User talk:Dora Nichov

Welcome!

Hello, Dora Nichov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolf? Yeah Right!

This article claims that Dora Nichov turns into a wolf when he sees something round, in other words a werewolf. Come on! Everyone knows that werewolves are make-belive. It's an old myth that came from a fictional storybook written by a Roman author. Saying werewolves exist is like saying the Frankenstein monster exists. I kept trying to remove it but it kept getting re-added and the article says if you make a change to the article you must post it here. So I suggest we remove the lines about Dora Nihov being a werewolf. 68.164.84.89 22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, you're too realistic. I am the one that deals with what I put on my own userpage, so stop changing it. Dora Nichov 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well how was I supposed to know it was a joke? 68.164.84.233 00:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke. Now put it back and if you change my userpage again without permission or discussion I'll just have to report you.

One more thing, that line about you not liking to call animals shortened names says "T. rex for Tyrannosaurus" when it should say "T. rex for Tyrannosaurus Rex" 68.164.88.204 14:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh who cares? They're the same anyway. Dora Nichov 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Names

I actually do not think it okay to use the animal names from the encyclopedia, as they are not used in the film. Moreover, the encyclopedia often references well-preserved species as examples used as models for less well-preserved species, therefore not directly claiming the animal in the film is that specific species. So let us not use the species names unless they are referred to in the film itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Denn333 (talk • contribs)

Disagree. VERY DISAGREE! It's better to be specific. So, the Seymouria is not a Seymouria because they said it was an amphibian, that's what you're saying. Look, who are you? The maker of this documentary!? If they said the chasmatosaur they meant was a Proterosuchus, then it's a Proterosuchus. It's different from, say, a fossil of a Coelophysis but they said it was a Struthiomimus. Totally D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T! Dora Nichov 06:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the "they" that say this? The encylcopedia? or the film itself. This Wikipedia entry is about the film, not the encyclopedia. I will grant that it is helpful to reference the encyclopedia, especially if it adds more information. That said, your editing of this entry is very confusing, because species/class names like "Gorgonops" are not used in the film. However, we must make such references clear, as the typical reader will assume that these are references to the film, which they are not. You could, for example put links to the encyclopedia in for all cases in which the film does not use a name that you insist should be included because it was referenced in the encyclopedia. --Denn333 06:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's (the encyclopedia) an indirect reference to the film, since it's written by the makers of the programme. Good idea about citing a reference to the encyclopedia. Dora Nichov 06:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you agree. I want to make clear that I was not contesting the Seymouria... That one is referenced online, but I cannot find a single place onlne that cites the Gorgonopsid in Walking with Monsters as being a Gorgonops. This seems bizarre, because Gorgonops actually comes from Africa and is none only from skulls (I think). However, there IS a beautiful, nearly complete skeleton of a large gorgonopsid from Russia called Inostrancevia! Why didn't the Walking with folks show THAT one instead? It seems much more relevant. Alas, this confusion, added to by the encylcopedia references in the article, is the source of my consternation. (Well that, and the fact that the Gorgonopsids are my favorite animals ever!)--Denn333 07:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder too, why the Walking With... people decided that the gorgonopsid was a Gorgonops. They could have used Inostrancevia instead... Dora Nichov 07:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWM is inaccurate and is not reliable. When I watched it on Discovery Channel, I was at the Hynerpeton part, and I was very anxious, because I really wanted to see Ichthyostega.

"This is an amphibian... Hynerpeton."

I was a little disapointed. But Hynerpeton was still interesting. Giant Blue Anteater 05:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they could have used a more famous animal. In the encyclopedia, Tim Haines confessed that Hynerpeton is not really our ancestor, at most, just a cousin, since it has eight digitd on each foot. And, yeah, Walking With Monsters is less accurate than both Walking With Dinosaurs or Walking With Beasts. Dora Nichov 11:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dora Nichov and Great Blue Anteater... I think we have a problem about accuracy.

I just got the Haines-made encyclopedia myself this week. Unfortunately, it seems that you guys are making inferences that weren't intended by Haines. The encyclopedia reuses stills from the film. See paragraph 3 of p. 6 (the introduction... I have the second printing from 2006.) So, for example, the book says Gorgonops, but that does not mean we are looking at Gorgonops in the film. Rather, Haines et al are reusing the image of the gorgonopsid from the film to portray Gorgonops in the book. Of course, that's a logical thing to do--why make new art when you can repurpose old art? (The reason, of course, that this approach works is that the artwork is based on whatever evidence they can find, and Gorgonops, being known only from some large skulls, allows Haines and company a lot of flexibility in portrayal. If they had chosen Inostrancevia, for which there is a nearly complete skeleton, then they'd have had less flexibility!)

