User talk:Jnc/2005B

Block of entire Lithuanian ISP:

Hi, how are You? I'm patient & creative :-) --AndriuZ 21:02, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Gdansk:

Oh dear, this has nothing to do with my nationalism. The vote result is very specific here: the trace does not have to be significant or substantial. There has to be a trace at all. Also, if the rules are so strictly and pedantly obeyed in case of Polish cities, then why not in relation to German ones? Is it some sort of German phobia to see Polish names where they should be (at least that's what the community consensus is)?. If so, then it's not my nationalist bias.

There are people here in wikipedia, who use the same interpretation of the vote outcome I am using currently. For almost a month we've been trying to reach a compromise on all relevant talk pages (namely Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion and Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice) to arrive to a diferent community consensus, yet to no effect. Unfortunately User:Chris 73 was less cooperative than most of us and he continued to enforce the rules on all sorts of WP articles, be them related or not (check articles on Amber or Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, for instance). So, in other words, the current interpretation is common and it's perfectly in line with the outcome of the voting I don't like it either, but rues are rules. If you want to question it please do on the respective pages, but do not accuse me of nationalism. Please. Halibu tt 18:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Or articles like Szczecin-Grabowo, Lechia Gdansk, Bialystok, Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc. Should I like Chris add Polish names to articles about Lithuanian, Belorusian, or Ukrainian political parties, football clubs, or suburbs of cities etc.? :)--Witkacy 18:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Szczecin is well-known in the English-speaking world as Stettin (indeed, that's the form of the name I'm most familiar with), and you are completely out of line removing it."

We are talking about the suburbs of Szczecin not about the article Szczecin...

"Keep on reverting it, and you'll wind up keeping Zivinbudas company"

Because i removed German names in Polish suburbs articles?? Come on... Chris is the one who acting like Zivinbudas.

I wonder why you dont say the same to him (Chris)? Is the adding of German names in articles of Polish political parties or Polish football clubs not nationalism? Why do you not say to Chris that he will wind up keeping Zivinbudas company if he dont stop that? ... --Witkacy 19:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Just my 2 cents. Adding german names to a handball club was a mistake of mine, I do not think these are needed. I was reverting a large number of edits of Witkacy (which I believe to be an emax reincarnation), and the handball club must have slipped in. About articles like Szczecin-Grabowo, I believe neighborhood of the city of Szczecin (German: Stettin) is useful and in accordance with the vote. Thanks for your help -- Chris 73 Talk 19:49, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes a mistake...., also on Bialystok (east Poland)? [1], [2], [3] (the last one by User:Calton--Witkacy 19:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After looking at Bialystok, I don't see the point of including the "German - Bialystok", since it's the exact same spelling. Having said that, it was part of the Prussian Empire for a short time, so I can see the case for giving the German name; however... it was for such a short time (and I get the sense that the cultural connection - i.e. German-speaking population - was small, although that is just a guess) that I would say it falls beneath the threshold for needing the German name anyway.

All of which points out something that I think it being overlooked - each one of these articles is a case-by-case decision, and one has to (if one is being reasonable, IMO) look at the specific facts of each case before making a decision. I can't give a blanket rule to cover them all; in some I will agree with you, in some I will not. Noel (talk) 20:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But is the behavior of Chris better then mine? See for example the history of Szczecin-Grabowo.

An anon removed the German name (whis was befor added by User:Juntung - a friend of Chris) - the anon edit was correct, because the article is about the Grabowo suburb of today.
User:Boothy443 (sockpuppet i dont know of whom) began to revert him.
Both the anon and Boothy443 broked the 3rr (for which only the anon was blocked, Boothy not...)
Chris 73 joined the edit-war and reverted the anon.
Halibutt jointed the edit-war and reverted Chris.
Chris reverted Halibutt...
I was joined the edit-war and reverted Chris..
User:Calton (friend of Chris) joined the edit-war and reverted me...

