User talk:Redvers/Archive11

This is an archive. If you post here, nobody - nobody at all - will see it (although the vandalhunters will spot you and block you, but that's your choice). So don't post here. You know it makes sense. ➨ ЯEDVERS

Images on ServersCheck article

Redvers please read the copyright notice posted by Centrx, another editor. Screenshots and pictures are made available under GFDL. He did post a note about it to the page. I don't understand what is going on. The tags are there but for some reason: editor one is happy with GFDL and you are not... Who is right? Golfieke 14:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Replied on talk page. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award

Congratulations, Redvers, you have been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Contest! The judges have received the fifteen entries, and are ready to start judging. The judges will take a week to complete the judging process, and they will contact all the participants when the judging is done.

Please drop by the contest page for contest updates and questions. Take care, and good luck!

Daniel.Bryant 07:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just to let you know, Redvers, I reverted an edit by 203.28.159.167 on your talk page. It was vandalism. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 07:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 39	25 September 2006	About the Signpost

Erik Möller declared winner in Board of Trustees election	Wikimania 2007 to be held in Taipei
Arbitration clerk Tony Sidaway resigns	Report from the Dutch Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 08:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. I'm honored. =) -- Gogo Dodo 03:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pudding Pop

Hey dude, could you help me edit the Pudding Pop article? I like your style and think that the pudding pop article could use your helps. Thx :) Kitler005 02:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I need your help

I am sorry to disturb you, i am experiencing some trouble from user:lids and user:longhair.

you being an admin, i thought you may be able to help me out.

thanks.

--Maxasus 17:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

....long overdue...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Redvers is awarded this barnstar for his devoting to helping clearing the deletion backlogs (as well as responding to the disgruntled authors) which are ignored by so many administrators. Your commitment to staying true to your words and honouring your "election promises" is very much appreciated in this political age. Thankyou, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Redvers...

		The Barnstar of Barnstar Generation
		I award Redvers this barnstar for providing a page that vandals like to vandalize, ensuring a constant flow of anti-vandalism barnstars to me for reverting it. Keep up the good work! Syrthiss 12:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Customization

Hi there, I'm sorry about disturbing you like this, but can you give a small guideline on how to customize one's username on WP. It looks cool and provides a distinct identity. Please reply on my talk page. Suduser85 08:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For dealing with complete twits with impartiality and politeness. Mangojuicetalk 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

(See User talk:Bosssauce. *rolls eyes*) Mangojuice^talk 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You Redvers for welcoming me. Wikipedia looks like it has a wealth of information. I hope I enjoy my time here. Fighting for Justice 03:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

War of the vanity

I'll entitle this the 'war of the vanity'. We have Christina and Alexis Stodghill. Christina appears potentially self-represented and Alexis by someone else. Several months back, both articles were deleted pretty much for being non-notable and vanity articles. 1(plus redux) 2 The show alexis was in was deleted too. I think both are child actors trying to be famous. (Wikipedia's not for promotion of course) Now that we've got the background info out of the way, the factions of the two are still at it. Latest bit is at List_of_female_television_actors, for which you are named! Now then, if you're curious, its because you blocked User:WorkingHard a good while back and the IP looks like WorkingHard not logged in. I reverted that talk page removal, but since you may be unhappy about my reinsertion of the discussion according to 65.184.18.231, please examine my revert and maybe deal with the mud slinging thats going on around this. Fame live4ever, christina's side, recreated the alexis stodghill page with {{protectedpage}} even though that does nothing without an admin protecting it. Though I think I've delt with that one with a G4 speedy on the article. Pia L may be at a(n) NPOV, but I can't tell at this point. There's other parts to this I'm looking into for a possible RfC, but they're unneccessary for this commentary. Kevin_b_er 08:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh right

I was wondering what he was trying to say, I agree with you both fully. Fancy correcting vandalism, i'm still trying to work out how to use Vandalproof. I can't have been thinking straight at the time. Never again!-- JiMoThY^TALK 12:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, I was attempting to be comical but have failed yet again.-- JiMoThY^TALK 12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter deletion discussion closing

The user who originally posted this message deleted the discussion from his talk page, making a reply awkward. Which was a shame, as I took an hour out of work today to write a pleasant and "lets-work-together"-type response for him. I assume the matter is now closed, and thus remove this post accordingly as I can't see what else to do. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT!!!? "The user who originally posted this message" moved it from his talk page into this section so that the discussion would be simpler to follow. There has been nothing but let's-work-together on my part. I could have gone to another admin. I could have gone to WP:DRV. I deceided to take it to you. I expected that you actions were a mistake and approached you accordingly.

