User talk:RadioKirk/Archive07

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defenders of the Christian Faith

Please can you reconsider this? It is not a delete consensus/ There is no consensus that it should be deleted on grounds of notability. I'd say the strong consensus was 'merge'. But given the fact that there is no info here that isn't on the target, a simple redirect (with history intact) should suffice.--Doc^g 09:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing that. I know it is often difficult to change when people are questioning your afd closures, your willingness and flexibility are appreciated. I should be more humble myself. If I was quibbling, I'd say the effect of your closure is now 'redirect' or 'potential merge' rather than delete - but since I'm happy with the outcome, I'll leave it at that.--Doc^g 14:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:SPURA_SPAN.jpg

I sent this also to wikipedia permisisons

---

Original Message-----

From: Juda Engelmayer Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 9:49 AM To: 'permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org' Subject: FW: Image:SPURA_Span.jpg - Wikipedia.org

Re: Image:SPURA_Span.jpg

---

Original Message-----

From: Yori Yanover Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 5:43 AM To: Juda Engelmayer Subject: Re: Image:SPURA_Span.jpg - Wikipedia.org

Juda, I give you permission to use my picture of SPURA (SPURA_Span.jpg), provided you add: "Photo by Yori Yanover"

Yori Yanover

At 11:10 PM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPURA>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPURA

Yori, in order to keep the photo on this Wikipedia website, I need you as The owner of <http://www.spura.org/>www.SPURA.org to send me an email approving the free use of the picture from the main SPURA.org page.

Thanks

Juda

____________________________________ Yori Yanover, editor and publisher

www.grandstreetnews.com Juda S. Engelmayer 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Your time and attention are appreciated. Juda S. Engelmayer 16:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kinsella actions

Can you fix the Kinsella legal actions section using the sourced material, please. The reverted version is no as good as the one of AverageGuy, which is sourced and looks complete. Buffalo Bob Rae 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did go through the Kinsella references, added one more and changed one to a more authoritative web site. You may want to check the references if you have worries. Buffalo Bob Rae 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Spiritual Humanism article

I don’t understand why you deleted the Spiritual Humanism article without any discussion. Your “fails WP:N” explanation is weak as there are numerous references to Spiritual Humanism over the past several years. Here are a bunch easily accessible on the Internet:

LA Times Nov 21, 2006 http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1165737241.html?dids=1165737241:1165737241&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+21%2C+2006&author=Victor+S.+Navasky&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=A.23&desc=I+married+my+daughter

Nytimes (23 articles) December 28, 2003 through October 15, 2006 http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?frow=0&n=10&srcht=s&query=%22spiritual+humanism%22&srchst=nyt&hdlquery=&bylquery=&daterange=full&mon1=01&day1=01&year1=1981&mon2=01&day2=15&year2=2007&submit.x=16&submit.y=10

Chicago Tribune Jul 14, 2005 http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/866774461.html?dids=866774461:866774461&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul+14%2C+2005&author=Eric+Zorn&pub=Chicago+Tribune&edition=&startpage=1&desc=No+reverence+required+to+be+real+reverend

Washington Post Jul 2, 2006 http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/1070428931.html?dids=1070428931:1070428931&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+2%2C+2006&author=Daniel+de+Vise+-+Washington+Post+Staff+Writer&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=C.1&desc=More+Couples+Choose+to+Wed+Their+Way

Glasgow Daily Record 8 January 2007 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=brother-marries-his-own-sister&method=full&objectid=18415625&siteid=66633-name_page.html 2ct7 01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify your position further for me? Is it that even though you think it is a notable subject, rather then improving the article to establish the notability of the subject, you think its better that delete it so is no article at all on this topic? 2ct7 03:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As the original author I would have appreciated the courtesy note from you about deleting my work. Speedy Delete is very abrupt and not a nice way to find out something you have worked on is gone. I will rework the article and add some content addressing the short comings you have pointed out. I agree that the article will be better if it includes some notable references. Thanks 2ct7 15:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD mentions it would be considerate to notify the original author, perhaps they mean the editor who nominated the page for speedy deletion could have sent me a note? I'll try to keep the spirit of WP:OWN in mind when editing. 2ct7 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Defenders of the Christian Faith AFD

Just have to say, interesting that you went that route - but good call. =) --Dennisthe2 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

personal website/OR.

