User talk:Peyna/Archive1

Archive1 Peyna 14:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

I've been a Wikipedia reader for awhile (and occasional anonymous editor when I run across minor errors), and decided to create an account and be a little more involved, mostly for my own amusement.

I've also been a bit of a Wikipedia skeptic, so this will allow me to better evaluate it. Peyna 14:18:25, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Peyna/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! Lectonar give me your thoughts

Hurricane Katrina death toll

What evidence is there that Katrina will exceed the Galveston Hurricane's 8,000 dead? You have no more evidence to back up your claim than I mine. Where we stand right now, with the number of confirmed dead (246 [1]), Katrina ranks as the 12th deadliest US hurricane on record. It won't stay that way, but that's all we can report in present or past tense. Wikipedia is not the place for future tense unless we are 100% certain that something will happen. Are you 100% certain the Katrina will best the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane's 2,000+ US dead? More importantly, are officials sitting there counting bodies 100% certain that Katrina will surpass the Okeechobee storm? No they are not, and they can't be until they have found 2,001 dead bodies in the path of Katrina. Bottom line: Where we stand right now, Katrina is not the second deadliest US hurricane on record. It might come to be that way, but right now the statement that Katrina is the second deadliest US hurricane on record is not true.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; but you also added a "future tense" to the article when you suggested that the death toll would not surpass that of Galveston. I have no problem reporting the current confirmed number dead; however, it should be mentioned that there are obviously quite a few that have not been confirmed. So far no one has even bothered to pick up dead bodies, they're too busy pulling people off their roofs and getting them out of there. Anyway, my problem was with the way you assumed the death toll would not climb above that of Galveston, which is just as "future tense" as the comments that were already there. Peyna 04:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warming note

Agreed. I also don’t like indefinite terms on Wikipedia but feel on controversial issues it is sometime necessary to make all parties agree. Thanks for your professionalism BTW. --Fluxaviator 04:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Talk:Hurricane_Katrina#Global Warming_issue_resolution_attempt

Links

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). This is to allow date preferences to work. If you set them you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way. Rgds. Rich Farmbrough 08:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that; my suggestion is that there should be a way to allow data preferences to work that doesn't make the data also a link; it would reduce clutter Peyna 15:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi, nice job on Doosh. Just so you know, for a redirect to work, nothing can appear before it in the text. If you want to make comments, you can put them afterward, and they need not be in comment tags. Thanks for helping combat vandalism, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I didn't realize that. Peyna 22:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Comments

Please change the run on sentence to something more appropriate. "Also, the best way to avoid POV is with the facts, be careful to state them in an NPOV manner." Shall we put this page up for deletion too, since it violates run on sentence rules? Only kidding/serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.20.123 (talk • contribs) 00:02, October 25, 2005

John H. Patterson ref on Dayton, Ohio page

I reverted your change to the wikilink for John H. Patterson (NCR founder) because the link must use the actual name of the article. If you are going to change the name of the article, you have to move the article page. And then you have to change all the pages that link to the old name. Since this qualification is merely a disambiguation and is in fact hidden text, I can't see any value to making the effort to change it.

The issue of owner vs. founder can be addressed in the body of the article - the title is just an artifact. I didn't name the original article, but just for the record I would posit that a) John H. Patterson was the owner of NCR from 1884 to 1921 since he owned substantially all of the stock -- his brother Frank owned some of the stock for a while, and after his retirement in 1921 or death in 1922, he passed substantially all of his stock to his two children -- so, owner seems not inappropriate (I didn't chose this name originally); b) if you want to get technical, it wasn't NCR a name that wasn't adopted until the 1970s, it was the National Cash Register Company; c) one could say the company was founded by the Ritty brothers -- it was only renamed by John H. Patterson after he bought a controlling interest.

As it happens, I think the current article is abysmal and I'm in the process of rewriting it.

