No idea about Curps, but I had stuff going on in real life, and was thus not even at my computer.

So in the end this is to let you know who you were dealing with today, and that there are normally other admins a bit more on alert for him. - TexasAndroid 17:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship
Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! -  Corbin  Be excellent

Help!!
Hi, i'm new here. What do II do if someone keeps messing pages up? Rappy30V2 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef block of 216.164.203.90
As I understand the blocking policy, indef block of IPs is not allowed. Am I missing something here? JoshuaZ 01:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Rappy30V2
RadioKirk, many thanks for blocking Rappy30V2. I was very interested to note to connection to User:216.164.203.90 - I followed that saga with interest as it was unfolding and was wondering when (s)he would show up again. Looks like a fairly persistent vandal.

Also just a quick word to say what a great job you've been doing since you were made an admin. I see your work all over the place and I've found myself agreeing with your judgements on every occasion. Way to swing that mop :-) All the best, Gw e rnol 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the indefinite block on the account was an excellent call :-) I went through all of the user's edits, and I am absolutely certain the user should know better. --HappyCamper 02:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion
Hi, can you please take a look at this incident? Thanks.  /FunkyFly.talk _  02:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Age format
Hi. I like your one-line format better than my two-lie format. Keep up the good work! --Uncle Ed 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikidefender Supreme!
Your ongoing speed, accuracy, AND civility in wikidefending continues to impress me!!! Kukini 16:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

stupid links
You are right - it is not a very helpful edit summary.--Paraphelion 16:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remove entries from WP:AIV
Hi RadioKirk, I noticed that you've been leaving entries in WP:AIV if the users haven't vandalised after the warnings. Please remove these entries from the page because this page is meant to be a "rapid response" page. If the users continue to vandalise after the warnings, non-admins can simple relist the account in WP:AIV. Leaving entries in leaves unnecessary backlog on WP:AIV. Thanks. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Yeah, I noticed a couple of other admins doing the same thing, and I disagree with that. I'd welcome your feedback on the talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Internal links
I cannot find what I want in the help section: How do I create a link that links to another section within the same article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhfireboy (talk • contribs)

RE: Internal Links
I'm just curious because I needed it the other day but I don't now. Also how do I change what my "four tildes" auto txt looks like?

jhfireboy 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

IP blocking
Hi RadioKirk, you are doing an excellent job blocking vandals. One vandal you blocked, 205.173.47.254, requested to be unblocked, which I denied. However I did reduce the block to 1 month, the maximum allowed under the blocking policy. I left this message to a inform you I changed the block, in case you objected, and b to let you know about this often overlooked clause of WP:BLOCK. In the future please keep your future static IP blocks to a month or less, in case the IP is reassigned. Thanks, Prodego  talk 00:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, Hall Monitor made a lot of long IP blocks before he/she left, but since he/she did.... (see last contribs). Happy editing, and keep up the good work. Prodego  talk 00:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked!
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeatedly voting on RfAs using cliches. Please note that usage of cliches is considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after you fish a tire from the river. Master of Puppets That's hot. 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tone's RfA thanks
Dear &mdash; Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 46/2/3 so now I am an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any anything I can help you with in the future. And please correct me, if you spot I make a mistake. Thank you again. --Ton e  23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

No news?
My name.......Any news? ForestH2

Unbelievable
After your block on User:138.195.70.43, the guy comes right back to RFID and ads the exact same linkspam. I've warning him again, but I'm not an admin. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Image cleanup
Thanks for taking on User:JulianChan's mess. Jkelly 18:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hell of an editor
Compliment? Insult? I don't give a damn whichever it is. To be honest, this is the end of my Wikilife. Oh, the memories we had (though short-lived). Take care forever. Goodbye and good luck. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 01:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Return? Someday.