But you only accused Halibutt of nationalims, and me of acting like Zivinbudas...--Witkacy 19:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW. he reverted again tons of articles, and broked the 3rr inter alia on Szczecin-Grabowo--Witkacy 20:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there is so much going on (and so many posts being made) that I can't keep up. If the edit wars would stop, then if you could point me out specific things you have a problem with, then I can look at them and see what I think, and if I disagree with the call made by the other editor (e.g. Chris 73), I will be happy to tell them so and see if I can get them to change their mind. The same goes for his behaviour; I have a limited amount of time, and I'm so busy keeping an eye on you and Halibutt (not to mention dealing with the people who have a problem because of the block on the Lithuanian ISP to stop Zivinbudas) that I don't have time to look at everyone else (let alone do what I'd really like to to do, which is work on articles about early computers, like ACE). Noel (talk) 20:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amber/Amber Room:

I know you "don't care about the fine details of Baltic history" but if you insist of inserting a reference to "Danzig" in the Amber article, then you should know that Royal Prussia was a name of a province of Poland (1466 -1795) and that in 1701 Gdansk was a Polish city. Space Cadet 21:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ethnic Germans", who have not seen Germany for generations. We don't know what they called it, but if they were loyal citizens of Poland (and with Polish being "lingua franca" in the region at the time), they probably called it "Gdansk". The original vote was for "Gdansk" in this time period, but then Chris falsified the outcome by eliminating some votes. Space Cadet 22:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't even trying to be sarcastic! All I meant, was that in XVIII century there was a lot of "ethnic Germans", whose families emigrated to Poland at least 2 centuries earlier, in the region. The vote is not a policy and 3R applies to you as well. Space Cadet 02:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Didn't you just violate the 3R rule?Space Cadet 02:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noel - I've edited the page myself, and am viewed with great suspicion by Space Cadet and Halibutt, so I probably wouldn't be the best person to protect. (I won't even get into the specious arguments Space Cadet is making here...) john k 04:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I edited Amber, not Amber Room. But I am still very wary of protecting these Polish articles, since I can very easily be accused of bias. john k 04:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I know. They don't care in the slightest what actual books in English about the period call it, so far as I can gather. They either vaguely claim that things are changing very quickly towards calling it Gdansk (Space Cadet has done this in the past, and never provided any evidence to back this up), or else ignore the issue entirely (most of the others). I hate how an issue which is essentially one of English usage has to become a nationalistic football for people who dodn't have any idea what English usage on the issue is. john k 04:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to keep up, and I'm hoping that I've caught all the changes by now. What a mess this is. By some miracle I haven't broken the 3RR, but if this keeps up someone else is going to have to step up. Mackensen (talk) 05:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In past discussions on Gdansk I have cited numerous sources - I did a JSTOR search for mentions of "Gdansk" and demonstrated that the name is never used for 1793-1945, and only very rarely for pre-1793. I looked at all the various early modern history textbooks I had at the time and noted that they all called it Danzig. And so on. It didn't do any good, because they don't care about usage. john k 19:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check my compromise version on Amber, Amber romm, Albrecht Giese, Luise Gottsched etc. and let me know if its acceptable. Contrary to the popular belief I'm not after edit wars. It's just that the previous versions hid the fact that these people were born in Poland. Space Cadet 20:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus broke 3RR rule:

Piotrus broke 3RR rule in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Please block him. 85.206.194.51 19:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just reverting vandalism. In case you want more detals, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas aka 'the Wikipedia against Zvinbudas'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom is involved so we can get a non-disputable permission for long term ran ge ban. This is not a content dispute - at least, not unless you give every vandal the right to claim he has all rights to do what he wants with any article. Check Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zivinbudas for some evidence - Zvinbudas is breaking 3RR often more then once per day, majority of his changes are not supported by anybody except him, he fails to provide a sigle source, he engages in scores of personal attacks AND as a result he forces the protection of many - more then 10 IIRC, including at least one FA - pages, some of them for over a MONTH now (actually, some of them, with short breakes, for 3 months - just go to Wilno for prime example). Now, usually I'd simply protect GDL, but I was in a hurry and just reverted, as I don't want to give Zvin the satisfaction of one protecting one more page (actually, he was vandalising 3-4 new pages that day, and I was considering protecting them all). This is nothing but a vandal-prevention reverts. Although as it appears he has found a way to use that to waste yet more of our time, I guess I will have to simply revert and protect any page he edits from now on :( At least, until ArbCom start doing something and issues a ruling. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I guess I should be more careful in the future. Any idea when ArbCom can do sth? I mean, seriously, having that many articles protected by that long (and both number of protections and their lenghts are increasing) is shocking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kiev:

"...please "just say no", and just turn around and walk away and work on adding good content somewhere else."...