At any rate, I am afraid that the Wikipedia entry, as it stands, has details that are not applicable to the film--or at least not explicitly supported by the encyclopedia, as a result of what I have explained above, barring comments from Haines himself. I would be agreeable, though, to saying "the Complete GUide to Prehistoric Life uses this image to represent the very similar Gorgonops" I am willing to let you guys do it, because I know you care a lot about this entry... Or I can do it myself. It's your choice. :-)

By the way... I didn't find a reference to Ericiolacerta in mine. I was really psyched the film had a Therecephalian, but isn't Ericiolacerta really tiny? the one the film is about 2/3 the length of the Lystrosaurus. Where did the Ericiolacerta come from? --Denn333 09:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ericiolacerta isn't in that encyclopedia. You should look through history and see who made the first Ericiolacerta edit. Then ask him, clutter him with messages, whatever, not my buisness. >_< Other than that, we shouldn't do anything too rashly. Look for proof of using common species for pictures before jumping to conclusions. >_^ Dora Nichov 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not rash at all... And I didn't say they used common species for pictures... I said they re-used pictures from the film for the book afterward, and got more specific for the book than they did with the film. When I change the entry, I will post a complete rationale on the talk page, okay. --Denn333 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notosuchus/Allodaposuchus

Hello Dora Nichov,

I trust you when you say that the crocodile-like creature in Dinosaur Planet was a Notosuchus. However, I'm still positive Allodaposuchus is also in the series. Was it in a different episode? It's been a long time since I saw it, wasn't there also a crocodile-like animal in the episode Pod's Travels? If so, then that was probably Allodaposuchus. Jerkov 12:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Allodaposuchus is in Pod's Travels, while Notosuchus is in Alpha's Eggs. By the way, nice of you to drop by! Dora Nichov 00:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Secrets In Zoo Tycoon

Hi Dora, I just wanted to let you know, in case you were unaware, that there really are no secrets on a Wiki. I'm not picking on you, just letting you know that simply reposting the "Inaccuracies" article at a different name is likely to get it speedily deleted as a recreation of previously deleted material (see G4 on that page). Like I said previously, I think a smaller description/summation of the inaccuracies of the game is useful to the article, I just didn't think it warranted an entirely separate article by itself. Good luck here at Wikipedia, and don't hesitate to ask any questions you might have. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inaccuracies have been moved to Wikibooks. Dora Nichov 04:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About The Tiger Article

Hi thanks for supporting me, or in other words, the truth. Recently some "tiger lovers" have come together and are vandalising the article. There is a lot of exaggeration in that article. Whenever I change it, they keep reverting it back. Then I decided to try to explain them the truth (when one of them told me that I was vandalising, acutally they were.). They are so not objective, they don't understand. No one replied my last message, although they didn't forget to revert. Still, after all that explanation, they are warning me (in the history section and in my personal space), that I will be reported because of "vandalism". It's so unbelievable and funny. I know you don't like editing animal articles but please support me with this. They are ruining that page. John9834 17:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I understand. I've been in this position several times myself. I'll be happy to help. Dora Nichov 01:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names In 6th Episode Of Walking With Beasts

Hello Dora Nichov,

Don't you think it's better to use the common English names for the creatures in the 6th episode of Walking With Beasts? Listing Coelodonta when the animal in question is generally called 'woolly rhinoceros' makes it look a bit silly. We also don't list the gray wolf from that episode as Canis. Jerkov 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the gray wolf/Canis thing. But it is true I gave the prehistoric animals their scientific names. I think we should give the scientific names a mention in the list of animals, though they're not neede in the episode summary. Dora Nichov 01:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the gray wolf/Canis thing as an example of how it is a bit strange when scientific names are used when there are much better-known English names. Of course we use scientific names in articles regarding the animals themselves, but in an article about a TV show they appeared in it looks weird and gimmicky. Jerkov 18:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerkov... You are right; filmmakers like Haines et al sometimes use generic names in order to present a film that is more comprehensible to a broader, less educated audience than Dora, you, me, etc.

Dora Nichov is really struggling with how to name the animals. I understand where he is coming, trying to resolve the animals he sees with actual, scientific animals; moreover, he wants to provide that information to the audiences who watch the programs with Wikipedia as a cross-reference resource!

I encourage you to edit the entry to reflect what information is provided IN THE TV show. However, to appease people who want to cross reference what they SEE with what SCIENCE knows, I encourage you to notate things in the following form:

* NAME GIVEN IN FILM (representing X")

or, occasionally, as appropriate,

* NAME GIVEN IN FILM (modeled on X, but possibly representing Y)

where X is the name Dora Nichov want to include and Y is a very closely related animal occasionally used by Haines, etc., to figure out how the heck X should look on screen!!! In both cases, it would be best to cite the Haines-published encyclopedia (or set up the citation and let someone who has the book fill in the page number. The book can be referenced, I think, simply as

Haines et al, The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life

For the record, while Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia (official rules) and NOT meant to be a scientific reference guide for television shows, I think it's safe to say that nobody will cite you for breaking that rule here (nobody has cited him yet, after all!!!) And we ALL will have fun clicking the names to learn more!!! (If you want to write back to me, you can do so on my own user talk)--Denn333 03:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the current state of the articles in question. The sources are stated and identified. Like I said a long time ago, if the moviemakers say that the gogonopsid used in their film is a Gorgonops, then it IS a Gorgonops, because the programme is THEIR creation. It's different from digging up a Tyrannosaurus fossil and saying it's an Allosaurus, 'cause the fossil is not YOUR creation. Anyways, I thought this whole thing was settled. What do you mean the article is inaccurate? It's better to be specific. Dora Nichov 09:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong; you were just to lazy to look because it means admitting you were wrong (seriously, dude). The moviemakers NEVER SAID the gorgonopsid on the tv show is a "Gorgonops." If they did, tell me where, and I will stop. I'm open to being proved wrong, but so far I just keep getting "it's in the encyclopedia."

