User talk:Peter/Archive5

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, you are welcome to bring it up on my active talk page.

Full archive index

Image Copyright vio

Hi Petros,

I recently put a copyright violation tag on this image but am not sure if I did it correctly as it seems the article for the date which I posted it no longer exists. Could you take a look at this for me? Thanks! --Strothra 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(After running away to read up on copyright/fair use and talking to some admins). We've decided that image can qualify as fair use, and Pathos re-tagged the article as such. The article Naomi Scheman exists, as does the source. I thought I could try emailing Naomi Scheman to obtain full permission, unless you want to? Petros471 14:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the fair use tag and I think that it works although I'm a bit surprised that such a big loophole exists for copyrighted images. That being said, I don't think it's neccesary to e-mail Scheman unless you wanted to revert the copyright tag back to the previous one. Also, I don't think that she owns the copyright but the university she works for. --Strothra 15:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I'll leave it for now. Fair use is an aspect of US law that does make things a lot easier on Wikipedia, which tries extremely hard to be fully compliant with all relevant legal/copyright laws. Petros471 15:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 12.177.48.100 report on WP:RFI / re:questions

Because school IPs can be used by many different people, they are generally not blocked unless the vandalism is very bad and/or recent. If you spot vandalism in progress, you can warn them and then report to WP:AIV for a block. There is a guide to cleaning up vandalism at WP:CUV. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on how good (or not!) that is. Please do let me know how that can be improved (I've been doing some work on it, to make it a quick guide for people who have spotted vandalism and want to know what to do). Cheers, Petros471 14:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and sorry for the ungainly headline. I understand the lack of block better and looked over WP:CUV. It seems fine - very thorough. I had already reverted all the vandalism I found from this IP address that had not already been caught, but I have not checked every edit they did. I will mention that I almost never do RC patrol, but I have a lot of pages on my watchlist that are not very often edited (so even though I am not on all the time, I catch some vandalism that way, including this IP address). One idea I have had is to make every page watched by someone - no orphans (in another sense of the word - I watch almost every PA county, for example). Not sure how practical it is - I think it would only work for articles that are not frequently edited. Anyway, thanks again, Ruhrfisch 00:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the headline- I usually use a "x report on RFI" format when replying from there, and the questions bit I added on was a reply from seeing replies to your talk page above. Thanks for taking a look at WP:CUV, glad it looks ok. No problem about not doing RC patrol- quite a lot of people do that, but it is also essential to have people watchlisting articles they know something about to check for false information and any vandalism that slipped through RC. There is a page called Special:Unwatched pages, which automatically lists all pages that have no-one watching them. It is only available to admins to prevent vandals abusing it. Petros471 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and followup

Congrats! You had helped with a RFI on a vandal and gave "12.177.48.100 report on WP:RFI" at my talk page. I just also heard from User:Pathoschild on the same RFI and replied at User talk:Pathoschild. Since you requested feedback on the vandalism reporting and reverting process, I give an idea there that may be of interest to you. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for adding my name to the list and noting the need for an add by a moderator. That was quick. --Strothra 16:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter

Alf suddenly runs in from the shops <pant> They were out of <pant> bunnies at the shops <gasp> so I got you some of these <pant> painted eggs instead. --Alf ^melmac 16 April 2006 (UTC) collapses, gasping for breath .

Admin

I would like to congratulate you for becoming admin. You'll become soon. Sorry that I voted twice :) --StabiloBoss 18:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