well done
You must have done something right, because there is a troll over at WP:AN complaining about you. --Bachrach44 15:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'd like me to create a user account solely to troll you personally, I will, but I would require a barnstar in exchange (there is one for creating an entertaining, if disruptive, sockpuppet, no?)... :) Joe 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Help Me With this, Please!!!!!!!!
I am in a constant battle with this person on the Saphin page. Same ip all the time. This person has it in for Saphin for not signing with his label, this is the whole reason for the problem, 99% of the miss-info that exists, is generated by him. The Wiki Article is just another one of those things. His additions to the saphin article are 100% fiction and self serving, I know this for fact, because I know who's doing it now. Please Kirk, please just temporarily ban this i.p. I have other things to do here that are much more constructive for Wiki than clean up chronic Vandalism by I.P. 68.194.107.118. (Jim Sunev 01:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC))
 * If the IP changes he'll keep doing it. He should be not be banned. Don't know what Radio Kirk thinks though. ForestH2
 * Please see the message I left him on his (Jim Sunev) talk page. I just also requested page protection. ForestH2
 * Are you going to do anything about it? Something weird with my name by the way. Using ~ tidles my name came out as this: ForestH2 30 May 2006 (UTC) 00:19 ForestH2


 * What? The devloper I contacted and the reply? What note? I'm confused. ForestH2

You can do that but...
I've got a feeling that they will just repost something completely of their own creation. I can back up every fact I've posted, they, can't. With a little research this can be proven. And what if in the future, there is a third party who posts a Saphin Article? Is Saphin banned from Wiki? Can I repost a something a little less "ad" like? I'd appreciate it if you reconsider. (Jim Sunev 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Trust Me RK
This is Jeff Saphin, Since I know who the other "editor" is, I'm almost certain you will now see what looks like a Saphin article that fits in with wiki standards, but is chock full of lies. Since I am JS, I know what is fact and what isn't with regard to this article, I can have my people fashion a neutral article that fits wiki standards if you'd like. Would that work?

Thanks. (Jim Sunev 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Much appreciated but....
If a Saphin article is edited by that same vandal, it would also be in violation of Wiki policy. My article though admittedly hyperbole-esque, 'is completely factual and verifiable on the web and in the real world. With regard to neutrality: We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that most of the Artist Articles on Wiki are not in some way approved by, if not actually posted by the Artist or their people or fans, just as the Saphin article was. Doesn't that put them in violation of wiki policy on neutrality? There is no problem with the merciless editing of a piece, that's fine, I know that's part of the Wiki architecture, but revisionist vandalism is not acceptable and also against Wiki Policy.

Help me with this Kirk, I'd like to work this out for the benefit of all well meaning parties.

would a less "ad like" article work? eg Richard Barone

--Jim Sunev 03:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

RFA
ROFL:. BTW, time to archive talk again, took me 2 min to scroll down here just to compliment your sense of humor. Kaisershatner 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)
Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs) 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Halos
Hey, not to be an ass about it, but you realize the halo AwarderofHalos gave you is illegitimate and needs to be removed, right? I'd do it, but I feel funny about editing an administrator's page... I think you deserve it too :) --Kazushi 19:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, you got it. Sorry about jumping on you like that :) --Kazushi 19:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Protections
Looking at your protection log, I notice a lot of protections made to userpages and user-talk pages of blocked users, whether this be for vandalism or as a username-block. The vast majority of these pages have had no previous edits made to them (and are never likely to), and the vast majority of the username-blocked accounts have made no previous edits (and are never likely to). It's not necessary to protect such pages, and to get straight to the point you are wasting your time doing so anyway. Leave the pages you've protected so far protected, there's no need to unprotect now, but in future a block will be sufficient unless repeated vandalism on their userpage or talk page does actually occur. Cheers, — FireFox usertalk 11:56, 31 May '06
 * No problem :) — FireFox usertalk 13:24, 31 May '06

Rv Thanks
Thanks for reverting weird nonsense from my userpage. — Natha n (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Not sure what he was up to, but thanks guy. -- Basique 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. feydey 22:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for giving me the Halo Award for Vandalism and improvements. LILVOKA 01:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

Barnstar
Thanks very kindly for the unexpected but much appreciated barnstar! I now have three, but none has been earned for substantive encyclopedic contributions; I suppose I must either continue to hone my comedic skill, in order that I should become sufficiently notable as to merit an article (which article I can then write, for which I writing I might get a barnstar), or actually do some good work here. Obviously, I'll go with the former. In any event, I must come clean: I don't know that I'll be able to keep up my end of the bargain and act as your personal troll (feel free to give me a barnstar for honesty here). I will, though, wikistalk as necessary and, most importantly, occasionally term you a cunt on your talk page (as I understand it, this is the pejorative appellative a troll uses to criticize his/her trollee, irrespective of the trollee's gender). Finally, I see from Lilvoka's comment that you are awarding halos for vandalism. I certainly wouldn't be so arrogant as to tell you how you ought to conduct your Wikibusiness, but it is my sense that it's usually better to reward anti-vandalism, rather than vandalism. In all seriousness, keep up the good work: I so often find, at RfA or AfD, for example, that you've expressed an opinion essentially equivalent to mine. Seriously mentally ill people often share patterns of bizarre thinking Great minds think alike! Cordially, Joe 05:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD Corrupted Blood
Hey, would you mind checking out Articles_for_deletion/Corrupted_Blood and close it? I do not think there is any need for it to stay up anymore. Havok (T/C/c) 09:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Havok (T/C/c) 14:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