Well let me refer YOU to the encyclopedia. Read the introduction of the The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life. It says, in the 2006 edition, in VERY CLEAR language

(first paragraph) they made Walking with Dinosaurs
(second paragraph) they made the other Walking With... shows; they "finished with seven and a half hours of television"
(third paragraph) "The combined coverage of these television series has allowed us to fulfil another long-standing ambition - namely, to produce a book that could tell the same storyusing the unique high-resolution stills made possible by the materials produced specailly for the programmes.

This CLEARLY shows that they made the movies and then took stills from the movies and made the book.

Are we finally clear? The animal names in the Wikipedia entry, when I have time to edit them, WILL be the ones used in the film. I will compromise the "Wikipedia is an encylopedia" rule and add the more specific names used in the encyclopedia. If that does not satisfy, you can take it up with a formal complaint OR provide EVIDENCE that I am wrong above. --Denn333 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. I just said there's nothing wrong with the article. Besides, you don't even have proof that the animals IN THE FILM are not meant to be the ones IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. (Or vice versa). Dora Nichov 09:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what happened to you? It's like you're so aggresive all of a sudden. There's nothing to be angry about. Also, I'd admit I'm wrong if I am, but I'm not. Don't make stupid assumptions like I'm too lazy or unwilling to let my work be changed, etc. Dora Nichov 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Nichov... You need to, once and for all, separate the encyclopedia from the movie. They are different things. The encylcopedia is not a companion to the movie. They merely draw from the same well of art because they were made by similar people.

As for "proof" YOU must provide the proof that the animals in the film ARE meant to be the same ones in the encyclopedia. Otherwise, you are making stuff up. That's how proof works. You are making the claim that Gorgonops appears in Walking with Monsters, and therefore you need to cite the evidence. Nowhere does it say "The animals in this book appeared in Walking with Monsters." In fact, I cited evidence to the contrary above.

In short, you are making an inference that is not supported by evidence. I am getting harsh, because I worry that your preconceptions are so strong that you are unable to see your error. Preconceptions can be powerful, and I worry that they are blocking your ability to see the truth of this matter. Denn333 21:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I remember you said that Seymouria and Proterogyrinus were revealed on the web. Then why do you believe the web and not the encyclopedia? And, as I said before, you're suddenly aggresive. You were nicer before. Dora Nichov 14:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THAT is a good question, and one which might help you "get" the point. The web reference SAYS that it is a description OF the MOVIE Walking with Monsters. The encyclopedia never says this, and in fact, suggests that they just used the same artwork. Of course, the overlap is, by and large, ubiquitous, but not 100%.

Do you get my point finally?

Yes. While I don't have evidence that the animals ARE the same as the movie, you don't have proof that they aren't, either. Dora Nichov 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, BECAUSE the encyclopedia were made by the creators and used stills from the programme, it's safer to assume the encyclopedia animals were meant to be the movie ones, rather than not. At least you can agree with that, right? So until more evidence turns up, the article should remain in it's current state. That's what I think, and don't worry about me getting carried away by my own thoughts, thank you. Dora Nichov 09:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never assume. If you can't provide absolute evidence that the animals are one in the same, it's speculation, and it's not permitted on wikipedia.Denn333 09:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I never said I did. I just said that it's safer to assume that they're meant to be the same animals. We should try to clear this up using the things I said. Dora Nichov 12:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Jerkov's problem, I think prehistoric animals should be identified by their scientific names. Don't know why, it's just a habit of mine. Dora Nichov 06:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Article Tag

I have added {{personal Article}} to your user page. Giant Blue Anteater 01:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that do? Dora Nichov 07:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing bad. It just let's you know that it's a personal article. Giant Blue Anteater 23:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Dora Nichov 02:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do you miss Steve Irwin? I sure do! Giant Blue Anteater 23:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not as much as most, but I do. Dora Nichov 06:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Hedge

While I do not neccesarily disagree with your recent edit removing some content in Over the Hedge (film), your reasoning for doing so made me a bit curious. None of what you removed seemed to look like vandalism to me? Again, I'm not protesting, I'm just curious. Debolaz 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was just trying to remove the "opossums don't have prehensile tails" part 'cause it's not true. Dora Nichov 10:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walking with... Trilogy

Out of curiousity and to avoid an edit war :-) The BBC has released the Complete Walking with.. Collection link, which does also not include Walking with Monsters. If this is the case, who is actually defining the contents of the Walking with-trilogy? Certainly not the BBC itself.

Secondly, the see also-section is not limited to mentioning only the "trilogy" (assuming it is an official trilogy). Considering Walking with Cavemen is in many ways similar to the other Walking withs it is worth referring to this as well. People visiting Wikipedia, who are interested in these series will certianly look also for WWC.

I hope you can explain your viewpoint?

Brynnar 14:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I promise that I will revert this change every time, Dora Nichov. You are being a busy body that is going against the expertise of many, many people besides you. Whether it's "in the series" or not is not relevant for "See also." You get to be picky about "in the series" at the top of the article. "See also" is a place for related articles. The Walking with Cavemen article is a related article, and that is something many people have over-ridden you on MANY times now.

By persisting on these things, you make yourself a nuisance. Look at how long your talk page is? That should be evidence enough that you are making too many changes that you should not be making.

