DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between December 3 and December 12.

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page!  :) Wyatt Riot 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And ditto for my page - appreciated :) Manning (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always it is my pleasure. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The aristocrats band page i deleted is because they arent a real band. You reverted my change so i thought youd be the person to tell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.193.90 (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should request speedy deletion or nominate the page for AfD not blank it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally reverted that, yet it won't show that it has reverted. I tried clearing my cache and restarting Firefox. Weird, eh? Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's happened to me before a new user will do experimental edit and then revert themselves. You wouldn't be able to revert back to a version that wasn't theirs, because technically speaking they didn't make any changes. It is sorta weird though you're right. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the backup on Deep throat (sexual act) -MBlume 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewarned with a vand4 167.135.52.150 (it has only a previous warning before your vand4) as he vandalized again the same article (just informing you in case you want to block him). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but you may want to report future vandals to AIAV as you will most likely get a faster response. (I may not be online when you leave me the message) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Are you sure you are not a bot? :P *MindstormsKid* 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. You seem to be editing El Greco in ways that inserts some non-factual vandalism into the text. For example, on 12/03/07 you reverted to a version that states:

"El Greco was descended from a strongly homosexual urban family, which had probably been driven out of Chania to Candia after an uprising against the gay rights R Us committee between 1526 and 1528."

A few minutes before you reverted to "Born in 1541 in either the village of vagina town or dicksville (the Venetian name of Chandax, present day Heraklion) in Crete,[c] El Greco was descended from a strongly homosexual urban family, .."

Were these inadvertent edits or were they intentional? Baroque1700 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No there is underlying vandalism all over that article. For example the revision you just reverted to has the words "Is gay" in it. I'll go through the contribs and try to find a non vandalized version. Thanks for bringing it up. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, your revision is also a vandalized version. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There I believe it is fixed now. [1]. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the definition of vandalism before accusing me of it. This article has been a hotbed of conspiracy theories and it needs to be rolled back to a clean state. You may disagree but that's an editing dispute, not vandalism. 168.30.196.235 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing large amounts of text, that have references. I care not about the article, but you should be prepared to have a strong argument as to why you are removing a bunch of referenced context. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a message on the article talk page. Many of the "references" are to fringe sources. Others are false because the referenced text doesn't match what the POV pushers are saying it does. My edits are well within the spirit of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If another editor reverts again I will not pursue the issue further, but I hope this can be a starting point for getting the nonsense out of that article. 168.30.196.235 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is very agreeable. Sounds good to me. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he doesn't have a static IP. Might have to ask for a page protect... HalfShadow 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, it looks like he forces his IP to change by resetting his connection. I'm signing off for the moment so you may want to request it at RFPP KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! --  LAX  01:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TO "Knowledgeofself"-

I'm amazed that you keep deleting my posts to the Best Buy page. I am starting to suspect you are an employee of Best Buy. I simply added a link to a web page where customers gripe about the poor customer service they have recieved at the store. I don't think the function of a Wikipedia page is to simply promote listed businesses. You left me a message accusing me of vandalizing the page, when in fact I did not enter any negative comments, but instead, left a link to where people who would like to become fully informed about the company can learn about customer opinions. I think the fact that there are several websites dedicated to the disgruntled customers of Best Buy is important, relevant, and interesting information. Please stop deleting my additions to the page. If you are a Best Buy employee, I suggest you might possibly have a conflict of interest and that may explain why you are trying to censor this information. Perhaps it would be more constructive to add your own link featuring satisfied customers, if you know of any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.135.15 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOLOLOLOL. I removed your link because it does not fit into our policy for external links.

Your link www.ihatebestbuy.com fails these 4 key points.

• A collection of customer opinions is not covered by the first point. Now if you have links to professional reviews that is a different matter. And they might be better suited as references in the article.
• Again it fails to fall under the second criteria.
• Not relevant in this instance.
• Customer reviews are not "meaningful, relevant content" "such as reviews and interviews".