North Carolina Vandal outbreak!
Hi, as you may have seen a lot (more than 10) Jake Remington related new users have popped up recently. I would ban them but as an ordinary user I don't have the power, so would you please look into this? Thank you. The Halo 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I see from the block log that a lot of admins delt with them very quickly, which is good to see. This is where being an admin would come in handy ;) Once again, thanks. Th e  Halo (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Expensive redirect to Playstation 3.
Hi there. I was looking at the contributions of Bttfpromo, who I had recently warned for being uncivil, and I found out that he started a redirect from the search expensive, that leads to the Playstation 3 article. I'm pretty sure that this violates WP:POINT and WP:NPOV, probably amoung others, but I'm not sure how to get rid of it. If it was an article, I would go to AfD, but as it's a redirect, I'm not sure what to do. Thank you for any help you can give. Th e  Halo (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Th e  Halo (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Candid pic help
how do i prove the user released it completely. I really need help with the licencing of this picture and I know its the kind I can put on here, but I don't know what to put.

User talk:Annette fleming

Impersonation account
There appears to be an impersonation account on Wikinews of you. Could you please e-mail me via Wikipedia or leave a message on my talk page here, explaining if n:User:RadioKirk is or is not you? - Amgine 23:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've determined (via IRC) that it is an impersonation accont. The user who registered it now goes under the name n:user:myName. Happy editing. Bawolff 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can not. You would have to ask a developer to do that. Bawolff 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, ask for the password on n:user talk:MyName. That user should know it. Then you could change the password. Bawolff 03:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting Someone Else's Comments?
RadioKirk, getting no response at the policy village pump &mdash; quickie question. User A writes a comment on a talk page, and his comment contains a spelling error. User B edits User A's comment to correct the spelling error. Is this against Wikipedia custom, Wikipedia policy, or neither? Arose from Talk:Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations (at which I maxed out my reverts), but I'd like to know for the sake of knowing, anyway. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE (why?) &dArr;  02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. Any idea if this is unspoken Wikipedia custom, or if it's rooted in something written somewhere? &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE  (why?) &dArr;  03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A little creative Googling yielded the part that starts with "don't misrepresent..." on WP:TPG. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE (why?) &dArr;  04:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews username
Howdy,

Verifying that you're n:en:User:RadioKirk and n:en:User:RadioKirk2. Please reply on this talk page. --Chiacomo talk 05:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again!

Cool3 talk 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

The... vote
Hi RadioKirk, would you mind taking a look at the vote for the way we represent articles about consoles and handheld systems? Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 23:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

 * Thanks for your support
 * In my RfA, which passed!
 * Wise I'll try to be.

I appreicate all your positive commments in your support, they were lovely! Thanks again.

-- Nataly a 03:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You definitly just out-haikued my haiku - that was fantastic! :D -- Nataly a 04:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again!