As you say you were committed to working together on this, I've restored the discussion below. I'm willing to discuss this! --Swift 01:10, 4 October 2006

OK, you haven't been exceptionally active since this comment (27 edits in nearly six days). Still any chance you could at least let me know if you intend to honour this at all? If not, I'll take the matter elsewhere. --Swift 20:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

---

You closed the AfD discussion in breach of consensus. You should rather have voted with a comment giving others a chance to respond. As to your edit summary:

• result was Harry Potter (plot) was vandalised; No. The premise for the only redirect vote was critisized (by me) without reply, the other two were delete. No mention of vandalization.
• original article ok. Original article not Wikipedia material and was transwikied to Wikibooks.
• please check diffs in future.. Ditto. You reverted the article to it's August 3rd date. Perhaps you should have looked a bit further back.

As for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary, The AfD tag put on that page revealed an earlier AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary which ended with delete on July 28th, 2005.

Please don't use your admin tools in violition of consensus. --Swift 01:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment below moved from User talk:Swift

1. No admin tools were used, therefore no abuse of them was possible.
2. The discussion had no consensus to violate.
3. The discussion had been relisted because of not gaining consensus, so it was already past closing.
4. No accurate consensus was possible anyway because people were being asked to judge an article that had been vandalised.
5. Closure of the discussion was within the discretion of any editor since no admin tools were required to carry it out.
6. Once speedy closed as an inaccurate nomination, I then, as any editor could, edited the article and, leaving the history intact, redirected both to more promising places. This allowed for such action to be undone by any editor, rather than just by an admin or by starting again at WP:DRV.
7. AfD is not a vote. Therefore I had no vote to cast.

Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary is protected. Only admins can edit protected pages. You edited the page. Ergo, you used you admin tools.
2. Yes it did.
   1. Harry Potter (plot) only had one redirect vote. The premise of that vote had been contested and the caster hadn't bothered to reply. Had there been any doubt, the voter should have been contacted and asked to elaborate, rather than his oppinion to be taken as consensus in spite of two delete votes.
   2. All votes for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary were delete. As mentioned before, there had actually been a previous AfD. The outcome was delete. See the boilerplate message at the top of Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary or the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary
3. There is no evidence of a previous AfD in the history of Harry Potter (plot) and the previous AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary concluded with a consensus to delete.
4. As mentioned in my opening comment of this section, people were being asked to judge an article that had been moved to Wikibooks. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter (plot).
5. See #1. Your closing needed the edit of a protected page. The correct closing would have required admin tools.
6. Nomination not incorrect. Admin tools required to edit one of the two. Admin tools required to delete both. I was hoping this wouldn't require WP:DRV as it really seems you simply made a mistake. If you consider your oppion correct and fail to convince me of that, I'll take it there.
7. Do you mean that AfD runs on consensus and not majority? True, but consensus may be measured by a poll and reached by discussion on these votes. Perhaps this is a matter of semantics? Feel free to understand "vote" in this discussion roughly as "oppinion".

Thanks for yoru reply. I would, however, like to express a concern that I have. Despite laying out my case fairly well at the top of this section, providing comments on your discussion closure summary (much of which repeated comments already made on the AfD page) and links to relevant pages, I needed to repeat much of this again in this reply to the above seven points. I have this nagging feeling that, just as it seems you didn't really give much attention to the AfD, you haven't really read my comments. I hope that you read my comments thoroughly and ask me to elaborate where needed. Thanks, --Swift 03:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

Paul Marchment block

As the Gregory Lauder-Frost article has now been deleted will the block on this user now be lifted? After all, the reasons for the block int he first place are highly questionable and almost certainly unproveable. 81.131.38.75 07:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been blocked indefinately

User longhair has blocked me indefinatly because my account was a "sockpuppet" of Joshuarooney, it is, but it is a new start, as you have seen, please can you unblock me so i can continue editing wikipedia in a sensible way.