David 20:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I made some other changes I thought, but then might have accidently changed that part of the wikilink, not realizing it was the actual wikilink. It was purely unintentional. Peyna 20:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of tropical cyclone names

Thank you for your help and for keeping an eye on the page. --Viriditas 13:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

What stub did I delete? If you want I can undelete it. If the page was created by an IP, and it has less then 10 bytes of information, it is automatically deleted, exceptions are made though.

Johann Wolfgang 22:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but next time please do not just leave {{stub}} and nothing else. This is seen as a test edit, and since there is no content it is deleted.

User:StabRule

Hi, I see you have seen the responses by this user on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination). I believe this user is extremely dishonest and has placed double votes twice and a triple votes using anon ips and his StabRule account, yet a Wikipedia admin User_talk:OwenX has refused to even warn this user as this may make him use more sophisticated ways to cheat which seems like a very strange reason to use. I would be grateful if you could have a look at the discussion User_talk:OwenX#User:StabRule and see whether you think I am right about this user and reeassure me I am not going crazy. Thanks Arniep 23:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your reply. Unfortunately a page he nominated and voted on twice was in fact deleted. I really cannot understand why the admin is refusing to even warn this user? It just seems bizarre. Arniep 00:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, he has just made a vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Engineering. The article was nominated by an anon ip Special:Contributions/72.144.139.115, and a second anon ip vote was made Special:Contributions/65.10.44.158 to delete. Guess what! They are all BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta addresses the same as all the other anon ips I listed in my discussion with OwenX! So this user has again voted three times on this list and people have actually argued to assume good faith on these ip votes?! Arniep 00:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more...
He has again voted twice on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian entertainers using his BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta address Special:Contributions/65.9.143.76 and voting under his StabRule account.
He has voted twice on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish chess players, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in sports using another BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta address Special:Contributions/72.144.71.234 and his StabRule account.

he is only multi voting on Jewish lists (except the above Christian one) for some reason. Arniep 01:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE User:StabRule maintains his innocence:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Engineering. Stay tuned for the latest... Arniep 01:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
see my comment at User_talk:Arniep#Re:_User:StabRule. Arniep 02:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dividng

There is already a List of Jewish American show business figures. I think we should link to it from the main page and maybe have a separate page for producers, etc.Vulturell 02:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Job!

Nice Job on the List of Jewish Americans, Penya. Appreciate it. But there's already a list for Jews in the military. So I'll add that. StabRule 03:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O shit, but that means that now we're going to have to delete all those Lists I closed. StabRule 03:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they can be merged with what we have; can you post a list of all of them here and on the talk page for List of Jewish Americans? That way anyone that comes along can work on it. Peyna 03:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much merging to do from my knowledge. They are almost exact duplicates except the new lists have more people. Also, I think Jewish composers should be merged with Jewish musicians. StabRule 03:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's necessary to have a List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Arts? Wouldn't it be better to just say they won the medal next to their biography -- kinda like Nobel Prize StabRule 04:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I'd say leave all the lists that currently exist and only merge with other lists. Feel free to post something on the discussion for that page regarding the issue. In a few days once all of this has settled down we can weed out the lists that are probably superfluous.

Alright - will do. StabRule 06:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vfds

Hi. I've noticed that you just voted on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Planes_of_existence_(chat_site). Please can you also vote on my other article up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lintilla (chat site), which is currently losing 5-3.

I'd also like to ask you to look at my page with regards to the deletion policy. Just click on my name and then look at what I wrote, and what I link to and quote. I am encouraging everyone to vote on as many Vfds as they can. At present, far too many legitimate articles are being deleted just because the only people who regularly vote for Vfds are people who like to delete things. Zordrac 05:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well you made your point on my page, it's bad form to uh ask all your friends to vote. IMO we shouldn't be having to vote if we have our rules refined properly. I made a proposal to the precedent page, as you suggested. There is no precedent at all for that kind of article. There's 2 examples, 1 LambdaMOO for merge, and 1 Star Wars MUSH for keep, but nothing substantial. These places are not web pages and usually their web page is either non existent or else is of minor significance and isn't looked at a lot, hence WP:WEB can't apply in its present form. That's a problem. If there was a clear precedent, then the voting process would be easier. Zordrac 07:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MoS: article titles