Again LOL. Thanks for the laugh. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're allegedly employees of Best Buy [2], I'd like to know how to get my employee discount. I assume it's available from the same folks that manage the Cabal's wiki-gold. Acroterion _(talk) 18:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh it would make my Christmas shopping sooooo much better if only I had it! ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		A fine collection of dangerous axes!
		Awarded only to the sharpest vandalfighters! Best regards, Húsönd 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! This is easily the best award I've ever received! Thank you very very much, it is now my favorite! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a further block on this IP user User_talk:82.38.65.47. They have been warned time and again about changing genres, have just returned from a block and begun changing genres again. Just look at their edit history. It is such a pathetic thing to vandalise, but can get really disruptive, and they obviously have not learned their lesson. Nouse4aname 09:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and blocked for 2 weeks. Well spotted. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the edits you recently reverted on Charlotte Country Day School from an anonymous IP appear to have actually been correcting vandalism, and I have reverted them. The schools colors are now correct (as per the school website), and I doubt that the principal's middle name is actually "Gaylord". Thanks, A13ean 14:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the mistake, I appreciate it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Stormtracker94, award the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar to KnowledgeOfSelf for amazing vandal fighting. STORMTRACKER 94 16:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I appreciate it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this IP from making edits. It is a school network and continued vandalism is only guarenteed to occur. Thank you. 74.252.64.3 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we don't hand out blocks because vandalism might occur. If vandalism persists from your IP I'm sure it will be blocked rather quickly. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your revert on LTTE. If you cannot explain I will have to report to vandalism on this Watchdogb 19:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you removed what looked to me, to be a large amount of text that didn't appear to be leet speak as you called it. Granted I didn't read it word for word. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time please read what established editors write. Unless your working covert. Like I suspectWatchdogb 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - did you just accuse me of being a terrorist? LOL KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also that is no excuse on removing good faith edit. Just because you think someone remove "Large amount text" does not mean it is vandalism. Go and read what I wrote. IF you want to revert again I will see exactly what I can do. Watchdogb 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accuse anyone of being a terrorist. Just state terrorist. But I did not accuse you of anything other than reverting good faith edit that can be considered Vandalism Watchdogb 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't use false edit summaries. Removing large blocks of text by calling it "Leet speak" when it is obviously just content you disagree with, is a form of vandalism. It's called sneaky vandalism. It's also gaming the system. Be sure to use proper edit summaries in the future and things like this are less likely to happen. And don't make threats to other users. It is rude. Please exercise civility when leaving comments, and using edit summaries. Calling someone a "noob" is also impolite, and the edit I reverted clearly shows that you removed apparent viable text with the misleading summary of calling it "leet speak". Perhaps your edits are good-faith. It appeared to me they were not. Good day to you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also even your edit summary is not right. "Reverted edits by Watchdogb (talk) to last version by Supermod" when you actually reverted to the version before Supermod. Under these circumstances even your revert is in need a revert. Should I start to imply that your edit was sneakey vandalism ? Go ahead see the version that you reverted to. It also does not give proper edit summary. I was only asking that used to stop using edit summar as a leet speak heaven. I always follow civility with people who act civil with me. Your unexplained and false edit summary is also something that can be considred Gaming the system and uncivil. Good day to you too Watchdogb 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No clearly your are confused good sir. I used something called rollback to revert your large removal and falsely identified edit. I explained why I did it, here I quote myself,

"Because you removed what looked to me, to be a large amount of text that didn't appear to be leet speak as you called it. Granted I didn't read it word for word. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