The User:81.79.225.75 still keeps on vandalizing the page about Italy... As Italian citizen, I am very offended! Why does he make this to my country's page? May the page be put under protection? Thank you for your attention... Bukkia 20:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another look at it, and reverted a bit further. Thanks for spotting the vandalism and reporting it. You might be interested in WP:CUV, a guide to cleaning up vandalism. Please do let me know if that guide if helpful, or if you have any further questions. Cheers, Petros471 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and as I didn't actually answer your question: I don't think there is any particular targeting of Italy over any other article. Lots of articles on Wikpedia are being vandalised all the time-some random and some targeted. Don't be too offended- the vandals aren't worth it. If you think page protection is needed you can put in a request here but as nothing has happened since my last revert I think it is ok for now. Page protection is only used when the vandalism is really bad. Petros471 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Yes, it's stupid to be offended for so little things. I should realize after I read the vandalising word, all non-sense sentences. But I was influenced by vandalisation of the Italian version of Wikipedia, which is almost all targeted (most of all politically). Thank you very much. Bukkia 00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master Jay's RfA

Petros471, thank you once again for your support at my recent RfA. If you have any concerns, you can reach me here. Cheers! Jay(Reply) 01:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

You're an admin! You may wish to add yourself to the list. Enjoy the responsible use of your new abilities. There is some free advice at User:UninvitedCompany/Advice to new admins, if you're interested. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for promoting me. I've added myself to the list, and will do my best to follow your advice (responsibly and with enjoyment!). Cheers, Petros471 20:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks: To everyone who voted

To all those who voted on my recent request for adminship; Thanks!

If you supported: Thanks for making it successful. I'll do my best to live up to the expectations placed by your trust in me. I really appreciated your support and kind comments.

If you opposed: Thanks for providing me with feedback as to how to improve, I will do my best to address your concerns if at all possible. I hope that you will still find an extra mop around helpful!

Anyone is welcome to comment on my actions, admin or otherwise, at any time, by leaving a note on my talk page. Thanks again. Petros471 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'll be sending out a few personal thank-you's if I need to say any more than the above. If you don't get one of these that doesn't mean in any way that I appreciated your vote less, it's just that I don't want to spam everyone with the same message! Petros471 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer!

You've got a couple of admins now who've promised to help out with RFI :) I'm sure you'll be due for admin fairly soon- I'd be delighted to nominate you after you've got a little more experience (as people will probably oppose now based on months). Let me know when you want me to take a more serious look at your contributions. Thanks, Petros471 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer to nominate me for adminship. Whenever you feel I am ready or if you think there are certain criteria I should meet first, please drop me a line. ;-) --Zsinj^Talk 21:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Last, but certainly not least, thanks goes to you Academic Challenger for your willingness to nominate me, and for the admin coaching. I'm going to leave my first 'real' admin action till tomorrow, after I've had some sleep (and decided what it should be!). Cheers, Petros471 21:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your adminship. I'm sorry that I did not vote on your RFA. I did not realize that your nomination was already in process because I do not generally read RFA. I am sure you will be a great admin and it is great that you got even more comments on how to improve. I would just say that I disagree with people who think that admins need to be good article writers. Do what you feel like. If you feel like editing and writing more articles, that's great, but if you feel like policy discussion, reverting vandalism, or speedy deletions and new pages patrol, (those last two are my own favorite tasks which need some more admins to help out) that is also great. Academic Challenger 22:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it- if I was desperate for the extra support I could have messaged you (think I might have got away with that as you were nominator). I thought you hadn't, either because you didn't realise that you could vote as well as nominate (seems a bit strange in a way that you do, I mean if you've nominated it's petty obvious you support!), or because of what you said. I haven't been able to do much so far, what with Wikipedia servers being down so much, followed by my internet going down. Now just to make sure I don't flip and go on a deletion rampage... Cheers, Petros471 20:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I knew you would make it. Welcome! I’m glad to have you join the ranks. We definitely need more courteous and polite administrators (and editors!). It’s too easy to get worked up around here. And thank you for your message and not using one of those ridiculous boxes hehe. It was probably fine for the first one or few people who used it, but now they're just out of hand, especially the people who put their tally in there too. Anyway, enjoy your new responsibilities and of course please ask me if you have any questions! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You deserve this and good luck for the future! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Just heard about your RFA (sorry for not voting, my time for Wikipedia has been cut back lately since I just released a new book). Congrats though! The Wikipedia community has made a good choice -- I'm confident you'll do a great job, and I look forward to working with you in the future. :) --Elonka 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. Your book is looking good, but it's not available in the UK yet. Does it have anything about how to solve the codes/puzzles or is that a diffrent book of yours? Petros471 19:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. My book should be out in the UK on April 27th, via publisher Constable & Robinson. As for solving, yes, I wrote it with an eye towards "desert island" conditions, meaning that if you have it on an island (or an extended plane ride), everything you need to solve the main puzzles in the book, including instructions and charts, is there in the book too. :) --Elonka 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block conflict

