User talk:Royalguard11/Archive 4
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I am being stalked!
I have attracted the attention of a Wikipedia stalker, so I have decided that I am finished with this. Wikipedia needs a policy on stalking, which is where some person obsessively follows you around, trying to disrupt your activities.
I have e-mail enabled, which allows you to contact me through sending me an email.
I can't be active on Wikipedia when I am being followed by a stalker. My stalker has an amazing knowledge of wikipedia policies and procedures for someone who, according to edit logs, has been active for just over a month. He has been here before, with other identities, and he has other identities. He is likely an administrator, perhaps under some other identity.
I have asked for an administrator to lock and close my user page and hide my contributions log. I naively had such information as my real identity available on my user page. I don't want to be stalked.
I am asking Wikipedia to take these measures to protect my identity. I must warn that, while I hate the idea of this, Wikipedia could be sued by someone in the future who suffers from harassment by another member. It won't be me, because I don't file lawsuits, but I now realize that this community is susceptible to such tampering. So I am recommending that Wikipedia look carefully at its policies, and also at its own administrators.
Would a high level administrator please lock my user page and hide my contributions log.
Thank you! and goodbye. --Metzenberg 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Categories
I do believe that a category for roads in Essex County is needed, as there are dozens of other county road categories for other counties in Ontario. Why not Essex? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I contacted you becuase you were the admin to most recently delete the category Category:Essex County, Ontario roads. I feel it should be in place, as there are categories for roads in toronto, ottawa, york region, niagara, hamilton.... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Newfoundland
No sweat - well a little but who's counting. I know it is difficult to correct your own work - it needs to be seen by different eyes. I used to live in Newfoundland - had a couple of chats with Joey too. Cheers.Peter Rehse 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
st. john's university
user TiconderogaCCB
has made additions to the St John's University article which violates copyright infringement. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._John%27s_University_%28New_York_City%29&diff=next&oldid=108918952 based from http://www.redstormsports.com/about/traditions. as well as other places. he has removed necessary citation needed tags. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._John%27s_University_%28New_York_City%29&diff=118394222&oldid=118392988 . this article is borderline copy violation as a whole and may need to be restarted. any suggestions? 149.68.7.90 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi
You locked the Reza Shah article *after* it had been vandalized again. There is consensus among editors regarding the contents of the article and if you had read the discussion you would have known that the invalid edits were the work of one person and two sockpuppets.Mehrshad123 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Reza Shah article can now be Unlocked for Vandalism Correction
Please check the addition I made to the Reza Shah article's discussion page. The troll User:Artaxerex that was attacking the editors and vandalizing related articles has been confirmed as a "puppetmaster" who's sockpuppets regularly vandalized and instigated Personal Attacks against all editors. [[1]]
I believe the article can and should be safely unlocked now so that vandalism can be reverted by the editors. Mehrshad123 20:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Notification!
This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 16!
The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 16 is at [2]
The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here
In this edition
Lots of stuff, too much to list here.
As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!
Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in! Feel free to post to the mailing lists too.... apparently not many people know about us.... yet
For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 06:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.
Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan Roads nominated for deletion
User:Coredesat has nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan Roads, among other projects related to Canadian roads, for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Canada highway WikiProjects. Please leave comments, as I believe this is a serious matter. I have contacted you because you are one of my fellow members of the Saskatchewan Roads WikiProject, and because of your suggestions for the article List of Saskatchewan provincial highways. I know that you will understand. Thank you. Ultraflame 03:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
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 08:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Xavier College protection
Thanks for jumping on this so quickly. The vandalism is pretty much entirely driven by the current media attention, so I might need to request an extension if it doesn't fall out of the news cycle by the end of the week. I suspect that won't be necessary, though. --BenM 06:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
AIV
Hey, wanted to let you know I use AIV. It's handy. Do you have any recommendations for some other OS X wikipedia tools? Qmax 14:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 16 | 16 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ross Jordan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Paulley 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Saskatchewan WikiProject
Hello. A new WikiProject about Saskatchewan has been started as an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. If you would like to participate, you can Saskatchewan articles, add Saskatchewan content, or visit the project page, where you can join / edit the project and/or contribute to the discussion. WikiProject Saskatchewan
SriMesh|talk Julia 02:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Saskatchewan Award
 |
WikiProject Saskatchewan Barnstar | |
| WikiProject Saskatchewan barnstars are the official award for outstanding, extensive, high-quality, or generally valued contributions to WikiProject Saskatchewan Or they can be awarded by anyone, to anyone who has showed significant efforts to improve WikiProject Saskatchewan.