I remember you said some time ago something along the line of you will have the tools some day, and then I though, nah, will take some time. I think it came faster than I expected. Thanks! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The return of the awarder
User:DomoArigatoMr.Awarder him again? Philc TECI 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well he is now hehe. Cheers anyway! Philc  TECI 21:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Peteg913
Could you please take a look at User:Peteg913 users talk page agin - he's is blanking all the warnings and has just threatened me for reverting the page. I am about to report him to AIV for continuous blanking - Gl e  n   TC (Stollery)  03:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate (it took me 5 attempts to write the above due to edit conflicts and in the interim I did report him to AIV - shall I remove that now?) Thanks again - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  03:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On what basis is he deserving of an unblock? He was warned 4 times about talk page blanking (3 times via his page and also via a conversation on my talk page) and then threatened " I will do one of your god damn archives when I have time" on my page. It seems to me on the basis of either the block is more than valid. - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on AmiDaniel's comment on my talk page it seems my position is off base. Please accept my apologies both of you. - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  03:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My Thanks
I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE (why?) &dArr;  04:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I don't expect it will be too much longer. Keep up the good work! Radio  Kirk   talk to me  04:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you as well, but for another reason. WVTF vandalized my page and you saw fit to ban him. As a fellow broadcaster, thank you for ridding Wikipedia of people like that and continue your good work. &mdash; capsgm2002 (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE (why?) &dArr;  07:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome&mdash;and, I'm guessing, either you or WCityMike liked the other's signature... ;) Radio  Kirk   talk to me  05:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I "invented" it, but I'm glad he likes it. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE (why?) &dArr;  06:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You might enjoy this userbox :)
-→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / !?  08:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Again
Hi Kirk,

I just wanted to thank you for defending me with Glen and those people. When I was blocked, I had already gone to sleep, so it didn't matter anyway.

Because I trust you and feel you are one of the only reasonable admins here, I have a question, actually two. One, why is it that an admin can remove data from his talk page, yet I can't, aren't admins supposed to follow the rules too? NSLE removed parts of our inital converstation last night.

Second, how is "I will create a god damn archive when I have time" a personal attack or threat? I don't quite get that?

Lastly, why was I blocked for 3 hours by the guy after Glen last night after I had gone to sleep? Something about ... I don't even know!

Thanks,

Pete peteg913 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much!


 * Pete peteg913 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo
Hey Kirk,

Are you sure we can't make an exception? I mean, I would really like to showcase my landings in my userpage, plus, this would have been the second thing I've been forced to delete from there (I had song lyrics before to the Last Resort by the Eagles.)

Thanks, peteg913 20:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand, but what can I put there, if no photos? Also, could we please delete my screenshot from Wikipedia, I'd rather it not be used publicly.

Thanks, peteg913 20:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes Please :)

peteg913 21:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Say, where in the Wikimedia Foundation do you think I can find a good picture of a bagel? peteg913 21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, Thanks for everything! -Pete

Vandalism Quandry
Thought I might flag this one for ya...User talk:64.12.116.131...is AOL, and thus a tad tricky. Out of curiousity, what are the rules in handling vandalism with AOL folk that are IP users? Kukini 04:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All I do is report to you for now. I will be a bit more help later, if I am granted the opportunity. I do appreciate the work you do though. I note that you are both consistent and persistent. Qualities, when pointed correctly, that I admire greatly. Kukini 04:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing user discussion pages
Is it normal politic on enwiki to remove user talk pages, that contains evidence of his actions and actions of other users? Why to remove it? Vit Zvanovec was recently blocked from enwiki and he is currently banned from cswiki. Talk page removal frees him to say everything he wants (motivation is on his article Wikipedia should die (in Czech)). --RuM 20:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:USER - As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally. - please explain what is exceptional in that case.
 * WP:OWN - he is not owner of contributions of other users. You removed his user talk page and not his user page. --RuM 20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not write on WP:AN. But it is valuable information for me, that it is useless to write anything valuable on user discussion page, because user can completely delete it without reason. I am surprised, that words "generally not deleted" can be avoided without explanation. Thanks for your time. --RuM 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy says "generally not deleted ... and exceptions to this can be ... made occasionally." and you said: "it's usually granted" (in the case of user leaving). Please give me a link to page where it is explained as the exception. Because "it's usually granted" mean that it is systematic and not occasional exception. --RuM 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You said: It is my experience, however, that when a user asks for it, unless there are circumstances under which it should be denied, the request is usually granted. But I don't think such experience is relevant after the policy change (Some people still tends to follow old version of policy). The policy WP:USER was changed 17.2.2006  to express different behaviour to user pages and to user talk pages. Did you notice the change? How it affects your experience? --RuM 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"We will drive you off Wikipedia"
What is it with WVTF anyway? What does his name stand for? Does he represent an organisation? ????? Al e thiophile 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? Al e thiophile 12:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, why is (s)he so biased against children? Al e thiophile 12:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me? Al e thiophile 17:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help me
Hello RadioKirk, I am wondering if you could help me with a dispute/verifiablity issue that we're having over on the United States men's national soccer team page. I've inputted some sourced information about the official rankings of the 1930 world cup showing that the United States finished in 3rd place. The source comes from FIFA (the world governing body for statistics, rules, etc. in soccer, basically the most reputable source you can find on this subject). However, if you look at the talk page, one or two users for some reason don't want this completely verified information posted. Admittedly the ranking was retroactive from the 1930 world cup, but that doesn't make it any less valid. If you could assist me in what I should do to get these users, who are displaying a great amount of bias in not printing verified material, to cease deleting it, that would be appreciated. Batman2005 14:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Chelsy Davy
Yesterday (Monday 05/06) you removed an image I had placed in the Whites in Zimbabwe article, claiming that it had a "false tag". I am pretty sure that the image is Fair use in the context of that particular article and have re-loaded it as Image:Chelsy2.JPG with an amended tag and Rationale for Fair use. Would you be kind enough to take a look at Image:Chelsy2.JPG and let me know whether or not you consider that it is fair use. Unless you object inside the next 72 hours, I will restore it to the article. Your help is appreciated. Bob BScar23625 14:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chelsy2.JPG