How have I been uncivil to you I'm curious to know. If you can point it out, surely I'll apologize, but I'm damned if I can find where. Also my version is identical to Supermod's. Again you are clearly confused on the matter, please double check your facts and findings before posting accusations towards me. Thanks. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will surely remember the name. If this incident happens in the future I will surely point out to you about your incivility. Also your version is not identical. It was a revert of mine to another version that is not of Supermods version. Anyway if you want to continue to think I am vandalizing wikipedia and thus revert my edits please keep watching LTTE article. In which I will edit some more. Watchdogb 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm that doesn't explain where I've been uncivil towards you.... And have you checked the link I provided? - here it is again. It is identical to Supermod's. What is so difficult to see about that? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I will remember the name. For your information I have once again edited the article. Go ahead revert it. I am really curious to see your civility now. Watchdogb 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw your edit. Your recent edit did not remove the same large block of text with a misleading edit summary. I'm surprised you keep sidestepping where my incivility is. I can no longer take your comments in all seriousness. Please stop playing games. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility? This from somebody who used "RV ROFL LOL NOOB" as an edit summary? Please, everybody, let's calm down a notch. I hate to break it to you, but KoS is nothing but your average recent changes patroller -- he looks for edits which might be vandalism; frequently edits which remove or add a lot of text will draw attention, edits with odd summaries will draw attention. He made a quick judgement call. He may have been right, he may have been wrong. If he made a mistake, why not just point it out and move on? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did point it out. Now I am leaving it out. Surely, everyone will see more "ROFL LOL ROFL " from my edit summary from me though. I promise you that much atleast HereWatchdogb 21:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slakr's "You SMILED" Award Because you Stayed Impossibly Mellow and Lucid in Edits and Discussions without resorting to personal attacks or edit wars on a controversial topic, I hereby award you this cheerful smile in recognition for your outstanding effort in helping to keep potentially explosive discussions civil and productive. Keep up the great work, and cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's the SIMLED Award ;) --Oxymoron⁸³ 21:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your blocking of persistent vandals. You block those who need it so fast their head (and keyboard) must spin! Rob Banzai 21:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much. One can never have too many of these eh? :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime Nlu, it was my pleasure. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

always reverting faster than me *cry* ;-) —aitias •discussion• 21:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm so very sorry! ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you answer very fast, too. ;) How can you revert so fast?! —aitias •discussion• 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Practice, repetition, I've been doing this for a long time too! My monobook is very helpful too! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What monobook do you use? I use twinkle and it's not very fast... Is there a better one? —aitias •discussion• 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use a modified version of DerHexer's monobook, and also a modified version of Wiki alf's. I have a switch that allows me to go back and forth between the two, without purging my cache. Very helpful. The bulk of the two monobooks have tools that only admins can use. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving Wikipedia for the time being and wish to excercise my right to vanish. Please delete my talk page and block my accout so it won't be misused in the future. Thank you, Rackabello (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to McNeese State University 67.33.214.249 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of recent changes patrol, and sometimes while going through up to 6 changes within 30 seconds I will accidently revert changes that I don't mean to. My apologies in this instance. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milw0rm

I am doing a school project on hacking in the 90s, this wikipedia article would have been fantastic for my purposes. Milw0rm were an integral part of the hacking culture, they performed the largest mass hack and the highest profile hack of the latter part of the 90s. The reason for deletion is "Article about a club or group that doesn't assert significance" which is complete rubbish as the milw0rm group had a big impact on the world of hacking (just searching Google proves this). They even achieved 1 week's worth of newspaper reports, from newspapers such as the London Times, New York times, and TV stations such as CNN, BBC. Just because you may not recognise the name does not mean they are of a "lack of significance". ~~

Hits from Google do not necessarily make a person or thing notable. Also, Wikipedia is not here for you to do a school project.KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, you deleted an article I created at Jan Willem Klop. You said that the article was valid as a speedy delete due to CSD A7, and subsequently deleted the article by that criteria. However, I believe this edit was in error. CSD A7 reads as follows: "No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." However, the article did list Jan Willem Klop's importance, and also had verifiable and reliable sources. Furthermore, the article was correctly marked as a stub.