No worries. I'll change it now. Diolch :) Proto||type 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userblock on Minge Muncher

Thanks for that. WP gets enough bad publicity without some of the more ranty tabloids getting hold of "It allows foul disgusting passwords" (yes, I know the difference bewtween a username and a password but the tabloids usually don't ;-) ) Cheers. Tonywalton | Talk 11:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:admin coaching

I replied to your message on User:EivindFOyangen/Admin coaching. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see we got a coachee quite quickly! :-) Kimchi.sg | talk 00:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Dude, I've noticed you gave last warning to 212.219.248.236. He continues to vandalise people's work [here are examples] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jinxs (talk • contribs) .

Actually my final warning was given after the last edit made by that IP. As pointed out above the place to report vandals is to WP:AIV, as that gets the attention of many admins. Feel free to ask me any further questions, and have a welcome:

Cheers, Petros471 19:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luckyherb's page

Hey, thanks for undoing that vandism to my (very basic) user page. Much appreciated! Luckyherb 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

209.173.14.125

(Context, I removed the IP from WP:AIV without blocking, using the edit summary "...209.173.14.125 seems to have stopped for now, report again if they return soon". Petros471 18:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

With all due respect, User:209.173.14.125 vandalized A6M Zero five or six times (having been warned after the first vandalism) and vandalized on top of my repeated rvv's. Considering the history of abuse, I think a long block would have been a better option. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a school IP, which means multiple people use it. As the last edit was a vandal reversion, that meant that either one person (the vandal) was using the IP, but they decided to take note of the warnings. Or it could have been that someone else from the school (quite possibly in the same room) saw the vandalism being done and decided to remove it. Either way the vandalism had stopped, and hasn't continued for now. Blocks on Wikipedia are used to prevent vandalism, not to punish it. Therefore a block would not have been appropriate at that time. If the vandalism returns feel free to re-report to WP:AIV, however they will probably need warning again (for the same reason as above, it could be a different person using the IP address and they won't have seen the previous warnings). Hope that helps explain things. Feel free to get back to me if you have any further questions, and thanks for helping out in the fight against vandalism! Cheers, Petros471 18:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation. Having an edit war with a vandal is frustrating. :\ Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

198.54.202.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Firstly, congratulations on your new adminship! Secondly, could you be a bit more careful about blocking IP addresses? My IP address, 198.54.202.146, is used by several South African users, some of whom are not vandals. Could you please at least try warning the IP user to stop vandalising before resorting to blocking the IP? Ayinyud 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the problems caused. I assume I was responding to a WP:AIV report, as normally I would have warned them myself (I see now that I should have warned as well). It would help if you could add {{sharedIP}} with the correct information parameter to the IP page(s) of the IPs you use to make this obvious to admins in the future that this is a shared IP (it is not obvious from the contributions, which consist of spam from what looks like one user. Blocking of IPs is always a problem on Wikipedia and it is impossible to please everyone (see the message right above yours on my talk page about someone saying I didn't block a shared IP!). I did see some talk about improving the blocking system to allow registered users to edit from blocked IPs. I hope this is implemented soon! Petros471 15:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use IRC logs.

Hey there, I was wondering if I had your permission to publish some of your IRC chat on Wikipedia, specifically:

(removed)

I previously had these up in accordance to m:IRC Channels, as the channel you said it in #vandalism-en-wp did not have a rule against logging visible on a related website or on WP:IRC and related pages. However, despite the fact that the logs were related to a ongoing discussion, and they were trimmed to size, a administrator with personal involvement to the issue deleted the content. As such, I am seeking permission of use from every user I am quoted. Your cooperation would be appreciated.