Are we clear?Denn333 06:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, it is related, blah blah blah. OK, we are clear, but how long my talk page is doesn't make me a nuisance. I've met many rather NICE, SENSIBLE people with long talk pages. It depends on what they're talking about. For example, one guy wrote to thank me in helping with HIS arguement with somebody else. Another one simply wrote to ask a question. AND there's another section that's simply the Unblocking Center. (Plus the welcome section). See? Nearly everyone EXCEPT you is complaining about my edits on my talk page. Most simply want me to clarify my edits, not rant and rave about how I'm annoying, blah, blah, blah, etc. By the way, Brynnar, the Walking With... Collection is indeed a combined box of the Walking With... Trilogy and Walking With Cavemen. So, you (and Denn333, I must admit reluctantly) are right about them related in some ways. Also, Walking With Monsters was not made when they made the Walking With... Collection, explaining why it wasn't included in it. But it stands Walking With Dinosaurs, Walking With Beasts, Walking With Monsters and their specials are combined in the Walking With... Trilogy, in which Walking With Cavemen is not included. Dora Nichov 12:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please keep all new sections above the Unblocking Center, thank you. (I like neatness, you see). Dora Nichov 12:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, Denn333, the longest sections WERE those complaining about my edits, but they were all written by YOU! See? Nobody else is complaining. Dora Nichov 13:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you talk with some sense. It takes forever to get you to break your preconceptions. Sheesh.

Anyway, the reason it's called the trilogy is because the marketing plan was made when there were only 3 available. Had they known they would make Walking with cavemen, they would not have called it a trilogy... that was in the future though. So it's a trilogy only because of a stupid technicality. Denn333 03:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOW you say I talk sense. Anyway, THIS matter is settled. By the way, Walking With Monsters was made AFTER Walking With Cavemen, though of course you could say they had decided to make the Walking With... Trilogy and made Walking With Cavemen before they finished. I think (this is just what I think, not a fact) that Tim Haines had decided to make the Walking With... Trilogy. While the other crew mambers agreed, they also made, by themselves, Walking With Cavemen. That's what I think anyway, don't take it seriously. Dora Nichov 04:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Cassowary/Walking With... Wikibooks

What do you mean you don't think it's possible just because they are from differen't genera? It so happens that I have heard of & seen a great many intergeneric hybrids & even some that cross family boundaries (documented, not just rumors). I often hear about people who don't think certain hybrids are possible and every time I hear their reasons I can't help but feel dissapointed that there are still so many myths about hybrids. See the Hybrid article for details. Some Inter-familial hybrids can be seen here [1]. The Cassowary and the Emu are very closely related (there is even a recent, intermediate fossil form called Emuarius). I think that it is indeed VERY likely that if someone were to try a hybridizing experiment with the two mentioned Ratites, it would be succesfull. I was just wondering weather it had been done before (but I do value opinions, and my post has been empty for so long it's nice to just hear from somebody on the subject). By the way, good job on the Walking with... wikibook thing, keep up the good work. And have you heard from Den333 and Dinogeek? Have you seen them recently anywhere else on wikipedia, because I still haven't heard from them. - 04:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the predator thing, there were large predators in Australia's recent past, so I think that's the reason for the Claw and Kicks. Also, the kick could just be a byproduct of another adaptation (such as powerful leg muscles, and the fact that it evolved from running ancestors). - 04:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed Denn's "recent" edit to your talk page. Hmmmm. - 04:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN!!! Youcan help with the Wikibooks thing if you want, and no, ever since Denn333 recently said that I finally made sense, he never comes anymore. And Dinogeek seems to have disappeared. Plus Denn333 didn't pursue the subject when he appeared — he was talking about another subject. Dora Nichov 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see you too. Sorry it took so long to put this post in, after I wrote the others (I was taking a short Internet break). I will try to help with the wikibooks, but I'm not good with paragraphs, so I will just stick with creating the species list and episode guide. By the way, I noticed that you wrote the Synopsis for "A Cruel Sea" before "Time Of The Titans". Didn't the events in "... Sea" come after "... Titans"?. Or did they come first?. Or is this just a temporary arangement?. - 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have finished the settings and species lists for Monsters, Dinosaurs and Beasts (I based Beasts and Monsters on the Dinosaurs page -except for the paragraphs- you created and I based the species list on their Wikipedia counterparts). All that is left is for you to fix any errors or anything you see wrong with it and to write the paragraphs (sorry I didn't write them, but I'm not good at that). - 23:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Correction: I stopped coming here because there was no reason to, given that you you finally relented on a stubborn, incorrect view that caused an edit war with me and several others. Denn333 12:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

192-something, I made a mistake with the episodes... And good for you! Denn333, OK, whatever, but you didn't pursue the subject all the same. And what do you mean "several others"? Only this guy called Dinogeek is currently with you, and he hasn't appeared since. But if you want to drop it, let's drop it. Dora Nichov 11:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dora, when I added the species list to the wikibooks I changed "Cruel Sea" from Early Jurassic to Late Jurassic. When I returned recently I found that it was changed back. The "Walking with Dinosaurs" article states that "Time of the Titans" takes place 152 mya and "Cruel Sea" takes place 149 mya. That would make "... Sea" even later in the Jurassic than "... Titans". Could you elaborate your opinion on the subject? By the way, are you sure that "Prehistoric Park" is part of the "Walking with..." series?. - 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right... I'll do more research about Prehistoric Park. Dora Nichov 06:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prehistoric Park