Thanks.

Maxasus.

Hi Redvers. Let me know when you're about at my talk page. I've had some time to think about your email. -- Longhair\^talk 05:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 40	2 October 2006	About the Signpost

New speedy deletion criteria added	News and notes
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:T-Mobile roaming welcome message - Redvers.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:T-Mobile roaming welcome message - Redvers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

Proposed James Dicks deletion

May I ask that you inform user 66.193.232.253 on the proper way to propose a deletion and the issues and policies involved in the article James Dicks? I think I've properly explained it to him on the talk page, but I'd like to be fair. The main issue to me is that he has wanted to use the article as puffery and self-advertisement, and wanted to delete anything - however well documented-- that is critical. Thanks for any help possible. Smallbones 11:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The message looks pretty clear (if a bit long). BTW, it's just a family name that used to be fairly common in England and is still around in Australia, but most people don't have an s on the end. Search "Smallbone" for several examples. Smallbones 08:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ITV Regional companies - vandalism

Hi Redvers. Just a heads up that a user at IP address 84.13.186.3 deleted all the references from the Westward Television page and added a ridiculous "Slogans used" section to this and other ITV franchise pages. Kecske Bak 16:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 41	9 October 2006	About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller	Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down	Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BBC

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the BBC WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Unisouth

10:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks very kindly for the barnstar. Arthur Ellis' comment was a private joke pertaining to this. All the best, Bucketsofg 22:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me with some things?

How do I subscribe to the Wikipedia Signpost?

I thought an admin would know, so I decided to ask you.

Thankyou

--Suicidal tendancies 08:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

It did help, you are a great admin! --Suicidal tendancies 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much for the barnstar! Yes it's true, I did only have just the one. It's nice to receive messages like that once in a while. Thank you very much. :) Wikiwoohoo _talk 19:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 42	16 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China	$100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy	News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

I have submitted my Rfa!

--Suicidal tendancies 14:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Bickering

I'd appreciate it if you could point out what you consider as 'bickering'. To the best of my knowledge I havent engaged Mahawiki since the block, inspite of him and his pal User:Arya_Rajya_Maharashtra trying hard to troll HERE.

In keeping with the standard procedures of Wikipedia I have reported Arya here.

As far as Mahawiki and my own concerns of 'unfair blocking(of me)' is concerned, I've raised the issue on the admins' noticeboard(in case you hadnt noticed) and Admin Consumed Crustacean is mediating.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped tarring me with the same brush as Mahawiki. I'd also appreciate it if you would take a look at the long history of Mahawiki's uncivil behaviour, the 'diffs' for which, I have mentioned on the Admins' noticeboard.

It is not just me, but even other users like User:KNM, User:Naveenbm, User:Dineshkannambadi etc., that Mahawiki has once again attacked as recently as a couple of hours ago.

Even User:KNM has taken exception to his remarks on the Sare_Jahan_Se_Achcha talk page and has even complained to Admin Ragib HERE. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop taking all of Mahawiki's unsubstantiated claims at face value. I request you to take a close look at his history of incivil behaviour which I and other Kannada editors have suffered for the last two months and more.

Things wouldnt have come to such a pass if an admin had acted upon my complaint almost a month ago. And even now, it is not too late to rein him in. Thanks. Sarvagnya 20:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

White Guard

Thank you for removing the block placed on my account. You will clearly have read my response to this on my talk page. On the Stalin page I edited out-with a summary explanation-what I believed to be an attempt to rewrite the historical record, a form, if you like, of political vandalism. The user in question has a record of pushing a particular Stalinist perspective on other pages, notably the Hungarian Rising of 1956. If you look at the Stalin talk page you will see that I have been defending, at some length, the contention that Stalin was a dictator, an historically apt description. I do nothing without thought and reflection. To have a block placed upon me without warning, and with no attempt whatsoever to discuss the issue, I consider both unfair and an abuse of power. I feel deeply aggrieved with this, and intend to ask for a review of the whole process involved. White Guard 23:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA comments