you seem to have some problem with me using my websites. firstly, its not OR. why not ? cites are common law. common law is not OR. everything i have written is not OR in the least but common law. thats the thing courts rely on when they make decisions. secondly, my website is the only authorative source since no one has done anything like what ive done. putting the sentencing guidelines into a mathematical model and coupling a search engine to the fre. i dont have any official source since no official source has done it and my website is based on the official material, unchanged. thirdly, this is the reason that wikipedias entries are less than useful. you have generic crap up there which is worthless for anyone to do anything useful with. it would take weeks to read the federal sentencing guidelines and actually use them. i can do it in 10 seconds on my little software package. and generate the same result. and anyone wanting to do it will need to buy expensive software or use my website. yes its a bit of advertising for me but i dont see the harm. wikipedia becomes more useful, i can add more articles and its useful material -- not spam, OR or any other crap argument you come up with. dont want to change ? fine. i'll leave wikipedia alone. i dont care. being a nazi and controlling everything is stupid. the reason wikis are supposed to be useful is that users can contribute. if youre not willing to allow useful contributions then whats the point ? and oh BTW, my website is both established and reliable. i've had it for years. and its updated regularly as the guidelines change. and its completely current. --Yhs 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am aware it is an encyclopedia. but if you think wikipedia is not a website youre living under some sort of a delusion. wake up ... the stuff on wikipedia would never get into any real encyclopedia. I have read verifiability and by your standards my website is completely verifiable. its based only on published and established sources...in fact the database used is published by the US courts. i think youve been an admin for such a long time that youve forgotten what wikipedia is supposed to be about -- its supposed to be useful because users are allowed to contribute which they could never do in a real encyclopedia. and wiki provides them with something back. its called the open source model -- a bit of quid pro quo in return for really useful information. as it stands, both of those articles are completely useless -- in fact a google search provides more information than wikipedia. and thats true for 90% of the stuff on here because you simply dont let people add anything useful to the bland generic crap you have posted. I understand that there is a spam problem and people do add stuff thats questionable which you have to police regularly. in this case its different and you dont see that because youve been doing this too long. its ok -- im not adding any more since im not getting anything back anyway. whats the point of contributing to a place where there is only take and no give ? --Yhs 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

you dont respect expertise and im not wasting any more time on this. i should point out that the links you currently have are 2 years out of date but you dont care anyway. goodbye. --Yhs 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Funeral Mist

Hi. Another editor asked me on my talk page about this article which was speedily deleted by your good self and I said I would take a look at it for them to see if I could assist in the assertion of notability of the subject. Would it be at all possible for you to re-create it in my sandbox? It would be much appreciated, even if it ends up that I can't help! Thanks in advance. Bubba hotep 17:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That was quick! Thanks very much. Bubba hotep 17:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:WotW_pub.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WotW_pub.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for blocking those, well, strange usernames so quickly after I reported them. It is appreciated! Dar-Ape 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Undelete

Just so you know, my Across Five Aprils (which you deleted) is the name of a book that won the Newbery Honor distinction and whose author (Irene Hunt), won the Newbery Medal. Please undelete and respond on my talk page. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I created the article on the book which was in turn vandalised to be about the nn band. Please undelete and I'll revert the vandalism. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I happened to see your comment on Kitia's talk page that Across Five Aprils fails notability without a citation for the Newbery Honor. I'd just like to point out that the notability guideline for fiction is a proposed guideline only at this stage. Furthermore, the Newbery awards and honors are listed both in the articles for Newbery Award and Newbery Honor, and confirmed on the Newbery website. This is one of the most important awards children's books can receive, and is generally displayed on the cover of the book. Fails notability? Not on your life! That said, clearly the stub needs an ISBN, infobox, etc. as soon as possible. Regards. Karen | Talk | contribs 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos in IL Divo's member pages, Since when photos from album cover arent allowed to be posted here?

I have justified that all 4 photos in there are from the album "The Christmas Collection" and could you please tell me why you removed them? I said remove this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CarlosS.jpg but it was not removed ; yet you removed 4 photos in the member pages. Why? I replied to ODEN telling him its ok to remove one of the photos which has no link (the link above) but not 4 photos in the Il Divo's member page. May I know by who and how all this decisions were made? Please buy The CHRISTMAS COLLECTION to see the photos in the cover booklet as pages given in that site before you remove them. I have given the justification but did not received any comments from the admin. I believe I deserve some answers or justifications before the photos been removed.- Jay 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you said "fair use" cannot be used there, just DELETE the "fair use" text. You are not answering my question. My question is, the photos are from the album cover sold IN THE CD and photos from album covers are accepted here. So, forget about me writing the "fair use" but I also did wrote "The photos are from the CD "The Christmas Collection". They are from the cover CD, for christ sake! I am feeling angry because pictures from CD albums are allowed but why those photos were removed? Please justify this? I dont get it! And tell me, can I re-post the photos because THEY ARE FROM THE CD COVER!!! And if the CD cover photos are not allowed, I am sure you have to remove millions of photos because almost all singer's articles in here are using their CD cover! - Jay 05:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin Enda Marren

You speedy deleted this article a while back. But the talk page log shows that it went through an vfd and survived. Could you please undelete it and send it back to afd at least? Thanks. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Image:Emma Watson 1

Thanks for informing me - I don't understand about putting images on Wikipedia. As I haven't been on Wikipedia for ages I have to say: Welcome Back!

Jhfireboy I'm listening 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say - I never really had problems before with uploading images! Also, on a completely different topic, how many edits do you think I need to do to have a fair chance at becoming an administrator? I know I'm no where near at the moment but I'd like to have a target.

