User talk:Dina

Recently there was a dispute when one editor archived another's talk page because it was too long. I can understand why the person was annoyed, but I was tempted to mention that I totally don't mind and ask that editor to archive mine (though I felt that probably would have complicated the discussion so I didn't) . So if this page gets too long and you're the type of person who likes to archive, go ahead. I don't want the bot to do it because I like to keep discussions around for a few weeks or so. I am selectively lazy about Wiki-tasks, but will get to it eventually...;) Dina 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaliyah

I don't see the problem with adding a "Fans" section when her fans meant so much to her and everybody keeps on reverting the changes I have made. This is Aaliyah's page not yours. I am adding these facts I got from her official website but people keep reverting them. She loved her fans and they should be recognized. From the information I have, Krystal R. G. Is her biggest fan. I love Aaliyah also and would like to respect her by telling the truth. People keep deleting it like I am lying. Watch some of her YouTube videos or go on her official website and you will see. I don't think its fair that you all keep fighting the "Fans" like its the plague. She considers us her extended family. If this page isn't going to represent AALIYAH, it should be deleted. I'm going to fight until it does!!!! Also, I apologize for putting the protection thing up but I was getting tired of people revert what I have done, in all honesty Have a nice day

(Aaliyahsnumber1fan 16:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Part 2

Okay, thank you Dina, you made me feel a lot better and helped me understand, its ALL about stats.

• • • • Thank you again and have a nice day

(Aaliyahsnumber1fan 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

User:Goldie777

Yer a regular vandal magnet you are. Keep up the good work. I wish I didn't have to go on vacation, I'd hang around and squash the little buggers for ya. Cheers, Rklawton 19:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As I say, I think s/he's ignorant rather than malicious. But I will wait until tomorrow to see if User:Rklawton comes on line. I said I would. And if I'm wrong, it's a permanent block with no remission for good conduct, yes?--Anthony.bradbury 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I think you have seen, things have moved on a bit. So I will leave it as it stands, I think.--Anthony.bradbury 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:davidbaggaley

Thanks, that is helpful.

Backlog

WP:AIV has lots of reports which hasnt been looked into so I was thinking if you can look into it and fix some before it expands any further..Cheers..--Cometstyles 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

O/S

Yeah, I couldn't find a way of oversighting the logs for the page, so have contacted User:Brion for the purging. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Will Rogers Follies

Hello. I see you previously edited this article. Would you please check out the recent edits and see what you think? Thanks! -- Ssilvers 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate apple pie

That's cool by me. ... discospinster _talk 01:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again!

Nice to hear from you! I must admit I can never look at the Tag at the top of the Talk page on the Poly page (which says that is is part of "Disaster Management" project) without a brief laugh, and without pondering how suddenly things ended. The whole episode was an interesting lesson in life for me, and I learnt a lot for the experience. Anyway, thanks for your recent excellent comments and changes, and I will respond to some on the talkpage. We did a lot of work on the Marc Lepine page too, if you have any comments on that one too. --Slp1 21:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate the Nom, though I must say that part of me fears the responses! But as you say, at worst some constructive suggestions will come our way. I'm ready! --Slp1 01:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the warm welcome!

Lordy, lordy... I hope I'm doing this right.

Thank you for the warm welcome to this newbie!

--Paulan 23:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Celebutante

I don't understand how that article can be rewritten...it seems to be based on slang, which I guess is ok...I guess I don't really understand how it could ever be more than a stub. Please respond to my talk page if you feel it necessary.
Saber girl08 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's ok. I'd love to see how you do the article. ^_^ Have a wonderful day. Oh, and I can help if you want.
Saber girl08 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I love it! It looks wonderful.Saber girl08 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to keep up with the people who are moving Cho Seung-hui to Seung-hui Cho. Wasn't able to continually place reasoning, as other people were all over it. -Scientz

Apology

I'm sorry that I did that, I wasn't aware that I couldn't. I just noticed that the page has been vandalized quite a bit. Thanks for telling me the correct way to do this. Pgrit154 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

hi y did u delete my article?so maybe u should apologize to me i was working on it u no. do u remember the name (nickandjeff)

Incorrect CSD U1 Deletes

I had requested some pages deleted user CSD U1 today, and when you deleted them, you accdently deleted the following pages:

• User:Andrew Hampe (The Templates got transcluded.)
• User:Andrew Hampe/Templates/Menus/2 (Requested the redirect to this page, User:Andrew Hampe/Templates/Menu/2 to be deleted)
• User:Andrew Hampe/Templates/Menus/4 (Requested the redirect to this page, User:Andrew Hampe/Templates/Menu/4 to be deleted)
• User:Andrew Hampe/Templates/Menus/5 (Requested the redirect to this page, User:Andrew Hampe/Templates/Menu/5 to be deleted)
• User:Andrew Hampe/Templates/Menus/6 (Requested the redirect to this page, User:Andrew Hampe/Templates/Menu/6 to be deleted)

