User talk:Blockinblox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(welcome) Y0u 18:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC) User_talk:Blockinblox/archiveReply[reply]

Proctor silex?[change source]

Why did you delete the Proctor silex page? ENTPfox 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because of its nonsense content. And... seeing that you're just a new user, you might just be a sockpuppet...-- Tdxiang @ 03:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't even find the page he's talking about in the deletion log and don't have any recollection of it among the hundreds of cruft pages I delete each week... If you can give me any more info I will look into it Blockinblox 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the page he's talking about. The current version starts with upper-case letters.-- Tdxiang Adminship 03:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Types of English[change source]

On the other EN, "correcting" British English to American English (or vice versa) is rather frowned upon, especially if it leaves a mix of both in the article. Is it really OK here to change some words from BE to AE, while leaving others BE?[1] Freshstart 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was the one. Now that I think about it, it's probably not as 'black & white' as color/colour or kilometer/kilometre. And I guess I can't really speak to common/colloquial usage in Britain, but I can't imagine a US school teacher accepting 'learnt' as a correct spelling, but I was led to believe that 'learnt' is what is taught in UK schools (like 'spelt')--I guess it's possible that's changed more recently. Anyway, it sounds like you are aware of the issue, and had reasons to change it anyway, so I won't worry about it (I actually like 'learned' better also, but I assume that is my personal bias based on living my entire life in the US). Especially on EN I've seen so many people "correct" the more concrete ones, like colour to color, that apparently I've developed something of a 'knee jerk' reaction to similar changes. Freshstart 19:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Could you tell me what do you think about this version of Main Page?. Greets, --odder 18:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS. It's not my idea. I've just modified the polish Wiki Main Page.

Administrator[change source]

I'm happy to point out that, consensus being reached on Wikipedia:Administrators, you are now an admin. Make sure to review all the current policies. If you intend to use the "Block user" function, you must keep your email address current and check it often. The big thing to remember is not to use your abilities in any conflicts (editing or otherwise) that you're directly involved. Other than that, I'd suggest starting out slowly, and feel free to contact me or another admin if you have any other questions or just need a second opinion. Try to keep to the core values of Simple:, and remember that we aren't just another of EN: Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 06:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats. Some indoctrination, huh? Just in time for today's serial vandal. Freshstart 06:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Blockinblox! I would like your comment on Wikipedia talk:Simple English Wikipedia#Policy issue because you are an administrator and the discussion is directly related to how Simple English Wikipedia is or should be run. It is also related to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, where I wouldn't mind knowing your opinion as well. Thanks! --Cromwellt|talk 20:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment requested[change source]

Hi Blockinblox, I would like your comment on Wikipedia talk:Simple English Wikipedia#Policy issue because you are an administrator and the discussion is directly related to how Simple English Wikipedia is or should be run. It is also related to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, where I wouldn't mind knowing your opinion as well. Thanks! --Cromwellt|talk 20:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies for asking you twice for the same comment. Just take that to mean that your comment is really important!  :) Oh, and congrats on gaining admin status! I would've definitely voted for you, but I was occupied with other things at the time. --Cromwellt|talk 23:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should you need help with cleanup, I can get a temp sysop permission from one of the Stewards in order to help you. Let me know. --M7 14:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New main page[change source]

Hello Blockinblox. I've got a job for you. Could you unprotect the main page, please? I'll replace it with User:Odder/Main Page. We need to unprotect the Template:Wikitopics too, I'll add to this template some icons. Could you do it, please? Greets, 13:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, it was me odder 13:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly could unprotect the main page, but I don't feel I ought to go that far, without some higher authority to do so. Also, if it seems there is indeed a general agreement to replace them with the new pages, any admin could just replace them with the new copies, without even having to unprotect them. Blockinblox 13:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked here. If you want to, do it yourself. I was going to ask Angela, but I saw you edited some articles, so I asked you. But you know, I would like to replace it myself :). odder 13:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiReader[change source]

Would you mind taking a look at my WikiReader proposal on Wikipedia:Simple talk? I think it could be a fantastic way to go for the Simple English encyclopedia. Archer7 15:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last warnings[change source]

What template are you using for the last warnings? I've never seen it before. Archer7 | talk 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope that you do not mind me adding things in simple English. I was banned from English Wikipedia for correcting the Port Arthur massacre article there. I thought it was very unfair. I provided references, while the people that banned me just made things up. I think it would be good if that article could be accurately presented. I have written many articles showing how Wikipedia have covered up that article. If you look at the first entry, the first entry is a redirect to something that does not exist. The first talk entry was one apologising for something beforehand. There are over 100 entries that have been deleted from history. This is something that I would have hoped that something like Wikitruth could have exposed. This is actual censorship. And they have banned people for trying to speak truth and trying to improve accuracy. This is all that I have ever aimed to do. I have an article on these censored topics on Wikinfo too, with Fred Bauder's permission. These are important topics, and I do not think that it is right that we are going to lie to people about it. I do not care about the politics of Wikipedia, about the cabal or whatever else. I just want people to tell the truth. 04:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The truth is all I'm after, but we can't put on the whole trial here. In cases where there are two sides to the story, usually the solution is to give each side's main points, not including only one side, or cutting out one side, and more or less proportional to the actual representation of that view in the public. You say that most people agree with your version, but has anyone established this, say with a poll or something? I can maybe see an article that gives both sides of the story. Even the English version mentions that there are other views, and gives links to websites of opposing views. That seems fair to me. Then there is even the question of whether topics like this (a retarded person convicted of going on a shooting spree) are at all necessary or appropriate for this encyclopedia project. Blockinblox 04:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being the single greatest mass murder in Australian history is notable. 35 people killed total, 32 in a single day. The next highest is 15. That makes it notable. Sure, there's only 21 million people in Australia, but its a decent enough size. That is what makes it notable. The event also had major influence in politics. They changed the gun laws purely because of this, which in turn meant that John Howard stayed as leader (he was behind in the polls before this). They also changed the law to allow for his money ($28 million, I believe) to be given to victims. I didn't put in the figures because I couldn't find a source for it, but yes, that was significant. It was also one of the greatest trial by media examples in the history of the world. Never has a person been so demonised in the media since Adolf Hitler. It is probably 2nd in terms of the most controversial result in world history, after the JFK assassination, and is the number 1 most controversial story in Australian history. Whether this is encyclopaedic is not an issue. The issue is how to tell it. Nowhere outside of the English Wikipedia is there such a biased, inaccurate version which fails to acknowledge the enormous outcry about the verdict. Wikipedia goes further than just blatantly stating the official story. They have lied about people like a Mrs Larner, they have misquoted text, such as about his diagnosis and about the trial by media issue. They have falsely stated that he confessed. It is just quite simply a load of nonsense. Acknowledging an opposing view is one thing. But stating that opposing view as a "baseless conspiracy theory" is another. And failing to acknowledge the name and identity of the person who started the "conspiracy theory", as being Wendy Scurr, the chief eye witness and first person to report the murder to police, is misleading. Wikipedia has said that all eye witnesses said he did it. In fact, no eye witnesses said that he did it. We can't argue NPOV. This is a blatant falsehood. We have hard and fast evidence that eye witnesses said that he didn't do it. Whilst its not unusual for police to just arrest "someone" (see Ivan Milat and the Backpacker murders as another example of this - or Bradley John Murdoch and the disappearance of Peter Falconio as another), rather than properly investigate a case, the sheer notoriety of this case makes it notable. It was a cover up. One of the greatest cover ups in the history of the world. Wikipedia, sadly, fails to acknowledge all of the evidence of this, and instead have worsened the cover up. I have written many articles exposing this cover up, if you want to see them. But things that I have written are not allowed to be used in Wikipedia, per their rules on citations, so we have to leave them out. I think that what I wrote was very neutral and very accurate. If you disagree, feel free to edit it a little. 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you are saying about a "poll". As far as I know, they have never done a poll. So I shortened it to "95% of articles written oppose the official story". You can prove this using Google. It is very easy to do, and is quite accurate. Of course, this was an example of trial by media, so most likely there are many people who do not know much about it that blindly believe the official story. Especially since En Wikipedia's article. At the 10 year anniversary, on 28 April 2006, over 90% of attendees were reported stating that Martin Bryant didn't do it. This was picked up repeatedly by the media, and there were numerous reports stating this. 90% or 95% does not seem to me like a "baseless conspiracy theory" and I think it is inaccurate to state it as such. It is a majority of people who support this. However, there are about 1,000 different theories as to what really happened. So in terms of theories which are believed, we can say that the official story is probably amongst the top 5 most commonly believed theories. It just depends on how good you are at manipulating statistics. On a similar issue: how many people believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy? It's the same kind of issue. A cover up is obvious. The truth is not so obvious. 07:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there,