Thanks, Jhfireboy I'm listening 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dannii Minogue article

Hello. I recently nominated the Dannii Minogue article for FA status. I was wondering if you would be willing to read over the article, correcting its grammar, prose, etc. Thank you very much. -- Underneath-it-All 02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over the article! It's greatly appreciated. -- Underneath-it-All 01:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Lotuslander 2006

Lotuslander20006 is not one of my socks. In fact, it's been checkusered. There are people who actually in agrement with the idea of a complete article on Kinsella. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis. Arthur Ellis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.217.119.3 (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Rather than engage in a collaborative effort to improve an article, the user's edit served to restore verbatim the version of the article as attempted (repeatedly) by a banned user. My action stands. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your action is wrong and you will not admit it. You acted hastily, and you are now digging in your heals. You have no interest in whether teh article is right or wrong, only in covering your ass. You not only reverted someone`s legal edits, you banned someone out of hand. That`s hardly the spirit of Wikipedia, and I wouldn`t blame the poster for going to arbitration and nailing your sorry ass.192.197.82.153 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For your sake, you'd better hope so because, for all posterity, your bias is exposed—because anyone who takes even a moment to note the time between the reversion of an obvious WP:3RR violation and the block of an obvious sockpuppet will see its attendant investigation and, as always, you and your agenda in direct, purposeful contravention of an encyclopedia will lose—as it should, and as it must. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I took some time to review RK's edits and reversions in this article (it's a slow day), and they appear to be in keeping with Wikipedia's goal of maintaining NPOV. I think any arbitration activity would find in his favor. Rklawton 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan sprot

Yes indeed. In fact, I was first going to decline the request for the vandalism seems to be just on the borderline for protection need. But since all the recent edits by IPs were vandalism, I decided to opt for semi-protection in the end. Cheers, Húsönd 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, seems fair enough. By the way, I would've given the 192.197.82.153 guy above a NPA4 warning.--Húsönd 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Permanently blocking 213.249.154.100

Can you please initiate a permanent block on 213.249.154.100 as he has vandalised many times, received a lot of warnings and now putting hurtful nonsense on my user page (reverted by me).

Thanks, Jhfireboy I'm listening 10:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services

Hi again,

I was making changes to the dead-end pages and I came across A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services. It has the {{copyvio}} tag dated 23 December, 2006. Am I wrong or should it be deleted by an administrator?

Thanks, Jhfireboy I'm listening 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should, and is. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Emma Watson

Yeah, I noticed that right after I deleted it and you must have reverted it before I did. Sorry, so many fair use promotional shots come up on that page that I assumed it was another one without looking. --Phoenix Hacker 05:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please justify your action with regard to "Hasbara Fellowships"

Please justify this action: "20:48, 9 January 2007 RadioKirk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Hasbara Fellowships" (fails WP:N, WP:COPY)" in the absence of an AfD. Thanks. --John Nagle 07:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hasbara Fellowships. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John Nagle 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

pdT

I thought frankly I was being to fair, I've seen so many screw-ups from him, etc etc, and yet he has several "replaceable fair use images" that he has uploaded him self, the fair use policers need to police them selves for a change tbh, oh and now he's sent a PM to his friend because a non-admin (me) chucked out his RFU (User_talk:Yamla#request.3F) - somebody call the roflcopter! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

bitbotbotbot

Umm, you have blocked my account and I cannot work out any way of getting it unblocked. Could you please explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.69.130 (talk • contribs)

As I noted in the edit summary, WP:USERNAME expressly prohibits user accounts that suggest the user is a bot. Sorry, but you must register with a new user name. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason that I ask is that I actually cannot ask for a name change, because I have to be logged in to request a name change, and I cannot complete the request process unless I am logged in. This suggests that it is actually impossible to change a user name once one hasbeen blocked. Please note that you have twice now failed to address this problem.

Just to clarify for your benefit, what you didn't address was that I didn't want to register a new name, and that the process for changing the name seems to involve a logical contradiction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.185.69.130 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Lindsay Lohan

The grammar was wrong, you can't list stuff and keep using 'and'. Quaker24 04:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for taking care of the vandal Onenoob. JPG-GR 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalisim

Im just wondering but what constitutes the removal of so called vandalisim on the Northwestern Lehigh School District's page? What expertise do you posess to dispute facts presented by a first person witness?

please respond on your page considering i am not a user

208.103.164.204 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's called encyclopedic policy; namely, what is notable (it's not) and verifiable (it's not), and not original research (it is).