--Andrew Hampe ^Talk 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ok. The admin that restored it was PullToOpen. --Andrew Hampe ^Talk 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

buckmaster has several attack pages on wikipedia. Start looking into them, as the personal attack in the edit you showed me for the other user, look at the older and newer edits, it WAS him, he made 3 edits right in a row, that was his last edit, THEN the other user started editing. CINEGroup 18:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war CINEGroup 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

you know...

perhaps if you will look through all of my edits you will see I am trying to contain as many vandals as I can. I might be new to wikipedia, but I know from reading it when I was an ip address that edit warring is frowned upon. Call it 3rr call it what you want, reverting isn't alot different then editing and changing what another user wrote continuosly. Maybe you should take a peak into my contributions and see how many things I've cleaned off wikipedia and see what hasnt been cleared off yet but should be, such as nifty pages that just say "Fuck you" and nothing else. I've been doing this for fun, but I gotta tell you, if it's going to be harassment constantly then I'll just let you guys get back to being one more editor less. I might not know all the rules, but at least I know something on that page isnt correct. You instead of looking at the page just want to jump on me, other editors want to ban me, that's fine, have at it. This was a hobby for the last 2 days. I have 6 hours every morning I'm free and I took care of at least 300 articles/vandalism problems in the last 2 days,. some that had been there and not noticed for over a week. I'm sure you guys can handle it, have fun and remember, a great way to run somene off wikipedia- congradulations! CINEGroup 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate the encouragement. THANK YOU! --Paulan 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning my user page (again)!

Atlant 18:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Delta Bombing Division Speedy

Howdy. Could you give the speedy I put on Delta Bombing Division a closer look? The article seems valid at first glance, but has several nonsense statements in it, like the Bi-Planes at the end and a British officer scavenging France in 1941 for spare bombers. The editor has a history of vandalism today as well if you take a look at his talk page and edit history. Thanks. Hatch68 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It has MANY nonsense statements, and is total nonsense. The Jason Smith links only to a disambiguation page none of the Jasons listed are even pilots. - Dan D. Ric 20:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Lloyd a Mr Pinc

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Daniel Lloyd a Mr Pinc, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Postcard Cathy 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jane Scott

Hi. I happened to notice, when someone just added to it, that you created the Jane Scott article. Not that it will help the article much, but I happen to know Jane Scott. I put the article on my watch list and if I get a chance, (She remains very busy) I'll talk to her about it. Maybe I can get a picture or something to add to the piece. - Dan D. Ric 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

HERE is a link to the Lakewood Public Library article on Jane. - Dan D. Ric 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephane Provost

You recently declined to speedy delete Stephane Provost, an article that I thought lacked any indication of notability. I'm not contesting your decision, but I wanted to see if I could get any insight into why it wasn't "speedy"-able for future reference. Thanks! Esrever 04:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Hah!

Thank you! It's fun to be cranky, at least for me, and what better place for subject matter than here? Regards, CliffC 19:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Lloyd a Mr Pinc

Thanks. When I put the DB Nonsense tag on it, I didn't mean it was nonsense in the sense of gibberish but it was written in such a nonsensical tone that it was .... well, nonsense! Postcard Cathy 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Thanks for catching vandalism to my user page, much appreciated! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Errabee 18:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks

I tagged these users because they had been created in a very small period of time between Oompapas socks and he had started capitalising his usernames and disguising them so I had a feeling it was him, however it seems I was wrong, I didnt mean to WP:BITE anyone. Thanks - Tellyaddict 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

according to your rules, i havent violated 3rr. look more carefully at the sock puppet ? (oops did I say that aloud?) They claim im blanking information, it is exactly what they are doing, according to the consensus reached on the talk page, it was chosen NOT to be included.

He's already tried this with another admin in the last 10 minutes and the admin told him I am not inviolation of the 3rr rule as I am removing VANDALISM.

[1]

CINEGroup 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

funny thing is, they aren't reverts, as with your buddies on the article when i warned them and you said it was wrong, they were doing reverts. Now is this considered wikistalking yet? CINEGroup 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

wtf???

I am very frustrated at the actions you have taken upon some of my most recient page submissions....christcore is a band and it should not be redirected to the page of a particular genre. I was not finished with that page so do not edit untill you know for a fact that it has been completed.

