User talk:Xaosflux/Archive19

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse work 15:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

Please explain how exposing the truth is considered vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbadwolfx (talk • contribs)

Replied on your talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks from StuffOfInterest

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 52/6/1 (~90%). It was an interesting process which gave me a chance to learn a bit about myself and about the community. My intention now is to slowly ease into using those additional buttons on my page. No use being over eager and mucking up the works. The support of all those who went over my record and/or rallied to my defense after the big oppose vote was instumental to the success of this review. Again, thank you! --StuffOfInterest 11:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Category deletion

Hi - did you move all the pages in Category:Sex moves to Category:Sexual acts before you deleted the former? I was working on doing so and then all the pages disappeared.—DomBot ^talk ; Chidom ^talk, owner/operator. 03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like we both were working on the same categories. However, where is your bot sourcing the categories to work on? I specifically took the categories I was processing off the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working page to avoid these sorts of conflicts. Was this just a timing thing, or is your bot going back to the original Log?—Chidom ^talk  03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That would explain it. Any hints as to how to avoid this in the future? Your bot obviously trumps mine (as you're an admin); I don't want to be stepping on each other's "digits".—Chidom ^talk  03:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically what I've been doing is deleting the list of categories I'm working on from the WP:CFDW page, processing them, and then re-listing them in the "Ready for deletion" section. I've been taking one day's listing at a time so as not to get confused about where I started/left off. I'll give the more detailed edit summary a whirl; one problem I've been having lately is remembering to change it to begin with, so that's probably a good idea. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  03:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:FANSTARbot

Bot does not appear in the WP:BRFA page or archives as approved, and there are complaints on the owners dutch user talkpage of complaints from it: and fr: about errors. I've blocked it pending BAG approval. Thanks again! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ability to move pages

Thanks for adding the approval link to my bot's user page, great idea.

Since you've been gracious enough to help out (uh-oh), just want to confirm something. I currently can't move pages when signed in as DomBot; is this because it's such a new user and I should expect this ability to become available after some time passes, or is this just an oversight somewhere? Thanks for your help!—Chidom ^talk  18:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just moving the associate talk pages for categories that have been merged/renamed; I can do that under this account but not under DomBot; I thought it would probably kick in after a few days. DomBot was just born 3 days ago, lol!—Chidom ^talk  18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/TawkerbotTorA#Post_RFA_Discussion has been updated if you have any guidelines on what kind of policy we need, it would be very much appreciated -- Tawker 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Extending block

No problem on extending the block on User:203.57.147.20. I was a bit cautious on length due to it being a school. But, I'm on board with your change. — ERcheck (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Undelete an article

Hi, could you please undelete MFJ Enterprises? It was deleted through a prod a few days back, which makes it OK to undelete under WP:UNDEL. Being that I created the article I don't want to be the one to undelete it myself. I had a quick correspondence with the one who nominated it for prod (citing WP:CORP), and he doesn't even remember the nomination. Hopefully this doesn't end up on AfD right away, but I guess I'll have to extend the text a little bit to try and establish notability better. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 19:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added in some more content in the hope the next person who comes along will see the article as worth while. Oh, and thanks for supporting the creation of the WikiProject back in August. --StuffOfInterest 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Amateur radio

Hi xaosflux: I think inclusion of "Family Radio Service" and "General Mobile Radio Service" in the "Amateur Radio" category is in error. These radio services have little to do with ham radio and in point of fact many FRS radios are in commercial use, which is diametrically opposed to the principles of amateur radio. There's no "experimental" use of FRS, the regulations for acceptance of these units prohibit user modifications (and by and large this prohibition is honored by FRS users, I've yet to see any "mods" for FRS equipment, for example.) I think you should reconsider if these articles belong in the amateur radio category. 73, --Wtshymanski 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again - GMRS used to be commerical, too, as I understand it - so it's not really "ham" radio. It would be interesting to see if there's any trickle-up effect from GMRS and FRS users getting into ham radio, but it may be quite a small effect. GMRS doesn't seem to lend itself to experimentation either, though I suppose you at least have the options of different antennas. Anyway, glad you've pulled FRS and GMRS out of the amateur radio category. --Wtshymanski 01:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: A Man in black

I need a dispute to be settled concering the admin AMIB. I feel that he is abusing his power by purging fiction based articles without consent nor thought. His recent action involves the AMG set of articles, claiming that he removed the images due to lack of fair use. Even though the images were there for comparisive means.