So, why is it vandalism? Every school and/or district has its issues with problem students; some deal better than others. Unless this is (verifiably, with reliable sources to back it up) so severe as to have merited stories from legitimate news agencies, its only purpose is to disparage the subject, and keeping a neutral point of view is paramount. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is verifiable if you would like me to take photographs. Secondly the fact that the bathrooms are not sanitary is based on the violation of several national and state health violations, for instance two male bathrooms (thee uranils and two stalls in each) for over 500 people. The most Neutral point of view is that of looking down at a toilet filled with used skoal to the point of clogging. 209.18.49.14 12:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the links I've left in my previous message: among other things, unless they've been published by a reliable, verifiable source, even photographs are original research. The sole purpose for inclusion—to disparage the subject—remains. If you want to "expose" what you think is egregious, get a blog, which Wikipedia is not. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

check this out!

Hey! How's it goin'? This one is cool! useful for dealing with vandalism Try it! It really comes handy...--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 23:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good. I am so happy with it, excited, too, and couldn't help spreading the word...I see that we are still fighting a lot of vandalism on Lindsay Lohan huh? BTW, maybe I can ask you to give me tips for improvement of Arnold Zamora and Chorus Paulinus. I will sincerely appreciate your feedback. Thanks much! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 00:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No rush. Take your time...--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

John Grisham

Hey! May I ask you to check on the recent edits made on this? I am not sure what to make of it. Maybe you'll have a better understanding of it.--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with it. Please do the honors? Thanks. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

SaltSeaJapanMS

According to Google translate (beta, so lots of holes) (s)he was saying:

Japan の は Wikipedia, the Word of Applied け る 廃 industry. ド ー ス は tech common enemy, River Ever questionnaires Intelligence Games Accent Shika た. Jimbo Wales wa, # た really saying it this way, "Japan の は Wikipedia. Historical concern の の と に た finishing # Ever け る looks saying it this way. River edges wa permanent に Intelligence Games Accent け る realignment Ever!

If you can make any sense of that... Prodego ^talk 01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Using Google, I got something very different from the above, the message he tried to leave is this:

You have discontinued Japanese Wikipedia. The steward locked that. It verified Jimbo Wales, “it is taken Japanese Wikipedia, because of interest of history. That is locked permanently!

Disregard as troll, imo. – Chacor 01:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why I got something so different, odd. Prodego ^talk 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See my reply here. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR question

Hi RadioKirk, As I am sure you have come across this problem with the Lindsay Lohan article, I thought you would know what to do here. I am as protective of the Vivien Leigh article which I wrote, as you are with the LL article, so I know you'll appreciate how I feel. A new user has made a bunch of unsourced edits, some of them quite inappropriate to the article, and I have reverted him twice. It's not vandalism so I can't just keep on reverting, but I have messaged him. What should I do now? I spent literally days carefully and methodically writing and sourcing the article, and a bunch of random, unsourced and possibly incorrect "facts" have been slipped in ahead of my references, making the whole thing look nicely sourced. It also has a couple of gems such as "Laurence Olivier (bisexual actor)" in the opening paragraph. Hope to hear from you! :-) Rossrs 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Only problem is that Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier are both dead. Rossrs 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, there's just that one minor drawback..... not to worry, by some miracle an anon has reverted all of the edits! Rossrs 22:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious note. I'm having problems with an anonymous (ever changing IP) and a registered user, both of whom seem to me to be the same person, and have been vandalising articles and leaving crazy messages on my talk page. It's a continuation of the above but is extending to other articles I've edited so I feel a bit stalked and harassed. I won't bore you with all the details, but can you please tell me where I should take this. I'm getting fed up and would like it to stop. Thanks Rossrs 07:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've {{sprotected}} your user talk; as for the rest, you can try WP:AN/I, but I'm not sure what can be done with a non-static IP... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd been considering requesting a semi-protect for my user talk page. That's good. I'm sure I can outlast this individual, so I just need to be somewhat patient. I don't think I'm dealing with a particularly gifted intellect on this occasion and I expect he/she will get bored before long and just drift away to annoy someone else. Hopefully find a nice blog somewhere. Well, that's my hope.... the eternal optimist :-) thanks again. Rossrs 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of them do... :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Brent Corrigan..."come to think of it, we can't call it murder [or even a homicide] before a conviction [police can say it is, we can't yet]) ".

...this means that the Bryan Kocis page is going to need a lot of work...are you game?

Please be kind.

4.174.220.77 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Zamora

Thank you so much...I have to tell you that I have been using LL as a guide, for all the Bios i have made...can't match your works, but i am trying...--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

meat

I sincerely hope not! Bucketsofg 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-blocking

Are user pages allowed to be semi-protected? Jhfireboy I'm listening 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perma-blocking

I strongly suggest, and request, that you block both 172.202.143.238 and 84.66.7.177 for severe vandalism to User:Jhfireboy and User Talk:Jhfireboy. I do not know who to ask apart from you. Jhfireboy I'm listening 22:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't permablock IPs unless they're open proxies, but I'll take a look and see what actually is appropriate. : RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm just getting really fed up of it - whoever keeps vandalising my user page they are confusing me with someone else. Jhfireboy I'm listening 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much for your help. I'll be reading every link you posted so I can better myself for this website. I apologise for the mistakes I made, as well if I was a tad bit rude. I just find it rediculous when someone says that you must be the person because you wrote about them. But, anyway, thank you again. Hopefully no more mistakes will be made on my part XD