I just wanted to say thanks to you two (Redvers, (aeropagitica)) for the detail in comments you put on my RFA. It's surprisingly helpful to know what I need to improve upon, and that encouragement will hopefully be put to good use. I'll take what you said and be back next year with what I hope will be a stronger case for adminship. :) --BradBeattie 02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I just edited my custom revert software to address your comment on informing vandals [1]. Hopefully my revert efforts will be more community friendly now as anything. --BradBeattie 03:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Side note, would the two of you mind if I come back to you in a couple months time before I re-RFA? I'd like to know if I'm on the right track before I put myself up for voting next time. --BradBeattie 03:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for ur message.Please read my full message on noticeboard,where I have specified that I am just concerned about NPOV at Belgaum_border_dispute which is an sensitive and emotional subject for us.I dont have any intrest in talking with the other guy in question let alone personal attacks.U may find in the noticeboad also that this guy is busy badmouthing againsr me and all he wants to get me blocked!

In any ways I will not allow nonsense against Maharashtra.I dont take abuses or howlings whether it is Sarvagnya's or admins personally.But I wont keep mum when someone's insulting my language or my state anyhow.

Ball is in ur court.Tell me what to do if-

• Someone's writing nonsense against Marathi or Maharashtra

I have been pleading admins from ages to keep a watch on belgaum_border_dispute but in vain.If anyone does that I dont think will bother anyone. Mahawiki 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

About ur message on noticeboard.I have only responded after admin asked for a explaination.I have acknowledged my wrongs and I am willing to co-operate with admins. Mahawiki 06:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC One / BBC One Scotland / BBC Scotland

I don't understand what you're doing now and why you've merged BBC Scotland into BBC One but let BBC One Scotland stay. - Lee Stanley 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Grampiantelevision has since reverted your edit. If you're going to do something please explain it properly in the edit summary. - Lee Stanley 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC One Scotland has been properly merged with BBC One. BBC Scotland has been left unedited (other than to remove the redundant merge tag). There's no reason to merge BBC One Scotland with BBC Scotland - that's merging apples with oranges - but every reason to merge BBC One Scotland with the channel it is a variant of - BBC One. And that's what I've done. I've certainly not merged BBC Scotland with BBC One: the very idea is ridiculous. And I gave a full edit summary to what I was doing, unlike others. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (copied)

Righty-ho. I got a little confused with what was being moved where, and a discussion page disappeared and reappeared int he process when your merge already reverted. I'm sorry but I'm going to leave this one in your hands! - Lee Stanley 21:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (please reply here (I should put this in my signature!))

FYI

I noticed the edit Jay Kana performed on your comment in User talk:Jay Kana in a way to obsure it. Thought you might want to know about it. The edited box follows. Stealthound 21:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Redvers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My account was hacked :(

Decline reason:

Just kidding lol. Jay Kana 14:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Award

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your vandalism blocks--Seadog.M.S 23:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I cant for some reason get it working right, oh well just wanting to say thanks for you work in this area--Seadog.M.S 23:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome I am inspired by your vandalism works--Seadog.M.S 16:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Help Me Please!

I have been experiencing some difficulties while using Wikipedia: Many specific pages cannot be viewed by my browser which is the latest version of Mozilla Firefox. I'm requesting your help because things have gotten a little too out of hand. So much so that, even my own user page cannot be viewed, not my talk page though. And it only happens on Wikipedia, not on YouTube or anywhere else. So if you can identify a way to prevent this, can you please help me? Thank you so much!! ЅυđÜѕєя85 Talk to me 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the advice, But I seem to have miscalculated. The problem runs in my entire home network, even on my hp notebook that uses Internet Explorer. Anyways thanks for the help, Its not Firefox thats the problem.(SUDUSER)⁸⁵ 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)→ (For my talk page just click the little 85)

Thanks

Thanks a lot! Am honoured to receive one from you. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

zOMG! Thankeeee! Its a great honour! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 18:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Hahnchen#Edit_summaries