Radiokirk. Thankyou for your prompt reply. I will do as you request and then restore the image to the article during the next few hours. Bob BScar23625 15:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope that you will consider supporting me if I have another RfA. Thank you for your support. -- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My own editor review, if you're interested
I thought I'd let you know about this editor review I've decided to participate in. I had opportunity to voice my opinion during your 2nd RfA and I'd like to give you a chance to do the same. -- backburner001 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding your review. Also, thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page yet again.  Both are much appreciated. -- backburner001 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you permanently block User:212.219.248.236
He keeps on vandalising pages for months. Just check [here] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxs (talk • contribs)
 * OK I have contacted the schol from which the vandalism was coming and here is the answer
 * I will pass your email to our education department.
 * We could carry out some investigation and possibly trace the students that
 * have carried out these edits.


 * I will get back to you when I hear from the Education department.


 * --Jinxs 07:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Jinxs
 * So Maybe they will do something.
 * SI

My RFA
, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold talkcontribs 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey there
Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete closure
Possible wars between liberal democracies was put through Deletion Review, and was under AfD at Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2; did you mean to close this? (I will not argue with a delete close.) Septentrionalis 02:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to closure; the article has had almost six days. Septentrionalis 23:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been closed as a recreated speedy. This seems to match the consensus to delete as PoV in discussion, but I am too involved to trust my own judgment. Septentrionalis 20:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A message
Hi radio. It's DavidJJJ. I used to use the user names Punk Rocker and angelaire.

RE:Reversion
Heh, so soon? And it isn't like they're doing major editing (at least, I don't think). By any chance, could you forward me a copy of the email? You don't have to, I'd just like to see how the process goes. Cheers, Master of Puppets FREE BIRD!  18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, if that's ok with yourself. I'm too nosy, I know. >>_< Master of Puppets FREE BIRD!  19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, no rush. And thanks a ton for giving me an insight into the world of the admin. :) Master of Puppets FREE BIRD!  19:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please forward me a copy too? You don't have to if you don't want too, but I just want to see how a school administrator asks for one of his IP's to be unblocked. -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 00:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank You


Maquis Forces International Page
Hiya... I was browsing Trekdom for any new changes and noticed that the Wikipedia page for Maquis Forces International (MFI) was deleted on 6 June. Can I ask why that was done? Did the page violate any posted rules? I founded the club in '95, just recently found the Trekdom page and a few of my members put up this page. Would so very appreciate any kind of explanation that you can offer. I hope it didn't violate any polices, and if so, we'd be more than happy to oblige to follow any guidelines for the page's restoration. Thanks!

Hiya, Radiokirk... read your message..."this page was deleted as it suggested only vanity and did not assert the notability of its subject". I think I am following what you are saying, but need clarification. The page was a follow up to the Trekdom article on Maquis Forces Inernational and not one which would follow your definition of "vanity" from what I read. MFI was one of the first totally internet based fan clubs (it was pointed out that there was one prior to us by a year or two so we can edit that assertion). However, MFI is still around after 10 years (grin) where the one who predated us has gone away. So we do have a "claim to fame" of sorts. I'd like to put the page back in another form as it had our logo, links to the club, and some of our accomplishments which in the world of Trek fandom have been fairly notable. I noticed that Starfleet International's page wasn't deleted. Would I be correct in assuming if we mirrored that page and avoided any appearance of "vanity", we'd be safe this time? Thanks for responding so QUICKLY too! I had no idea I'd get a response so speedily!