Marie 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations at 3RR

Hello, RadioKirk. I deliberately left it several days, as I didn't want to keep posting at AN/3RR in heat after your very hurtful accusations. I have never in my life been accused of disruption, and all the evidence shows that your accusations are false. I don't want you to reply in haste, because your original judgment was made in haste. I have asked you, however, to retract all those accusations or suggestions before the report is archived. If you go to Talk:Gillian McKeith, you will see that my posts there have been polite and calm, and that the person you are equating me with has not been. Several administrators seem to agree that starting the article (in the first sentence) with stuff about the "scatologically infamous" "poo lady" who "sells herself as Dr McKeith" is a violation of WP:BLP. Considering I was posting at the BLP talk page too (which I indicated at the 3RR report page), asking for advice from experienced users, and considering I indicated that I would drop it if an administrator told me to, I simply cannot believe that I was accused of being "equally guilty of disruption" as someone who aggressively reverted with "rvv" edit summaries, who made five new reverts in the space of less than four hours, the day after he had escaped a block, and who was rude and insulting on the talk page. This experience has shaken me a bit, and I am asking you to do something to put it right. I made mistakes when I arrived here (failure to use edit summaries, and uploading of copyrighted photos which I thought were free to Commons), and the two administrators who helped me posted friendly notices on my talk page, without giving the slightest hint that they blamed me in any way; and they certainly did not post at administrators' noticeboards accusing me of disruption.

If you cannot accept that I was not guilty of any disruption, I would like you at least to strike out the "equally", as a lesser injustice is better than a greater one.

Respectfully, ElinorD 14:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I might also add that I have nearly a thousand edits, and, to the best of my knowledge, the five I made on that page are the only five non-vandalism reverts I have. I was even a bit timid about barging right in when I found an article like this, and only went ahead and rewrote it after being encouraged to do so by an administrator. ElinorD 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied; I believe my initial assessment was not hasty, but it was unfair and incorrect. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification at AN/3RR. Thank you. That I did not acknowledge it (and the page has now been archived) is not a sign that I did not accept it, but rather that I was in the middle of an extremly busy weekend, coming home late, and only making a few edits, which did not require much thought about the wording. I do accept that you were trying to defuse a situation, not create one, and I appreciatet the rewrite you did on the opening section. I am trying to spend a little time each day studying the policy pages in addition to making edits. Regards, ElinorD 00:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Caught Some Socks...

A few other sockpuppets of a vandal you just blocked:

MaryZZZZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandal-Vandal-Vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

One declined, leaving the other for a moment, unless you have something more conclusive than a Z-run similarity. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. Hopefully the MaryZZZZ account will not be used for vandalism and was created in good faith.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gillian McKeith

Hi. The Sun is not a tabloid in the American sense. Jooler 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had contact with at least a dozen Brits who disagree, some powerfully. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that 'The Sun' is quality journalism but, as I understand it (and I may be wrong), 'tabloid' in the US generally refers to the tabloids purchased at the checkout which are known for outright dishonesty and fabrication. Tabloids in Britain are known for their sensationalism and predilection for celebrity. In this instance Gillian McKeith is a celebrity and the story was quoting Edzard Ernst. I see no reason to suggest that this is a fabrication in itself. However - on trying to find the story itself I could only come up with someone quoting it on a forum and not the original article - so fair enough on its removal - but - I don't think you should just prejudice a cite from The Sun automatically because it falls into the 'tabloid catergory'. Jooler 10:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The sensationalist bent alone is enough to disqualify it as a reliable source under verifiability policy; it's similar to US Weekly in that it searches—intentionally, if not exclusively—for the most salacious angle it can find. US Weekly finds "friends" of celebs who dish dirt that may or may not be factual, then print it with the caveat, "so-and-so says this and that"; what little I've read from it, The Sun does the same. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But the quote we are talking about does not fall into that category at all. It is not a kiss & tell piece. Again I am not now objecting to the removal of this particular cite for the reason I gave above, but the principle of removing it simply because it came from The Sun. The Sun does cover proper news stories aswell as celebrity stories. The British equivalents of US Weekly are OK!, Hello! and Heat. There a hundreds of citations from The Sun on Wikipedia. Jooler 16:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

...and, frankly, they all should be replaced with a reliable source. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see you cannot be persuaded that there is room for even a minimal degree of merit for anything published in The Sun. Clearly this stems from a lack of understanding of the nature of the Newspaper industry in Britain, which is understandable. However your stance is prejudicial. Bye. Jooler 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In the UK tabloid is simply a format. For a long time a paper's format and the quality of its reporting have been conflated (although as a former BBC journalist I have considerable respect for these papers) but now almost all newspapers here are in fact tabloids.