Dear Dora,

I would like to point out that in the prehistoric park talk page, it is generally considered rude and stupid to give in the last word when the other wikipedians requested an end to the discussion. I removed your comment to prevent you looking as so and to help you realize that the last word is not always needed, but if you choose to have such a negative impact on others' view of you, then go ahead. Sorry for removing your comment, but the last word is not always the best word. --DeadGuy 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for telling me. I just like to answer to anything I can, sorry if I have violated any rules or offended anyone, etc. Dora Nichov 08:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research On List Of Apex Predators

THe reason I reverted your edit that restored the article to a former state was due to the article not complying to Wikipedia's No original research policy. WE, as editors, shouldn't classify animals of whether they are apex predators or not. That is up to bilogists. Classifying in this way is dificult because it isn't very cut and dry. For example, most articles i've read about great whites state that it is an apex predator. If verifiable, reliable sources can back that up, than the great white should stay regardless of whether it conflicts with the definition in the Apex predator article. I think it would be wise to refrain from adding new entries without any sources. Currently only one has a source. The ones i left are pretty much undisputed, obvious examples of apex predators. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justinmeister (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm... You're right. One thing I must add -- some animals are only occasionally preyed on by other animals but aren't usually. For example, leopards are sometimes eaten by lions, but not very often. As they're not the normal prey, they're still apex predators. (Same with the great white shark). Dora Nichov 12:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pufferfish

Hi Dora,

I've reverted your change re: pufferfish chewing their way out of other animals if swallowed. This sounds unlikely to me, however, if you've got a source for this information please discuss it (and the sources) at Talk:Pufferfish prior to re-adding the change.

Thanks! MidgleyDJ 10:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just remember seeing it somewhere, but I guess I'll have to find a source... Dora Nichov 10:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dora, could you please provide a proper citation for this claim? Please read up on WP:CITE if unsure how to go about this. I find this claim very unlikely, and I think that Darwin may not be a very reliable source in this case. No offense to Darwin. If the claim is properly cited then it can remain in the article while debate is held on the reliability of the source. Thanks. BFD1 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fennec Nichov

To be honest with you, I didn't laugh, just smiled a bit! Maybe put some more humour, not just the characters fighting. Let's say, some dinosaurs are arguing and one of them says something bad to another and that dino makes a good comeback. I'll like it more that way, but I don't know about other people. And also, try to make a good joke there. Like, from all the funny programs you've seen, try to remember something funny and add it there. Ok, maybe not the EXACT SAME THING, but still... I'm not saying the writing is bad, just that ... there's more room for improvement, you know what I mean? Send me more and i will EVALUATE them. Radical3

Yeah... Well, I know the whole thing is all similar but there will be some slightly different jokes (but this one's mostly similar nonetheless, there's more difference in the Walking With Beasts interview) like funny call-ins and stuff. Just bear with this epsode for a few days. And you'd better see the end credits! Anyways, thanks! Feel free to make improvements if you see any! (As always, the commercials are better than the show itself LOL, except that Steropodon egg commercial, it was lousy, like Fennec Nichov said)... Dora Nichov 09:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I didn't thought you'd take me saying "humorous" so seriously! Dora Nichov 13:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Extreme

Hi Dora, I know you recently told me that you have seen the "Odd Couples" episode. I checked out TV.com and found out that number 2 was the Caterpillar and Tree Ant. Can you tell me why? Radical3 20:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tree ants protect trees. Caterpillars smell like trees. So the tree ants protect them too. Dora Nichov 08:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Awesome!Radical3 20:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Sorry I haven't contacted you these days. I've been busy. Dora Nichov 11:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That's allright. Radical3 13:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question for you. Can you name me some animals that come back "from the dead", besides hog-nosed snakes, opossums, bears, wetas, lungfish, frogs, and targigades. I do know that the tarantula can be paralyzed by tarantula hawks, and can you name another animal (if you can) with the same sort of "coming back from the dead" as the tarantula. Radical3 22:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I know something that you don't know. HAHAHAHA! (not trying to be mean or anything, but): The Madrilenian butterly, unlike other butteflies, feeds on blood. It lives in Spain and was just recently discovered. Radical3 23:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool about the butterfly! I didn't know that! Let's see... I'm sure many wasps paralyze different insects, like some attack caterpillars while others paralyze weevils. The ground squirrel can lower its body temperature to like 7 degrees C while hibernating. Animals that play dead... There's plenty of those! Stick insects, some South American canines, some rodents, some lizards all use that trick, just to name a few.

What's a liver fluke? Radical3 14:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, flukes are worm-like thingys are parasites. Dora Nichov 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange name for such an animal. For parasites, I would be expecting the name hookworm or roundworm, lol. Unless if the parasite has a more common name. Radical3 17:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liver flukes come in several species. They are similar to flatworms, and have a totally parasitic life cycle with the immature stage spent in one host species, usually a snail, and the mature stage spent in the liver of a mammal such as a sheep, cow, pig or human. They live within the small biliary ducts, causing obstruction and the graual onset of cirrhosis, and shed large mubers of eggs into the biliary system, whence they are excreted via the bowel to reinfect the primary hosts.--Anthony.bradbury 17:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dora, look who came. Mr. Anthony who doesn't accept the fact that truth is stranger than fiction. Radical3 20:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. LOL Dora Nichov 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well! I don't blame him. There ARE no websites about the species. I guess I have to wait until more people learn about the butterfly. But until then, I guess I'll have to wait a LONG time. Radical3 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Dora Nichov 09:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly

Dora, I have left a message for User:Radical3 on his talk page. I note your comment thereon. You have a valid point, but we are dependent on external sources to verify new articles, and sometimes these sources let us down. Such is life. I found your comment to me only accidentally, after Radical3 contacted me. It would have been better to post to my talk-page, where I would be certain to find it.--Anthony.bradbury 17:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it is a wikipedia policy to avoid personal attacks on other editors. Your comment to me comes a little close to breaching this policy. Let's all stay friends.--Anthony.bradbury 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, whatever you say. But truth is stranger than fiction and you've got to admit it. Dora Nichov 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Anthony, if you do wanna stay friends (I'm surprised!), then STOP DELETING FRIGGEN' ARTICLES OR PUT THEM ON SPEEDY FRIGGEN' DELETION OR WHATEVER YOU FRIGGEN' CALL THEM!!! Radical3 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Dora Nichov 09:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said on User:Radical3's page, I am not an admin and you are both moaning at the wrong person. As I have also said, I have no particular need to stay friends with you (which I never have been) and threatening edits on talk pages are not regarded with favour in wikipedia. Persistent threats tend to end in users being blocked from editing wikipedia, which I am sure none of us want.--Anthony.bradbury 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fine! Dora Nichov 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question #2

Do you really turn into a werewolf when you see something round? LOL. Radical3 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, LOL. But if I could it would do me a lot of good though... Dora Nichov 09:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another dumb question: If not, then why did you write it on user page? (You might think I'm stupid ........................ I am.) LOL Radical3 20:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you don't have to tell the truth on your userpage, do you? But that (and the taxobox LOL) are the only untruths on my userpage. Dora Nichov 06:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look here then you'll see why I wrote that and how I got my name. Read all the way through... You'll see my name. Dora Nichov 06:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I've seen everything. Radical3 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that article, or my userpage? Dora Nichov 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Today's my birthday! And ... uh... can you respond on MY talk page, for I don't really like visiting your talk page and then responding. Just write yer response on MY talk page. Radical3 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK... Dora Nichov 01:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Poem

Here goes:

I am the biggest of the birds

I am the ostrich, in other words.

I can't fly, but I am fast.

And in a race, I won't be last.

Best I can do. Radical3 05:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Face-Off

Hello, Dora. I just recently checked out the talk page of Animal Face-Off. Who vandalized my article and what did he change? Radical3 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He said you liked to use uncommon animal names instead of normal ones. Not a big change, but I suppose it's not true. Dora Nichov 04:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the animal face-off clips on YouTube?

Croc vs. Shark - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZLIUzyRwwc
Elephant vs. Rhino - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdIZhc8rmbg
Lion vs. Tiger - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VpIQzH7TR0
Hippo vs. Shark - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmujY5xPXJM
Wolf vs. Cougar - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPsyK61bWM4
Polar Bear vs. Walrus - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o22mGCSfUQY
Tiger vs. Bear - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLwmUbRY8Mk
Lion vs. Croc - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfTs3kn7Jrc
Jaguar vs. Anaconda - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w75U7wueU_Q
Gorilla vs. Leopard - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF7fMHYfQco
Alligator vs. Bear - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVIinTtxLDY
Giant Squid vs. Sperm Whale - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDLDzEEV1Ns

You can't see it really well, but at least you can still watch it. Radical3 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also found some "The Most Extreme" clips on YouTube.

Termite - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCnBEVqXXM
Macaque - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfAm2Jlu6b4
Tick - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhuiqEUZRCk
Lemming - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWM8SwRECi0
Water Bear - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1er3U8rzYRk
Mantis Shrimp - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llM3JmGIESI

You can see these clips much better. Radical3 17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I got an idea Animal-Face Off can do for another episode. How about: Polar Bear vs. Kodiak Bear. Not bad, eh? Radical3 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! I got more ideas:

Jaguar vs. Caiman
Cheetah vs. Spotted Hyena
Bull Shark vs. Saltwater Crocodile
Cougar vs. Jaguar
Polar Bear vs. Musk Ox
Leopard vs. Wildebeest

And for YOUR ideas:

Wolverine vs Wolf - wolverine is powerful, it could even drive away 3 wolves!
Fox vs Raccoon - hmmm... i dunno
Bald Eagle vs Great Horned Owl - i'm thinking bald eagle ... cuz it's larger
Giant Anteater vs Jaguar - definetily jaguar for me
Warthog vs Leopard - aggresive warthog vs. skilled leopard - I like this 1
Killer Whale vs Great White Shark - killer whale! it's WAY bigger than the shark

I just thought of another idea:

Oceanic Whitetip Shark (not Whitetip Reef Shark) vs. Bull shark

Quick question: Where can you get tablets on your userpage (i think that is what they are called, but i'm not sure) Radical3 16:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: What are the Animal Face-Off scenarios that you disagree with?Radical3 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ice Age" Animals

I haver moderately good news; I think that we are very close to finding out the solution to just what kinds of animals are shown in the "Ice Age" films. As it turns out, I've taken the liberty of writing Blue Sky Studios a letter asking them just what kinds of animals are shown. Some could theoretically be the species shown, but are we reallly sure? If that doesn't work, I'm also sending a letter to Peter DeSeve, the guy who's designed the animals. He might tell us what kinds of animals are shown; as he designed the film, he should know what animals he used!