Late Congrats on becoming an Admin
Hey, sorry I haven't been around much lately, real-world stuff, but congrats on becoming an Admin, see, I was right! :) Good luck man.--Azathar 06:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:
No problem, though I labelled the user as a blocked user as the user was blocked indefinitely but it was changed and reduced. --- Lid 16:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

More on MFI's page Deletion
Hi Kirk, Congratulations on your appointment!! Actually, I am the member who initially added the Maquis Forces International page. I am MFI's current "International Coordinator" (President) and Co-Creator of MFI. There seems to be some dispute about the term "first Internet based Fan Organization". What I actually wrote was that we were the first "completely" Internet based Trek Fan organization.

Although IFC may have been on the WWW prior to MFI, they were far from being considered "completely" Internet based. IFC was simply a meeting place for a council of Fan representatives and only used the web for holding online meetings and a bulletin board. MFI on the other hand, was the 1st to have online applications, online database and Member/Chapter Roster, online "Academy" courses for members, online virtual awards (ribbons & certificates), online-only Newsletter... (I could go on).

The point is... While all the other Fan Organizations were still floundering with paper work and using the WWW as merely an afterthought as a place for a simple "Splash" page advertising their clubs, MFI was... and still is Completely Internet based and paper free. As Gary Davis also mentioned, MFI is a Fee Free Trek Fan Organization and has been since we went online in the Summer of 1994 with 3 free web sites and on into becoming "International" in 1995.

Gary & I appreciate that Wikipedia wants only "Notable" pages listed on the site and that MOST of the Fan Organization pages listed on Trekdom have also been deleted (you in no way singled US out for deletion), but do these points I brought up NOT make MFI notable? I do believe these points make us more notable than Radio Starfleet (for example).

If we were to include more "facts" about being completely web based (which does make us different from ALL the other major players) (SFI Members have even been looking at our online Academy, so THEY may one day do the same) could you Roll Back our deleted page? At least Roll it back with your banner saying it is being considered for deletion, so we may make it compliant with your rules and regs. Give our site a look and tell us if our Organization doesn't deserve mention with it's own Wikipedia Page. Maquis Forces International

Your consideration on this matter is appreciated, Maquis53 17:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Rob Johnson, MFI

Thanks for your quick reply and restoring the MFI page to my User page. Please check the modifications made to our original and offer suggestions to my talk page.

The modifications MAY appear to be chest pounding and Vanity, but having been a member of multiple Trek Fan organizations since the 1980s, I can attest to the list of "Firsts" being factual and verifiable. After all... In 1994, the WWW was  still in its infancy and most of the MFI founders were Computer Geeks from the 80s.

Any input/in-site you may offer is greatly appreciated. Let me know, Maquis53 18:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Rob