The UK and the US differ considerably in the way that newspapers are regulated, both by law and under a voluntary code. UK (and EU) law is extremely tough in this respect - many US court reports, for example, would land UK journalist in prison.

You should also be aware that The Sun has a reputation for breaking nationally important stories such as the current row about "friendly fire"[1]" which killed a British soldier. The fact that it's written in words of one syllable is neither here nor there. andy 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As a journalist myself, I should point out that "tabloid reputation" to me and to many other editors (I'm not nearly alone in this) means "no" is the answer to the question, "do I trust this source as reliable?" Should someone sufficiently argue otherwise to me and these other editors (on, say, Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and/or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability), I'd certainly rethink my stance. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Something I learned today from Ben Goldacre's piece in today's Guardian (reproduced on his website www.BadScience.Net) - is that McKeith (who has just been censured Advertising Standards Authority for using her dodgy title) apparently threatened to sue The Sun (she's very letigious and even threatened to sue Google for linking to a satitical flash animation of her) over an article that suggested that she had a dodgy qualification. It is mere speculation, but perhaps that is why the article quoting Edzard Ernst is not on their website (reproduced here http://www.dietetics.co.uk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=265). Jooler 08:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You made the point on my talk page that "nutritionist" was unfair. I accept this point, but maybe it would be more accurate to say she is a self-described or words to a similar effect given that she has no accredited qualifications in the subject. If I was to go around proclaiming I am a physicist that doesn't make one, as I have no qualifications as a physicist. Kind reagrds, Chris Cxk271 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

George Martin Stephen

I notice that you deleted the article about George Martin Stephen, the high master of St Paul's School (London). This article should not have been deleted as it is about a notable educationalist and author. Please arrange to have it reinstated asap. Many thanks. --Vivenot 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of George Martin Stephen. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Vivenot 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your speedy response! --Vivenot 11:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Captain Jack Sparrow

Why did you remove my edit? It was not OR, it was just an expansion of the fact we did not see where the compass pointed. Drake Clawfang 22:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't see where the compass points, it's conjecture. That it could point to a ship or someone aboard could be considered a foregone conclusion, but it can't be used in a context that might draw the reader to infer something that was never established. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I did not edit in a way to establish that compass's direction as the ship. I merely added that, even if it did point to the ship, there's the extra complication there. Drake Clawfang 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I know; and, as a stand-alone sentence, depending on its phrasing, it would probably be safe. As written, though, it gave the impression that it was trying to draw the reader into making the connection, and that's original research. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I understand. Drake Clawfang 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In-universe

Captain Jack Sparrow is still loaded with in-universe information. The POTC movie sections are borderline too deatiled, and the "Wardrobe and equipment" and "The character" sections also kind of fall into the no-no area outlined in WP:WAF. I mean, do we need an entire paragraph on what rings he wears? Every instance of the catchphrases he uses? I dunno, it just kind of feels like a fan page instead of an enecylopedic entry. Hbdragon88 04:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on specifics, not on point; strikes me as a WP:CRUFT issue, not WP:WAF. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay then. Speaking of which, do you think it would be a good idea to merge Captain Grant Sparrow into Captain Jack Sparrow? It would do nicely in a section titled "Family." And even if he does have a big role I don't think he would be major enough character to warrant his own article. Hbdragon88 06:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly, although I wouldn't be adverse to the idea of waiting until the third film is released. If the character is sufficiently memorable, we'd be undoing the merge. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Block?

Why did you block Emmawatsonfanatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I saw no vandalism since the last warning. John Reaves (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The nature of the vandalism convinced me this was a vandal-only account, which can be blocked without warning per WP:BLOCK. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lohan & Spears

RadioKirk, I've read with interest the debates on the LL and BS page about the inclusion/exclusion of the upskirt shots. Given that you're frequently in the minority during these arguments, why is it that you feel justified in ensuring that you get your way? In the LL site, for example, I felt that the notability arguments raised by Joaq99 were quite accurate.

His NBC argument was pretty good - your statement that it wasn't notable seems to be running contrary to the opinions of NBC, a non-trivial source. How do you support your assertion that Star magazine not constitute a reliable source?

I guess I'd like to say that during my readings of your comments, I've in general found you to be quite combatitive. Worse still, your arguments are rarely supported by more than just a reference to a WP guideline. These guidelines, as I'm sure you know, are rather lengthy. Merely referring to one is not sufficient to support your point. Having discussions on messageboards is difficult enough without incomplete arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.102.46 (talk • contribs)

Argumentative, certainly; combative, well, let's just say I disagree. One can be in the minority and be correct, a concept lost on some people. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Need people with an opinion

Hey there. I noticed that in the past, you have participated in a discussion about Filmoraphies and lists of works in general here. There is now a RfC discussing this and more aspects here. It would be nice if you took a look and gave your comments on those matters. Thank you. theroachman^TC 10:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out a little later when I have more time, thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Netwriter/Redshirt Filmette Series