About these Jewish lists you have recently created, in Wikipedia we only capitalize proper nouns in article titles (Wikipedia:Naming conventions), so List of Jewish American Politicians should be moved to List of Jewish American politicians. I'll help you out if you don't know how to move articles.--Commander Keane 08:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

StabRule

Hi, as I suspected he would StabRule has been playing Mr.Nice since yesterday to try and get you to ignore they past behaviour. I urge you to see through their facade, there is every reason to believe they will continue to try and cheat the system to try and force their own viewpoint in the future. Arniep 14:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in my opinion he is only behaving as you were the one who showed support to me, therefore he has picked you out to try and make sure you will not support me on the rfc. I would really appreciate your support on this. Arniep 14:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, he only changed his behaviour to be all nice when he gets his own way by cheating, the classic behaviour of a bully. Arniep

Afd vote on Sandy Point, Victoria

I don't think anyone meant any of their comments to be directed perosnally towards you, but just at the nomination in general. I apologize if my comment came off as any kind of personal attack, the tone was perhaps a little negative. Peyna 20:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I know you weren't attacking me. If anything, I feel bad for posting this. :) Smile! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also noted that you asked why do we have user pages? Hey, if you think just having a user page is over the top, you ought to see the really decorated ones like this one, and of course, mine. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hammertime

I posted a vfd on Hammertime when I should have posted a cleanup. If you want to restore the vfd, that's fair, but I don't think it's fair that you also deleted the extensive editing that I did to Hammertime in order to eliminate the problem. It has since garnered several "delete" votes that, based on the comments, it would not have garnered if people had read the improved version. Could you please revert the main page to reflect my improvements and delete or strike-through the comments on the vfd page that referred to the old version? I would do it myself, but I think this whole experience has proven that I'm not very handy with the more powerful tools on Wiki yet. Mareino 19:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that; I didn't even realize you had changed anything, I just reverted back to the previous version, I'll fix the mistake and post a notice at the AfD. Peyna 19:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. PJM 19:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mareino 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insulted

Congratulations, that was a spectacularly insulting use of a template. See my talk page. rspeer 01:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but XD is not now and probably never will become any kind of policy. Just as you are free to blank pages and put your XD tag on them, I am just as free to consider it vandalism and give the appropriate warning. Just because you hide behind a non-policy experiment doesn't make you safe. Peyna 01:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genius!!!

Thanks for changing the Frosty Treats cites. Cheers!!! BD2412 T 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I originally checked it out, since upon seeing the LEXIS cite I thought maybe it was an unreported case. Peyna 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Style notes

Cheers. I've bitten off too much emergy for me to chew! Sholto Maud 04:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.65 (talk • contribs) 13:51, December 1, 2005

sigs

Well, I wanted to make sure that people knew where I was coming from, so I worked on presenting my philosophies. What I believe in is important to me. But Psy Guy has helped me to work on my sig. I have been working on it for the past 2 hours. Try this version. Zordrac • (talk) Wishy Washy • Darwikinian • Eventualist 04:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G4

Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in userspace, or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject.