I'm sure you've seen our latest vandal, but User:Reri Horlockon has recently vandalised my user page twice. All other edits are constructive, but I've had no replies to my questions about it. User:Reri Horlockon could actually be the same guy as the vandal, or the vandal could have hacked his account, or he could just be angry with me. What do you think we should do? At the moment I'm tempted to place him on an 'enforced wikibreak' for a few weeks. Any ideas? Archer7 | talk 15:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked by Netoholic for 3 days. Archer7 | talk 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protection[change source]

How do I semi-protect? The only one I can see just protects from unregistered users, not accounts under 4 days old (semi-protection). Archer7 | talk 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Netoholic[change source]

I would appreciate your comments on Simple talk regarding User:Netoholic. Netoholic has claimed that my actions were inappropriate, and I would like to know what you think. Archer7 | talk 10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reri Horlockon[change source]

User:Reri Horlockon has finally admitted to being the 63.19 vandal (see my talk page). Apparently his vandalism will carry on, so I have now warned him about Wikipedia contacting ISPs. Anything else happens, do a range block of 63.19 for a while, it's best to just knock it out now I think. Archer7 | talk 10:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Join Esperanza![change source]


Ding Xiang has invited you to join Esperanza! Esperanza needs members and so Ding Xiang has cordially invited you! See you there!-- Tdxiang 07:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki:Edittools[change source]

Hey Blockinblox, I noticed you just edited MediaWiki:Edittools. While you're at it, can you enclose the warning in a <span> with an ID so editors who know the warning off by heart can turn it off in their Monobook? Thanks, Tangotango 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. I lied - a <div> is probably better ;) I've posted details at MediaWiki talk:Edittools. Cheers, Tangotango 17:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks--Vector (write me please)(Esperanza) 21:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please block all the reincarnations (a friend of Vector) 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks a lot...--Vector (write me please)(Esperanza) 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good call with that. In reviewing this, I found clear and convincing evidence by looking at both his simple: and en: contributions on all accounts that this is the same, disaffected user. I've blocked him and the socks (user:Treebark and user:Carmelapple). -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL he also just failed a request on YET ANOTHER account over at en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sugarpine. -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured articles?[change source]

As you seem to be a very experience editor on the Simple Wiki (evidenced by your adminship), would please comment on this proposal on Simple talk, advocating for the creation of some sort of featured article process?--TBCΦtalk? 08:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar[change source]

Barnstar Congratulations: You have been awarded a Barnstar!

For your great work on fighting vandalism I, TBC, award you this barnstar.--TBCΦtalk? 17:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--TBCΦtalk? 17:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, it's my first ever barnstar! Thanks TBC! I shall cherish it always... Blockinblox 20:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Your message to User talk:Chacor[change source]

Oh for him, well this kind-a of a long story but I apologize if I lost my temper. But I have to leave for now since I'm in a hurry. bye! --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, sorry about me having to hurry cuz I had to go to church but now I think I could talk now. Well about Chacor, I knew about him from the english wiki for a long time but had somewhat of a bad relationships between eachother and had conflicts frequently; since he'd usually critize my ideas and edits and call them vandalism although they were rather good-faith edits. So as a result, I recently "quit" that wiki (not actually leave, but shut-down all activity), and moved here for a fresh start until he came again so I worried about it and began freaking out. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 23:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I hope if you can give me some "helping tips" to avoid conflicts here too. thanx. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Blockinblox, thanks for blocking User:Beckjord. Can you fix a particularly irritating piece of vandalism he did, by deleting vector ^_^ (talk) and moving ITALIAN FAG to vector ^_^ (talk), and then reverting the page? (The history for Vector's user page is currently located at ITALIAN FAG. The talk page is okay.) Thanks, Tangotango (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you :) - Tangotango (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Users[change source]

Hi Blockinblox, I came to tell you about several problems here about new users signing in as registerated users with most that have innaproaite names and with users that have 0 edits. I think you should patrol on those stuff (or ask a checkuser) to monitor those stuff. thanx. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 06:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alastor Moody, please note that Checkuser is only used for suspected sockpuppets and not users who violate Wikipedia's guidelines on usernames.--TBCΦtalk? 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mistaken identity[change source]

I can see why you might think my recent edits were unusual, but I assure you, you are mistaken. Template:Admin displayed "Jimbo Wales" only because that was default (for easy viewing). See en:Template:Admin, which does the same. When I updated the Admin template today, I was reminded of the imposter and took steps to rename that account. User:Jimbo Wales was an account originally created by an imposter, which I've identified as User:Ewok Slayer now (from en:). I've renamed the imposter's account, and now created an account for Jimbo to prevent future problems. -- Netoholic @ 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the mixup. Just being on the safe side. But on another note, if somebody ever did guess your password, blocking them would do no good since they can unblock themself the same way! Blockinblox
Agreed, which is why admins especially should have very good passwords. Hopefully, impersonation and account takeover will be reduced if Single login specifications ever get implemented. -- Netoholic @ 20:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

accidentally recreated the page.[change source]

Sorry! Timing issue. I didn't know an admin was around. zephyr2k 11:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please block User:Shandlewood. He is a vandal who makes nonsense pages. PullToOpen Talk/Contribs 02:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

N00b question...[change source]

What's a double redirect? I never really did understand that term eventhough I encountered it quite frequently on ENWP. zephyr2k 21:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! That link was extremely helpful. zephyr2k 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Factorial[change source]

Could you kindly check if there is a good version of the article? It was deleted and I know that Eptalon created the stub. zephyr2k 11:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! zephyr2k 12:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big words[change source]

Funny article. Anyway, would you mind deleting the redirect and uncategorizing it? I would uncat it myself but I don't mess around with other people's userspace. Thanks! zephyr2k 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Blockinblox. May I know why you redirected the Big words article there, into a sandbox page with extra large fonts? :)-- Tdxiang @ 03:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well to expand on the reason I gave in my comment on the Move log, the article was created by an anonymous wag, and should have been deleted, but I felt it was too funny to just delete -- so I moved it to the only place I could think of where it might be allowed, into my own personal space. I kept it "as is", big fonts and all, and so far haven't changed anything that the anon wrote, apart from removing the category. Blockinblox 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, regarding guantanamo bay, I think you were right to add the template, but someone else has changed the term "concentration camp" to "prison", I think prison is innapropriate, as it is not officially a prison! any thoughts? Chosongul 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image uploads[change source]

Dude, if you don't want image uploads, then disable the image upload form, instead of complaining when people use the fully-functioning image upload form. Image en:Image:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png (which is NOT a "fair use: image) has absolutely no functionality whatsoever outside a specific English-language context, so I have no intention of uploading it to Commons... AnonMoos 13:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, today on a vandal was creating useless pages and I had to seek for help from a Steward. He did let me block the vandal and clean up the mess, then removed my temp admin status. Later, he was also informed that there is a pending RFA on this wiki for User:TangoTango and the Steward asked the user to put his request for sysop's flag on meta and therefore gave him the adminship, since the only active bureaucrat doesn't seem willing to do that. You can read about this on meta. I'm asking for your opinion about the statement of Netoholic on this page and also on RFC page that was opened. --M7 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please block He/she is doing large amounts of vandalism. PullToOpen Talk 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! PullToOpen Talk 01:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user is a possible sockpuppet, per his comment about a deleted article here.-- Tdxiang @ 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alabama vandal[change source]

