User talk:Alexandria: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:09, 6 November 2007

Pages are archived after 50 or so headers and no active convos. Previous archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

I'll respond to comments on your page, usually using Re: your header.

Note: MY TALK PAGE IS NOT YOUR BATTLE GROUND. Failure to obverse this will result in full protection of this page. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hay

So is u that keeps deleting my section of the warren, mi article —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Home Slice7 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well

yea but i live in warren. what do u mean by source do u wanna a picture a website some thing like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Home Slice7 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little award for your work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your hard work on combating vandals, and your hard work in general --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm surprised that you didn't receive one of these yet, since you certainly earn one. Keep up the good work, and think about placing your barnstars somewhere on your user page, instead of your talk archives :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking vandals

Thank you for making a report about 209.96.105.20 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking vandal

Dear Kwsn, I believe that user [1] should be blocked. S/he is persistently vandalising the entry on Maria Gaetana Agnesi. Kind regards, --BF 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above message, please also block this one: [2]. Kind regards, --BF 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mistook you as an administrator --- your comment attached to your yesterday's reversion gave me this false impression. Kind regards, --BF 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 00:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - well deserved sir! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A congratulations from me as well. Here is your new T-shirt! :) Acalamari 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know where to ask if you need help with anything ;). Congratulations! Nihiltres^(t.l) 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats dear! Love, Neranei (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and congrats for being an admin.--JForget 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! jj137 (Talk) 01:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats I'm glad Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Good luck :) S_QL^{Query me!} 04:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Hey there Alexandria, Congratulations on becoming an administrator. Obviously, it is unlikely that you will know how to use the tools at first and mistakes are bound to happen, so if you would like to practice using them, with step by step guides to follow, in an environement that you can do no harm in, then why not pop down to the new admin school where we have pages on blocking, deleting and restoring pages, protecting and unprotecting pages and viewing deleted pages. Once again, congratulations and best of luck with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto

Glad you've made admin! My ignorant advice? (Ignorant because I'm not an admin.) Make sure you take breaks from the project as needed. Rested and alert admins are much better than grumpy and snappish ones. Pigman^what?/trail 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwsn - Congrats anyway (though I was no help to that) seriously, if/when you do want to polish something up for GA or even FA, I'll be happy to chip in. Putting effort into writing gives more thought when deleting..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention writing articles is actually quite fun. Seeing an anon correct a typo in your text or collaborating with others to improve an article beyond what you could do individually are things that shouldn't be missed out on. I'll stop now and add my congrats as well! I'm glad it passed! henrik•talk 06:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Well done for passing. Yes, if you take note of the points brought up in your RfA, I'm sure you will be a fine admin. Well done. Lra drama 13:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-on congratulations. Please at least try to work on my comments there, as well as the advice made by the users above me, which is actually quite good :-) Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay kwsn!

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

Congratulations and good luck! /me huggles —trey^{omg he's back} 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cris P

Not that I have a major problem with it or anything, but I am curious why you declined the speedy on Cris P. You failed to note a reason when you removed it. Improbcat 18:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for adding the speedy a second time. As soon as I realized that it had been declined, I tried to revert it, but you beat me to it. Jauerback 19:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP 206.40.96.71

Isn't really vandalizing? look at the history for Bryan Adams (wrestler) they keep reverting to "...he became a bodyguard for his boyfriend..." when he wasn't gay...if I'm not mistaken he was married (to a woman lol) --Cra sh U nderride 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok just wonderin'. --Cra sh U nderride 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this deletion

I noticted that you deleted this article under A1, and I tagged it as G1(patent nonsense) Sorry. It was only one sentence, and seemed like nonsense to me, but I realize now that A1 was more accurate in that situation.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Favor

~~Hey would you mind clearing the backlog (well there are only 3 reports, but they have been there like 30 mins) from WP:AIV? Thanks, Tiptoety 06:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Never mind, thanks! Tiptoety 06:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwsn's Corollary to Geogre's Law

Um, isn't that actually the same thing? :-) [3] - ∅ (∅), 08:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much kwsn

Btw, how did you know I was a kid? I'll be 11 next month Botnet 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Although the voting ended at 36/22/5, there was no consensus to promote, and the RfA was unsuccessful. I would like the thank you nonetheless for supporting me during the RfA, and hope that any future RfA’s proceed better than this one did. Again, I thank you for your support. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I fired you one. Cheers, Daniel 10:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA report