If you would like to check my sources go to myspace.com/christcore

thank you,

Benjamin Marcus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben marcus948 (talk • contribs)

• User:Ben marcus948 has been indef blocked and his/her vandalism reverted. Rklawton 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected tag - usage

Dina, thanks for supporting my assertion that the Afro American proposal was going nowhere. However, I have a question about your edit comment about reverting the placement of the rejected tag if talk was to recommence. This seems to contradict the text of the tag which says: "support is not present and seems unlikely to form, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not." Your thoughts? --Kevin Murray 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly! I thought you were being very polite and acknowledging the sensitivities. However, on some of the emotional issues it helps to be firm to avoid the gray areas where sometimes hurt feelings fester. Regardless, there is certainly no harm in erring on the side of compassion. I think that this was a valuable discussion and think that the topic should be addressed at a manual of style page. The CNN reporter's goof is so telling. --Kevin Murray 16:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked indef user

Not a problem. I'm going through Recent Changes and undoing anything that looks iffy, and causing an appreciable amount of collateral damage along the way. I'll leave his page alone! Hawker Typhoon 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I saw him blank his talk, and rolled that back. No doubt the edits got crossed! Hawker Typhoon 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

RepublicanEagle

I understand the AGF - I was vacillating between unblocking and not unblocking until RL intruded and I forgot about the whole situation. The user did send me 3 emails, which seems like a lot if they are just a vandal, so I think there is a decent chance they'll behave themselves now. And if not, we can always block again. Natalie 01:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI: CINEGroup

CINEGroup went straight back to the reverting behavior which caused you to block him for 24h, and there are suspicious edits during the block. He also blanked his talk page and seems to be deliberately trying to conceal its history with a move. This looks like an experienced repeat offender, perhaps under a new name, not a clueless newbie. It might suffice to ban this user from editing the Walther P22 and Glock 19 articles, at least as a next step. --KSmrq^T 04:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

nice try, i edited it once in the last 24 hours. Also i tried to archive my talk page and messed it up and you'll see alot of admins fixed it. Also youll notice the Glock_19 page was LOCKED with the reference to the VA Tech shooting REMOVED by admin SWATJester. It's okay guys, sock puppets don't matter to me, revert it alllll you need to. CINEGroup 07:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I will confine my comments to CINEGroup's actions in general, as his behavior isn't exactly stellar, either. You're right that it only adds fuel to an already raging firestorm. Besides, I am investigating the former user CineWorld, in connection with illegal activities that I cannot discuss onwiki. I wouldn't want to drag CINEGroup into it if this is not the same person.

--Ispy1981 15:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to my post here, CINEGroup left this on my talk page. This despite multiple previous cautions about civility by other editors. There was also another revert with the edit summary claim "No one was blocked for 3rr violation, this aritlce as with the Glock_19 article should be locked to vandals.". Warning messages and blocks show no signs of working. And this exchange with another editor is worrisome.

On a lighter note, here's a cartoon you might enjoy. :-) --KSmrq^T 17:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For helping with the Michael Goff stuff. Whstchy 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

dina

Thanks Dina, since you are 100% fair, I'll expect a warning given to ISpy for his comments here, oh and btw, you'll see he is proven wrong, just something to think about before you get on the bandwagon again. [2]

CINEGroup 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

i expect a warning, nothing less. Of course, you wouldnt DARE warn your buddy now would you ;-)

CINEGroup 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

someday you'll edit an article about me on wikipedia, i gaurantee it.

send me an email address, this is 100% confidential. Your in boston area? I own a bakery there. [email protected] CINEGroup 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, this will NEVER stop. A warning is 100% needed here.

[3] CINEGroup 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I would actually like to hear CineGroup's response to my charges as they are serious, as I said in the wake of the Essjay affair. So far, I have seen nothing to suggest that anything he says is legitimate. I am merely trying to establish this user as a fraud and frequent abuser. Perhaps a RfC on his behavior is warranted. As for my last edit to WP:AN/I, I was merely answering his claims. Do I not have the right to point out fallacies in someone's statement, especially if they are attacking me?

--Ispy1981 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I will now gladly strike my last comment from AN/I, as it seems IrishGuy has commented on the validity of his claims as well. Of course, now IrishGuy will be a sockpuppet of me. :) Any idea how I do that? Never had to strike out my comments before. Thanks.

--Ispy1981 22:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than reply to the message below me, I am responding to your message, Dina. I will do as suggested, and then go patrol the Recent Changes. No offense, but the orange "New Messages" bar is giving me a headache. Thanks.