Thanks for blocking this vandal. I was panicking when he speedily removed content, for i had to revert as fast as I could. Thanks a lot!-- Tdxiang @ 03:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, how do you think of my warning messages on this vandal's talkpage? :)-- Tdxiang @ 03:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a feeling, Blockinblox, that the two vandals you blocked just now were sockpuppets. Mind checking it out?-- Tdxiang @ 03:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I that happens, I can really get sysop status?-- Tdxiang @ 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you!-- Tdxiang @ 04:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocking[change source]

  1. (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  2. (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  3. (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  4. (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  5. (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

All these IPs asked the same question to Hailey C. Shannon. No doubt, they must be sockpuppets. Can you block them, please?-- Tdxiang Adminship @ 03:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ran a DNS check. I feel like they are open proxies. Haven't confirmed it though. I don't have a link to an updated list. zephyr2k 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've blocked them for a day. If they are proxies, someone can extend that. Angela 03:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Angela and Zephyr2k, for highlighting these to me.-- Tdxiang Adminship @ 03:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an update. I checked with ENWP and it seems that 2 and 3 are indefinitely blocked as suspected proxies. We might want to do the same here. zephyr2k 03:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why I suspected that they are open proxies. People can hide their IPs by using them. I used to use it back in the days when I used to chat on IRC. I remember I was 16 and I thought I was cool for making people think I live in another county. LOL. Well, I guess that's enough spam on Blockinblox's talk page. Sorry! zephyr2k 03:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] is definantly a proxy server. Its a Tor server running under the name Noxiousne. Creol 04:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Follow-up: the first 4 addresses are all being used as Tor servers (Noxiousne, cherubim, morphium, pace and as such are open proxy threats to user bypassing bans. The 5th on is linked to - A site with info and ties to hacking/exploits and likely another open proxy. Creol 05:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The vandal you blocked earlier, "Cyberstalking Zephyr2k", seems to have returns using the name The Nmen -- Creol 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iceland[change source]

Sorry dont mean to step on any toes, but geologically, the Iceland belongs to both continents. --Tom Riddle 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iceland is Europe, sorry, tom. LIAM !

Shit reversion[change source]

Hello, Blockinblox. Can you explain why you reverted my edit? It's not vandalism, I was just wikifying. :) -- Tdxiang Adminship 04:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a typo error. I wanted to change it but you reverted it. :(-- Tdxiang Adminship 04:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, I performed a history merge of the two articles (for GFDL compliance). You can find both histories at the history page of Shetlands; you may have to do a hard refresh to see the new copy. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is, admittedly, rather difficult to follow changes to each article ;) However, it's quite useful (if not necessary) if the article has been merged via copy-and-paste, I think. I guess the real objective is to make sure each piece of text can be attributed to the correct author - if you don't merge, you have to delve through two histories (the other of which may not be present if the article is subsequently copied to a non-Wikipedia site) to find the author of a piece of the text from the merged article, while with the merged history, you can be sure to find it there. -- Tangotango (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my attempt to merge, I tried to preserve all the text that was there. I basically copied over (and commented out) that part of the one, from the 18... source. In my opinion it is very unfortunate that this situation could arise. -- Eptalon 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your proposal for my adminship[change source]

Hello Blockinblox. Thank you very much for the trust you place in me. Yes, it was unfortunate that I did not make it to admin at the start of this year. At that time however, I had considerably more free time I could put into Wikipedia. Now I do between 200 and 400 edits a month, and I feel bad about it. However, I will take the responsibility, if the community thinks I would make a good admin. -- Eptalon 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone like me, with 205-450 edits (as per [editcount) be of use in the admin team? -- Eptalon 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the sentence you added. It was already there in the top paragraph. Creol 21:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you block this troll? It was created a minute ago. Thank you. :)-- Tdxiang Adminship 03:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This obnoxious user called Sheugalaroneen keeps editing a page called Irish Republican Army. I warned the user but he/she keeps doing it. Could you stop this bad, bad vandal? Thanks for your time- MoglinFiend 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whew... I though I'd never see the end of this Gay's rampage. Thank goodness you came... OH NO! I requested temporary sysop on Meta! Aiyah!-- Tdxiang Adminship 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for blocking the KKK article. You can go to bed now, leave it to me to handle it. Thank you. :)-- Tdxiang Adminship 03:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very clever. Addresses a problem that seems very common when new people try and write in simple english. -- Netoholic @ 21:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removing "you" from touch article[change source]

I agree completely. I have removed this 2nd person point of view from several articles and I can hardly keep up. keep up the good fight!!--Filll 22:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need a template for "our"[change source]

Here is an article that uses "our" that I dislike: Sensory system--Filll 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you![change source]

Thank you, Blockinblox, for supporting me in my Rfa. Due to concerns by Netoholic, I will not be promoted. Despite that, I do not hold anything against him. Once again, thank you! -- Tdxiang 02:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please block User:Darcarus for edits made on my talk page. Thank you! zephyr2k 05:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bureaucrat[change source]

Hi, as suggested on meta, Simple WP should have elections for a bureaucrat ASAP. As such, I would just like to ask if you would be interested in becoming a bureaucrat for this site. I believe you are one of the best candidates among the active admins of this site for the position. Thanks! zephyr2k 06:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry.....for the error :(--vector ^_^ (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CU on vandal block[change source]

I've asked a steward to do a Checkuser upon vandal's IP class. He's going to tell us in a minute... --M7 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please block right now, for unlogged users, choose the time you like best. --M7 22:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Allright. User:Yannf did it. --M7 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar[change source]

Barnstar Congratulations: You have been awarded the "Excellence in Vandal Killing" Barnstar!

For exceptional speed and determination in repeatedly shutting down a multiple name creating vandal before he could cause any real damage. -- Creol 22:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bureaucrat[change source]

New elections for bureaucrats on simple.wikipedia are going to start. Would you like to give a hand to simple.wikipedia and candidating here? --M7 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What words do not need to be defined?[change source]

I saw your note on the word "usual". So what words should not be defined?? What words should not have articles?? I am certainly willing to hear opinions or learn guidelines. --Filll 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you look something over[change source]

Sir James Paul has shown a tendency for a strong christian bais in each of his edits as well as removing inwiki, cats, and other tags while completely replacing text on pages. There is also little to no wikifying of his pages and certain pages have included the odd bits of extra coding (added headline text such as on the talk page for mormonism. He has had several comments on his talk page from people trying to help improve the edits but continues to blank pages and reinsert information he feels is right for the article. It would be appreciated if you could review this if you get a free moment. -- Creol 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My becoming an admin[change source]

Hello Blockinbox. Yes it seem that the community has finally placed some trust in me, and made me an Admin. I will try to fulfill those administrative duties as best I can. I am still unclear on how to create archives of pages, but for the rest, as you can see I am already fulfilling my duties (mainly cleaning nonsense pages, and doing requested deletions). Thanks anyway, hopefully we will see you as one of the new Bureaucrats. -- Eptalon 02:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creol/Sir James Paul[change source]

Hi there, I've just issued Sir James Paul with this warning.

I'm afraid this is only going to get worse, so the same applies to Creol if there are any more attacks like this. I'm hoping I don't have to resort to blocking over this, but does that seem fair to you? Archer7 - talk 15:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I promise I will not attack Creol again. I was mad at him because his messages were rude. I appologized to him. If he does not appologize to me by the end of the day will you ask him to? If he does not say he is sorry for this I will be even more mad with him. All I did was give him a barnstar on his user page and I did not know not to. Please answer me on my talk page. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir James Paul 16:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bureaucrat[change source]

Both of us have now been promoted to bureaucrat. Thanks for nominating yourself, as otherwise we would have had to promote you by force: you're a brilliant admin. Archer7 - talk 10:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bureaucrat[change source]

Thanks for everyone's support - I will do my best to work with Archer7, the admins and all contributors to make this one of the more useful projects in the wikiverse, in a way that is fair to everyone (except the vandals)! Regards, Blockinblox 14:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations! I am glad we have that mess of conflicts behind us. PullToOpen Talk 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations[change source]


Congratulations for your nomination as bureaucrat.