On my talk page, Crusio, the user that "nominated" the article for speedy deletion, said that it was a candidate for speedy deletion because "the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent." But this is incorrect, as the page was not "unsalvageably incoherent", and it did have meaningful content or history.

This page was deleted in error. The article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and I think its deletion needs to be reviewed.

Thanks, Mipadi (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to disagree. I didn't delete the article under G1 which is what it was tagged with. I did infact delete it under A7. (It would have also qualified under A1 in my opinion) The article did not have any references at all. It had a single external link, and it was tagged as a stub. In my view it did not assert the significance nor importance of the subject discussed. Especially without any references to back the claims of "best known for his fixed point combinator" which is arguably the only things that could be labeled as significant. Being a professor does not make one notable, nor does holding a Ph.D make one notable. If you wish to recreate the article with more content and reliable sources I'm quite sure it won't be deleted. You are of course welcome to take the deletion of this article to deletion review. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7 specifically says that it does not address "questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources." A7 only deals with issues of significance and importance, which the article stated quite clearly. Furthermore, I don't see how the claim "it was tagged as a stub" somehow qualifies it for deletion under under A7 or A1, since stubs are acceptable on Wikipedia and neither A7 nor A1 apply. – Mipadi (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you misunderstand me. I was agreeing with your earlier point that it did have a stub tag placed on it. I wasn't trying to imply that, that was a reason for deletion. BTW, someone could create the article Snoopy Doopy Dippy, have the article say "bhlahlalgal" and they could place a stub tag on it. That would automatically disqualify it for speedy deletion? That is neither here, nor there in this instance, I'm just saying.

Also by my use of "notable" I mean "importance/significance". Again my apologies that I wasn't completely clear on that. I still stand by my decision that the article qualified under the A7 criteria. However, you are most welcome to take the article to DR. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...We can delete it if we want. The only thing I learned from this otherwise worthless site is that all the stories about how bad your site sucks are pretty much true. Though Wikigroaning is funny... 71.223.21.34 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm no you can't actually. You see all text is released under the GFDL so. Again no you can't sorry. Good day to you though. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith when reverting.

This edit does not look like an attempt at vandalism, but after he made this edit you gave him his final warning.

As this was his first edit, it could be possible that he accidentally deleted all that material and did not know how to add it back. Even if he did delete it on purpose, it is possible he thought that the article was better without it.

Jecowa (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm "Additionally, many people assume that people without accounts are vandals and will revert edits by people without accounts. Your contributions are more likely to be accepted if you are logged in to Wikipedia." That's rather like the Pot calling the kettle black on your part. You assume I reverted his edits because he was an anon? Anyhow yeah sure I'll take your concerns into account. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his contributions to that article, without proper source information, needed to be reverted, but I did not agree that he needed to be called a vandal and threatened with a block. Jecowa (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right but regardless, It is very pretentious of you to make a comment like you have, and then accuse me of not following good faith. The first edit may have been an accident, it may not have been. I reverted and gave a very benign first warning. When the anon again inserted his nonsense/OR/unverifiable claims (take your pick on what you want to call it) I reverted and warned again. If the first warning isn't heeded obviously a more severe warning is forthcoming. The real issue in my mind is your hypocritical comments, which I'm sure you made in good faith. Like I said in my initial response I will take your concerns into account. Good day to you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made those comments in good faith. I did not mean to accuse you of discriminating against people not logged in. I'm sorry for offending you. Jecowa (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3], worth a look, there are some pretty good people there. (i swear it inst spam) Tiptoety (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, This is between me and Jamie. Thank you.