--Ispy1981 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I never attacked you, actually, you reported me for making an edit, in which the admin agreed with my edit and since then, you've just been an angry little man in the internet. You have no idea who I am, what business is it of yours what company I am employeed by? Do you need to call them and ask them for my employment verification records? Is this something you do with every editor? Or is this something that is coming from a PERSONAL vendetta about something else? Maybe your dreams of being a cinematographer and so your taking your anger out on someone else? I don't know you, I don't know what you want, I don't care who you are, this is just 100% plain harassment, and if any other admin (Or Dina for that matter ) were to look at this OBJECTIVELY, you would have recieved multiple warnings and probable blocks. CINEGroup 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

i notice

your kissing ALOT of ass on ISpy's talk page instead of doing what you should be doing. I'll be showing all of this to several administrators and see what they think of ISpy and your performances with this matter, and my very good guess is at least a few will see ISpy's edits as personal attacks and at least a few will see you refusing to give a warning to a friend as not being nuetral. Do you agree? CINEGroup 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, civil for your friends and just talking down to myself, but not even telling people no personal attacks? Don't call me "dear", I'm not your friend, trust me, I'm not your friend at all. CINEGroup 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Warning

Hi! Regarding your message here; the user I warned was an obvious sock puppet who has been vandalizing the Turkey article for the past few days. Many of his accounts that do not even have warnings and are already indef blocked. Sorry if it seemed like I was biting new users. :) -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ack!

Exciting things turn up when you're looking at Special:Log/Delete - thank you for this! Not sure what I did to deserve the fan mail... :) – Riana _ऋ 14:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What are talking about?

I'm not vandalising!!!!!!!!!!,this user keeps editing Corcoran and puts false information in about the surname and I simply use proper sources not just crappy internet addresses like the other guy.Well?I'm waiting for a response very quickly as to why you are labelling me a vandal for that.OdC 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No kidding? Really? Dina probably misunderstood some of your other edits and figured you were up to no good. Go figure. Rklawton 15:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've re-indef blocked this user. I did so because he/she has returned to the "scene of the crime" so to speak where he/she previously committed some outrageous breaches in, um, decorum to continue bullying other editors. Frankly, given this editor's previous racist diatribes, I'm not sure why you unblocked this person in the first place. I'm open to any concerns you might have about this action, but I suspect that you might have missed some of this editor's more outrageous edits. Rklawton 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in on this. I've just added a detailed case on my talk page. Rklawton 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

subject

Was trying to see the currency of the page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asedabruce (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Sockpuppet?

Hey Dina, I appreciate your welcome to WP from a few days ago. Unfortunately, I've already been accused of being someone's sockpuppet. Any ideas on how I can prove that I'm not in the short term? Thanks! RJ 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dina, I am willing to do all I can help resolve the sockpuppet issue. Let me know what I need to do. Thanks, Samwisep86 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My stipulation to Natalie Erin

[4] —SlamDiego 00:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a sockpuppet of curps

You obviously are are a sockpuppet of curps. You can't fool me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gloryseems (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism on my user page

Cheers for reverting the vandalism on my user page - much appreciated! DrFrench 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Where should I be replying

Hi Dina, thanks for your comments. I think I have a little ways to go before I know how everything works here. I'm not even sure where this discussion should be taking place?! Should I keep my responses on my user talk page? Alex Leonard 23:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FA

Some Oreos for your work on getting École Polytechnique massacre to featured status

Enfin! Good work, have some cookies. bobanny 05:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC) _{(but I might have to take them back if I find out you really are a sockpuppet!>;)}

We done it! What a great team! The FA was a "beau risque" ;), and I was plenty scared, but it turned out nothing but a good thing for the article, so thanks. Cookies all round!--Slp1 12:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

^{But if we ask the website if we can have one of the pictures for Wikipedia, and they say yes, then are we aloud to upload that picture?}

Im very sorry for my behavior today. Im just really confused and i would like to help you. How may i become a patrol person like you?

Sigh

Such is the life of a new page patroller. :) DarkAudit 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Portsmouth are scum, Portsmouth F.C and Portsmouth F.C.

You have speedy deleted the Portsmouth are scum quite correctly. However, another editor has made a botched attempt to tidy up the mess and the article now exists at Portsmouth F.C rather than the format Portsmouth F.C., which is agreed on by consensus for all UK football clubs. Can you restore the page to how it was please? Nuttah68 16:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is that the article should be at [[Portsmouth F.C.], full stop after the F and the C, rather than its current location Portsmouth F.C , full stop only after the F. Nuttah68 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry and thanks. Nuttah68 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ra Lyr

I wanted to ask you about the moving of the Belladonna article to the disambig page. You said, "no way a search for Belladonna should land on an obscure band, should redir to disambig page". As far as the bands obscurity, I would have to dispute that idea. A Yahoo or Google search of the word "Belladonna" produces said band(not including the Wikipedia listing) in the top 5 search listing. Belladonna may or may not be an article, by Wiki standards, a disambig. term, but using inflammatory language such as "obscure" in the Wiki public domain, could be considered libelous. The band has had major press in GQ, Glamour, and had their music featured in a major motion picture. It is also, I feel, a bit of an insult to me the author of the original article. To say that my article is less important(or at least imply that it is so obscure that it is not important) is hubris that an administrator can not afford. I am simply expressing what I felt was implied. I realize that the written word can be taken many different ways, in many different forms. That is why it is important to convey exactly what you are trying to express. All Is One...Ra Lyr 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