Before adding G4 tags I recommend asking an admin to check if it's essentially the same material. Since economic fascism wasn't I have removed the tag from the page. Just be careful about those little things with speedy deletion criteria. There's often some little thing that gets overlooked. gren グレン 08:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

WikiThanks

Thanks for contacting User:195.92.67.78 for me! I still can't get the page to come up, mind. I think there's some serious cache clearing needs to be done in my browser. Thanks again! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 09:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Sholom Keller

Just a note that in your delete summary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholom Keller you misstated that I voted to Keep and to Delete. Peyna 01:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I fixed it now. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pottercast

I've left another link to the Mugglenet news archives to provide proof of collaboration between the two. Together with the fact we have an article on The Leaky Cauldron, I think that should provide enough proof for a merge (and I hope an undeletion). If you need any more claims cited, please let me know. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ewok Slayer

actually yes he has been blocked but blocked users can edit their user talk page, I noticed the legal threats though and I have replied as well as the fact I am contemplating lengthening the block and if the legal threats continue more drastic action may be necessary. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One dollar Federal Reserve Note

I noticed the deletion debate here has fizzled somewhat, but I made some changes to the articles that may further illustrate the points I had been trying to make. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Paul 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterianism

Cheers for quickly reverting the rubbish by 162.40.181.140! I had just made a small edit and noticed it myself and was in the process of removing it when you spotted it. Great work! Blarneytherinosaur 03:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

I didn't understand very well what you have say. If i put ~~~~ the system will change it for my name and the date automatically? user:Piranna

Thanks for the note! :-) Piranna 18:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

son of hapu

Got your message that the page has been put for deletion because it is a copy from another site, and that if I want I can put the article again but mentioning the original source... which I already did the first time. The source for the article was mentioned at the top of the page... as the site from where I got the article requested to anyone quoting their articles somewhere.

The problem is that the source material is identical to the material on the article. You can certainly cite it as a source, but a word for word copy is still a copyright violation, source identified or not. Peyna 23:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for the info. Next time I'll know what to do :)

tenderloin, san francisco

thank you for your advice regarding this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.223.15 (talk • contribs)

RFC on User:Antidote

Hi, I believe this user is User:StabRule as well as other names and has been engaging in a huge fraud and numerous other disruptions. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote/Voting for details of their multiple voting. I would appreciate if you could endorse the request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute, Regards, Arniep 15:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your support. Would you consider moving your vote to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute, as if noone else signs in this section the rfc will be deleted. Thanks Arniep 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used the user's use of multiple accounts as the example dispute, so I needed to use people who had discussed this with the user. You questioned the user about this but they failed to admit their use of sock puppets so you tried and failed. Thanks Arniep 17:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peyna. Arniep 17:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User talk:Zordrac that were removed by that user

This is a repost of comments that I made to another user's talk page that were then reverted on the basis of the user feeling they were "personal attacks." I stand by my statements and think that some users ought to toughen up a little bit instead of hiding from any criticism of their conduct. Note that currently only my original reply has been removed; the rest of the discussion is reposted here to provide context. Peyna 00:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that nobody comes to my talk page to say "well done"? Why is that it is always someone writing to complain about something, or accuse me of something? Why is it so negative? User:Zordrac

Just so you don't feel like it's Wikipedia in general, a lot of people give comments of thanks or well dones for quality editing or resolving disputes. If you start editing in the "article space" more instead of just "Wikipedia space" or "user talk space" you might get more positive remarks. Peyna 11:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zordrac, I think it was a poor choice to remove comments from this talk page. Splash is a valued member of our community, and if you'd rather not respond to him, the least you can do is leave his comments untouched. None of the text you removed constitutes a personal attack. Your action looks particularly questionable coming less than a week after you chastised another editor for doing exactly the same. Please reconsider. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took it as a personal attack, very much so. I also responded to it in its appropriate place in another forum, where he wrote the exact same thing, but as less of a personal attack. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider my comment to fall anywhere near the examples laid out in WP:NPA. Perhaps you should reconsider what you consider to be a personal attack as compared to criticism. Peyna 00:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was invalid and inaccurate. You stated that I spend all of my time complaining about things instead of writing articles, which is simply not true, and is not a valid explanation for why people are nasty occasionally. Hence it was something that I consider to be an untrue statement veiled as a personal attack, and I do not want it on my page thank you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way; however, you ought to assume good faith. I was merely suggesting that there may be another reason for why you don't receive "positive" comments on your talk page as opposed to your apparent belief that everyone on Wikipedia hates you. Your attitude regarding my comment reinforces my original comment. Peyna 00:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You also have mischaracterized my comment completely. Re-read what I wrote. Perhaps you saw something there that wasn't there based upon your own assumptions. Peyna 00:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heisman Trophy