From your outstanding contributions, you have already done ever, ever so much for Saskatchewan on Wikipedia! SriMesh|talk Julia 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC) |
Kargath64's edits to WP:UBM
Hi Royalguard, how are ya doing? I hope well. Anyway, you might have noticed that I also left Kargath64 a message at his/her talkpage mentioning that I reverted the edits, but I somehow forgot to do the actual reverting (final-exam stress I guess). Just to clear up any confusion that my post might have caused. Best wishes. CharonX/talk 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Just leaving a note to explain my actions. I edited that page because I was trying to avoid some random coming across it and taking the notice up top as free reign to go moving all userboxes to userspace like what happened with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:UBX . I was also trying to get across the point that moving is not something you simply go and do - you need to think about exactly why it is necessary that the move take place, especially when you are dealing with templates. Thirdly, I was also trying to reinforce to the reader that GUS is indeed a proposal, rather than an official policy on Wikipedia as it is continually pushed and presumed to be by some. Kargath64 05:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, regarding the "Random user coming across issue" - User:UBX is an alternate account of User:Mets501 a respected admin, if a user would try to move userboxes from templatespace to userspace and botch up the job a rollback is always the option. Regarding the second part - it is partially true - migrating a box is not something you just go and do, you have to invest a couple of seconds of thought, i.e. is it necessary to move the box and where should it go - but after that it's a "just do it" because, honestly - as the other part of the summary said "no new policy is required to do this"; WP:OWN covers everything in wikipedia and if you are editing within the consensus you can "just go ahead and do it". Of course if one tries to distrupt wikipedia (to make a point) doing it, then he better expect to get a slap on the fingers or more. Regarding the third part "No new policy is needed to do this, and this is not a policy proposal" plainly states what WP:UBM is: it is a bottom-up method. In the days past, during the userbox troubles, any new "top down" policy proposal would instantly get mired down in heated debate of the various factions, resulting that no consensus would be found. WP:UBX was specifically designed that it could work without being, or needing an additional policy - if enough people found it to their liking, it would work. Turns out enough people did, and it became a accepted way of dealing with userbox-issues. And when people say "Userfy per WP:UBM" they basically say (at least I believe so) - Userfy it as WP:UBM suggests, because it is a sensible and accepted method. And I think this is the important thing - being a policy gives you some perks (like being better enforcable, a nice box at the of the page, etc.) but if nobody cares about what it says its only a piece of paper (or bits and bytes), while the other way round, if the majory agrees what to do in respect to something it does little matter if they follow a policy or just a method that works. CharonX/talk 12:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that CharonX has covered everything there. I just want to add that User:UBX did a lot of inter-userspace moving too. A couple editors requested that UBX take over their userbox archives. But it's not a policy or a proposal (although it's almost become de facto within wikipedia society). Luckily for most people they've never seen the userbox wars that started UBM and others. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
References to Risk in pop culture
Hey, it looks like you gave the go-ahead for the deletion of the article References to the board game Risk in popular culture. I was just wondering if you could undelete it. The information on that page was needed for the Risk (game) article, on which there was (and still is) the link to the now deleted article. If I had been on Wikipedia at the time I would have contested its deletion. Thanks b_cubed 20:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 17 | 23 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 18 | 30 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You semi-protected this page "per request" (your wording) in January. From the protection policy:
- Indefinite semi-protection may be used for: ... User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user.