Would you please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Bots. There are several bots waiting for bot flag.

Thank you in advance.

Vargenau 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar Congratulations on your successful RfB (Request for Bureaucrat)!

Congrats on your succesful RfB Blockinblox! Just gave you this barnstar as a way of saying "good Luck". Cheers:-) --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 20:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you very much for the bot flag for my bot User:Escarbot.

Would you please unblock it? It was blocked by User:Netoholic during my tests.

Best regards,

Vargenau 19:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for unblocking. Vargenau 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar interests[change source]

User:Torra, User:Bobo and User:Aceata smart seem to have very similar interests. Keep out an eye for sockpuppetry. -- Eptalon 02:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Desysopping[change source]

Hi, you said earlier on to Tdxiang that we could desysop him. Actually, we can't. They decided a few months ago that bureaucrats couldn't be trusted with removal of access and took that privilege away. All removals need to go to the stewards now, all we can do is grant sysop, bureaucrat and bot flags and change usernames. Oh, and just to let you know, I'm going to try and enforce Netoholic's decision on User:Kimberly Ashton, all except point 3 (edit more articles or you will be banned). I'm really not that confident that it'll succeed, but I'll give it one last shot. Archer7 - talk 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks![change source]

Thanks for promoting me. PullToOpen Talk 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot vandalism?[change source]

About the strange new vandalism ("Great articles! Keep up the good work! Added to favorites!" etc etc), I saw a deletion notice labelled 'Interwiki bot vandalism'. Do you know anything about that? A bot might need developer attention... Archer7 - talk 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a list of banned users/IPs somewhere? PullToOpen Talk 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thank you! PullToOpen Talk 19:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect deletion[change source]

Hi, I just noticed that you deleted

Talk:Zatch Bell! (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
. This redirect was (unexpectedly) created via a page move, and I didn't think such redirects were normally deleted in case people tried to use them, whether they were red or blue. Is the deletion of redirects that lead to non-existent talk pages of articles that exist normally done here? JDtalk 22:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Learning on the job[change source]

Hello! As you know, I am kind of new to this whole administrator thing. I recently blocked two users (Reri Rules All! and Reri's Revenge) for messing with Reri Horlockon's user pages. Are these blocks justified, or are the blocks too harsh a punishment? Thanks, PullToOpen Talk 03:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What jobs can I do to gain expierience to be a sysop? Thanks--Sir James Paul 04:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Is there a template that invites people to join wikipedia? Thanks.--Sir James Paul 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

quasi-admin role[change source]

What other quasi-admin role's can I get into? Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir James Paul 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jaysomething[change source]

You blocked user Jaysomething, supposedly for rudeness. Why did you block him for rudeness if he did not even make any contributions? -- 04:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I block a user for creating vandalism articles that are deleted, their contrib list will turn up empty, so that can be confusing. The article he created that I deleted was a spam link to a pornographic site, that is not welcome here and if a newly created username does it, it results in an immediate permanent block. Blockinblox - talk 13:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kimberly Ashton-esque funny business[change source]

Ok, so we have already confirmed that Kimberly Ashton and AbbyItalia work from the same IP. However, what about User:Yehku Yehklucs Yehklann and (and possibly User:Terikron Tiraldi)? The first thing that the first user did was vandalize the IP's user page, accusing sockpuppetry. This seems somewhat odd that somebody would know that much who isn't an insider or was here this person may be Ashton/Abby herself. Again, this is only a hunch, but I think it may be worth mentioning. PullToOpen Talk 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the view point of categories, User: is an obvious match to Abby. Abby was the only person prior to that IP who used Cat:Words for any article and now the IP is doing the exact same thing in their markups. Habits die hard it seems. -- Creol 06:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cat tree[change source]

I personally just don't like using the special page for the cat tree. That's why I tossed the link to the stats concise cats page. The special page takes up too much page space for basic info while the concise list can cover the first two subcats in much less space making it easier to get a good location for a jump off point when looking for the best cat. True, the special page is constantly updated while the Concise list is a month or more old, but there really isn't a lot of movement on the top level categories. Using the concise list as links to the cats themselves to explore the lower cats when needed (does cat:English people have a subcat for English explorers? for example) is easier with the concise list when dealing with hundreds of entries a day. It may just be a matter of taste. -- Creol 06:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baseball[change source]

At least the version I made is more simple. It also has some helpful stuff in it. I agree that the version you reverted it back to is better but it is not simple. Mine is simple and has some helpful stuff. I'm reverting it back. Please give me some time to work on it.--Sir James Paul 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply][change source] has made some bad edit and I am not sure when to contact an admin to block him or how long. Please help me. -- 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semiprotection request[change source]

Hi, can you please semiprotect Wiki, since it appears to be frequently a vandal target? Thank you, M7 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Email[change source]

I can't e-mail Bonnie and she can't email me. My enable email to other user boxes are blanked (meaning I can't change it) help. --Ash (ley) (Email me) 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (not the email thing doesn't work.)Reply[reply]

By the way, what is the diff between a bureaucrat and a regular admin. Thanks. This is but I just created an account because it made it pretty hard to edit anon. Please do not block this account. --Ash (ley) (Email me) 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uhm, the guy is stubborn. Raffaello9 00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot flag[change source]

Hello, I'm asking for bot flag to User:DodekBot. It's simple interwiki ( from pywikipedia) bot. I already have flags on pl, de and nl wikipedias. Dodek 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've granted this one early. It was killing recent changes, and all the edits seem fine. can't normally do much damage anyway, those test edits should be enough to get a good picture. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 12:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for popping in. I was having one hell of a time keeping up with him -- Creol(talk) 07:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles you recently deleted[change source]


Egg vibrator (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
G-spot vibrator (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
were candidates for quick deletion, please restore these two articles. While Wikipedia may not be a "vibrator encyclopedia", it is an encyclopaedia that has articles on all notable topics. If you feel these articles are not appropriate for Simple English Wikipedia, they should be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion so that the whole community has an opportunity to comment on whether these articles are worthy of inclusion here. Please also note that G-spot vibrator has an article on English Wikipedia. Thanks. J Di 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd appreciate a response, even if your answer is no. J Di 01:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
J Di is not the only one waiting for an answer! I have submitted the article on G-spot vibrator and I don't really like, that what I try to share with other people is so easily deleted by one person. Yes, simple wikipedia is not a "vibropedia" but IT IS an encyclopedia and people deserve to find out what this or that vibrator is (or any other gadget, be it sexual or not) just as much as reading information about the iPods. Thanks. voodooThursDay 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I submitted the article Egg vibrator, which you have deleted. This article meets all the requirements of the simple wikipedia, the rules of this encyclopedia do not limit the range of the themes. I agree with the Siliconov and I will add this article again and if any problems arisen from the content of this article, please, contact me first. Green Tanya 09:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have already explained why this article wasdeleted. Do not recreate deleted pages; they must go through due process to be recreated, as already explained. Blockinblox - talk 15:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They should go through due process to be deleted as well. Clearly not everybody agrees with your reason for deletion, and you should allow the articles to be listed on WP:RFD so that everybody can comment on them; if you are so sure that the articles are inappropriate then there will be community consensus to delete them. The articles you first deleted were not quick deletion candidates and reposted content can not be quick deleted twice. J Di 16:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have already explained my reasons for speedily deleting them on your talk page. There is no rule that reposted content cannot be quick deleted twice, if you check the rules, reposted content is supposed to be speedy deleted, and if the page continues to be recreated after that, then we protect it with a message that says:

Blockinblox - talk 16:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion criterion G4 "cannot be used if the content had already been quickly deleted before". The articles weren't even speedy deleted; they were deleted because you felt they were not compatible with the project. Several users, including two at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Deletion review, have spoken out against your actions, and so far you are the only person that has said that these articles are inappropriate. You should restore the articles and list them on RfD so that if there is consensus to delete them, they can be validly deleted should they be recreated. J Di 16:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And once again I agree with J Di! I understand that I have made a mistake by re-posting deleted articles, but why being so critical on this topic. If you are not interested in vibrators, there are other people for sure, who can't fluently speak English and are interested to find out, what a G-spot vibrator means. I see I'm not the only one who's suffered of this. So how about just reverting the edits and placing them for voting, or whatever. I may not be perfectly familiar with all the policies, but what I know for sure, is that wikipedia is a COMMUNITY and not DICTATORSHIP. If the community agrees that I turn the wikipedia into a porn forum, I'll contribute with something else. Thank You! Sil 16:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please calm down! I have read this article and I must say that I agree with the deletion, because the content of the page was clearly pornographic and instructional. But I will vote for an undelete if somebody is prepared to rewrite it. The life of brian 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please take a look at Presbyterianism. I started this article and would like to know if it is correct. It is my first article in Simple English. Thanks! « Keith t/e» 17:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Well, I don't know what the admin would say, but I think it's simple enough. Sil 07:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment[change source]

Okay, I'm back. I am ashamed to admit this but I have forgotten where to report vandals. Where do you? Have a nice week and god bless. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Complaint[change source]

You seem to be an admin... I'd like to complain about User:Netoholic about his irrational behaviour concerning a spelling dispute. See his talk page ("Basic English, again") for details. DenisL 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good evening; I've blanked the above page on grounds of suspected copyvio. I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at the article's talk page where I've outlined my reasons, and give your opinion.

Thanks in advance,
Anthonycfc [TC] 23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you'd care to give me a list of everything you believe is opinion only, I will find you a reliable source backing up my statements. -Chosongul 16:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot flag[change source]

I've made a request for a bot flag for User:W7bot to switch over templates per this. Please look at it if you get a chance. Thanks --Werdan7T @ 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just granted it. Archer7 - talk 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for the page move[change source]

Hi there, thanks for moving High Blood Pressure to High blood pressure. I'll try to fix the links. Thanks again! --Kyoko 14:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Human Be-In[change source]

Hi, Blockinblox. I've seen you around a lot but I don't believe I've had the chance to chat with you yet. I think you might want to have another look at Human Be-In. I don't want to simply revert without explaining my reasoning because I respect you. If you look at what I took out, you might see that it is extraneous info, not needed to understand the context of the event. Also, the article was full of long, complex, run-on sentences. I believe the changes you made have again made the article unnecessarily complex. I simplified the sentences that I felt contained pertinent info. I removed sentences that didn't have anything to do with the event. In particular, I think the sentence about "The recent November 1966 elections to Congress were a setback for the Democrats, with more and more people unhappy about the war and the riots, and the Republicans finally succeeded in getting the first African American Senator elected since the Reconstruction" is not needed at all in this article. Perhaps you could give it another look? Thanks, Tygartl1 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I will go ahead and leave the info in although I still feel it disrupts the flow of the page somewhat. I will try to simplify the sentences though since they are still a little long for a simple page. I hope you don't feel like I stepped on your toes. At second glance, I can see how my edits could have been construed as reckless, but I assure you I thought long and hard about my edits before I made them. :-) Tygartl1 16:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Shiver me timbers"[change source]

Well, I stand corrected. Sorry for the trouble, I should have ran a search myself and not assumed. Thanks, Browne34 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was a little surprised myself to see there was an en article. I suppose I should correct the mispelling of 'timbers' though. Blockinblox - talk 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selective restoration[change source]

I have done a selective restoration on your talk page to get rid of the link that was added by a vandal to your talk page. The link was to a website that had personal information of everybody's favorite KMcA on it. Cheers, PTO 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthony cfc RFA[change source]

Hello, Blockinblox. Although I may not be a 'crat, I closed Anthony cfc's RFA due to lack of consencus. Thanks. :)-- Tdxiang 04:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanted categories[change source]

I was wondering who caches the Wanted categories page and when, or if it's somehow done autmatically. The reason I ask is for a while, it was being cached around midnight each day and it hasn't been done since 2am on Tuesday. I was just wondering if you had a way of updating that. Thanks! Tygartl1 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish I did! I have noticed how sporadic it is and have tried to find out why or who does this at Meta but with no success... Blockinblox - talk 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverts of my edits[change source]

In response to this edit summary: I did not say that I don't understand the message, I said that it is not very clear. While the message you have put there explains what happens when the box is ticked, it does not explain what happens if it is not ticked, and this information needs to be somewhere easy to access. Assumptions regarding people's knowledge of the MediaWiki software should not be made.

I also do not appreciate the comment you made in this edit summary; reverting my edits, which attempted to make things more simple, without explanation is not helpful. J Di 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know how your computer is set up, but on mine this message fits on one line. Also, "this" is ambiguous, and though "selected" may not be on Wikipedia:Basic English alphabetical wordlist, "selection", a similar word, is. J Di 13:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's Latinate for native "chosen". Are you using Firefox, MIE, or another browser? Blockinblox - talk 13:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use Windows Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera, and in all three browsers, the text appeared on one line. J Di 13:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please look at this article if one can take the clean up label out now? --Cethegus 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He who was a really clumsy kid[change source]

Since when are songs not allowed on here, and why? This encyclopedia is for foreigners without a sufficient fluency in English, and it's for children also. -- 04:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am new in the Simple English. Could you explain me what mean "POV"? Thanks for your attention. Bruno SL 12:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Changes to Recent Changes[change source]

New changes is more simpler on this wikipedia than recent changes or recent contributions. Also, some users put some of their talk pages in the archives.Coffsneeze 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, just thought I'd draw your attention to a few outstanding requests (including mine). ;) Yonatan 11:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the flag. ;) Yonatan 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy name change requested[change source]

(cross post to Archer7's talk page as well)I noticed that a vandal-only account by the name of Phaedriel showed up today. This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia (User:Phaedriel). I have alerted Phaedriel of this impersonation, so you or Archer7 should change the name of that account to something else so that the real Phaedriel may register her name. Thanks. PTO 20:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, while you're at it, would you be so nice as to change my username to "Sean William"? I've recently changed my name to that on the English Wikipedia and IRC, and would like the name on this wiki to correspond. Thank you. PTO 20:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now done them both. Archer7 - talk 18:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vector bureaucratship[change source]

Hello, Blockinblox. Please give Vector a bureaucrat flag as his Rfb has passed. Thanks!-- Tdxiang 03:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phrase books - is this the platform for that[change source]

Hi there,

I am thinking about a good platform, based on the wikipedia model, for health jargon. I've looked at the Medicine pages and the Simple English Wiktionary and I think I'm looking for something in the middle, but I'm don't want to run off and start something new if the platform is here.

What I'm looking for is a tool for health care providers/patient educations - or health care consumer themselves, if they are so inclined - to can find a different way to describe medical terminology, so they can use it in their practice. It could be added to and monitored in the same was as wikipedia, and if successful, I don't see why it couldn't go on other languages.

Is SE Wikipedia the place for that, or no? I'd appreciate your opinion and advice.