Thanks, Av i ll ia 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No- I do not give you permission to publish logs of my IRC chat. As far as I'm concerned talk in that channel is for confirmed trusted members of Wikipedia, and therefore things get talked about that should not be public for all to see on Wikipedia. Please also see the comment made by the channel owner Essjay on my talk page. Thanks. Petros471 20:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (note this message was placed on User talk:Avillia and in response to the above message, but was not here when the following messages were posted Petros471 11:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That channel is not owned or operated by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation; it follows its own rules. Perhaps you were confused about that. The policy is: No posting of logs without the permission of the channel owner. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A policy you just made and are trying to apply retroactively to silence this issue. I will continue to gain permission of the authors, and whatever you say, and whatever power you and your related use as a bureaucrat or your friends as adminsitrators, I will continue to publish. --Av i ll ia 20:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will go to arbitration then, and I'm sure they'll love to hear about your attempts to crack software including AWB and VandalProof to allow vandals to use it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure they will love to hear about my sucesses modifying WP:AWB and WP:VandalProof to bypass authentication under the GNU General Public Licence, and how you and other CVU members have taken steps using your status(es) as Administrators to stop my discussion about CVU and my current issues with it. --Av i ll ia 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this dialog is not involving me could you please take it to a more appropriate location. E.g. User talk:Avillia or User talk:Essjay. Thank you. Petros471 21:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also witheld permisson of using my logsBenon 22:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

63.173.47.193 / Blocking

You might be pleased to know I got 63.173.47.193. Also wanted to say I'm sorry to see you get into so much bother recently. I don't really think all the things being chucked at you recently is totally fair, so glad to see you back in action. Whilst I didn't feel able to support your RfA, I certainly didn't want to oppose it (hence my no-vote neutral). Try and be careful for a few months and then I'm be happy to give you my support. Let me know if I can help at all with anything. Cheers, Petros471 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't really mind what's happening, though (it's just teh internets). :-) --Rory0 96_(block) 21:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian brown cloud vandal

As you might have noticed, I've blocked the last two IPs used by the vandal. If you happen to spot further vandalism to that article before I see it, please do continue to revert and warn. You can then drop me a note on my talk page, as I am prepared to block any IP used by that user on sight (as they seem to be used by the same person). Thanks for helping out. Petros471 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure how much good blocking will do, as it seems to come from a different IP every time, but it can't hurt. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be having some effect in this case, and as long as the blocks don't cause collatoral damage (they don't seem to so far) I'll continue blocking if the vandalism continues. Petros471 10:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petros

Get ready to get slammed by this lady. She has been banned before for making threats to users and Admins. She has quite a few sock puppets, please read the talk for it here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Stephanie_Adams

Please also revert the junk she is spewing onto my talk page:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JuliannaRoseMauriello&redirect=no

She is marking me as vandalising her because I Prod her page.

Also can you please smack her for the 3RR rule which she's violated about 40 times today...

JuliannaRoseMauriello 20:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams

The comments made by User:JuliannaRoseMauriello are inaccurate. The revisions made to the page were fine, but for some reason she decided to commit vandalism by lowering the quality of the content.

GODDESSY is not looking for free advertisement and is quite content being a resource page for the media. GODDESSY atually preferred not to have anything mentioned other than the fact that it was founded by Miss Adams, which is why we removed mentionings of that previously (which several other people tried to place back up again).

User:JuliannaRoseMauriello has been reported on numerous accounts and removed the reports (which we put back up again). We will make one final revision to the page being discussed and hope that it stays as is.