This looks pretty indefinite to me. There seem to have been all of two instances of vandalism from anonymous users in the day before the page was protected; well below the sort of level that usually warrants even temporary semi-protection, and certainly much less than some of us have to put up with. Is there a good reason for this semi-protection? – Gurch 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I had totally forgotten about that protection until you brought it up. I only use expired protection now when protecting pages, but that one was before that was activated. After declining the protection of the talk page (see [3]), I received another message from the person on my talk page (now archived at User_talk:Royalguard11/Archive_3#User_talk:Master_son_-_Request_for_Protection). At the time it had to do with persistent and mass stalking by an old banned user (due to Highways from what I understand) against many other users. I felt that the best thing to do at the time was protect our editors from attacks (which I still hold as a pillar). So I protected. It can probably be unprotected now (I've recently said that I'm not going to protect anymore userpages on plain requests so others would probably think that I'm just being an idiot and unprotecting them because I spoke against that, so I haven't even looked at Special:PP under userpages at all). Feel free to unprotect now though (I think 4 months is probably enough). Thanks for bringing it to my attention! -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your explanation. I can't unprotect pages myself, and I don't want to waste time trying to request unprotection if there's a good reason behind it, I just wanted to make sure there was one. Your explanation seems fine, it can probably be left up to the user themselves unless anyone decides otherwise. Thanks – Gurch 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: CWB Thanks. If I had my first year ag. economics textbook lying around I would scan it in for you. I farmed for several years in Manitoba so have personal knowledge of how the permit system works. Any ag. eco. text will tell how the permit system inflates land prices in Southern Sask. and deflates them in Man. and Alb. In the meanwhile I will try to hunt down a paper to prove it, but farmland prices are linked to the law regulating the use of the land. I didn't think my post was out of context with the "facts" above it. pants7
Wikipedia Weekly Notification!
Hello. This is just a friendly notice that Wikipedia Weekly episode 19 has been released!
- In this episode:
- New Mission and Vision statements for the WMF
- The Chaser springs Jimmy Wales
- new uses for categories
- vandalism studies
- Unreferenced BLPs.
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/05/05/wikipedia-weekly-19/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 20:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.
The block message you left
You left a block message on User talk:70.188.11.77 that says the period of the block will be "31" and it doesn't specify units. Is that hours? i kan reed 07:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
{{User contrib}}
Thank you for your help with {{User contrib}} I appreciate your help as I am not very experience with such things. Adam McCormick 18:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 19 | 7 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser case completed
Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr talk, checkuser clerk, 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
EVIL!!!!
I cant write an attack article on her, she thinks wikipedia is evil, she deserves to have an attack on her face. She pretty much thinks that the entire internet is evil because shes a librarian. She probably thinks we should all make out with books Xxgeneralraamxx 16:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Burntsauce and Myleslong
Burntsauce is an editor who will reduce a bio down to a stub, cite BLP at the reason, then when one or two reverts of his blanking happen will call in an admin (Alkivar and Myleslong, more Myleslong of late) who will then lock the page (as a stub, although WP:PW understand that this is not endorsement of that version Burntsauce never locks the page as a full un-sourced article). The three most recent examples of this are Stacy Carter, Bob Backlund and Adrian Adonis. Burntsauce never notes his actions on the talk page, instead only communicating through edit summaries, he never talks to the project page and most annoyingly he never allows comments to be kept on his own talk page, simply deleting any criticism and leaving only quotes by Jimmy Wales.
At WP:PW we understand that bios need to meet BLP, however Adrian Adonis is dead, and the main part of BLP he is relying on is about contentious or libelous material, however he is removed all bar the name and date of birth. In a desperate attempt to help get some referencing done (although BS's problem is a lack of inline references as most wrestling pages will always list as least one wrestling site reference) I have be repasting the article on to the talk pages, then Burntsauce began blanking my talk page postings (although after pointing out the talk page guidelines he has refrained from that, although is now posting warnings about not posting full articles on talk pages).