U ROCK

When will i be able to become admin, considering im fairly new, but HATE vandals. In facts, I think vandals should be destroyed. Please can you help me with my work, as all i wanna do is make this wikipedia the best darn refernce book in the universe. Ta, and please reply on my user pae, i beg of yer. I wanna help this community, and be a part of it.HOWDY! Dom58! 13:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about deleted article

Hi Dina,

I recently added an entry for VOID which is the acronym Various Originals, Ideas & Designs. I then included in the article link another article with a link to void.com. I was considering editing the articles, but noticed that they have been deleted and the deletion log showed your name, and the following: (A1 content was: 'VOID' (and the only contributor was 'Voidiov'))

I'm unclear as to the reason A1. Also is there a way to include my business VOID (established 1992) among the void results? If so I will appreciate any direction on how to create articles that are acceptable.

Many thanks David

24.251.115.119 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can you help me with my article i am in need of someone to tell me if i need to change anything with in it... The article is Knob Noster High School

VOID.com article

Thanks for answering my question so swiftly. I'll have to take some time to learn the guidelines.

To a great day, Cheers!

David

Voidiov 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Joshua Hill

Thanks for fixing my mistake on the page named above. I made a mistake to not look at the history first. I wont make that mistake again. Thanks again. Inter16 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll quit it

Sorry about the Sit 'n Spin thing. A bit funny though, you know.

Dropping you a note

Hey, I saw that you had given User:Mytourch a fairly light warning for his edits to John Seigenthaler, Sr. The thing is, WP:BLP is a major issue, and considering the severity of the edits [5][6] and the fact that the Seigenthaler article is such a hot-button issue anyway, he easily could have been reported right then and there to WP:AIV, bypassing any "normal" progression of user warning templates.

Don't take this the wrong way; I think you're doing a great job. I just want you to be aware that, sometimes, it's best to ignore the rules. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Scotcrap

Hi. I wanted to let you know that Scottcrap also vandalized the Barbara Walters page by putting a picture of a 95 year old woman on the page. I reverted it. Zackfins54 17:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

J. Stuart Wetmore

Hey there, Just noticed you reverted my edits to Wetmore. I agree that Bishop Wetmore may not be notable enough to warrant his own entry, but he is already referenced in the Episcopal Diocese of New York, so I thought that sufficient to include him in the disambiguation. Would you have been less likely to revert had I linked his name to that entry? I didn't since a cursory examination would find the link irrelevant. Thanks for your input. --otherlleft 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Remember there is always WP:UAA as well as AIV and so on, and it gets surprisingly backlogged, could always use more help over there. It works far better than some people have been fearing SGGH ^speak! 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well don't forget that UAA blocks all inappropriate usernames, whether they were vandals or not (though 9/10 times they are vandals) combination of reasons really, I spotted you actively admining some vandals at the same time that UAA was drowing in reports, and I noticed on your user page that you link to AIV and things but not UAA and I figured it was worth a shot seeing if you wanted to help out :) no worries. SGGH ^speak! 12:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Flash

Yes, my NPOV concerns were basically those last two lines. I would've just pulled them out, but that would've really ended the article in a wierd place. Not having time (or the desire :P ) to do a real copyedit, I just flagged the article.

BTW, I'm not seeing your changes coming up in the article. Did you submit them? Jpers36 23:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The revert

Thanks. :) Acalamari 02:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Revere

Yeah I bear these in mind: "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject." and "Do include a redlink when another article links to the ambiguous article" specifically with an eye to the latter as long as it meets the former criteria (which is the general redlink criteria anyway. Revere the comic was recently reprinted and someone was asking about the entry on the author's talk page so I threw in a redlink to facilitate this. I was hoping someone would have started it by now but I am confident one will appear (even if I have to give it a bit of a push ;) ). One the liklihood of the others... they appear to fail the second criteria which I consider a bad sign. I don't think anyone is going to lose any sleep over removing those (if they do then they can start the entry). (Emperor 17:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the RV

Thank you for rv'ing that speedy on Chris_Hansen -- TW went a little bit crazy there. :D Cheers! P3net 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

ProfMozart

Just a head's up, I re-indef blocked him. I've unblocked a few folks for promises of good behavior too and I understand and respect the impulse, but I think in this case, it's the end of the road for ProfMozart. Let me know if you disagree. Cheers. Dina 01:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed; if you hadn't, I would have. Thanks for that. Hesperian 01:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Dina, thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! I've one question: is there any nice tool to revert vandalism in English Wikipedia? In German Wikipedia, we have Monobook.js (from the de:user:PDD there) which adds a revert-button to every page... Best regards, Jón ^{talk / contribs} 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on my talk page