Yes, you are right :) But... some users removing Polish names in articles of cities which once were part of Poland, and on the other hand they adding foreign names in articles of Polish cities... And even in such non-important like Rumia.--Witkacy 22:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Massachusetts:

PLEASE calm down a bit with the new redirects; while I may admit some are useful, you don't need to make TALK page redirects. Yes, someone may incorrectly search for Commonwealth of Massachussetts - but they will never search for Talk:Commonwealth of Massachussetts. --Golbez 04:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh hm ok :) --Golbez 05:03, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Redirs:

Ok, I see no real harm in cross-namespace redirs anyway. R adiant _>|< 12:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hans Nusslein:

Hi! Yes, what I meant was that there should be a *link* at some point from the Hans Article to the Pro Championships. And vice versa. Not a redirect, I guess. I'm sorry for the confusion -- I stopped playing with Wiki for a while and I forgot a lot of what I used to know. Thanks for your help in clearing this up.... I also mean the same thing for the little articles about Vinnie Richards and Karol Kuzelof and their listings in the Championships. Hayford Peirce 15:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid:

Protection on apartheid has been tried--for weeks--and it didn't help. It's just one user and he's going absolutely bonkers. He's had two warnings and if he reverts again he'll be blocked and that'll be that. Up to you though, I won't release the protection but I ask you to consider doing so as it's in Wikipedia's interests to keep our articles editable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't spot the earlier use of different IPs. I'll give it a go because his IP ranges do look blockable for reasonably useful periods. This guy isn't going away so I think we should tackle him head on and see what comes of it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: WP:AN/3RR:

My bad. Thanks so much for reminding and fixing it. — Insta ntnood 06:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Rules that promote unethical behavior:

If you review the recent behavior of Squeakbox, you will see he has stalked Rexjudicata on Wikipedia, and made changes to any page edited by Rexjudicata. He has claimed that Agwiii and Rexjudicata are the same person. They are not.

Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true. Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute.

It is important to note that Squeakbox knows nothing of these topics, and the sole purpose of his changes have been to harass Rexjudicata. As Squeakbox is an "old" member of your clique (aka Wikipedia community), he rallied his friends for support and they joined him.

Your code of conduct notwithstanding, the fact remains that the behavior of Squeakbox is a violation of the Cyberstalking Laws of Florida, many other states, and a growing number of other countries. Your Wikipedia S.O.P. is in conflict with these laws, and that should give you pause. Why are your members allowed or even encouraged to break the laws in a growing area of International regulation?

If you can get past the fact that Squeakbox is "allowed" to make edits -- as are all Wikipedians -- and examine why and what he has been editing in his attack on Rexjudicata, you see that he has used your rules as a vehicle to harass Rexjudicata. The choice is yours -- ignore the stalking and harassing by claiming the rules permit Squeakbox's behavior -- or look at the unethical behavior of his stalking.

Consider what we call the ethics transparency test. Ask, "Could I give a clear explanation for the action, including an honest and transparent account of my motives, that would satisfy a fair and dispassionate moral judge?" Squeakbox's behavior fails this test.

Consider what we call the ethics Golden Rule test. Ask, "Would I like to be on the receiving end of this action and its potential consequences? Am I treating others the way I’d want to be treated?" Again, Squeakbox's behavior fails this test. If Rexjudicata had behaved as Squeakbox did, he would have gone to all of the substantive pages that Squeakbox edited, and made changes to them -- this did not happen. Instead, he posted his complaint about being cyberstalked and erased harassing comments made by Squeakbox on his page.