Default deletion summary[change source]

Hi, please consider typing in a deletion reason instead of using the default summary, sometimes the text shown is contentious. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings from Turkey[change source]

Hi, this is Bahar from the Turkish Wikipedia. Because I haven't contributed here much I don't know if the Simple English Wikipedia's admins could change my user name from Bahar101 to Bahar. You may find me on my Turkish discussion page. I will be very grateful if you can help me. Thank you very much, --Bahar (Spring in Turkish) 13:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for changing it. Happy editing, --Bahar (Spring in Turkish) 14:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tecophilaea[change source]

Tecophilaeaceae is a pretty asparagales family, as you know considered extict for many year, and recently restated as in risk in Chilean Flora, would you reconsidered your opinion --Penarc 04:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually know nothing about it and have no opinion; I believe I recently modified the article Tecophilaea to conform with wiki standards, but did not write the original material! Blockinblox - talk 12:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creationism[change source]

Weel, you must admit it's hard to explain the creation/evolution debate in simple english. Anyway, why is the scientific side POV-pushing, but the section it replaced POpushing the creationist side NPOV? Adam Cuerden 07:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of references[change source]

My understanding is that we are working to build articles that are well supported, not based on somebody's intuition. The CGEL, which I referenced in the article on nouns is the most up-to-date and comprehensive grammar of English. On what grounds do you remove the reference?--Brett 17:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reference appears in the relevant article, pronoun. I felt it was undue weight to put this right in the intro section of the noun article, but perhaps it can be included elsewhere. Also, a grammar written by someone in 2002 does not unilaterally and immediately overturn practically every grammar of the English language written before then. Blockinblox - talk 17:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you could explain why you feel a pronoun is not a noun. Pronouns head NPs. They can be singular or plural. They can be possessive. They can, in limited circumstances, be modified by adjectives and determiners (e.g., lucky you; an older you). In languages where case is marked morphologically, pronouns and nouns act very similarly. In fact, pronouns do pretty much everything a noun does. Why then should they be called something different? If they are different, then shouldn't 'do' not be a verb, for example in "Do you like it?" "Yes I do." And, yes, I'm aware that one book doesn't overturn everything else, but it's hardly one book. If you read around, you'll find it's far from a rare idea these days. Furthermore, what is commonly taught about grammar in schools is roughly equivalent to what was known about physics in 1900.--Brett 20:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it is totally irrelevant why I would feel a pronoun is not a noun. What would be more relevant is how reliable sources have answered that question. Our own arguments as wikipedia editors are irrelevant here, as are our own opinions about what the schools teach re: grammar and physics. I haven't done the legwork lately, but I'd wager that if I did, I could find that "pronouns" are practically universally regarded as a separate part-of-speech -- not just in English, but in grammars of nearly every language in the world. When someone writes a book in the year 2002 declaring that things are now suddenly the exact opposite than everyone else always agreed, that's known as "revisionism". It can be mentioned in the article. But English is defined not by any college, university, government or other authority, but rather by its speakers' consensus, and to change consensus takes a but more than a few 21st century authors who have appointed themselves to rewrite the rules for the language for nearly a billion speakers and "inform" them of what the "new rules" suddenly are. Blockinblox - talk 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously the reason you think pronouns are not a kind of noun is relevant. You are making the change without giving a reason. I've given a reason a supported it. It's not my personal idea, so it's not primary research, and I'm not asking you to do any either, but all changes should have reasons behind them. Furthermore, if your reason is appeal to tradition or some sort of authority, then the reasons given there need to be examined. If they are found wanting or absent (rare is the source that explains why pronouns should be a category apart), then the source which does explain things should be trusted, as long as there are no obvious flaws in the explanation.
I also think you're confounding the use of English, which is an ever-changing thing forged by consensus, and the descriptions of that system, which will be more or less internally consistent and empirically testable and have nothing at all to do with consensus. When a system of description is shown to be inconsistent with itself or with the facts, or when a newer system that is more parsimonious yet still fully consistent is developed, the old system should yield to the new. That's how science works and that's how good encyclopedias decide which explanation to include.--Brett 01:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the end, all I can do is reiterate what I have already said. It does not matter whether 99% of grammars of English (and every other language in the world that has nouns and pronouns) explain their reasons why they have always considered nouns and pronouns two different things. If we attempt to inquire what their reasons are on our own, it is like conducting our own research. The reality is that they do -- for whatever reason, or even none at all. The etymology of the word 'pronoun' from Latin pro nomine proves that from the beginning, it has always been considered something used FOR a noun, to take the place OF a noun -- but not the noun itself. But you argue passionately, "the old system should yield to the new" -- on the basis of a 2002 book that is even more newfangled than wikipedia itself is, as if the author of this book is so much smarter and has better credentials than everyone else in the world, he alone forms a new peer consensus and is laying down the new rules of grammar for all ENglish speakers, that now suddenly supercede all of tradition. I don't think so; that is the very definition of "pushing" a "point-of-view". Blockinblox - talk 12:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not asking you to divine their reasons. I'm asking you to find a source that provides a reason and then to consider whether they are a good reasons. As the guidelines say, citing sources "helps to make sure the facts are right and can be verified (looked at) by the readers." If a source makes a claim for no reason at all, then there is nothing to verify. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language was co-written by 15 linguists over a period of over 10 years. While the grammar as a whole is unique to this collaboration, the individual ideas included therein are, as I have said, hardly new or in even the personal ideas of these writers (though some of the writers have done seminal work in developing some of the ideas). The book aims to include the insights achieved in modern linguistics. Sure, these have not filtered down to what elementary school teachers teach, or even what college writing textbooks say, but how much of modern science has? And again, you are confused about the purpose of the grammar. It is not prescriptive in any way. It is overtly descriptive and as such in no way lays down the rules for English speakers. It looks at the language as it is used and tries to build a coherent explanation for that.--Brett 13:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I am not at all confused, and this tack does not seem to be getting you anywhere. I do not like being told I am confused, either. This is revisionism, it is POV pushing of a "new" explanation when there is nothing wrong with the old one that "elementary schools" and most everyone else around the world continues to teach. Wikipedia is not the place to push new ideas or opinions of one school of thought or "science", and basically dismiss all the tradition that has come before. That's against every policy we have. And it seems funny to me how the people who do this almost always seem to think that they are on the side of "science", and do so in the name of "science", even in cases like this one that obviously have not got a thing in the world to do with science. If you are waiting for the reality of what is actually taught to "catch up" with your viewpoint, please wait a little longer. I'm not sure it ever will. Blockinblox - talk 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)\Reply[reply]
Furthermore, a group of professors from Cambridge University could write a book tomorrow stating that from now on, for their purposes, adjectives and adverbs will henceforth be considered a single POS, "modifiers", and will not be distinguished. And that would be fine, as long as they write "for our purposes". But it would be going beyond presumption if they wrote that from now on, everyone else in every English speaking country and school had to do accordingly, just because they say so. Also, take a look at the languages whose grammar IS regulated by a regulating body. Have any of them ever made such a declaration as declaring that pronouns are now to be considered nouns? If the Sorbonne in Paris issues a decisive statement that in French grammar, French pronouns are hereby to be considered as nouns, that would lend a lot of strength to your view. Blockinblox - talk 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, while I'm here, what gave you the idea that however is a better way to begin a sentence than but?--Brett 01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What gave you the idea that I have ever expressed any opinion on that question? Blockinblox - talk 12:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edit of noun where you changed: "But in German all types of nouns ... " to "However, in German, all nouns"--Brett 13:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please change my name[change source]

Please change my name from Edmundkh to EdmundEzekielMahmudIsa, then leave me a message in the English Wikipedia. Thank you! --Edmundkh 10:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Colbert Report[change source]

May I create the pageThe Colbert Report despite the fact it has been deleted in the past? (please respond on my user talk:liam.gloucester) LIAM !

Hà Nội[change source]

Thanks for your support on reverting Vietnamese diacritics. Can you help move Hà Nội back to Hanoi? The page was originally Hanoi and then redirected, I cannot move it because a history exists at Hanoi, and I think I need an admin's help. A couple of month's of decent edits and community involvement and I may submit an RfA. Thanks ---barliner--talk--contribs- 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) IReply[reply]

I'm sure you'll be glad to hear that I have been eliminating diacritics from random French pages. Certainly they should not be privileged. -Ionius Mundus 02:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's considered an entirely different alphabet, then why is it called the 'Roman alphabet'? Why is this for of Việtnamese considered Romanization, then? -Ionius Mundus 03:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Vietnamese alphabet is not the same thing as the Latin alphabet; it was created (ironically) by a Frenchman, a priest in the 1600s. We don't use that alphabet in English. Blockinblox - talk 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, 'illegal' means against the laws (of wikipedia in this case). You agree with a campaign of eliminating Việtnamese diacritics saying that including them is against the rules of wikipedia. Thus, they would indeed be illegal. -Ionius Mundus 03:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to English wikipedia, "During the French colonial period, Quốc ngữ, the romanized Vietnamese alphabet used for spoken Vietnamese, which was developed in 17th century by Jesuit ...". Not Roman script? -Ionius Mundus 03:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"We don't use that alphabet in English." Furthermore, the name 'Hồ Chí Minh' isn't English in the first place. -Ionius Mundus 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please take a look at my comments at User_talk:Sean William.