A belated thanks for jumping in along with User:Caltas after my talk page was vandalised. The response was so quick that I've only just noticed. pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Colletyon

Was I too harsh in handling all this? I feel like I may have been, and if its all been bad faith or WP:BITE I want to correct it if possible. -WarthogDemon 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :) In actuality, I too disagreed with the merging at first. (I was paranoid and thought it was done by someone who hated Pokmeon.) But the discussions on the wikitalk page and found myself agreeing with it, and now supporting it. It's just my hope that doing so doesn't turn me into a rabid poochyena. :P -WarthogDemon 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus I'm wondering if I violated 3rr myself: [7]. -WarthogDemon 18:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Mainly why I overreacted was due to like 10 articles getting reverted. Had it just been 1 or 2 I probably would've just done it once and reverted it back. If I find this happening all too often, I may just stop fixing 3RRs all together. My Wikipedia Motto is: If you seem to somehow get into trouble over the very thing you're trying to fix; let someone else do it. :p -WarthogDemon 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He is at it again on a massive scale. I have given him a final warning about 3RR and he has declined discussion. -WarthogDemon 19:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Yeah, that's on my part. I really should have looked into it more; though if I may explain myself, when you see 143 people with a few vandalism edits already who've created a page with a random picture and a bunch of gibberish, get one warning, and create a bunch of other sockpuppet accounts, you kind of ascertain the assumption that the 144th with be like the others. Although, you're right, I should have looked into it more. I'll try to be more careful in the futere. Cheers, †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me}as 19:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. —Sengkang 16:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

editing the Chabad article

Decline reason: "You were alerted to the rule on this very talk page, right above your unblock request, several hours before being blocked. Yet you continued to revert. It's just 24 hours, take the advice give to you along with your block and come back ready to use the Talk page — Dina 18:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)"

Dina, I never saw that alert until after I was blocked, and I did not know of the three revert rule. There was, of course, no way of telling you that because I was blocked, and you denied my request to unblock. I guess there is no way to make you believe me either because you immediatly labeled me a liar. But the fact is I did use the talk page, and it was the other editors who did not. It would have helped if you had read more than the first sentence of what I wrote in my request to unblock. But even limited to that, how could you conclude that I must have seen that warning if it was on my user page for a few hours?, as though I spend my days checking my Wikipedia user page. (I have noticed that often people your age, who have grown up with computers, seem to find it difficult to understand that some people over sixty do not pay much attention to such things.) My leaving Wikipedia is a very small matter, but if I had sensitive feelings I would rather resent you calling me a liar. Even so it would have been better it you had personally verified what had actually transpired before making such a negative statement, and I consider your response deplorable. Kwork 15:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big discussion here. I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt but I did not call you a "liar" in my denial of your unblock. I pointed out that the summary of your actions was directly above your request for unblock. If you say you didn't see it, certainly I believe you. However if you were in my position, and someone asserted complete ignorance of something that was posted directly above that assertion of ignorance, wouldn't you point it out? Generally speaking, a 24 hour block is standard for breaking the 3 revert rule. It's also not really that big of a deal. The rule is there to end edit wars -- editors just reverting each other back and forth. It's not meant to punish someone excessively. Sometimes when people get involved in a dispute they lose sight of the bigger picture. Please don't focus your frustration about this issue on me. 24 hour blocks for breaking the 3 revert are rarely overturned and often not even addressed until after the block has expired. As for your last assertion that the editors were gaming the system, I don't feel that this is particularly fair. If enough editors disagree with you enough to revert you, and there are enough that none of them are in danger of violating the three revert rule before you do, then, in my most case, you care going against consensus. In any case, in these situations, it really is best to keep things in perspective and step back. Edit warring over adding an NPOV tag to an article doesn't really do much for the encyclopedia. Cheers. Dina 16:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You attitude pretty well summerises everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, and why I have decided to leave. After you blocked me, you continue to assume that that claims of a few people against me must be correct. It would not have taken much time to see that the reverts involved only a tag I had placed on the article and not the contents of the article, and that I had explained (clearly and several times) the reason for the tag on the article's talk page. I invite you to verify what I have said; and, if it is not true, then you will have a reason to call me a liar. (NB: denying what I said is true, which you did, amounts to calling me a liar.) Kwork 16:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say. I don't really see any point in arguing over this anymore. I'm sorry that you're upset, but I'm fairly certain that there is nothing for me to say that will make you feel any better, nor convince you that my intentions were not malicious. Dina 16:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking for an apology, such things do not interest me. It appears from what you have said that other editors misrepresented what occurred, and they seem to have done so they would not need to make changes to the article they did not want to make. Don't you see the problem? I was blocked for going beyond a revert limit I did not even know existed. Yet although the situation was misrepresented by other editors to administrators, that is okay?! Is there something wrong with the system here, or what? Kwork 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Would This Be Lunchmeat For An Afd?