The main problem is that we are trying at the project to reference and source pages, and have even instigated a weekly collaboration page, but Burntsauce is deleting from 200 pages a day and we just can't keep up. And any attempts to report his behaviour just lead to admins agreeing that we should thank our lucky stars that an editor as dedicated as Burntsauce is helping!
I saw you post about the 6 edit "war" on the Adrian Adonis page and thought that you may be able to help us, if not I understand, time is precious and we are all volunteers, but this constant uphill struggle is putting a strain on what the project can do because half the active editors (Neldav, Nenog, TJ Spyke, Nikki 311, Lid, Classic Kris, Suriel 1981, MPJ-DK, Scorpion 0422, Govvy, RobJ1981) are spending most of their time running after Burntsauce rather than being able to review start class article and work their way through the project to do list.
Thanks for your time. Darrenhusted 10:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey, Thanks for the welcome. I just started editing and hope I'll continue :P. Thanks for the links also, very grateful from you. Aruse 04:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: power rangers
While i approve the semi protection on the article, don't you think the article should be semi-protected permanently. I mean, as soon as it goes off vandalism would appear again. --Dynamo_ace 09:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Royalguard11. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Ca-sk-sa.gif) was found at the following location: User:Royalguard11. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 20 | 14 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Quick question
Hello, I requested two articles for page protection and they were denied. I saw you're the one who did that. It was my first time ever asking for page protection. So, I'm not sure how this works. I saw that for everyone else they got an explanation of why the articles were protected and deleted. But, you didn't do that for me. So, why did you deny the request? I'm having the hardest time with this website. It seems like half of the wikipedia administrators are very helpful and are giving me great tips to make articles better and everything. The other half keeps deleting articles without any explanation. When I ask why they don't even hav a clear explanation and end up overturning their original judgement. It seems like those group of wiki administrators seem to be more into deleting articles that they personally don't like vs. an unbiased look at an article. I've seen terrible articles written. Full of spelling errors, no references, no nothing. Yet, mine were in accordance to wiki guidelines, I get wiki administrators "OKaying" it and yet I'm constantly having to fight just to keep an article up. That's why I want it semi-protected. Just please help me out here. I don't know why I keep going through this. JoeyC5 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thanks for the quick reply. That was a well put explanation. I've been so confused with wikipedia administrators. I read the rules of editing articles and it actually seems like a lot of people are taking advantage of being administrators. By the way, is there any way you can check out one of the articles, "CJ Johnson". The administrator who tagged it removed the nom but hasn't removed the tag. I'm afraid someone's going to come along and just go ahead and delete it without reviewing it. Again, thank you for that explanation. It makes perfect sense. JoeyC5 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so after 5 days it will remove itself or after 5 days it will be deleted?JoeyC5 18:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, lol, it's starting to make a bit more sense. JoeyC5 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection for CBE
Thanks for the indefinite semi-protection. The user(s) that changed it often went on to vandalise other articles, so we're losing a warning mechanism, but I was tiring of reverting that one! - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 21 | 21 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, about your page!
I stumbled on your lovely userpage a little while ago and gave you a little gift in the subpage. (Did you notice it?) Today coming back, I took the liberty of removing your comment of modesty. Just say it here so that you won't get angry with me when you find out :) Have a good day! 08:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 22 | 28 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
re: trusting admins
I didn't think the Protection Policy discussion page was a good place to respond to your comment, but no, I'm not an admin hater - I appreciate all you folks do! I was mostly thinking that to someone who is in a dispute that is particularly "admin v. non-admin", telling someone to simply trust the admins is difficult to swallow. You guys take a lot of flak for non-legit reasons (I've read a lot of admin's talk pages), but it can be helpful to remember that to people who are heavily involved in WP but have never been administrators, the admin position seems like one of fortunate privilege a lot more than it seems like one of grinding, unpleasant work. I think the RfA process bolsters this feeling in non-admins a bit, too, but that's for another discussion and is irrelevant here.