Warnings you're handing out re sigs and disruption
Unless you're willing to apply a block yourself, you're pushing it uphill. If you are going to block yourself, leave note at ANI saying you're doing so like two second before and reminding everyone that the de neuvo interpretation of blocking policy is that attempts must be made to talk it out with the blocking admin before unblocking should occur. I hope you've had your wheaties. - brenneman  {L} 03:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't say "POINT" say "disruption." Point is about doing something that you don't actually want to have happen, that's not the case here.  Because you will want to have you ducks in a row, fer certun. -  brenneman  {L} 03:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Tony Sidaway
Please don't randomly block people because they are editing in a way you dislike. Jkelly 03:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, really, don't block for disruption if Wikipedia isn't being disrupted. If other admins are telling you that the block is misguided, don't block.  Jkelly 03:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is being disrupted. An admin is harassing good users over a triviality. Not politely requesting that they change their sigs. Not making a policy change proposal. Further, his actions do nothing to accomplish his stated goal... manually converting individual sigs does not change the root signature for future uses. It has only one effect... annoying the people he is doing it to. Deliberately generating confilct and 'raising the volume' on this issue. If Tony wants to change sig policy he should do it the right way... not by going out of his way to antagonize users until they quit the project. This is just ridiculous... we're chasing away good contributors or aggravating them to the point of hatred for Wikipedia over signatures? Why? What horrific damage do these signatures cause which outweighs the positive efforts of their users and justifies not following civility by asking them to change their signatures, not following the existing signature policy, and engaging in an ongoing massive WP:POINT violation? We're 'saving Wikipedia' from long signatures by ridding it of good contributors. That's more than worthy of a block. --CBDunkerson 11:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question: why post on AN/I if you're just going to ignore what everyone says?Timothy Usher 03:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dumber question: are you User:Brenneman's proxy? --JJay 03:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that was not a constructive comment. Come on, way too much sarcasm going on over this. Voice -of- All  03:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Its seems that Improv undid the block. Voice -of- All  04:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See messages above from Brenneman shortly before the block. --JJay 04:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much longer I can support him on RfC; at first it seemed like a "no brainer" (removing ridiculous sigs, some with pictures), but now its seems like only sigs with NO markup at all are allowed. On the other hand, as I said, if it helps him to see, I guess its OK, since it doesn't hurt me. Yet how long does it take to fish out truncate sigs? Is it not faster to just ignore them...maybe if he had anti-sig javascript (which I could make, but won't) I could understand. Voice -of- All  04:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that this is the place to discuss this...but yeah, I think NO markup would be a very good rule. Wikipedia's not censored, but it's also not about self-expression (course I would say that, given my orthodox sig.)Timothy Usher 04:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, and on the actual issue of sigs there is very little real controversy. It's all in how it is handled.  But I still like my "L" anyway. -  brenneman  {L} 05:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Short rant
One quick reiteration, if I may, speaking to anyone who gives a damn: I don't care who you are or who supports you&mdash;if your idea of implementing policy is to apply it to everyone else but you, then you violate the very spirit of Wikipedia. Don't like a policy? Work to find a consensus to make change. I, for one, do not subscribe to the notion that all personality should be removed from sigs, talk pages, etc.; clearly, Wikipedia is not MySpace, but neither is it nameless, faceless automatons emotionlessly pounding out indiscriminate collections of boring fact(oid)s. We're human&mdash;ideally, the perfect article is brilliant in prose and devoid of POV, while worthy of pointing and saying, "I did that!"&mdash;even after you've read WP:OWN. Food for thought... Radio Kirk   talk to me  05:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your sig
Thanks :-) Cheers and happy editing! Sasquatch t|c 06:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, and good faith
Hi RadioKirk. I've been following the signature dispute, and I noticed you said on AN/I that, "WP:AGF goes out the window in the face of such demonstrable contempt for fellow users." I just wanted to say why I think this is a dangerous statement to make.

I find the pages WP:AGF and WP:VAND to be two sides of a coin. It comes down to this - everyone who edits Wikipedia is trying to do one of two things - make it better, or make it worse. If they're trying to make it better, that's good faith. If they're trying to make it worse, that's vandalism. Since we can't actually see into editors' minds, we can't always tell whether someone is trying to make the encyclopedia worse or better. The page WP:AGF says we assume that they're trying to make it better, except in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, such as blanking of articles, page moves ON WHEELS!, insertion of random vulgarities, etc. The page WP:VAND says precisely the same thing, in particular: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

Tony is trying to improve the encyclopedia; I am certain of this. He wants this project to succeed, not to fail. He believes that he's doing the right thing, by altering others' signatures. ("Refactoring" and "Defacing" are both prejudicial language at this point.) If he's doing it in a disruptive way, because of his misconceptions about how to change habits of groups of people, that doesn't put my assumption of his good faith anywhere near the window. It makes me want to help him learn how to better accomplish the improvement he has in mind, which is well-motivated and, in the minds of many of us at least, correct.

Please consider this when working with Tony. I know it's hard to remember, when frustrated, that people who disagree so wildly about methods are actually working towards the same goal, but it still pains me to see someone is defenestrate a core policy right there on the noticboard. Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit puzzled by your reply. You seem to be using "WP:AGF" as an adjective: "this incident certainly began WP:AGF".  Are you saying that you were assuming good faith on Tony's part, at first?  This is why the page WP:WOTTA exists - we actually become incoherent if we aren't careful.