Please check this admin out for i fear he is out of line.-Dynamo_ace Talk

Restored Guillén

I undeleted Guillén out of process, because it seemed like an obvious and ordinary {{hndis}}/disambig to me. (I was making the change right as it was being deleted) If this is an issue, I can reverse it. --Interiot 05:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Something quick

An idea was discussed a bit in the -admins channel re dealing with vandalism new pages (aka G1, the super super obvious stuff) - essentially if it fit a modified set of criteria for Tawkerbot2 and eventually (after running it in add to a speedy delete list for a while) an automatic speedy. The rough thought had a pretty warm reception on -admins - I just wanted your take to see if that might be something worth exploring (I can't see how we could integrate it into MW atm) -- Tawker 00:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, auto delete is phase 2, no way we want to auto delete w/o any sort of testing. We'll roll in the db-tagging in the next TB2 release.. it already tags some speedies so not a big big expansion there. If you have any specific criteria you'd like to see please let me know :) -- Tawker 04:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Elephants

Good protect. I can't believe how fast you did that.  :) --Alecmconroy 03:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I put Elephant related articles on my watch list waiting for the onslaught, that was fast thinking, good job, wonder who's worse willy on wheels or Colbert :) --Sirex98 03:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to any sysops: I will be reviewing these and likely lowering/removing protection in about 12 hours. Feel free to adjust the protection at will, (I waive any WHEEL complaints) before then. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to TWIMC:Reduced to sprot. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just one more to sort out now *sigh* Glen 04:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Have linked to my block log which is dynamic so will show a different user upon my next block Glen 04:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy of Hipforums

I do not understand why you moved my controversy section on hipforums: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_Forums to the discussion side of the page. It seems to me that it's just as valid as anything else on the front page, there have been many grievances against hipforums.com I believe it deserves it's place up front where people will have a balanced view of the site. At the very least can you put up a flag at the top of the front page saying the validity or bias of the hipforums entry is disputed and viewers should check the discussion page?Insanejester 06:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Insanejester 07:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

regarding POMONA BOYS gang article

can you block this ip: 67.127.101.9 he keeps messing with the article and before that he used a diff ip which was 68.123.145.122 and that one got blocked so now he's using a diff one. if you go here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pomona_Boys&action=history you can see how many times he's messed with that article, i'm just here to show the facts and trying to stop vandalism on wikipedia myself but it's hard work, and this guy is really at it, he keeps messing with that wikipedia article... perhaps he's their rival, i don't know, but it has to stop.

Closing Discussions

I noticed that you are using {{debate top}} to close discussions. The {{Bot Top}} should be used instead. (The shortcuts {{subst:BT}} and {{subst:BB}} work as well) -- RM 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Uncyclopedia

Just to let you know, it isn't actually protected at the moment; it only has the template. I assume that wasn't what you intended. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 16:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

re:hipforums.

I do not understand why my oppinions on the controvercy section were removed from the discussion page. Isn't that supposed to be composed of oppinions to discuss the issue further? It seems as though by limiting what past users of that forum have to say about it, you are cencoring information which may be benificial to others.

It is a fact, that there was a mass ban, it is a fact that users were banned for expressing distaste to the admin of that forum which claims to be a free speech site. These things shouldn't just be written out of the encyclopedia they should be brought to the attention of those who wish to learn more about hipforums from a fair and balanced perspective.

If there are oppinions which contrast then both should be discussed or at least brought to light in order to give a fair representation of the issue.

My intire point was, hipforums claims to be a site based on hippies and free speech, yet they fascistly cencor their users and erradicate any beliefs which conflict with their own, this cannot be proven because the admin quickly deletes posts and bans users which do not hang on his coat tail. This can be shown by how skip stone chose to edit out my entry into the wikipedia discussion section for hipforums. He seems to believe that if he doesn't like an issue he can merely delete it and ignore it and not address it.

In short could you explain to me why my controversy section was deleted from the discussion page? Insanejester 17:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

thanx again

is there another admin which I can bring this issue up with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanejester (talk • contribs)

Replied on your talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

StormPay

Accusing my NPOV edits of being "vandalism" and saying I am not allowed to edit the StormPay article with factual information

I am posting here in regard to this comment left by you in regards to myself on User:Nlu's talkpage.