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article User:Netwriter/Redshirt Filmette Series, 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). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at [[Talk:User:Netwriter/Redshirt Filmette Series|its talk page]]. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Calton | Talk 01:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of which, what about User:Netwriter/Template? --Calton | Talk 01:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh... I'm not sure why I'm getting this notice as I placed the page there for Netwriter to work on as a potential article—after I speedy-deleted the article... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your name's on the edit history -- your name IS the entire edit history -- so presumably have an interest/responsibility. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

... and, it's in the user's space, designed to be that user's responsibility, which is what throws me... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello – Based on your significant contribution to the Santa Rosa, California article, I thought you might be interested in this project:

You have been invited to join the WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Bay Area. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Peter G Werner 04:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I may add my name, but my time here is sporadic. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 07:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential Copy Vio

I'm a bit suspicious about Image:PeterSerafinowicz.jpg. In one place it claims it's from imdb (the link leads to a different picture) and yet licenses it under GNU. Another place says it's from nerf-herders-anonymous.net. Could you clear this up? I'm not sure what the procedures are. --Phoenix Hacker 02:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have a moment. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 07:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

blink-182 Pop Punk vs Punk Rock vote

As you have recently contributed to the blink-182 article you might be interested in casting your vote towards reaching a final consensus on the bands genre, Pop Punk or Punk Rock, votes can be cast here. cheers mate --Dan027 06:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't feel my knowledge of the genres is sufficient to make a valid judgment. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 07:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User

You have most kindly blocked User:Wptfe for his edits to Claudette Colbert. I, for one, am extremely grateful to you. As you may be aware, he was also using a number of anonymous sockpuppets, which are still functional. Could I impose upon you to consider blocking these as well? They include:

• 219.104.31.29
• 219.104.2.21
• 219.104.30.200
• 219.104.30.144
• 219.104.30.149
• 219.104.30.164
• 219.104.30.196
• 218.217.208.185

and possibly others.

In addition to disruptive edits, he has also been defacing my User talk:Orbicle page (and others') with rude comments (which have now been reverted by another User.)

Thanks!

Orbicle 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also appreciative, and I thank you for your intervention, but today I've noticed some disturbing edits to Vivien Leigh. All sourced to "my space" and other blogs - I wrote this article and I sourced it SO carefully, it drives me nuts to see it trashed. I notice that most of the new edits have been made by anons and a brand new registered user. The only other article they've edited - guess? If you said "Claudette Colbert", you'd be right, and one of them has requested unprotection for Claudette because he wants to write about "her dead place". This whole Claudette bloody Colbert edit war started over reversions I made to Vivien Leigh a couple of weeks ago. I'd be interested in your opinion but I don't think I'm being paranoid. Groan. thanks, as always. Rossrs 12:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What a shock... anyway, I probably don't need to mention that WP:V allows us to nuke anything MySpace with fire. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Which indeed I did. Rossrs 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Height field in actor infobox

There have been more problems with the height field in the actor infobox. I'm not sure whether this needs to be mediated or if there needs to be administrator intervention, but the current solution doesn't seem to satisfy either party. --PhantomS 02:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I found it too contentious even for me; I backed out for a reason. Sorry, but my suggestion begins and ends elsewhere. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Britney's 'Cheese Slipping off her Cracker'

Actually, there were experts saying that, but I can't remember their names becuase I'm a total scatterbrain. The only name that I recall is Perez Hilton, and he isn't exactly respected. 212.139.222.62 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway

You seem avidly keen to keep stuff which is not bland and inoffensive out of the Piers Morgan article. However, your efforts would be better directed if you applied them to the George Galloway article. This is a disaster area, which could get the whole of the Wikipedia living biography content a bad name. It is now beyond the scope of casual ad lib editors to fix, and ought to receive direction from above. I suggest splitting out the various controversial sections from the main biographical article, but I bow to greater expertise and experience. Guy 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To be correct, I am keen to keep "[u]nsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons &#133; from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages" as policy requires. To date, I have not seen George Galloway, nor would my efforts be "better directed" away from Piers Morgan (or any other article on my watchlist) as, curiously, you seem to be suggesting&#133; still, I'll look when I have a chance. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi RadioKirk, I've been reading WP:3RR and have a question. If a banned user returns to WP with a new identity, are they still considered to be a banned user or do they exist with a "clean slate"? If they start exhibiting the same behaviour that got them banned last time around, does the new user identity go through the same process of warnings etc, or can you basically stop them as soon as you see what they're doing? thanks Rossrs 12:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If the evidence is powerful that it's the same user, s/he can be nuked with fire. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm in favor of nuclear violence in a small number of cases. :-) Rossrs 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If I'm correct in thinking that we are speaking of the same person, I think Nrh15 is Wptfe. It seems to fit the pattern.--PhantomS 10:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

RadioKirk,

I'm sorry to bother you, however, from your message on User talk:72.237.218.162 I thought you should know this user has extensively vandalized Samuel Cochrane as well as Canisius High School and Gideon v. Wainwright this afternoon. MadMax 19:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Since the user stopped an hour ago, I won't block at this point; if the vandalism resumes, take it to WP:AIV for immediate attention. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop your "fixing" which messes up sorting in categories

Quit the changing of the magic words from {{DEFAULTSORT:}} to {{Defaultsort:}}. Just go follow the links to the categories where you have done this. I breaks the case-sensitive magic word so that it does not work. Note that this is not a template, though somebody had added an explanation at a template. See also Wikipedia:Categorization.