 * What really makes it confusing is that you go on to say I'll understand "why he threw it out the window". Isn't "he" you, in this case?  Did I misread your statement here?  It seemed to me your were saying that you stopped assuming good faith in Tony because he was so demonstrably contemptuous.  Is that not what you were saying?  I apologize if I'm being dense, or a "silly sausage", or anything like that... -GTBacchus(talk) 19:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying; I apologize for my denseness. I think we understand each other now: I'm pretty aware that Tony's been a dick to you, and you understand that I hold his good faith above question, however I might disagree with how he acts on it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

PlayStation 3
Hey, I was wondering if I could borrow your insight and skill to be objective with a matter on the PlayStation 3 talk page. It's about the image of the console, located at the very bottom of the page. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 21:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

peteg913 23:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Kirk,

I was just wondering how you modify your signing (the four tildes).

Thanks,

Pete peteg913 23:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, Kirk!

peteg913 00:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice
It came out pretty good:

 M r . B a g e l   leave me one  peteg913 00:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I count only 26  M r . B a g e l   leave me one  peteg913 00:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh!
Oh! Gotcha. How can I shorten it without killing the result?

 M r . B a g e l   leave me one  peteg913 00:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusion
Kirk,

I'm a little confused, lets recap:

1) I make the sig. 2) You say it has to be under 300 characters. 3) I ask you how to do this. 4) You say I can't, and even after I do, users will complain.

Well, first, can't I just group together more letters (not have each a different color)? Second, why will they complain? Third, isn't Stollery's over this number?

 M r . B a g e l   leave me one  peteg913 01:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, the longest my sig has ever been is 263 characters(including spaces):

Now reads only 83 (including spaces) : - Glen Stoll e ry 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have to kill it THAT much!
 Mr. Ba ge l   leave me one  peteg913 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

IGN
I think when you undeleted the article, the status of it being semi-protected was lost. It may need to be semi-protected again. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It was reprotected by KimvdLinde. Thanks anyway. Cowman109Talk 03:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

IGN
What you missed was that the deletion removed the semi-protection, and a IP immediatly started to add the same infor again. So, I had to remove that. I move the infected revisions away to a seperate subpage, which makes it easier to do it again in the future, without having to checke whether some stuff has been deleted in previous times. It is now properly semi protected and clean as far as I know. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The moving away method that I use actually saves you a lot of clicking, as you only have to select the bad ones once, and you can just restore the good ones in bulk after they have been moved away. :-)-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Glee"
I know nothing about the dispute, other than that it exists. Unfortunately for our rapport (as it were), I have no precise definition of "glee", but your "grin" fit my informal one. Ardric47 03:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
You have been listed as an involved party at a request for arbitration. Please see Requests_for_arbitration to make a statement. Thank you, Ch u ck(contrib) 05:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:DakotaWOTWNYP137.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DakotaWOTWNYP137.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research
Hi again. :P Would you mind checking Talk:Xbox 360, I just need a comment on what I did when I e-mailed Microsoft and asked them to e-mail me back with the answer. Is this considered original research and not allowed? I tried reading the policy, but I didn't get any answer from it. Sorry for bothering you all the time. Cheers. Havok (T/C/c) 12:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh
Yeah, I wanted to put it like 3 characters below the limit just to mess around with the community! ;-)

 Mr. Ba ge l   leave me one  peteg913 14:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL RadioKirk   talk to me  21:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User page
Hmm, well as someone pointed out to me, I seem to have reverted to the wrong version. Wanted you to know it wasn't intentional - sorry about that! The popup-loading was going slow and I clicked it too soon without looking. Moulder 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

?
Kirk,

I'm not sure what to make of that comment on my talk page. Perhaps you could help me decipher it?

Thanks,  Mr. Ba ge l   leave me one  peteg913 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, thank you for voting in my RFA which failed eventually at a result of (91/51/8). I do not plan to run for adminship until a later date. Once again, I would like to thank you for voting. --Terence Ong (talk 15:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Marytrott
Hi RadioKirk. I hope you are recovering well. I noticed that you had previously blocked User:Marytrott during a vandalism spree last month. Apparently, this user is back on the same track again, having only yesterday vandalized IronChris' userpage. I just wanted to make sure that this user is still on your radar, in case the vandalism continues. Thank you, rom a rin [talk ] 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was fast. Thanks! rom a rin [talk ] 16:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Although no consensus was reached in the end, I still wanted to thank you for your vote in my recent RfA. Thank you very much. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)