I actually think that the proposal to define protection policy would cut down on the workload you all get (at least from people like me!) because we would be able to figure out what's a waste of time on your part before we bring things to be requested for protection - less requests = less work, no?
Anyway, keep up the good work and thanks for taking the crap - I know I would decline an RfA nom, but I'm glad some people don't. CredoFromStart talk 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Protecting Falun Gong
Hello, I saw that you removed the sprotected tag and replaced it with pp-protected. User:Samuel Luo, a known sockpuppeteer and anti-FLG activist who has been recently banned by the ArbCom, is trying to intentionally vandalize the editing process, and I believe that pp-protecting the pages actually means acknowledging his trollery. As a general rule, administrators have been blocking his sockpuppets whenever they come up - they're pretty easily recognized, as they always revert to the same version or try to add Samuel's personal website to the external links. I think we shouldn't prevent legitimate editors from doing their work, as the articles are constantly being improved. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Check Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo out. There are 8 socks I or Olaf have identified, and which need to be blocked (not causing any harm by now, but still, a banned user is abusing socks. Their contribution are literally identical, so can you please block them (I can move the names to the confirmed section for you to make your life easier). Thanks! Evilclown93 00:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Royalguard. I have downgraded the page to sportected. Full protection isn't feasible because it would let one banned user shut down the whole article permanently because he is always going to be there. I am going to ask other arb people to watchlist the articles so that any of his edits are quickly reverted and blocked. It's quite obvious if some guy creates an account, lets it hatch for five days and then lets it edit after five days, that the guy premeditated something. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 01:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of hop_(drug). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. thanks for your prior email. Repliedthemockturtle 01:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Facebook
Oops, I think I might have made a mistake with that one :( I'll read through and see if I messed up anything else. Sorry for that --h2g2bob (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: your protection of Romualdo Pacheco, please note that I have attempted to discuss the succession boxes with Emerson7 (talk · contribs) but s/he simply changes the page back and then stops responding. This has happened both at Talk:Romualdo Pacheco and User talk:Emerson7#Deprecated succession box?. Emerson7 has also been blocked just one month ago for exactly the same behavior: "persistent disruption & refusal to repond to requests and warnings". Instead Emerson7 has inappropriately categorized my edits as "vandalism" even though they do not nearly meet the criteria per WP:VANDAL. Please advise on how you would prefer I proceed. WP:ANI? WP:DR already? Thanks. WRK (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, per my comment to Emerson7, s/he is claiming that governor succession boxes are "deprecated" as though it were decided on a global scale. Having investigated a bit more, it turns out only governors had their succession boxes removed, only from California, and only about ⅓ of them were done, and - not too surprising - they were all removed by Emerson7. No one else seems to be in on his/her plan and even s/he is not interested enough to finish them all. I've reverted the few Emerson7 changed so they're like every other governor article in Wikipedia. The only one left now is the one you protected. Let me know when you unprotect it so it can be brought in line with the rest. Thanks. WRK (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 23 | 4 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A Notice
Hello Royalguard11/Archive 4 I recently found out you gave an anon a level 4 warning and he only vandalise 1 page could you please explain to me why?Thank you for your time--Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 18:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't beleive there is a User partroll.But I think warnings only last 24 hours please correct if I'm wrong.Thank you--Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, im the creator of "wheeler ball" page. How would i need o change it to make it so that it is bennificial to wikipedia? What exctly do i need to change or add?
please reply
Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 24 | 11 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 03:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Saskatchewan Wiki Meetup Notice
This is just a notice to inform you of the Wiki Meetup happening in Craik.