-GODDESSY

Re:Stephanie Adams AfD - apology

I asked for advice on IRC before placing it for AfD and at least 4 people agreed it should go there, along with someone else on the WP:RFPP page. Now I know the two users involved aren't exactly behaving themselves properly but I do object to it being called 'bad faith', and that would apply whoever had done the nomination. Petros471 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that even though JuliannaRoseMauriello might have placed the {{deletebecause}} template onto Stephanie Adams for the wrong reason [1], it was wrong of me to describe your creation of the AfD as "bad faith" [2]. I will not use this strongly-worded phrase to label others' actions in the future. Kimchi.sg | talk 01:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apology. Calling edits bad faith rarely helps, and often makes things worse, but hey we're never perfect :) Petros471 09:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Block conflict on 216.191.145.196

216.191.145.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)- I blocked for 48 hours, you did 24- you happy to reblock for the 48 due to the persistence of the vandalism despite numerous warnings and lack of shared IP notice? Petros471 16:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - no, I wouldn't object to a 48 hour block. But this vandalism made me laugh - if they can concentrate on things in the bedroom with that racket going on, they have my respect! :-) Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh :) Now reblocked. Cheers, Petros471 16:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

195.188.217.143 report on WP:RFI

I'm currently trying to see if there is a better way to deal with vandalism from schools (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Contacting_schools_Re:School_IP_vandalism). However for now I think it will have to be dealt with in the usual way: revert- warn - block (if vandalism continues past a recent test3/4 warning).

By the way, this report is being used for training purposes, I hope you don't mind!

Feel free to get back to me if you have any questions. Petros471 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prevent the schools (and other shared IP addresses) from editing, requiring that they register and log in?

Actually, I'd vote for that applying to everyone, shared IP or not. Most vandalism I see appears to come from anonymous IP addresses - and they never respond to complaints.

No, I don't mind being used for training purposes. Do you do training for non-Admins as well? :) SteveCrook 01:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with blocking IPs is that you also block any registered user who uses the same IP address, so blocks on shared IPs are usually kept short to prevent collateral damage.

The idea of blocking IPs from editing has come up many times, but has always been rejected. Blocking IP addresses would probably only make most vandals register, and unless a valid email address was required (which isn't going to happen) that wouldn't stop them. The new proposal to report vandalism to schools is up at WP:ABUSE.

I'm currently a coaching someone under the Esperanza Admin coaching program, which is designed to help people who want to become admins be prepared for it. I'm not sure there is any formal training for non-admin users, but there are plenty of places to get help if needed (such as Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.) Petros471 12:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Swatjester

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest when I saw your RfA I thought it'd be an easy support but after reading the oppose reasons, and examining them carefully I didn't feel able to this time. I'm sure though by taking the comments on board and doing all you can to fix the issues raised you'll be a great candidate next time- I look forward to being able to support you then. Cheers, Petros471 19:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blocking AOL IPs!

You prevent thousands of legitimateusers from editing. DavidFarmbrough 22:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without you quoting a specific example I can't comment on the particular IP you were thinking about. However in general I do very much see blocking AOL IPs as a last resort, but sometimes it has to be done. If I remember rightly I only blocked one AOL IP last night, and it had received three last warnings in a row, was engaging in persistent vandalism (ongoing at time of block) and personal attacks against editors. For a long time now there has been a Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal to allow registered users to continue editing when their IP is blocked, you may want to add your support to it (although I think the main thing now is waiting for the developers to implement it).

If you were affected by the block you could ask an admin (via email and/or {{unblock}}) to unblock the offending IP. Hope that helps, feel free to ask me any further questions. Petros471 13:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.67.176.119 report on WP:RFI

Actually the block probably wasn't in response to your RFI report, as that page doesn't usually receive fast attention. More likely the blocking admin just saw the vandalism through one of the many anti-vandal mechanisms on site :) Anyway, in future it would be better to report simple vandalism to WP:AIV as a lot more admins watch that page, and you will get a faster response there. Thanks for helping out. Petros471 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't used these pages since they were Vandalism in Progress, and when I was redirected to RFI I left a message there. --Kizor 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]