I don't normally post reply notifications, but am doing so in this case in case I'm blocked from editing without further warning. - Hahnchen 23:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Whats the name of the welcome thing you put on new user's talk pages? Clamster5 16:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Clamster5 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering how to get the welcome message that you use. I think its a lot more attractive than the basic one. If you don't want to share it, thats fine. Clamster5 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Wow, thanks for the barn star, and thanks for the compliment. No one has suggested that I become an admin before, and I'm not sure what my answer would be. Unfortunately, I often find myself in controversial situations. Then I go off and edit in remote corners of Wikipedia or do RC patrol. But after awhile, I again venture into the dangerous world of controversial articles. So, I'm not sure I'm the right person to have admin powers. But thanks again, for that is a real compliment. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the Diwali wishes.

With regard to the AfD, I am not sure of the best course. I would very much like to know how common is the name Mahound. There is a category for given names, and if the name is significantly notable in its own right, it should have an article, even if the material related to Muhammad being demonized is moved elsewhere. I would also like to know whether mideval Christian writers demonized Muhammad in the same way, even when (if they ever did) they refered to Muhammad by "Muhammad" or some other close transliteration of the Arabic. That is, I don't fully know whether using the term Mahound was part of the demonization, or whether the person Muhammad was demonized, and it just happened to be the case that mideval Christian writers understood his name to be Mahound rather than Muhammad.

I guess I am saying in a round about way, that your questions are difficult, and I do not know which is the right answer.

With regard to you suggestion for adminship: Although you find me to be reasonable and the sort of person you would like to have as an admin, I must tell you that others have stated that they cannot assume good faith on my part, or that they feel that I have boiled the pot unnecessarily. There are a few things that I would like you to read before you raise this question with me again. The first is the story of an issue that I have with an administrator. The outline can be found here. Discussions that I had can be found here and viewpoints of other parties can be found here. The second conflict that you should be aware of before further advancing the idea of adminship is Talk:Muhammad#Muhammad Pic. Please take your time reading these. Feedback is very welcome, but that is up to you. Thanks again for the Diwali greetings and for the complement you have paid me for suggesting adminship. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

Look here, I didn't DO any vandalism, I have discussed this with the people who reported me and now I'm discussing it with you! If I didn't do any vandelism, so why should i have a big ol' sign saying I did, WHEN I DIDN'T!!! Why were you even looking at my alk-page, why do you even care? GET OVER YOURSELF! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tishii (talk • contribs)

• Replied on talk page here, giving all the diffs of the vandalism this user made. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahound, Mahmoud

Are you sure the name of the guy you know was Mahound and not Mahmoud. May I ask you where he was from? Cheers. --Aminz 09:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Redvers for the reply. Also thanks so much for greetings.

It was strange to that he was named Mahound, because I've never heard anyone named Mahound (it shouldn't be arabic either). Thanks again. Cheers, --Aminz 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for the star! I noticed your user page is very well done. The graphics add a lot. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Redvers

There is a Request for comment filed against you. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever

I didn't vandelize anything and I'm sick and tired of people blaming me... how do you quit wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tishii (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 October 2006

Esperanza User Page Award

Greetings, Redvers. The judges would like to announce that the winner for the Esperanza User Page Contest has been chosen. Congratulations to MacGyverMagic for winning the contest. The winning entry can be found here.

If you'd like to participate in the contest again, check by the contest page in a few days and sign up. See you around. Daniel.Bryant 10:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical materialism

Hello Redvers. I feel emboldened to write to you because you are acquained with Aminz, for whom I have the greatest respect. I also note you have declared yourself to be a socialist. I wonder if you are interested in Historical Materialism and, if so, if you would like to visit that page and contribute any suggestions, no matter how cursory, for improving it. It is not an easy topic to explain clearly. Itsmejudith 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply. I understand your approach. My interest in the page is born out of a respect for the volume of scholarly work that has been done over the years to understand and explain these ideas. I'd like to see that reflected in the 'pedia, but in a way that makes it accessible to all. Perhaps the article needs tagging as in need of expert contribution. Best wishes. Itsmejudith 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 43	23 October 2006	About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia	News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocking my IP address

It appears that you have blocked my IP address, 72.14.194.31. When I try to edit, I see this message:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Redvers for the following reason (see our blocking policy): please log in if you wish to edit, thank you

Your IP address is 72.14.194.31.