"I've reduced this block from indef to 1 month, and it is almost over. I'd remind the editor that continued entry of POV material may be considered vandalism, and the perhaps some of our other million articles may be more interesting to edit than StormPay. — xaosflux Talk 05:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC) "

I have committed no vandalism to Wikipedia and what I added was never POV material. My contributions have always changed the article from having a biased POV that omits any factual information that paints that company in anything other than a good light to being closer to a NPOV.

The only time I ever edited Wikipedia was under this name.

Can you please explain to me why User:Nlu having slandered me by accusing me of vandalism I never did under names/IP address I never used, and then unjustly banning me from editing as a result of me contributing factual information to lessen the flagrant biased POV in the StormPay article results in Wiki Admin unanimously defending this corrupt action and trying to censor NPOV information from the StormPay article by in essence saying that I am not allowed to add factual NPOV information to it?

If there is not a vested interest in Wiki Admin keeping that article biased towards a pro-StormPay POV, then why is it that anything I've posted on it is censored and labelled as "vandalism" yet the clearly pro-StormPay POV of the article is not treated in an equal manner? --Keepthefactsinwikiplease 10:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

replied on your talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lupe Fiasco vandaliser

There is a user, 216.86.77.194, who keeps on vandalising Lupe's sales of his first album Food & Liquor. Eventhough reliable sources are posted for this user to see, the person simply ignores this and changes the sales amount. He also seems to have a negitive opinion of the rapper based on his modifications. Will you please help me out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.245.224.93 (talk • contribs) .

replied on your talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think i didn't do this just quite right

Theres this guy User:63.114.228.2 who like to put up vandalism. I know he had a {{test1}} and hes had other warnings sense then. A total of like five or six. So i put a {{test5}}. Could you take a look-e-see to make sure i did it right.--aceslead 21:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

replied on your talk; blocked user. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page

My first impression when I got here was that your talk page has been blanked by a vandal. There are many ways to archive a talk page, but blanking is one of the least popular. You may want to visit WP:ARCHIVE for additional options that you may find useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no one blanked my page. I kinda just wanted a fresh start.--aceslead 02:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Jamie Gold article

Nice work blocking this user, I saw the vandalism wasn't going to stop after multi-reverts and being warned by another user, so I rushed to temp block and used a template I hadn't used before{Test5-n}, it needed a time for a value rather then a page name, my apologies ~~=Sirex98= 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, regarding Template:Uncyclopedia

I'm here to ask if you were behind its deletion, and if so, why? I am the original creator of the template, and no one complained at the time when I asked if I could create it. I think it brings "interwikiness" among articles, as well as showing the fun side of things, after all Wp is considered by many to be too "dry", and a link at the bottom of articles showing alternative versions for parody reasons would in my opinion improve the Wikipedia experience, as well as prevent some vandalism by "smart-asses".

I thereby ask that that template may be recreated again. It took me a lot of work to create it and I have to confess, I was bold in doing so, but that's what people expect from editors, is it not?

I can't figure very well the deletion log, so I'm not even sure if it was you who deleted it originally. If not, could you please inform the original admin of my position? Or if you point me in the right track, I'll do it myself.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves/Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} 09:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've been looking around and seems like people apparently liked the template and tried to recreate it after the deletion, which led to the protection of the page. I speak for myself, though. I created the template last friday, 20 October, and I've been out of Wp the whole weekend. So, it is today that I learn of these things going on now. I haven't tried to re-create the template, although I wish to start a discussion on it, so that its recreation or "undeletion" might be considered. I don't believe it's admins who consider what should go or not in Wp, but the community as a whole. As such, I'd like you to consider my words here. When I created the template my intention was good; I didn't intend to vandalize Wp, or in any way interfere with it in a negative way. Do you know that there's an Uncyclopedia:link by default? That leads me to believe that mr. Jimbo Wales appreciates Uncyclopedia and doesn't mind users linking to articles in there.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves/Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} 11:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your message

The message you put all over my user pages is inaccurate. Stop harrassing me now!

You put a message all over my user pages saying that "editing or adding comments to this page is currently disabled for new or unregistered users." This is first of all, inaccurate. Even registered users cannot edit my pages. Second of all, stop vandalizing my user pages. I have been simply trying to clean the crap off the talk page, and then I tried to request my user account be deleted. Because of idiot assholes like you, this has been made much more difficult than it needed to be. Remove the crap you put on my pages. I will give you and the other assholes time to clean up your mess until they make a decision on allowing me to delete my user account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.228.229.141 (talk • contribs) .