This article One armed man seems short and meaningless . . . it states a one-sentence statement about a medical condition (which would be obvious already) and a mention that two television dramas have had a one-armed character in them. That seems pretty much all one could possibly say on this article. What do you think? -WarthogDemon 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I shall copy/paste the text on that page and include it on one-armed and make One armed man as well as one-armed man redirects. There's also something else I forgot to mention; for some reason songs have to do with this stub . . . Talk:One armed man. What do I do with this? -WarthogDemon 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider all that done. Thanks! -WarthogDemon 21:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

user:Rise Against All-138

You removed the report on this user, assuming it is an edit war. It isn't. It's a sockpuppet that we've been dealing with over the past few days. Please take a look at this: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/87.167.242.147_(2nd). Thanks! Gscshoyru 12:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the edit history of that article or this user besides an edit war over whether or not some song is "post hardcore" or "post grunge". The only person who seems to be even trying to compromise (keeping both) or trying to talk on the talk page is User:87.167.242.147. The user may or may not be a sock, the checkuser seems to indicate that he is (BTW, using different IP addresses is not sock puppeteering, because most people have no control over that.) But WP:AIV is for the report of blatant vandalism please read WP:VANDAL#What_vandalism_is_not for a better understanding of that. It's not the place to report anyone who bugs you. I have no opinion on what the genre of these songs are. I do have an opinion that all of your are behaving badly over a trivial matter. You've all violated the three revert rule so far as I can tell. I have protected the article for 24 hours. Please leave it alone for the moment. Thanks Dina 12:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about the music type, I've just been trying to revert vandalism by a sockpuppet, who has been repeatedly changing this on multiple articles, under multiple ips and usernames. This has been backed up by admins, see the report I gave you, for instance. I've also thought that putting a report on AIV was a much faster way of dealing with socks of people like this and user:Mariam83 than a slow sockpuppetry report, which tends not to be dealt with for a while. But, if that's improper, I won't do it any more. Thanks. Gscshoyru 12:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, people change genres of music all the time. They are reading an article, get all appalled "Avril's not post-punk! She's a pop singer!" and immediately log in to change it, totally unaware that there's like 6 archived talk pages and ten edit wars on the subject. I look at this particular users history and I see no edits that fulfill the basic vandal criterion "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Reporting you to AIV after you reported him was cheeky, but all this person has received is warnings since they created their account. A new user might suppose that this is the standard way to engage with Wikipedia. If the checkuser comes back positive for this user, sure, let's block him. But have you tried putting a note on their talk page? Or the talk page of the article's in question? Have you tried asking him why he changes it, or to source his changes? I'm a cranky person, and assuming good faith can be difficult, but take another look at the user's edit history, with fresh eyes. Sometimes dealing with sockpuppets can make anyone paranoid (there have been moments when I found myself believing there was only one vandal on Wikipedia, with like, a million accounts ;)). Cheers Dina 12:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. If you look way, way, way back, on other accounts, I was asking for why the user was doing it. But it got pointless (so it felt) and I stopped, because it was obvious (to me) that it was the same user again. And though probably is... I should definitly be Assuming more Good Faith. I'm a little bit overzealous at times... so thanks for the warning. (Actually... come to think of it... this sock sparks edit wars by doing what he's doing. So I've fallen into the trap, haven't I?) But thanks for reigning me in. Gscshoyru 13:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Blockip/24.4.25.168

Hi, I tried to tweak your block so it only affects anonymous users. After reading your block reason I had the feeling that was what you wanted to do. Tell me if I screwed up! :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Illvminati

Someone is SPA recreating this as a copy of Illuminati... Any objection if I set it as a protected redirect to the Illuminati page? I was in the process of that when you deleted the latest SPA contribution.--Isotope23 17:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if it is just weird or related. Illvminati was previously a link to a series of spam sites where you could pay an inordinate amount of money to consult with "THE REAL ILLVMINATI" about their 2007 plans and thus conduct your business accordingly. Now it looks like someone is SPAing the old version of Illuminati with the DAB the spammer added there to Illvminati. Regardless, I went ahead and did a protected redirect which should put an end to it.--Isotope23 17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Now they are creating it at the Illvminati talkpage... I blocked one of the SPAs with an autoblock which might put an end to it. If not I'll do a protected redir to Talk: Illuminati.--Isotope23 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Moakler AfD