Dude, I made myself involved. Thank you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the dude. :)

pschemp | talk 23:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aww shucks you make me blush. I haven't seen you in ages. Ninjapancake lady. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:User:ANOMALY-117

Can you leave a message on his/her talk page telling that it is against policy to delete material from others' talk pages, as he/she did here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Joe Cool Dude (talk • contribs) 23:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

im a dude and uh sorry about that got a little click happy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and you surely deserved it. Prodigious vandalfighter. I think I gave this award only once before, to Persian Poet Gal. Keep up your good outstanding work! Best regards, Húsönd 06:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...to work with you. Keep up the great work! Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can honestly say, the feeling is mutual. It is a team effort as they say! :)

Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Man, I can't believe how much you revert vandalism, you deserve this more than I can say. Nice work.J.delanoy (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much, it's nice to know my efforts are appreciated. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep up the good work. fight the good fight --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up! You don't know anything. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How rude! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the comment on his talk page knowledge but he asked for it.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, have a nice day! :-) I know about that user, I normally report him to User:Nishkid64 when he starts editing under his IP. Funeral 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KnowledgeOfSelf. :) What do you think about semi-protecting your userpage? I think this would be a good idea - Ther's so much vandalism; this needn't be. It isn't good for the servers, I think. Just an idea - Best regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely protect my own pages unless it's relentless and obscene vandalism. Has it really been that bad today? And I don't believe the vandalism/reverts to my userpage, has much of an effect on the servers. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course you are right. Your page has actually no effect on the servers. But as I think such revision historys are not very beautiful and avertable, too. But that was just an idea - If you don't want your page do be protected, just forget it. :) Best regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "vandalism" which you just threatened me over relates true information about the physical surface of the CD in question, which itself uses the naughty word that you are so up in arms about. Stop threatening to ban me.128.101.230.0 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I am mistaken, but it sure does look like vandalism. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look--the CD itself does in point of fact actually have the phrase "CDs really fucking blow" written on it in big black letters. Are you really asserting that just because I am providing a relevant fact that happens to contain a curse word that it somehow amounts to "vandalism"? Are you asserting that things that "look like" vandalism to you 'are' vandalism? You are clearly mistaken. You should therefore apologize unconditionally, and you should let me make the edit without subjecting me to further threats. I already had to deal with some automated bot that reverted the change, and now apparently I have some kind of appeal pending at bot-court. I would also like to add that the bot in question, "ClueBot", supplied a notice that if its revert was in error I could go ahead and re-add my change, which I did. Perhaps, if you are not interested in, or knowledgeable about, punk rock, a field which tends to deploy obscenities a little more often than others, you might refrain from meddling in articles about it.128.101.230.0 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you are a snarky one. You are welcome to re-add it again, I won't revert it, someone else might though. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am a terrible person for not appreciating that people feel free to police articles without regard for the truth or falsity of the added content. 128.101.230.0 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in, though you are correct about the text on the surface of the CD, just because it's true doesn't make it notable. Unless you can make some case that it's really important to have that information in the article, then it should stay out. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on that on my talk page. In summary, in the context of an article on a CD, the artwork on the CD, bad word or not, is notable. It is part of a description of the thing under discussion, it is a striking aspect of that thing, and furthermore it relates to the band's opinion on the role of the CD in disseminating punk rock, and relates them to other musicians with a similar opinion. 128.101.230.0 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mute issue for me gentlemen, please take the discussion else ware. Additionally Mr. Anon, do try to exercise a bit more civility. Mistakes and accidents happen, there is no need to be rude about it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how your curt threat to ban me manifested "civility". Perhaps if you were slightly less officious in your dealings with strangers you might find that they react more favorably to you. 128.101.230.0 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

76.208.187.89 has been vandalising the Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADBandicoot (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism quicker than a bot! Great work! :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm only third in the beat the bot reverts though! I appreciate the star and the comments nonetheless though! :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, that was an accident :( (testing something) - I think I'll use my sandbox from now on... Redrocketboy 21:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much, which is why I didn't leave a blanking warning. :) Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this guy was just upset about the article about himself, and wasn't familiar enough with Wikipedia to know what to do about it. Given that the relevant article has been deleted, would you consider an unblock? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No quarrel here. Be my guest. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. You're a nice guy and/or girl. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From KnowlegeOfSelf's main user page

“

My name is Steve (Li) (Li is just a nickname, not my last name - it's a long boring story) and on this page you can find some irrelevant information about who I am and some of my contributions to this great encyclopedia . I was born and raised in the city of Chicago, Illinois, though I currently reside in Lebanon, Indiana. I am mixed with German, Native American, and Ukrainian.