Hi Kwsn, saw you also re-removed a bad UAA report by User:SqueakBox. Check out his talk page. Why do you think there's this bizarre insistence that 'smartypants' is disruptive? ~Eliz81^(C) 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block

Hi. Would you consider changing that extension to 72 hours, I think one week is a bit long considering the block log. If you choose not to change the duration, I'll support you either way. Best, Mercury 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I see he was provoked, probably, if it was unprovoked then I probably won't reduce it. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, however, I did not provoke. :) Best, Mercury 21:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thx

Thanks for extending my block. I think it was the right way to go. 84.44.174.127 21:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I have deleted and restored your talk page in order to remove edits which published editors' real names. Do not be alarmed. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Fnagaton

Can you give me some diffs to support this? I know the blocked user has been emailing Fnagton and me, but I must be missing something. Are you suggesting it's not acceptable to discuss a banned user's implosion on one's own talk page? And is it really necessary to be so protective of banned users who have abused multiple socks, intentionally posted others' real names to harass them, made death threats, etc? -- But|seriously|folks 06:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is taunting the blocked user really doing much other than encouraging them to come back, with more socks, to get more of a response? SQL ^{Query me!} 06:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had also discussed the block with someone else and they agreed as well. Fnagaton's actions after the block really didn't help the situation much (as SQL pointed out, also see WP:DENY), that's my primary motivation here. Kwsn (Ni!) 06:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is discussing his continued taunting and harrasment of admins and editors here both on Wikipedia and off (which was occuring before that time, during, and after) providing any more encouragement than he already needed? The man was banned 6 months ago and its still occurring. --Marty Goldberg 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no BAN. Only a block. There was no discussion to for said ban, and this is for Sarenne, not NotSarenne. If you can find a diff link showing he was banned, I'll accept that. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that all three of you (NotSarenne, Wgungfu, and Fnagaton) turned my talk page into your personal battle ground. I do not look highly at that. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(After 3 edit conflicts) Maybe it's not the best approach, but is it blockworthy? Wouldn't a better response be an email to the 'taunters' asking them to knock it off or take it off-wiki? Anyway, the guy returned six months later without any taunting, so there's no reason to believe he'll stay away. (Aside from certain admins' blocking efforts, that is.)

I 'spect the simple fact that you blocked Fnagaton is going to be sufficient to deter him and the other culprits (myself included) from continuing their (ok, our) 'taunting' out in the open. Is it ok with you if another admin unblocks Fnagaton if Fnagaton so requests? If so, would you kindly indicate this on his talk page? Thanks!

Oh, and by the way, I've been assuming NotSarenne is Sarenne, based on the quack test. That's where the ban assertions are coming from.

Also, while it is your talk page, you don't own it. If you don't like a post here, simply delete it. -- But|seriously|folks 07:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwsn, honestly, I felt bad for the whole situation on your talk page and you having to have been in the middle of it, especially being so new of an admin. And I could tell it was stressing you out after because of your stress meter on your main page. That's why I stated what I did to your comments on Keifer's talk page. Regarding the block on notSarenne, the block was for being a sockpuppet of Sarenne: "You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sarenne". Sarenne is a banned user. --Marty Goldberg 07:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 :::::Oh, and by the way, I've been assuming NotSarenne is Sarenne, based on the quack test.  That's where the ban assertions are coming from.
 :::::Also, while it is your talk page, you don't own it.  If you don't like a post here, simply delete it.  --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;[[User:Bsf|<font color="White">But</font>]]|[[User talk:Bsf|<font color="White">seriously</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Butseriouslyfolks|<font color="White">folks</font>]]&nbsp;</span>''' 07:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-::::::Honestly, I felt bad for the whole situation and you having to be in the middle of it, especially being so new of an admin.  And I could tell it was stressing you out after because of your stress meter on your main page.  That's why I stated what I did to your comments on Keifer's talk page.  Regarding the block on notSarenne, the block was for being a [[User_talk:NotSarenne | sockpuppet of Sarenne]]: "You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sarenne".  Sarenne is a banned user. --[[User:Wgungfu|Marty Goldberg]] 07:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
+::::::Kwsn, honestly, I felt bad for the whole situation on your talk page and you having to have been in the middle of it, especially being so new of an admin.  And I could tell it was stressing you out after because of your stress meter on your main page.  That's why I stated what I did to your comments on Keifer's talk page.  Regarding the block on notSarenne, the block was for being a [[User_talk:NotSarenne | sockpuppet of Sarenne]]: "You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sarenne".  Sarenne is a banned user. --[[User:Wgungfu|Marty Goldberg]] 07:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)