Just to let you know that not all the unregistered IPs are vandalising the article: every time you revert it you are inadvertently adding a piece of vandalism back in. -- Francs 2000 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell what's going on there; I've tried to revert back to what I can tell is the most accurate version, but there's so much slipping through it's difficult to tell. Peyna 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected it for the moment - if you tell me what needs sorting out I'll do that then unprotect it again. -- Francs 2000

02:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real vandalism there so I'll unlock the article again and you can amend the sentence yourself. Why is this page suddenly so popular anyway? -- Francs 2000

02:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about Image:Double_Clef.jpg

So, what license is suitable then? --Thorpe 15:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to find another fair use tag which is more appropriate; unfortunately I don't see any options. Maybe {{art}}; or {{fairusein}} if you think it qualifies as a fair use in a particular article. Peyna 15:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Numerals

Why are you blanking long standing material and images on this page? What's up with that? --Astriolok 16:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am returning the page to the version that it had when the content dispute tag was first put up; discuss the content dispute; don't keep changing the content unilaterally. Peyna 16:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That content was there for nearly a year, now all of sudden a group of editors come along and want to rewrite the page into a confused mess and you support that?. I am not sure what you are up .--Astriolok 16:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reverting, you should try taking the added content and cleaning it up. Splitting off the history was a valid decision and it should be kept that way. It was done to keep that discussion separate. When a consensus is reached, it can be moved back if it won't bloat the article. But you ought to keep the history section moved to its own article. There is no harm in that. Peyna 16:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The added content was pure quackery from revisionist web sites. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum for every lunatic that walks off the street to compose a version of history to their own liking.And we do not cut articles to pieces just because a few editors think "there is no harm in that". --Astriolok 16:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It still might be worth some kind of mention in there if enough people believe it. I'm not a fan of "Criticism" sections, but if there is a significant group of these "quackery" people it ought to be mentioned. Peyna 16:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I think that the user that is adding this content isn't behaving very civilly either; however, sometimes the best way to stop edit-wars like this is to give a little ground. Thereby perhaps having an article entitled Alternative views of the history of Arabic numerals might be enough to make that user put his edits there and then post a link to that from the main artilce on Arabic numerals. Then in due time the info at the alternative article can be evaluated for accuracy and verifiability. Peyna 17:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks likt that didn't fly.--Astriolok 17:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; I guess they didn't like my attempted solution. Anyway, I'm just trying to help resolve this dispute and have not "chosen sides" in any manner. Cssclll thinks he has some valid points and is providing cites to sources for them, so they probably need a home somewhere, but not in the Arabic numerals article, because that article is about the numeral system itself and not so much its history. Peyna 17:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith

Thanks for your message Peyna. I am willing to assume good faith and ignore such things a hundred more times despite the confrontational attitude shown by the editor (eg. see this, if it leads to anything constructive at all. deeptrivia (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:3RR

I am sorry to inform you that I have blocked you for a token time of 3 hours for violation of WP:3RR. [2], [3], [4] are the three reverts that are visible. Apart from these, you've been making several other edits to the same page such as [5]. It is a violation of the three revert rule in spirit; However, I am willing to give you the benefit of doubt and hence this block is for a token time of 3 hours. Thanks and regards, --Gurubrahma 18:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to the other use that was blocked; probably a result of my editing while at school behind a firewall. Anyway, I have no problem with the block and was well aware I was probably in violation of 3RR at the time. Thanks. Peyna 18:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpamRR

Interesting point. (sigh) Well, I've seen others reverting the spam too, so hopefully a team effort can keep it down. Thanks for the reminder! FreplySpang (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]