As it happens I do have an account, as you can see, but I do not always log in to make edits. However, not once, in my entire time using Wikipedia, have I ever committed an act of vandalism, logged in or out. My IP address rotates occasionally (I am not sure how often or what program causes this but I do not use AOL), which means that the IP address might be shared by someone else. However, it is not acceptible for you to block any IP address without giving justification. If someone committed vandalism with it, please say so, and I will be happy to log in. Otherwise, it seems that you just have a problem with people who do not have accounts. I'm not accusing you of blocking me without a reason -- I'm sure you have a good one; just write it in order to save time and animosity. Also, does 722 hours really seem like an acceptable sentence? If I had not had an account and a rotating IP address, I would be blocked for editing for a month. Robert 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC), or 72.14.194.31.

Ok, thanks. Sorry for coming off so irate on my last post; i was a bit annoyed, obviously. Anyway, I'll talk to that administrator, but it's not that important. Robert 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Nr9

Hey, there. I was trying to look into this user's current unblock request, but unfortunately I couldn't find the thread you seemed to be referring to at AN, AN/I, or any of the more recent archives. You're obviously more familiar with this than I am, so if you'd like to respond to the unblock yourself or point me in the right direction to educate myself, either would be quite appreciated. Luna Santin 09:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Shortcircuiting a PROD by redirecting and then nominating the redirect for speedy deletion is just tacky. Back to a PROD, dated today. Sadly.)" [2]

The redirect was applied 4 months ago by someone else; if you think it'd be a better idea, perhaps I could restore the original article. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Redvers, I wish that I had more information. Pieces of information that would be very useful are:

• how common is the name Mahound,
• how common are other names that were used by Midieval Christian writers where referring to Muhammad in a derogatory sense,
• was Mahound ever used by Midieval Christian writers to not refer to Muhammad, but to refer to a devil, false god or whatever other than Muhammad (for example pre-Muhammad?)
• was Mahound ever used by Midieval Christian writers to refer to Muhammad in an objective, historical way, or was it always derogatory.

The answers to these questions, would affect my thinking about the most appropriate placement of the materials, having a Mahound article etc.

• I think at the bare minimum, there needs to be either an article or a redirect at Mahound, because individuals may see the name and wonder about its referent.
• If the name Mahound is fairly common, I think there needs to be some disambiguation involved, either as the article is now, with mention that it is a given name, or as a disambiguation page.
• If there are not many derogatory terms for Muhammad that were used by Christian mideval writers, then I don't see a need to move the article away. It would be like creating a list article with only one item in it.
• If the term Mahound ever had a referent other than Muhammad or someone with the given name Mahound, then I definitely think there should be an article for Mahound. * On the other hand, if mideval Christian writers wrote about Muhammad with the term Mahound always and sometimes wrote in a pejorative way, but sometimes historically (I don't know whether that is the case), then I think the Mahound article should just state that Mahound was a name used by such writers to refer to Muhammad.

So...long and short is I don't know the answer. I think we need to just go with something, and hope that things become clearer as time passes. p.s. Did I totally scare you with the items I suggested that you read? --BostonMA ^talk 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for awarding my first Barnstar. Not that I deserve it, though. =) --Nehwyn 06:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a Barnstar. --- ابراهيم 08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nehwyn, please don't remove my comments:

Thanks Redvers. It was very kind of you. I wish I hadn't miss your RfA so that I could give a *big* support to you. Cheers, --Aminz 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 44	30 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway	Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles	Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia	News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp^TC 09:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Welcome" Image

Is it okay if I use that image on my userpage? D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 10:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually was thinking of making one... Do what you want. :P D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 20:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the stuff to make it though. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 20:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK then. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 20:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking about it, and, could you make me one? (I know you've already accepted but it's polite to say so :P) D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 20:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)