Props for handling it smoothly and professionally! It seems a very high likelihood that this author is also the singer/songwriter in question... the irony of the 'freak out' combined with the artist description of 'uplifting vocals' and 'Steve would have made a great teacher, minister, or actor, but after listening to his music, his true path in life is understood.' stuff made me totally giggle!! ;) However, I feel bad for the creator guy. I know how long it probably took him to create the article, and I can imagine how frustrated he must've felt to see it get nominated for deletion. Perhaps he was just a one-off article creator, but I wonder if we can send him some wikilove? Eliz81 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikilove sent. Let's see how it goes. Eliz81 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Colletyon

The Wikiproject, after a few months of discussion (including before I even joined the project), have decided pokemon articles would be much cleaner, and would conform to Wikipedia policies better if they were merged into lists. User:Colletyon has announced he thought this was stupid and began reverting the redirects. He has been given multiple warnings, and he stopped for a few days. Today he started up again, I gave him another warning about revert wars and invited him to discuss his thoughts on the wikiproject page, or else I or someone would have to take care of the disruption he was making. Then the abusive and grammatically incorrect (until I corrected it) edit summaries began, and you know the rest. Wow I hope this wasn't longer than "brief primer." -WarthogDemon 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On a second note, I do hope I kept my cool and stayed within respectable conduct myself. >.> -WarthogDemon 19:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks! :) If he decides to cause a project disruption again I'll let you know. -WarthogDemon 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RatYork

Hi, Dina. Why have you deleted my article (stub) about my webcomic RatYork? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zitron78 (talk • contribs).

-- I deleted it precisely for the reasons listed at the top of this page -- "it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location."

-- OK, IC U follow the rules. So please tell me, how did all these webcomics, that are in wiki:webcomic list got there? Aren't thay websites that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location? As all these people, I created webcomic and I want to share it with the world. What's wrong with that?

User:Ultrabias and Wikiquette concerns

I see you share my concern with this user's edit summaries. At his invitation (on his talk page), I have brought the matter up here. Please feel free to add anything that you think needs adding. Sarcasticidealist 14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. To be clear, my accusations of violation of WP:CIVIL are not with regards to his behaviour towards me (which I agree could be best described as being merely "arch"), but because I think his edit summaries violate the portion of the policy prohibiting religious bigotry. I've also tried to be clear that I'm not objecting to the substance of his edits (while I've had some issues with his edits to Template:Muslims and controversies, I'm not accusing him of violating any policy there and am seeking consensus on the article's talk page), just the way in which he frames them with his summaries.

Thanks for your help. Sarcasticidealist 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that a total of four editors have asked him to change his edit summary style, User:Ultrabias is persisting in his behaviour (see, for example, here). I'm not certain what the next course of action should be. I'm reluctant to just let it be, because I think this sort of behaviour poisons the Wikipedia community, but I would greatly value your advice as a more experienced editor than I. Sarcasticidealist 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I too share your concerns. And I share your uneasiness with homophobic, racist and religiously intolerant bias. Goodwill is needed to keep wikipedia a congenial space/environment/community. Cheers, Dogru144 00:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

WOW! I added a CSD tag on Zero King within 1 minute of its creation and in about 90 seconds you deleted it! WOW! Good job! Hey could you comment on my editor review please? Thanks! SLSB talk ER 15:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey What's Up

Thanks And Your Welcome. Your Going To Be On My Buddy List. Love Casey19. P.S How Can I Adopt And Can I Adopt. Who Do I Need To Adopt.

Hello

I see pretty good work. It's nice to lay off the vandal fighting every once and a while and do some article editing, even if it's just copy editing. Helps one to realize that Wikipedia isn't simply a big game of cops and robbers. Not sure why you've applied to many block tags, though it does seem you've applied them correctly. Do you go through the block logs? I generally prefer to apply my own block notices and frankly, would be a bit annoyed if someone did it for me first. But if you're just going through situations where folks have clearly missed doing it, then I suppose it's all right. As for why you AIV page was deleted, it's unclear what you were trying to do there. If you were trying to create a list of vandals you had reported to AIV, then I would definitely support the deletion per WP:DENY. If you were trying to create some kind of warning message or template, then there is a whole project involved with that, you'd probably want to check in with them. And you wouldn't want to create it as a user subpage either. Dive into some projects or articles, Wikipedia is more than vandal fighting. Cheers Dina 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. I was making the AIV page to say basically I have reported you to AIV expect to be blocked. If you would like to respond please do so by responding on my talk page :) SLSB talk ER 19:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Last Warning? What's That? How Can I be blocked without you knowing my IP? --Youpilot 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Last Warning? What's That? How Can I be blocked without you knowing my IP? --Youpilot 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Brian002100 and User:Bladder123

Looks like they're the same person. Bladder123 got caught up in an autoblock of Brain002100. Corvus cornix 20:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This account was taken over by User:BetacommandBot. It runs from the same source code. --Wirralgrrl1983 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)