Vector is away...[change source]

It seems like Vector is not available, so could you please read what I posted here and send the reply on my talk page? - Huji reply 11:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you mind checking that your email and spam filters are working correctly? I haven't received a response to the last few emails I've sent. I understand if you're a bit busy and haven't had time, but I'd just like to be sure it's all working. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 21:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lech Wałęsa[change source]

What about Polish diacritics as in Lech Wałęsa? Are those wrong too? I see the name misspelled as 'Lech Walesa' very often in English-language texts. -Ionius Mundus 23:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again, we go by most common usage in English, on a case-by-case basis - without prejudice to whether or not it is "correct" in the local language. In this instance, I daresay 'Lech Walesa' is by far the more commonly used variant in English. But this does not always mean "foreign diacritics" are not used; in some cases, the variant with the diacritic will be more common in English, for example, "Auto-da-fé". We don't try to figure out the reasons or motives why some languages' diacritics are more commonly reproduced in English and others' aren't; we simply reflect what the most 'de facto' common usage is. And there should always be redirects from the less common usages to the more common ones, in any case. Blockinblox - talk 13:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's true, then why aren't you doing anything about the title of Lech Wałęsa using such "uncommon" diacritics? -Ionius Mundus 21:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now moved it to the more commonly used in English Lech Walesa, thanks for pointing it out. Blockinblox - talk 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about these ones?
Aleksander Kwaśniewski
Lech Kaczyński
Jarosław Kaczyński
Józef Piłsudski
Rafał Wiechecki
Adam Małysz
Ryszard Kapuściński
Bolesław Prus
Władysław Reymont
Dąbrowa Górnicza
Gorzów Wielkopolski
Małkinia Górna
Ostrów Mazowiecka
Międzyrzec Podlaski
Ruda Śląska
Zielona Góra
Münster (Westfalen)
Banská Bystrica
Pär Lagerkvist
Jonas Björkman
Carolina Klüft
Alcalá de Henares
Just to name a few. Your policy of eliminating diacritics is foolish. You complain that these symbols are not used in English. Well, I didn't realize that 'Łódź' was an English word. I thought it was Polish. My mistake. -Ionius Mundus 01:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my userpage[change source]

Hi, tnx for cleaning up the mess I made with my userpage! JurgenG 08:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AutoWikiBrowser[change source]

I use AWB on English Wikipedia. Is it possible to be authorised to use it here? ---barliner--talk--contribs- 16:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I am not familiar with AWB or what it does... Maybe another crat or admin can answer that question... Blockinblox - talk 16:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Bots. Thanks Wikihermit 01:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foreign characters[change source]

I have brought the template {{Foreignchar}} from en:wikipedia, it may be useful when creating/editing certain article such as Horst Köhler. Thus:-

The title of this article contains the character ö. Where it is unavailable or not wanted, the name may be written as Horst Koehler.

. The template already provided a link to an article on the accented letter, I changed the template to provide a link to the alternative version, which is a reminder to create a redirect page. Not sure if the template deserves a mention in Proposal for naming conventions guidelines ---barliner--talk--contribs- 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name change request[change source]

Hey Blockinblox, been a while since we last interacted. Can you please change my username to Picaroon (talk · contribs)? (Non-existent, as the log shows.) Thanks, Picaroon (t) 03:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Blockinblox! After much pondering, I have decided to change my username to Tygrrr (talk · contribs). Would you be so kind as to handle this switch? Thank you very much. :-) · Tygartl1·talk·

Thanks again! :-) · Tygrrr·talk· 16:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename user please[change source]

Hi Blackinbox! This account should be renamed, I think. - Huji reply 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! By the way, I think User:A VANDAL ACCOUNT is not as good as something like User:Vandal8. If I'm not wrong, Archer7 uses this method of renaming for such acocunts. - Huji reply 21:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

withdraw rfa[change source]

Can you withdraw the RfA.

Looking at User_talk:Barliner#The_Chaser.27s_War it looks like someone has assumed I was already an administrator and then gone ahead and nominated me. — This unsigned comment was added by Barliner (talk • changes).

Done. As it is a user declined nom, I did not list any voting results as part of the archive. Only the nomination and its not being accepted were archived. (If he was not a canidate, how could there be a vote?) -- Creol(talk) 13:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename request[change source]

Hi Blockinblox.

Could you please rename User:ArielGold? It's a troll impersonating en:User:ArielGold.

She asked me if the account could be renamed so she can register.

Thanks. FrancoGG ( talk ) 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something is wrong here![change source]

You renamed the vandal User:ArielGold, but you forgot to move the contribs:

Now, the real ArielGold has created the account, but it seems like she has done the vandalism too!

I think, it is good to rename it with moving contribs again, and then let her create it again. - Huji reply 21:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, FrancoGG thinks this is possible for the contribs to be moved within minutes (a server lag), so ignore me if that is the case! - Huji reply 21:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{edit conflict} The contribs are supposed to move automatically, but it usually takes several minutes. I hope it wasn't messed up by creating a new account with that name. Blockinblox - talk 21:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you agree ,Kindly reply by email[change source]

Increasing Burden of School Bags

India had been a colony of Britain for more than two centuries. Although, we have become independent in terms of our own constitution, but still we are slave mentally and psychologically our attire is our own but the person within it is motivated by the British ideology. As we all know that today it is an era of cutthroat competition. So we can't deny the rapidly increasing importance of English language. At present English has become a global language. In the hour of liberalization, privatization and globalization English language has rooted firmly its footings in the mind of each and every citizen of the world. In order to be successful English has become necessary to be learned by all. English is not as simple as it appears to be become it is a complicated admixture of several European languages, such as- Greek, Latin, French, German, English etc. Thus it possesses approximately ten lack words. India is a developing country. Its population is more than 100 crore. Here we have lack o resources & production, so it has always been a challenge for us to educate all the citizens. Due to over population the competition is getting more complicated and horrible. As a matter of fact our competition is with the western countries where English is spoken in general. Therefore we, Indians being from rural and Hindi background, are quite unable to learn all these words. Though, we in no sphere of life, lag behind the Britishers but our main problem is of foreign language which is imposed not inculcated in our veins. I can claim that the Europeons will certainly face the same problem if Hindi is posed to them. Therefore, due to the increasing world over significance of English language we can't of avoid it. We have to learn it how to speak, how to write and how to make other people understand our feeling. Now the question that arises before us is what should be done to teach English to all the Indians in the simplest possible way? How can it be learnt by all? It seems next to impossible to learn ten lakh words for every Indian. So I am inclined to create a modified English named after Rajeev Gandhi, which will include about one lakh words and will also facilitate the Indians to interact with the foreigners in the easiest possible way. Reduction of words requires great consideration and strenuous efforts. We can drop out the undesired words, synonyms, undesired homonyms and homophones. I am determined to create an easily intelligible English, which will include our colloquial terms and the most essential words. As we see newspapers in English language are daily published across the country but very few people are able to read them and translate because the English used in these papers is complicated, vague and completely unintelligible for the common people. This way these newspapers remain beyond the reach of the billons of Indian. I think simple and easy English must be used in writing newspapers and magazines by doing so we will be able to reach the hearts of those people who are responsible to run bear and feed this country, until or unless we teach English to our frames, laborers and commoners, the vision 2020 of developed India will surely break down.

Today we boast of the fastest growing economy of India but the question is that “Is this economy able to provide bread to the needy ones?" No, money is getting accumulated in the bags of very few people who belong to the upper strata of the society and know the cruel ways how to exploit economically, culturally and sociably the innocent and ignorant people of this nation in the so called English fashion. 