• N.B. - message from indef blocked user's sock. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

s:User talk:Xaosflux

You got a strange message at Wikisource you might want to take a look at. If you think this needs any attention; WS has a Admin Noticeboard.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocking a user?

• Zbuddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has constantly been adding the same vandalism to the page Return to Halloweentown. He has been warned several times, and continuously repeats the offense, even after a final warning. I posted his name on the suggestions of users to be blocked, but it was removed without action. Do you think you can tell me why? Thanks!! MiniMary12 02:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Cool, thanks!! And I've been on here for a year already, but thanks for the welcome. Hope I can be an admin one day! MiniMary12 02:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

don't swear

great user page and all, but please refrain from posting semi-swear words on there. also, i like the interface, direct links to your talk page and stuff. and your bot, fluxbot, oh he's so cool! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Happy8 (talk • contribs) .

from happy8, again

Thanks for your advice xaosflux, i made sure to visit those helpful links and bookmark them. just out of curiosity, are you an admin? Happy8 05:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

once more, from happy8 (this is the last time today)

Dear xaosflux, could you visit the article transwiki? It appears to need administrative help. Oh, and thanks for following my suggestion about that little swear word thing. Thanks again, Happy8 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry about this

alright i swear this is my last time. Could you tell me what Armadillo From Hell's talk page is called? I can't find it anywhere. Happy8 05:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Cardinal Wurzel

You said: "Noticed you just blocked this user for an apparent WP:FU violation. I just left them a message as well. If they reply that they get it now or something to that affect I'd support reducing the block lenght, they appear to have been making useful contributions as well."

I monitor these (and all blocks) and if a user seems to realise what they did wrong, I immediately unblock them. Well, once at least, sometimes twice.  :) The block is not punitive, it's simply to try to reform the behaviour. --Yamla 16:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd like to register some sort of formal complaint against Yamla for his behaviour yesterday. I believe his blocking me was completely punitive, and that his feeling the need to assert that it wasn't suggests he knows perfectly well that it was. I uploaded a picture, which was removed as having no fair use rationale. I re-added it, providing a rationale, and it was removed again; my rationale being deemed not sufficient. Fair enough. I then added a movie poster instead, believing posters to be incontrovertably fair use, which was where you arrived on the scene and disabused me of that notion. That was the end of it as far as I was concerned, and I was amazed to find myself blocked. I believe it to have been a ridiculously heavy-handed response to three - three! - good-faith edits. I believe it was a complete abuse of Yamla's administrator privileges, and that he seems to be extremely trigger-happy with his ability to block people. He also seemed to have trouble un-blocking me.

I've looked at the "dispute resolution" sections, but they all seem unecessarily protracted. I don't want to instigate anything ongoing. I don't want to "begin proceedings". As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. But I would like to think that somebody is keeping an eye on Yamla to make sure he doesn't abuse his position in this way with other users, and I would just like to be on record somewhere as having made this complaint. Is there any system for doing that? Cheers, Cardinal Wurzel 21:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: "FYI, I replied to this user at User_talk:Cardinal_Wurzel#Your_BlockUser_talk:Cardinal_Wurzel#Your_Block."

Thanks. I appreciate you offering to help this user out. --Yamla 04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; I'll look into it. C'mon, honestly, do you not think blocking me after three edits for "persistent abuse" was A Bit Much? Cardinal Wurzel 10:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have refrained from providing any additional comments on this issue because I do not think it likely to particularly help matters. However, if either of you wish me to clarify my position and correct what I see as being some mistakes, please let me know. The first step in conflict resolution, however, is to step back, which is what I'm trying. --Yamla 14:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

