User talk:RyanGerbil10/Archive 5

Please imagine a different catchy song:


 * Believe it or not, this page is archived,
 * Please leave a meesage at this page
 * Scream all you want, but I'll never hear,
 * 'cause I'm not here-
 * Believe it or not, it's archived!

Signpost updated for August 7th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bint Jbeil
Ah, the thing was, the name of the article had come under debate (it shouldn't, however, be moved) so I protected the movability of the page when I unlocked the ability to edit. However, I think things are calm enough now to unprotect it fully. Thanks for informing me of this, RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I was just trying to ascertain whether you had move protected it by accident or just forgotten to place the moveprotected tag. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GHe's RfA


Wikibreak
Hey there, RyanGerbil, I hope you have a nice and relaxing Wikibreak, and that your time away from Wikipedia can help you to realize that your contributions are most appreciated here! -- Nataly a 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Virgin Mary
Apologies for the re-revert. All sorted now. E   Asterion  u talking to me? 07:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey Ryan, just a quick note to let you know I withdrew my RfA at 13/11/10. Thanks for the support and the positive comment about my contribs :) --jam  es (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Unverifiable-external-links
The TfD has been there for an extra week, and there is no significant change in anyone's positions. Time to close with 'no consensus' again? --Barberio 12:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

August Esperanza Newsletter
Added 17:12 UTC 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection of User:JohnnyCanuck
You protected my user page with the vandalism still up, could you now change it back to my last edit and unblock me User:JohnnyCanuck--69.156.150.130 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um... no. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 06:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What a beautiful town!
I love the picture of Crystal Lake you have on your user page. It is about as close to my "dream suburbia" as I've seen not in a movie. I live on the water in Ft. Lauderdale (big deal) and if it wasn't for family/girlfriend, I'd move to someplace like Crystal Lake in a heartbeat! :-) Lawyer2b 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

After TfD for Template:Infobox British Royalty
Following the positive outcome of the TfD discussion, can I assume that the WikiProject British Royalty can discuss and implement the template? -- D  B  D  10:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving
Good luck with your moving - I hope all goes well! We'll be glad to see you anytime you manage to get on, and then when you're all finished. Have fun! -- Nataly a 13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope all went well! Good to have you back. -- Nataly a  18:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD
Hi Ryan. Yeah, I do get many appeals to control disputes these days, but promotional would be it. More on my usertalk.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While does cover these images, the summary needs to give the source of the images. Template:Libdempic made it clear the image was from the Liberal Democrats (UK). If you are replacing the template with the generic promotional image one, surely you need to also add a note that the image is from the Lib Dems? Please do this on all the images you've removed Template:Libdempic, otherwise if they are deleted it's a little unfair on those people who have uploaded images and taken time to tag them with what they thought was the most appropriate tag.  J Rawle  (Talk) 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From the (now empty) Category:Images from the Liberal Democrats (UK), this is what the acknowledgement should be:


 * Image courtesy Liberal Democrats. Used with permission.


 *  J Rawle  (Talk) 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Olimar
Listen, I know it probably gives you a sense of importance, but please don't clutter up my page with inane warnings. For one thing, it looks like you were completely wrong about the Olimar issue anyway, and another it just wastes my time. Please don't do it again I do not need your help, nor does anyone. 199.126.137.209 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened on WP:RFPP
I semi-protected What happened on the Moon rather issue a full protection, because the level and severity of vandalism has dropped off in recent hours. If the situation intensifies, let me know and I will immediately upgrade to full protection. Happy to have been of service, RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! — Mets 501 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ernest Walton
Why did you remove the Nobel Prize template? Duf 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

GaWc template
Hi, I am afraid I don't agree about the deletion of GaWc templates; however, of course, if a discussion and a vote about such an item has already occured, I would respect it. Please be so kind to let me know. Many thanks. --Lombard06 09:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

GaWc template 2 + thanks
Hi RyanGerbil10, many thanks for welcoming me! Moreover, thanks for informing me about GaWc templates. I regret this fact, but -of course- I respect this decision. Of course I like this place! Cheers, --Lombard06 08:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Admins
There are a few others, I believe. He's not exactly a friend of mine, but User:Piotrus is another Pittsburgh admin that I know. Take care, and good luck with your studies. --Improv 19:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is about a 1000 of us, mostly young, mostly in us, so it is not that unlikely. Perhaps we meet sometime over a drink and talk wiki :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

TRS-80 vandalism
Thanks either way. I am watching this page but only temporarily. Joseph N Hall 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFP
Hi, there. Just so you know, it's not necessary to move requests for protection from the requests section to the fulfilled/denied area, as Voice of All's bot does that. It's also helpful for people requesting protection to see an example of what a request looks like so they can follow the proper format, which is why Voice of All's bot purposely leaves one request behind by default, from my understanding. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 16:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bint Jbeil
I'm surprised that you find my edits to be based on vague reasoning. I have explained them in detail, both on the article's talk page as well as in the edit summaries. To repeat this reasoning: A stement was made that "As of ceasefire take place on August 12 the town was still reported to be in Hezbollah hands " - both in the article's intro as well as in the info box. This was sourced to an MSNBC article which says exactly the opposite, namely "There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters", on 8/14. The fact that multiple anonymous editors (many of whom I suspect to be one and the same, based on the similarity in their IP addresses) have either blindly reverted my edits w/o giving any reason, or more recently, simply lied about the article's content with edit summaries such as "nothing mentioned about 'no sign of hezbola'" should not cause an experienced editor such as yourself to ignore the fact that the sourced article simply does not support the statment made. Isarig 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning

 * With all due respect, you are way out of line. You expressed a "concern" over my edits. I explained my edits to you on your talk page. You ignored this, and without responding on my talk page, your talk page or the article's talk page, you blindly reverted my change with a dishonest edit summary. This is a wiki, and you cannot "tell me to stop editing" when I am not in violation of any WP rules. If you have a "concern" - let's hear it on the Talk page, which for some straneg reason you have elected not to do. Of all teh editors invloved in this edit war, I am th eonly one who has explained his edits on the Talk page. If anything, you are abusing your administrator priveleges to bully editors whose opinions you do not like. Keep it up and I will open an WP:ANI over your behaviour. Consider this your final warning. Isarig 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP policies and abuse of admin tools
You have violated a very clear policy of WP which states "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." Please unprotect Battle of Bint Jbeil immediately. I am also reporting this abuse of administrator's toosl. You are out of line. Isarig


 * Isarig is correct that you should not protect an article when you've been involved in the revert war that caused a need for page protection. List it at WP:RFP instead. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)