”

I am indeed a guy! ;) Anyhow, I do appreciate the sentiment, happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, I could have looked at your userpage. But on the internet, no one really cares if you have boy parts or girl parts, right? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't much think they care too much about the parts, more they don't wish to sounds foolish by mistakenly calling him a her and her a him. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been another vandalization of the OTEC article from this IP again. I'd say a block is in order. 152.93.54.185 (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, that user hasn't edited since December 8th, so a block would be rather pointless at this point since it is not active. Thank you for the message though, I'll try to keep an eye on it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get this article protected please. It was previously semi-d but this expired on Dec 1, and vandalism is now persisting. As usual it is over petty issues, in this instance as to whether the remix version of the song should be mentioned in the article, despite being released as a single and being more successful than the original. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the article doesn't seem to be getting vandalized too much. Semi-protection isn't for content disputes and the vandalism to the article doesn't seem to be great enough to warrant sp in my opinion. You can of course try RFPP. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the strange edit to Old McDonald Had a Farm. Saugart (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thank you for the message. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was so looking forward to blocking User:Hunnia, and you got him first! Now, is that fair? Please unblock him, so I can do it. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh be my guest! In the good old days there was no such thing as a block conflict, so you could just add your block to it and continue on! ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm browsing recent changes and I see some vandalism so I see the diff. I then attempt to revert and find that you've done it before me!

So, I just want to say well done for the brilliant vandal fighting efforts - seeing as I first thought you were a bot!

Well done! -- Blake01 18:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thank you, I've been called a bot before, it always elicits a smile from me. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You've beaten me to the punch several times now. Keep it up! :-) Tiddly-Tom 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You beat me a couple times too! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for the talkpage revert and for updating the counter. It seems the IP wants an unblock and has the strangest reason for unblocking [4] AngelOfSadness talk 23:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I took care of it! He just wanted to update the counter, but I informed him I already did it. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was probably thinking, "this for sure will get me unblocked". But messing with the counter was one of the things that lead him to be blocked in the first place. AngelOfSadness talk 23:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...After I finish laughing. I had started to type out a response myself to that one, --he's a fairly accomplished troll, if you look at everything he's done, in order -- but then clicked "cancel" and just protected the page to shut him up. Another night, another troll: so it goes. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I noticed that you blocked Clitus.maximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), perhaps on sight of his first vandalism. I must confess that I am getting tired of reporting blatantly obvious improper usernames to UAA just to have them refused. I thought the whole point of UAA was to block these usernames before they got into edit histories. If editors are going to be continually rebuffed (such as for Mikehunt1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mikehunt10000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), why should we bother reading the user creation log carefully? I look for obvious but creative profanity, for instance. On a similar note, (I'll discuss this with the relevant admin if you think it appropriate), why must we bend over backwards to WP:AGF? I reported Jpaonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and also marked the userpage (which pointed to the corporate website) for deletion. The speedy delete was declined, per WP:EM which is not even policy. I understand that being strictly rule-bound is too stiff for our community, but I am tiring of being continually second-guessed when I am trying to help out. Thanks for your time and help. MKoltnow (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I happened across the name while on RC patrol, I didn't notice any vandalism, but the name was obviously in violation of our username policy hence the block. I maybe missing something on the MikeHunt1234, that's an account I wouldn't have blocked as a violation of our username policy. The latter Mikehunt name is borderline IMO.