• You remove the entire section of supporters and opponents from WP:IAR. Your reason: "this would become an unmaintainable list." I agree and appreciate your contribution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.160.124 (talk • contribs) .
• [1] I am hoping you can find a better way to link to important terms such as the extremely vague ignore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.160.124 (talk • contribs) .
  • Replied on your talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your kind notice. Would you please tell me where is the dispute resolution page so I may ask for one. This is regarding the reverting on David's part.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.160.124 (talk • contribs) .
      • Our disputre resolution process is detailed here. Before starting dispute resolution, you may want to register for an account, it's free and only take about 1 min. The first step in dispute resolution is generally disucssing the changes on the Talk Page of the page you are conerned about. In the case of Policy pages, you can also see The Village Pump Policy Page. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your swift reply. I am not interested in an account, nor am I new to Wikipedia, but thank you for the offer. I am only interested, right now, on working on WP:IAR. "The first step in dispute resolution is generally disucssing the changes on the Talk Page of the page you are conerned about." This is not what I wish to dispute the reverting on David'a part. I am only allow 3 reversion and respect the policy so I rather dispute this then to revert again. Where do you suggest I go, or who do you suggest I talk to. This David person takes forever to reply and keeps reverting only because he wants it his way. 128.226.160.124 16:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you would care, you could filled in the Summary of essay from Jimbo section after reading it (use direct quotes), but of course you know. I was going to do that, but I need to reply to David first, so you can have fun editing! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.160.124 (talk • contribs) .

Bot request

Hi - just thought I'd let you knwo that (at last!) I've run the trials for MartinBotII task 3 (here). Thanks Martinp23 17:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

smile

Happy8 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Happy8 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Happy8 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

A/C elections

Thx, I saw it. I won't answer for a while. I'd rather tackle them all at once at some point - since they keep on keeping on coming... - crz crztalk 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BRFA request

Hi - I've left a message here regarding a very short trial I ran for the pluralisation system. Thanks, Martinp23 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom election question

Thanks for dropping a note, I appreciate your patience and I have answered your questions. Let me know if there is anything else I can elucidate. -- Avi 00:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux/Infobox category

Could you remove Category:User Wikipedia/RC patrollers from User:Xaosflux/Infobox, since {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} already contains the replacement category, Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers? TimBentley (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

dont, thanks — xaosflux ^Talk 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

template fix

Hi there. In addition to Tim's request above, on your Druidic True Neutral template, can you change the link to go to category:Druidic True Neutral Wikipedians? Thanks muchly.--Mike Selinker 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Xaosflux, and thanks for your participation at the recent RfA, which did not succeed. For those of you who expressed their support, your kind words and your trust are sincerely appreciated. For those who were opposed --especially those who offered their constructive criticism-- please accept this message as assurance that equally sincere efforts, aimed at enhancing the quality and accuracy of representations within the Wikipedia, will continue. Striving for improved collaboration and consensus will also continue, with all of your insights in mind, while applying NPOV ideals as fairly and reasonably as possible. Ombudsman 05:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You misspelled 'speech'

I though that I should correct you, seeing that you are an administrator and all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silentbob4477 (talk • contribs) . re:Thanks. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bot trial

Hi Xaosflux, I have run a trial with my bot and put its results here. Regards -- Lost^(talk) 16:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AEsperanza&diff=88174212&oldid=88058500

Hello, could you please correct the Esperanza MFD?

Hello, you seem to have edited a signed statement I made, after a page was protected. This has altered both the formatting and the wording of my statement. [2]

1. I closed as No consensus, not as Speedy no consensus.
2. You have reincluded a broken link that was since fixed.
3. Formatting is a matter of taste, so I won't comment on that here. Though your alteration of formatting does make my argument less legible, and editing other peoples' signed statements is somewhat discouraged.

Please correct at least the first two points as quickly as possible, since those alterations misstate my actual opinion, and introduce two errors besides.

Thank you.

Kim Bruning 13:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bumm13 already helped out. Thanks for your time! Kim Bruning 13:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Frank Gotti Agnelli

Whoops, not sure what happened there, I was trying to clean up after Pigs. Catchpole 18:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops!

I just saved a comment at this MfD that you closed. It seems you closed it while I was writing my response. I thought about adding something there to make clear what happened, but wanted to explain here as well. Carcharoth 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

i have no idea what this is all even about

thats really all i had to say seeing as i barely even understand what wikipedia is —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camaro4 (talk • contribs) .

Umm, huh? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements

Could you do me a couple of favors? First I saw where some admins expanded the {{Sprotected2}} so it was a custom fit on a fully protected page. I created {{Protected2}} for that situation, a fully protected page. So instead of the expanded protection at the beginning, could you just replace it with {{Protected2}}? Another request I make is that could you protect the template itself because it is a protection template? semper fi — Moe 18:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is a little new for full protection right now. Thanks for helping out :) semper fi — Moe 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)