Please go back immediately and start fixing the whole slew of articles you have messed up. Gene Nygaard 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I checked them, and they work fine. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they do not. Look at Branden Robinson in Category:Debian people. It is under "B", not under "R" where it should be. Then go undo your change and look at the category again. Gene Nygaard 20:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloody odd; I checked the first five I tried, and all worked... okay, reversions in progress... dammit... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The template use there had two pipes, probably why that one isn't working. But if you are going to change anything, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to change it so it doesn't use the template. That is, if an article has {{DEFAULTSORT|Some Key}}, you could change it to {{DEFAULTSORT:Some Key}} ? Gimmetrow 20:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe your category listing was cached, or sometimes there is a little bit of a delay for the effects of changing categorizatio to show up. But these "magic words", including the DEFAULTSORT which was added in January, are case-sensitive. Gene Nygaard 20:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes we learn the hard way... :P RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Gimmetrow has it figured out better than I did. Just don't use the template version; use the magic word version. That's the one that shows up in the box below the edit screen, the one with a colon rather than with a vertical bar. I don't know why they make them look so similar. Gene Nygaard 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I was getting confused. CARAVAGGISTI 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, did you write this?

The following [2] appears to have come from you... did you really write that? --EngineerScotty 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looking further, it appears that you and User:Giano II both attempted to revert the same bit of vandalism at the same time; Giano got his in first, and you reverted Giano--putting the vandalism back. It's been reverted yet again. Anyway, take care. --EngineerScotty 19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, the software isn't supposed to allow that, but it's been happening with more frequency... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ummmm... blocked user wants you

Just a FYI: User_talk:Happy_people_say_woah ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the sneaking suspicion it's someone you blocked... *shrug* anyway, good luck. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, what gave you that idea? ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons

They are more inconsistant rather than standard. Take a look at List of Prime Ministers of Canada or List of Presidents of the United States some have flags and some don't. My favourite is Louis St. Laurent who had a death flag but not a birth flag. The damm things are a useless waste of space and don't add to the article. They encourage people to remove the country name, state name or town name. Yep, I've seen all three done. If the flags linked to something other than an image it might not be as bad but even so, can people not read? Then of course, what flag, the town, state or country? The one in use now or at the time of birth? It's cruft that serves no purpose. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Something can be inconsistent and still be standard—and, you're talking to someone who will argue hard against cruft when he sees it and who disagrees with you on this score. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Community

Dear RadioKirk. I would like to point out that one's ability to contribute to wikipedia is not defined by the number of times one has already contributed to wikipedia. Even administrators can learn something from new contributors. Humility, perhaps, or even just a simple wikipedia tradition, like the use of multiple accounts.

If in fact you do meet someone new to Wikipedia, please show them a little more courtesy. CnsBiol 09:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Radcliffe

Before I prove myself, there are two reasons why I would not lie on Wikipedia on this subject;

• I am an honest person, and spend much of my time reverting abuse on the website, so I wouldn't mess others about...
• I am an actor myself (albeit in training), and I know lots about Daniel Radcliffe, seen as he is one of those professionals who inspire me (I contributed lots of my extensive acting knowledge to the acting page.)

These are proof of my comment;

• News article on Earthtimes
• News article on SunHerald
• News Article on 'Enjoy France'

Enjoy reading... Lradrama 20:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply on Talk:Daniel Radcliffe. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, alright, at least we've made each other clear on our views, and I now understand your intentions. Thankyou for replying. Lradrama 21:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Equus col4 hires.jpg

Apologies, but your noted source for this image is a page with thumbnails. Please note on the image page the exact URL for the image itself. Thanks. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah - I didn't realise they couldn't be enlarged. I just presumed being the "press" section of the official website it would be the appropriate source - evidently not. From the file name it looks as though the image was sourced from [3] - I've updated the image's page accordingly. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent block of Wikipediaville

Hello. You recently blocked Wikipediaville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and they have asked to be unblocked. Even though the username may be inappropriate (but I don't see how), a single instance of vandalism (that I can see in the contribs) doesn't warrant an indefinite block without prior warning. I'm inclined to unblock the user and list the username at WP:RFCN. Would you like to comment on their user page? Thank you, Sandstein 07:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

LurvBandit sock puppet?

LurvBandit2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created seconds after LurvBandit was banned. -- TedFrank 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if it continues. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)