Thanks very much for your time!--KnowledgeLord 18:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! Dora Nichov 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting vandals

Hello, just a note to let you know that Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is for reporting people who are actively vandalizing so administrators can intervene. If the vandalism has stopped, it isn't necessary to report it. Thanks! --Ginkgo100^talk 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I checked the hisotry of Zoo Tycoon 2: Extinct Animals, and it looks to me more like a content dispute than vandalism. Adding inflammatory comments is not likely to do anything except egg this user on (eg, "For those that are coming to add fake stuff, STOP or we'll have to report you to ban you and we mean it! Signed: All HONEST editors of this article"). If you cannot discuss the issue politely with the other editor (for instance, if they refuse to talk), then you might want to try dispute resolution. --Ginkgo100^talk 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Dora Nichov 04:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

This would help avoid reversion problems. It is also necessary for you to explain why you are reverting good faith edits to the Finding Nemo article. You should use the talk page to explain why you continue to revert my changes without any explanations. Thanks. ju66l3r 08:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the inaccuracies section? Dora Nichov 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section because the content is original research that did not even have a single source. If another source, such as a magazine or newspaper article, listed all of the inaccuracies of the movie compared to reality, then reporting it as something someone else has found to be true would be a sourced fact that could be of interest to the article, but it is not the role of Wikipedia to house a list of movie inaccuracies that the community has to create itself. That is the definition of WP:OR. I have left it in for now and will discuss it on the article's talk page. ju66l3r 08:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Dora Nichov 08:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit

Please do not make legal threats or claims of legal action against users or Wikipedia itself on Wikipedia. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Thank you. Pea ceNT 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I know. Dora Nichov 08:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for Two Weeks

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Jersey Devil 06:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Viridae ^Talk 06:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What!? I've been blocked for that! No warning? I mean, I didn't violate it again! Oh well, I'll have to wait then, I guess. Dora Nichov 08:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblock reviewed 1=OK... where should I start? Oh, all right, I did threaten that vandal, but it was only for helping Wikipedia! If you look through my contributions, you'll find that my edits are usually for the good of Wikipedia. I mean, it's just pretty unjust that you block me but not the offending vandal. It's also unjust you block someone for their, er, "good intentions". Fine, I agree not to threaten anyone, including vandals, in the future all right? Can't anyone give me just one last chance? Thanks. And feel free to block me if I threaten anyone else but just unblock me this once. Please? Yours hopefully, Dora Nichov