The choice is very clear. You may intervene and stop the unethical, stalking behavior of Squeakbox, or you can stand behind a technical interpretation of your rules, ignoring the fact that they permit unethical and illegal behavior. This is not about suggesting that Squeakbox or any other Wikipedian stalker be prosecuted, but about the fact that your rules are increasingly out of step with both ethics and laws. Philanthropists and investors are very careful about such issues.

Rex - Rex Judicata 07:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The only clearly illegal edits in this case are this and this. If you pump the IP address into Google you get this cached version [4], note the reference to Spam & Kook Killers are Us, the company Rex admits to working for on his user page. Here, in another cached version, we see this is actually Grayson Walker, with a connection to this, which I used in the Grayson Walker article, and which is whois registered to Grayson Walker. So it appears to me clear that it was Rex who was impersonating me. Calling me a paedophile, from a new IP address, is typical of his past behaviour on other sites. I would welcome a police investigation of this case, as I believe the facts speak for themselves. Have a nice day, and keep the sensible advice coming, SqueakBox 15:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Re: redirects for deletion:

Sorry about that... I should have read more thoroughly. Well, I've fixed it now and I have a stub article up. You (Talk) 17:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Put-in-Bay, Ohio:

Just thought I'd say 'Thanks a lot' for protecting Put-in-Bay, Ohio. --Silas Snider (talk) 22:05, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Minor edit flag:

Yeah, I know, it was an accident - that is, the minor edit check box is right above the save page button... I have done this a few times. Sorry. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jake007:

Thanks SO much for blocking that, uh, user. He ran us through the freaking wringer over on VfD with his nonsense and when I saw both his threat and the fact that RickK was giving up less than a day after returning from my own Wikivacation, I saw red. Also, thanks for not pussyfooting around. Lowering the boom right away was the right thing to do. Take care and stay in touch. Best, Lucky 6.9 16:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean. In fact, I was just reading his talk page when the message flag came up. Good God, when are the powers-that-be going to tighten these ranks? Why must an admin vote be an 85% consensus? We need more vandal slayers with broader powers, not less. This is just wrong. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Wikipedia is one of mankind's great achievements...but it's not without its warts. Warts can be cured. We persist... - Lucky 6.9 18:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Karel K, however it's spelled:

Thanks for moving the article. The reason I didn't try to move it myself is that there were about a zillion warnings at the top of the page telling people not to, among other things, try to move it. This Wiki business can be complicated sometimes. In any case, I will take your advice and, in the future, move an article rather than starting another article.... Thanks for the tip. Hayford Peirce 22:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Karel's tennis record:

Thanks for your eagle-eyed scrutiny. When I first wrote the brief article I did it under the impression that K. had had almost no notable amateur background. It was only after all this back-and-forthing with the names etc. started that I discovered he had actually once been a quarter-finalist at Wimbledom (1927, I think). That's a pretty fair showing. So I changed my words to say he'd been a "fine amateur" and forgot to revise the earlier statement. I'll fix it all up tomorrow. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 04:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten the Karel Kozeluh article to reflect everything I've said in the other two stubs. I wish someone would expand it.... Hayford Peirce 28 June 2005 04:34 (UTC)

Total madness! I've just discovered that there was a Jan Koželuh who was a Czech contemporary of Karel's and who was an equally good player. Apparently they were not related. It is Jan who was a Wimbledon quart-finalist twice and Karel who was the successful pro (as well as being a great ice hockey and soccer player). I've rewritten the Karel Koželuh article and started a new article about Jan. What next? A third Kozeluh mebbe? Hayford Peirce 29 June 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Archiving on WP:AN:

Are you using automated software to archive Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? You appear to have removed a large number of discussions from the page, but you have not added them to the proper archives. An example is [5]. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive28 has not been edited since June 16. I'm afraid this is going to require a large amount of cleanup work. If you're using a bot to perform the archiving, please turn it off until it can be fixed. Rhobite 05:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

American Nihilist Underground Society:

Hi. You recently replaced the redirect at American Nihilist Underground Society with {{deletedpage}}, but didn't protect the article, so it's still receiving periodic vandalism. If it was an oversight not to protect it, could you please do so? If it was intentional, I think the page is doing more harm now than it was as a redirect, and I would appreciate it if you clarified your intentions. Thank you. —Cryptic (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endocentric:

You seem to have added to Endocentric the phrase

For example, if a has a "lion house", that phrase is endocentric since it functions as a noun, as are its two constituent words.