Wikipedia:Meetup/Saskatchewan1/Craik
Mr. C.C. 06:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Autoconfirmed level
You made a post on the mailing list back in January about adding edit count for people to become autoconfirmed. Someone on WT:PROTECT just brought up something like this, so I was wondering if anything ever happened with this (I don't think anything did, but maybe I just missed that). Thanks Mets. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, nothing has happened with this. Perhaps you should bring it up at the Village pump, as (if I remember correctly) it received good support on the mailing list. —METS501 (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Review Requested
Could you please help to create the first newsletter for WP SASK ? ... a pilot perhaps could start similar to....WP SASK Newsletter Do you have any other ideas ... it seems like other WP projects have tried to use newsletters, would it be helpful for WP SASK to also have one?.... SriMesh | talk 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do you wish to receive a newsletter like this?
WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 1, Issue 1 - June 2007
-2007-05-15T19:46:00.000Z-Image:Ca-sk-sa.gif){kind=link}
Archives | Tip Line | Editors | Subscribers |
|
|
|
Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 25 | 18 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 09:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
User Boxes...
Dude, your user boxes rock! I put like, half of 'em in n=my page... User: Sophiakorichi
what do you have against motorcycle racing?
why did you remove the apexzone article? are you a cripple and cant ride a bike?
apexzone is an organization of bikers who use underbone motorcycles. of course the site is not finished yet because the other racers have not yet submitted their profile. the apex racing team has won many races in philippines
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 20
Good news, everyone: Wikipedia Weekly Episode 20 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/06/19/wikipedia-weekly-20-return-of-the-podcast/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project!
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 26 | 25 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:AntiDIME
Actually, no he doesn't.
What may I not have on my user page?
- A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities
- Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia
- Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia
- Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.
- Other non-encyclopedic material
- Polemical statements
That statement's polemical. Therefore, it's forbidden on userpages. Will (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's disruption to make a point. Will (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My talk page
Please unprotect it. I don't see any further need to have it protected, thanks master sonT - C 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
EndUN Userbox
Hi, you recently participated in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN discussion. I have reluctantly submitted the closing statement by User:Tony Sidaway for deletion review. Please consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_1#User:DieWeisseRose.2FUserboxes.2FEndUN. Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 03:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 27 | 2 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 08:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Live Earth
It doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of ticket sales and providing contact information to Al Gore's (and others) political center, how good his cause may be. I think you should help bringing the article back on track. --Camptown 18:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Request for additional user-boxes/categories
Considering you have quite a collection of LOTR and Harry Potter userboxes already, would it be possible to have one for something similar to the following:
- Wikipedians who prefer the Harry Potter books to the films.
- Wikipedians who like the Harry Potter books, but not the films.
Lee Carré 00:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- In reference to your comment on my talk page, thanks for adding them and for informing me that just because you're "hosting" them, doesn't mean you're responsible. — Lee Carré 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
University of Saskatchewan Celebrate the Anniversary
- Please go to Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and vote for this University of Saskatchewan article!!! Tell any and all other Saskatchewan editors / students you know who wiki to vote also please!!! Help requested. SriMesh | talk 05:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 28 | 9 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 08:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
My RfB
 |
Thank you, Royalguard11, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). |
At All Possible?
Hi there! I was wondering if there was any way to keep the information removed in St. Joseph's College, Edmonton. Could anything be added or massaged in order to make it conform to NPOV and WP:V? The material was harsh, but having lived there and knowing the Director personally, I can safely say that the information was too much in his favour. It is important to me, as an alumnus of the College Residence, to ensure that future residents are wholly made aware of the facts of living there; the current Director's utter lack of decency regarding personal respect and religious tolerance should be made known. We (the residents) have sent letters to the board of governors and the President of the College asking for the Director's immediate dismissal. There was even a petition to censure the Director, the petition contained the names of 70% of the House. Unfortunately, the contract he signed was for two years and he cannot be released until that term is up. Therefore, I would ask again, is there any way to keep the information, in some form or another, in the article so that potential residents have a clear picture of the current situation? Matthew Cadrin 05:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter July 2007
Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan/Newsletter/July 2007 one more revision underway, and then delivery will commence....SriMesh | talk 02:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 1, Issue 2 - July 2007
Archives | Tip Line | Editors | Subscribers |
|
|
| ||||
Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 29 | 16 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 30 | 23 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)