I agree with you on the AGF point, as highlighted in the bottom half of this section on my quasi essay on adminship. We should never AGF blindly, to do so is foolish in my opinion. If you find yourself getting stressed out from RC, NP, or NU patrol it's best to take a break from it and move on to other areas of the Wiki you enjoy. I do understand your frustration, and appreciate your message. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the assorted MikeHunt usernames bring me back to the halcyon high school days of getting names like that read over loudspeakers. So to me, the odds that a user who has effectively chosen the username My Cunt is legit seems low. I guess I can just watch and wait. I appreciate your suggestions; I do patrolling-type edits while at work because they do not require all my attention. I just feel that patrolling tasks become "why bother?" when the patrollers just get reverted or ignored. Thanks again for your attention. MKoltnow (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have just been helping me reverting valdalism on USB FLASH DRIVE. There is one ip who has vandalised it about 25 times. Can you please help me out?

thanks, Cf38 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, user is blocked. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I ask for an RfC, I thought I'd ask for a neutral third party to look over the Puerto Rican Pottery article and associated talk page. If you have time, can you please give us your comments? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks kinda soon to file an RfC in my opinion. But I'll comment on the situation. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do here. A new editor has reverted the deletions and created a copy of the article at Puerto Rican Pottery by Hal Lasky which are their only edits. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article deleted, and the user warned for abusive sockpuppetry. I'll keep an eye out. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or are you still laughing at this ongoing vandalism? Because it is pretty funny, watching someone with such poor control of the language calling you names. I know I'm laughing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol. It just came off protection about a week ago! Also see this thread up on my talk page, you are the second person in the last few days to suggest it. (Again has it really been that bad?) If someone else wants to protect them, I wouldn't object, though I'd like to keep it semi only, and less than 1 week as well. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you don't care, I don't care. For a long time, I liked mine unprotected, because the vandalism always made me laugh, though I have protected once or twice when I got tired of it. It did seem kind of heavy today, but I just... well, sometimes I forget that I have the protect button, and forget to use it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Though I'm not asked I feel compelled to add a comment. ;) … In my opinion it's even better to leave userpages unprotected so that not an article is vandalized but this userpage. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh yes that is a good point, which I always forget to bring up! Thanks Mr. Wizard. P.S. Thanks for fixing the cookie and gumdrops, I was just thinking of what I should have used myself, when you beat me to it. Nothing new there! :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That obscene comment that was deleted on Bowie knife was not written by me, I am SURE. Someone may have vandalized the page under my IP address without my knowledge. How can I protect my IP identity?

A special request to other faithful Wikipedians--if you see any more vandalized comments under IP address 76.192.246.218, please let me know. Thanks. --76.192.246.218 (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KnowledgeOfSelf, thanks for fixing, I was trying DerHexer's tools, but I think it conflicts with some other tools I have and fail to change duration and reason :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of what I should do, but the user 66.244.203.10 vandalized again, the article "nazism". In his/her talk page there was a "last warning" from you, so I think it would appropriate to let you know... --Extremophile (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see him? He vandalised the Crash Bandicoot series article. Send him a warning. ADBandicoot (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What program are you using to see the recent changes? Scarian^Talk 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I use the cvu channel on IRC. My monobooks help too. And I've been doing this for a long time! Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! One day I'll be as good as you... watch out for my username beating you to vandalism reverting (It'll happen one day... honest.) Scarian^Talk 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha you aren't the first to say that, you won't be the last either! Patience my young padawan. :P KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my addition and your charge of vandalism, as it is not vandalism in my opinion. All I did was state that I thought that the gang rapes should be mentioned along with the murders. Within seconds after the edit, a bot (maybe belonging to you?) accused me of vandalism on my talk page, then you accused me also after I replaced the edit the bot removed. I do not feel that it was vandalism, as i feel vandalism is malicious things, like inserting purposely false things, or blanking the page. You may disagree with the notation for other reasons, maybe not being properly sourced, or not thinking it is notable, however those things are not vandalism. Please contact me again soon, thanks. 68.226.151.32 (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct you are, my apologies. BTW the bot doesn't belong to me. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 68.226.151.32 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]