I'm afraid I can't make any sense out of

if a has a "lion house"

which I assume was an editing error of some sort --Trovatore 05:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania:

Ok, thanks DeirYassin 08:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, (81.156.177.21).:

Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of abuse against me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Slrubenstien, etc. are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you again:

You're right probably. :-). Still, I'm an admin and have some responsibility to stay up-to-date and weigh in on new policy. (Luckily no-one managed to create a policy for the automatic de-op'ing of admins after an arbitrary amount of time...). Your advice is appreciated! — David Remahl 03:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comments on my talk page:

Noel, I am sad that you consider me to have committed what you consider to be an offense against your authority. (Although, of course, not one against Wikipedia rules.) I take my responsibilities as an admin very seriously, and I am quite upset that you are calling into question my good faith, and, in particular, my ability to keep my roles as admin and editor separate.

Let me explain my actions. I did two things: First, I unprotected the article, which had been blocked for over eleven hours to keep out a 3RR sockpuppet editor, to allow anyone to edit it, as is normal. This was a purely technical action, and quite in accordance with policy; protecting pages to temporarily halt edit wars is only intended as a temporary measure, and is not intended to be used for long periods.

Then, almost two and a half hours later, I went back to the article, wearing my normal user's hat and edited it, in what I considered to be good faith and in a way that was fair to both sides, and also reflected other editors' discussion in the talk page -- note, for example, that I replaced the list I removed with a cite to the original source of the removed text -- and left the article unprotected as before, still available for anyone else to edit. Note that the article was unprotected both before and after my editorial edit.

Now, if I had wanted to abuse my admin powers, I could have simply edited it whilst protected, or used any of a number of subterfuges to hide my actions. As you can plainly see, I did not, and all of my edits are clearly visible, and are as explained above. I can only imagine that when you made your comments, you had not checked the timestamps.

Please calm down before you begin describing other people's actions as "egregious" or an "offense". May I suggest that the way forward with the IP sockpuppet is to deal with them by blocking their IP range, rather than indefinitely blocking pages, or taking issue with other admins? -- The Anome 23:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Celebrating:

Hi! I've just crossed a symbolic milestone. Three thousand edits! I feel like celebrating. Have a cigar! Don't worry, I don't smoke them either, but it's all good :)! Cheers, Redux 15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pi:

I apologise for creation the reditrects for partial representations of Pi, Noel. I left a message on the Pi talk page but no-one answered. Can I either see the page where it was discussed or can you explain briefly the reasons. Redirects are cheap after all... --Celestianpower ^talk 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COTW:

Actually, I may have done somthing without knowing the details. Thanks.--Bhadani 02:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia error message on save:

Thanks. Yes, I'm very well aware of that and I did check the history between each save and even waited about a minute each time to see if they were saved. But this time it took even longer than it usually does on these save-errors (about 4 minutes from my first save, it turned out), so I thought the saves hadn't gone through, which also happens sometimes. Shanes 19:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Manalo Article:

Sorry about the cut-and-paste. It wasn't apparent to me that time that WP provides a move feature. Ealva 22:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfD:

Just wanted to make sure that someone was watching. Some Wikitasks have been left undone because the last person who cared gafiated, after all. Good for you. Septentrionalis 21:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RfD:

Hi Noel. I was just looking through my talk page and I realised I'd forgot to reply to your message (*cue believeable excuses stage-left*). Sorry about the delete thingy, I didn't realise it had to stay there for a week (I'll leave the page alone now :-p). Oh and thanks for the offer of archiving the noticeboard but just as you have no time, I'm currently sorting out WP:PUI and have no time for it either (with a pinch of bone-idleness thrown in too :-P). Speaking of which, I don't suppose you know of anyone that might give me a hand? There used to be me and another admin but he hasn't got time for it either and I just look at huge lists sometimes and want to cry. Anyone, theatre aside, if you do know of anyone please let me know. Thanks a lot Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 05:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

IAS:

I'll go see what you've written. As for Fine Hall, both the name and the math department have since been moved to a new building, halfway across campus. This ancient history had not occurred to me when I nominated the redirect, but I still think it should go. (I agree with how you handle replies; watching other user talk pages embarasses me, without necessarily telling me I've been answered.)Septentrionalis 15:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"My blushes, Watson" ;) Septentrionalis 16:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Muwaffaq's page:

You said that if he "pulled this kind of stunt again" he would be blocked. Please see this edit [6].Heraclius 04:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quux:

← No relation to Guy Steele; in fact, I didn't know he invented "quux" until you pointed me to the article. The "plus one" doesn't indicate any kind of relationship; it indicates that I needed something random but longer than four characters. :) --Quuxplusone 19:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vandalism:

I commented at User_talk:Redwolf24/Archive08#Vandalism. Redwolf24 23:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3020 (user):

Yeah, after I put the rfc template on the page, I tried to add it to the rfc page and was having problems accessing the page, so when I came back and the database was working again, that was the first edit I made. It was when I saw that the link was red that I realized that it had been deleted between the time the system went down and I was able to come back and add it to the page. Sorry about that, I should have checked prior to making the edit. (Ugh. System error again when I tried to add this)John Barleycorn 04:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Swamithoppu:

Sorry for the failure to sign the comments.

Noel wrote: RfD notices go on the redirect itself, not the target page, the talk page, etc.

I did place the redirect on the page I proposed to redirect. I think I also placed the RfD on the Talk page as well though, I am unsure why that is not proper?

My opinions for the correct name were posted on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion.

Noel wrote: Comments about what to do with an article always go on the Talk: page of the article.

Sorry about placing the comment on the content instead of the talk page.

Noel wrote: Never, ever, cut-and-paste to move a page from one name to another. Use the "move this page" link.

I did (do) not cut-and-paste anything, sorry for the implication! Thanks for the instruction, however "Never, ever," seems a bit rough (since I have never done such a thing).

Sorry if I got the procedure wrong. I appreciate your comments. I have never attempted a redirect of a page, I now have a little better understand of how to do it, but I will still leave the redirects up to the administrators. Your comments were very helpful. Steven McCrary 00:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Princess Alexandra of Greece:

In continuing with our previous conversation at User talk:Matjlav, the reason I moved "Princess Alexandra of Greece" to "Alexandra Georgievna" (then later someone moved it to Alexandra Yurievna) was because the former article name would be more likely applied to Alexandra of Greece. What's more, the article did not even mention in a headnote that Alexandra of Greece could also be reffering to the aforementioned Queen of Yugoslavia. That's why I feel it's more efficient to put the article on Alexandra Georgievna. --Matjlav 04:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have written my answer to your message at User talk:Arrigo#Alexandras of Greece. Please visit read it. Arrigo 20:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my original request for deletion:

Unfortunately, I did not know that. I thought that as the requested deletion had got done, the request is unnecessary and can be deleted. 217.140.193.123 18:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive title:

Article looks pretty good to me. There's no need for it to be terribly long, I think. If you haven't already, you might ask Emsworth or Proteus to comment. john k 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto John. Thanks much for creating that. I'll give Prince a look as well... Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, I like Recent Changes patrol. :) Zoe 05:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Alexandra of Greece/Ancestral data:

Hi Jnc,

I read your post on the talk page of Alexandra of Greece with great interest. I've never heard anyone connect the rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Glücksburg dynasty before. This must mean that the current royal families of Denmark and Norway are also related to the Eastern Roman emperors. May I ask, where you found these data? Best regards from Denmark. Valentinian 00:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]