Therefore in order to bring the farthest standing people into the mainstream of development we will have to teach them this Rajeev Gandhi English and students will learn it in play way method. Undoubtedly I can claim it will prove a boon for the general masses of this poor nation. It is a revolutionary step and will become a milestone in the history of human development.

          Written by: -

Basant Balani

--Basant5 12:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey I reverted his edit on Hurri, since it has sources that are third party seriously there was only one sentence that was from a Armenian historian and I removed it but he redirected the page before that. --Yegoyan 13:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

semi protection[change source]

Blockinblox can the article Catholicism be protected from IP Edits. if you are editing it I will wait before beginning my revision to avoid edit conflicts ---barliner--talk--contribs- 12:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If possible could you please rename my account from my present name to "Mattchu"? I can't find the appropriate page to request renames here… so I'm requesting I'm asking a 'crat directly (my rationale is due to off-wiki harassment - so I'm removing my real name here if possible). Thanks. --Matthew

Regarding the reverting you did made on the Arab article, Ib mny point of view, I would say that the current version of the article may be a bit clumsy and very confusing and needs cleaning. what say you? --Simenged 14:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unlike you, Simenged, I find the article clean and to the point, and feel no confusion when reading it. What parts do you think are not written good enough? - Huji reply 14:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with it. Simenged what parts are clumsy and confusing. Oysterguitarist 15:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the bot flag. --DragonBot 14:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two issues[change source]

Hi there!

  1. You forgot to complete the RfD of Vasudha parrot.
  2. I think it is time to archive this talk page.

Best wishes, - Huji reply

Please rename user account[change source]

Could you please rename User:Huji is gay to User:^(ATTACK-2) or something? - Huji reply 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming my bot[change source]

Hi, I request rename my bot OsamaKBOT to OKBot as other wikis, if you do, please notice me. Thanks--OsamaKBOT 18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFA thanks[change source]

Dear Blockinblox,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA which closed successfully with 19 supports and 1 oppose which didn't count since it was made by a sock of a banned user. If you have any comments, concerns, or any suggestions for me as an Administrator, feel free to leave a note on my talkpage. Thank you.  Lights  talk  13:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heya, I noticed you just found Thamusemeantfan's RfD request for the article VIS Interactive. I just went and posted my own copy of it because I thought that it wasn't written already. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Do you mean to have your user talk in the category Protected pages?

Cartella newgreen.jpg
Nuvola apps ksirc.png
Dear Blockinblox.
I'd like to thank you deeply for participating in my RfA, which came out successful just today.
I'm happy to say that I'll be more active than ever now, and that any page that needs protecting or any vandal that needs blocking will be done so (unless someone beats me to it!). If you have any comments to make, concerns or even critisism, then please leave a message on my talk page.
Gwib -(talk)- 00:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dramatica[change source]

I'd give you the link, but it is blocked by spam filters here. But it seems ideally suited for Ben and his friends. Jeffpw (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe we could pass people onto this wiki? --Bärliner 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you[change source]

Can you please close vector's request for permission at WP:RFA, thanks Oysterguitarist 03:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion summaries[change source]

Welcome back. Please see this post regarding deletion summaries. Thanks,--  Lights  talk  12:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I saw that you deleted the article on Reason a few times. Those times it seems like the article was about the dictionary definition - a belief, justification, cause, etc. I'm writing an article about Reason, the way of thinking that uses facts and logic instead of feelings and emotions. I wanted to make sure that you think it should be here, because I don't want to put in a lot of work only to have it deleted. Thanks! Staeiou (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User privileges removal discussion[change source]

Hello Blockinblox. In the interests of keeping out bureaucrat list somewhat accurate and active, we've asked for your bureaucrat rights on Simple to be withdrawn here. This is not a reflection on you, or your prior work here, which we all appreciate. If you decide to rejoin the project in the future, please feel free to ask for your administrator privileges back, or perform some bureaucrat acions before the closure date. Hope to see you back soon. All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice to have you back![change source]

Welcome back! I hope that you stay here longer this time :P. Cheers, Razorflame 18:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've asked for another opinion at WP:AN as I don't think autofellatio was ever at RFD, and so A4 isn't a valid speedy reason. Thanks Soup Dish (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't waste my time. Find somewhere else if you want to spread pornography, there's plenty of places for that elsewhere. We don't want to be forced to see it everywhere we look. Blockinblox - talk 19:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where was the consensus you note in your deletion summary? Synergy 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This encyclopedia is visible in several countries and areas where such images are strictly illegal. Don't use this to promote a minority agenda. Blockinblox - talk 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you're saying you never had consensus then. I see. Synergy 20:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn;t say that, don;t put words in my mouth, thanks. Blockinblox - talk 20:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would really like to see what was deleted to see which side to take.--   CM16  20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blockinblox: your edit summary - (Deletion log); 19:50 . . Blockinblox (Talk | changes | block) deleted "Autofellatio" (Do not recreate. This was deleted with consensus.) Where is the consensus to delete this article, and not Nudity, or any other article with nudity in it (pictures, etc). This was a bad deletion, and I am asking you to undelete. Please. Synergy 20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_4#A_kid-friendly_simple_wikipedia Blockinblox - talk 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That discussion doesn't help your argument. There is no consensus there, consensus changes, most of those editors (including yourself) are no longer active here. And the only thing agreed, if anything, is to not use explicit pictures on core articles Soup Dish (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That wasn;t the only discussion, I am still looking for the discussion and consensus. If consensus changes over time as you claim, maybe you can show me exactly when and where it changed. Blockinblox - talk 20:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That no user has so far agreed with your deletion is a sign that consensus has changed. Lots has changed during your inactivity Soup Dish (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We recently had a DYK hook about the longest human penis; it was agreed that it should be allowed to remain on the main page. seWP is not just for kids, it includes kids (just as does any wikipedia), but it is not aimed at kids. fr33kman talk 20:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see lots has changed, this encyclopedia used to be usable when I was bureaucrat, we ran a tight ship. It's totally the pits now. Blockinblox - talk 20:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The recent closure discussion on meta tends to disagree with you on this. fr33kman talk 20:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It also seems to be about promoting things that are illegal in many parts of the world, just to effect some kind of change in the world. Blockinblox - talk 20:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The internet is full of things that are legal in one place and illegal in another; free-speech is illegal in many places, so should we stop that also? fr33kman talk 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to argue with you. I am only stating that I see no redeeming value in that image, it is useful only to those who wish to be offensive and get their kicks from being offensive. Which is really sad. But you succeeded in being offensive. Blockinblox - talk 20:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blockinblox, I do intend to agree with you more, I don't see how we could aim this Wikipedia at both Children and People just learning English and not write around that despite the "We are not censored" rule. My personal opinion is that we are not censored should mean something else on this wiki. But we are out voted, so be it.--   CM16  20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also don't like the image and don't feel the article even needs one period; but you could have just deleted the image. Re-deleting after it was restored and endorsed by other admins was tantamount to wheel-warring; and I think you know this. You seem like an intellegent person. fr33kman talk 20:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the compliment!Blockinblox - talk 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image has been replaced with an .svg drawing, so the point is moot now. –Juliancolton (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to let you know[change source]

I've posted a request on WP:AN for your desysop. I would tread carefully here. Razorflame 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you feel an article on autofellatio is notable, appropriate, or encyclopedic for the simple English wikipedia? Blockinblox - talk 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you feel it should be deleted without a discussion, based solely on your POV (point of view)? Synergy 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appropriateness is irrelevant to an encyclopedia, Blockinblox. –Juliancolton (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That wasn't the consensus in October 2006 when the original article was deleted. If there has been a change in policy since then, please show me where and when it changed. Blockinblox - talk 20:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I do feel that an article on autofellatio is notable an appropriate for seWP. We exist to provide a knowledge resource, sexual education is part of that; censorship is not. fr33kman talk 20:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your behaviour is way out of line, particularly as an admin. This Wikipedia is not censored. Whatever your personal feelings are about this subject, you need to get a neutral perspective on the subject. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User page[change source]

Hi, could I kindly ask you to update your userpage? You are not a bureaucrat here on seWP. Thank you fr33kman talk 01:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]