decline=I'm provisionally declining this for now only to remove it from the category. I have contacted Viridae here. Due to the serious reasons behind the block, this may take some time. Please be patient. Thank you. I have this page watchlisted and you are also welcome to e-mail me if I don't respond for a couple of days.--Kchase T 10:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, per conversation with Viridae, I've reduced this block to two months. As the situation stands, I'm disinclined to reduce it futher. Even though I believe these two comments Plus I'll kill you if you vandalize my userpage again., and Stupid vandal, I'll kill you the way I kill moose!) were not meant seriously, it's impossible to know how the people they were directed at interpreted them. For that reason, I am treating the situation seriously, even if I don't think you ever had any serious intention of killing anyone for vandalism of your wikipedia userpage. If you're willing to do a few things (such as agreeing to strike the comments and apologize on the IP talk pages) I'd be willing to entertain reducing the block to the original two weeks.--Kchase T 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Dora Nichov 11:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that right now as I'm not allowed to edit (this is obvious) but I'll do it first thing after the block expires, no matter if it's two months to two weeks. Dora Nichov 11:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I saw your message on Viridae's talk page and I just want to thank you. Dora Nichov 11:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Kchase T 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small heads up... Dora Nichov is now editing under anonymous IP (and not being very clandestine about it, either). See the relevant talk page and the contribution page. Of course, there may be other IPs which he is using to edit as well. Denn333 15:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... You seem to be enjoying your "revenge" a lot, Denn333. I've promised no threatening, and I'm trying my best not to do so, so there. Dora Nichov 01:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys also seem to froget I do more good than harm. Dora Nichov 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of like trying to exterminate a weasel, if you know what I mean. Dora Nichov 02:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, two months, most vandals just get like two days! Huh. So the disruptive vandals get only two days in prison while someone that does mostly good gets two months!? Very logical, yeah right. Dora Nichov 02:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any vandal that gives death threats will be indef blocked if they are using an account or given a long term anon only block if they are using an IP. Because of your good record barring this incident you have had your block shortened to 2 months, however you still gave death threats, something that is extremly frowned upon within the community. If you continue to try and evade the block, the block will be continually be reset. And I am quite willing to file a checkuser request to find out if you are evading. Sit back, wait for your block to run out so you can resume editing and don't make any further death threats once you can edit. If you continue to evade, the block will be continually reset so you won't be able to edit under this username. As it is, this most recent evasion has added a day or so to the length of the block. Viridae ^Talk 02:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, just because I did one bad edit doesn't mean all my edits are bad. There's no reason to rv all those edits I made under my IP address. I tried not to threaten anyone, so would you guys just leave me alone? Blocking, reverting my edits and all that stupid treatment, and I'm not even a vandal! You are so... wait... no personal attacks, right? Fine, but if someone does good and is punished more than a vandal, it's REALLY unjust, it really is. That's what I've been trying to say. Dora Nichov 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason various admins blocked you for two weeks to indefinitely is because death threats are much more serious than simple vandalism. Furthermore, resetting a block or extending a block for evasion is well supported by policy. See WP:BLOCK#Evasion_of_blocks. Please don't do it again, or I will extend the block myself.--Kchase T 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, death threats and otherwise harsh language usually communicate that a user has a more basic problem--either being too posessive or needing attention (or both). I don't think that attention is your problem, but maybe you need to think about how posessive you are. And, for the record, it's not about revenge... it's about being able to enjoy Wikipedia. Your ban, frankly, is breath of fresh air for me and several other users who have felt tortured from time to time by your behavior, which seems to have climaxed in the death threats and the ban.Denn333 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(x-posted to User talk:Denn333) Denn333, I'll be blunt. Reporting the IP editing was fine and further good-faith reports to any administrators' talk page or an appropriate channel are welcome. But telling a blocked user what their supposed problem might be is quite simply not your place, especially when you've apparently had prior conflict with the editor in question. This smacks of baiting. Please stop it.--Kchase T 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was accused of getting revenge (see his remark to me above). I had the right to respond and said my piece. Thanks. Denn333 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the current threats still hanging around on the IP talk pages and was going to revert them, but decided to check here to see if something was going on about them. I notice that the user has agreed to get rid of the threats and apologize as soon as the block is over, but that leaves the threats hanging around for the remainder of the block, however long it is at this point. Is there any sort of compromise that can be worked out? Like someone else removes the threats so that they aren't there for the remainder of the block and the user apologizes when the block is up? Or if it's really important for the user to be the one to do it, is it possible to give the user a temporaty partial block, as in block the user from everything except the pages that the user is supposed to clean-up? Like community service? And then go back to a full block once the community service is done? Two months is an awfully long time to leave threats lying around... Miss Mondegreen | Talk 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove them yourself. Viridae ^Talk 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Threats/vandalism from: 68.164.83.246, 68.165.174.178, 75.36.119.190, 75.33.69.190, 125.164.190.191, which was everything mentioned on the ANI report. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify something -- there's only threats, no vandalism. If there's anything I hate, it's vandalism, especially persistent, obviously untrue stuff. (See Animal Face-Off. Someone is currently vandalizing both that article and its talk page). You'd think someone like me is a vandal!? Dora Nichov 02:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rescinding the offer to shorten the block, as I was unaware of the ANI thread and Jersey Devil's comment there and, to be frank, I don't know that you're taking this seriously enough to assure the community that it won't happen again in two weeks. I'm very sorry.--Kchase T 12:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I can wait, but I'm deadly serious. Even when I evaded the block I didn't threaten anyone, so why did Viridae say I did? As for Denn333, I want a breath of air as much as you do, but we can't come to a conclusion. Let's talk after my block has expired, all right? Dora Nichov 06:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you threatened someone while evading your block, i reset the block for evading the first one. Viridae ^Talk 06:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. I misunderstood your message. Dora Nichov 07:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and do I have a problem? Not really, unless you count persistent vandals and bad edits (er, not mine). Dora Nichov 06:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait though...*starts wiggling uncontrollably in chair* Dora Nichov 06:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose I'm pretty lucky as most in this situation get an indefinite block but I only get two months. Dora Nichov 06:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Denn333, you say several users are tired of me? Of the many users I've talked with, only you have a distinct aversion to me, I get along fine with most others. If any arguments occur, they're solved swiftly, only your case hasn't been solved yet. Dora Nichov 11:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any problem, it's that you took the vandalism too personally. Read the blocking section of User:Mindspillage/admin if you're so inclined. It's directed at admins, but it changed my perspective long before I was a sysop. Vandalism can get worse, but taking it personally is usually counterproductive. The best move is typically to give the templatized warning and move on. If you can't let vandalism slide, then it's usually a good idea to take a break before you say something that we have to block you for.--Kchase T 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I do now. Dora Nichov 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've found a vandal: 75.36.110.15. Too bad I can't do anything, so irritating! Dora Nichov 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going?

Hey! What's up? Haven't heard from you for a long time. How is life? Radical3 03:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, as you can see above, I've been blocked... Dora Nichov 03:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping a line for me. Yes i did get Zoo tycoon 2. Have marine mania, african adventure, and endangered species. Haven't looked @ the zoo tycoon page 4 a long time now. Drop a line 4 me if you need help!!!! Starry.dreams 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I can also speak Mandarin[reply]

Thank you. Dora Nichov 09:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking Center

Please add any new sections above this section instead of below. Thank you. (I don't care where. as long it's above this section). Dora Nichov 09:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 211.72.233.8 lifted.

Request handled by: Netsnipe ► 14:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dora, sorry for the inconvenience, but please wait a bit longer. I've forwarded your unblock request to Naconkantari (talk · contribs) as there seems to be some suspicion that your IP address, 211.72.233.8, is or once was an open proxy. Hopefully someone will get back to you within 24-48 hours. Thanks. -- Netsnipe [[User talk:Netsnipe|&nbsp

Your block has been reset back to two months due due to your evading your original block. Viridae ^Talk 22:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

How logical, barring escape routes of (how many times have I said this) someone that is not a vandal. Above that, I do mostly good, despite getting a bit harsh when angry. You know, I think you should give vandals this treatment. Dora Nichov 02:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]