User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 1

This page has been vandalized just 1, 2 3 times.

Welcome to Simple! I hope you are happy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Some helpful pages to start you off are Wikipedia:Useful, Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Policy.

If you want to meet and talk with other members, you can visit our version of the "village pump" at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Just remember that you should sign your messages on Talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words.

We have a special page that describes how to write Simple English articles. If you want some ideas of which pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles.

-- Netoholic @ 01:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hailey

I understand your frustration, completely. I suppose I'll ask you to be patient and see if your recent message about spelling hits home. She does seem to require frequent "reminders", but seems to quietly take advice. If if gets to the point that you do have to monitor her contributions too closely, I would encourage you to bring it up on Simple talk. Perhaps a public "hearing" would help. -- Netoholic @ 01:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Strange glitch on page Category:2002 ?

Looking in on some of your edits (cuz I know nothing about these category and interwiki things) I saw a strange thing on page [[Category:2002]]. Where on some other pages there is an '*', on this page it says '2' in bold, under the "There is 1 article..." and above the link to '2002'. Do you see that when you display the page? I've tried a couple different browsers (IE,Opera,Firefox - all show the same thing) because I can't 'see' anything different between the page text for 2002 and others. Any ideas?

unsimple articles from en:

Basically, I've been playing this by ear. It is technically against the GFDL to copy articles here without their page history. Most often, (well-meaning or otherwise...) people will copy articles directly here. Sometimes, this is done to preserve their POV (because the en: article is being edit warred). Other times, I've deleted articles copied by IP addresses which haven't made any edits since then. Occasionally, an article make sense here, and I copy the editor history, then clean it up or mark it with {{simp}}. Obviously, it is unfair (and illegal) for articles to just be copied directly. Let me know if you disagree. -- Netoholic @ 01:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, fine, SqueakBox 02:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Year categories

Wouldn't it be better to place, say, Category:1972 deaths direectly into Category:20th century deaths rather than by decade? Decade just seems too granular and we tend to talk about people by the century they were born/died in. -- Netoholic @ 14:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that cats like Category:1972 deaths could all fit into Category:20th century deaths, but I'm also thinking about the fact that there could be articles created where the year of death is not exact but we know it was in the 1970s. There, the Category:1970s deaths cat fits in. For the 20th century, it's probably not an issue but I know that there's some vagueness in earlier centuries. Also, I don't think that 100 subcategories in the 20th century deaths would particularly easy to navigate, especially if we start to have articles with unclear dates. However, I find that's more likely to be a problem with birth years. Besides, this is how English is organized and I think they've probably dealt with more issues than we have. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In this case, I think that EN:'s system is also not ideal. Also, the word "century" isn't a very simple term (it's not in Basic English, though it is in Special English) and the "20th century" being the name for the 1900s isn't a common concept in all languages. I'd actually prefer our categories be like Category:1900-1999 deaths or Category:Births (1900-1999). Really, we won't have too many "vague" dates, and I would be hesitant to categorize any articles in any death category if we don't know the year precisely. -- Netoholic @ 20:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Just a question. What is the point of these birth and death categories that you keep inserting. Surely if somebody wanted to know the year, they would just go to the year page and look under eith births or deaths? It seems like duplicate information and a waste of space to me, but am open to hearing the argument. Maya 11:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Timon of Athens

I'm sorry about that! I'll try to remeber that next time!- Hailey

Game titles

I will try and remember to put them in italics next time. Thanks! Thorpe 21:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Show any page

I think the text in Wikipedia:Cleanup was talking about the link in the upper left of every page, which is "Show any page". And so I think you will want to go back and reverse your change, though maybe with an added explanation of what it is? Shenme 00:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hailey

I'm sorry, I've had very little time in the last few days. I understand your concerns, and I agree totally. If you could write a summary of what you see she needs to change on Hailey's talk, I'll endorse it with a stern warning specifically asking her to reply. If she ignores this again, I have no problem blocking for increasingly longer periods of time until she agrees to your rather simple requests. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

New self-portrait

Until User:Netoholic or someone else gets around to it, I've nullified Image:Masturbation.jpg by replacing it with a newer image for Roberto. (Using the same filename for an image _replaces_ the old one)

Well, actually all that does is create an image here at Simple that hides the image over at WikiMedia. I made a plea over at English for help as User:Netoholic and User:Angela have to be sleeping. Shenme 05:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then the separate comment about the need for morem, has then become obvious? (sigh) Shenme 05:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It would appear that Roberto is the same user as "Polo Bluxo" at Commons and Wikisource. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog) 06:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR (but only if "good faith")

Umm, good that there is the exception for vandalism, otherwise I was also thinking a short ban would be worth it. Fortunately they paused long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

Have you considered adminship again? While I'm a couple hours 'older', you've done much more here, and have certainly exceeded the "1000 edit level" (by going on 180% over). While it was comforting for User:Netoholic to note that I could have hurried over to his English talk page to get his attention, I'm still feeling a bit insecure. Hmm, says that User:Angela was re-elected to board of Trustees, so I guess she won't necessarily have less time to look in on things. Still, I'm wondering about nominating you over at Admin Nominations. Shenme 05:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Did you get the test email I sent to you? One of Simple:'s policies is that admins that perform any bans and blocks must have a working email address setup in their user preferences. This is so you can be contacted in case of accidental blocks. Since you wanted adminship so you can help with vandalism, I just wanted to make sure you had that set up. Let me know, OK? -- Netoholic @ 02:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're now an administrator. Make sure to review all the current policies. 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 if you have any other questions or just need a second opinion. -- Netoholic @ 01:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

New image deletion page

I have created a page for image deletion requests just like the English Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. So, please note that there may be deletion requests of images and media there in future. • Thorpe • 21:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Leet

My real problem with the page is that it is unsimple. I put an unsimple notice on it a month ago but I reckon that it is too obscure for anyone to want to simplify it. Were you to prove me wrong by simplifying it yourself, I would of course withdraw my delete request. Dejvid 23:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Deletion_policy lists unsimplified pages as candidates for deletion. Must-have pages, however, never get deleted which I presume is why 2004 has escaped the ax. Deleting it now doesn't have to mean deleting it for all time. There is the "delete but keep red links" option. But if you think its worthwhile, why don't you fix it yourself?Dejvid 23:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks

Yep, will fix. -NickGorton 23:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I wont then. ;) -NickGorton 23:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Copying from English

Sorry for trying to help and stuff. Apparently all my work editing articles for grammar and readability and monitoring for vandalism, all goes unnoticed or unappreciated :(

65.31.115.145 01:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

OK

Hi Ricky. You do realize that I started here all of a week after you did? ;) Though admittedly did only a few things initially. But then, as has been readily demonstrated to me recently, this is way more about a popularity thing than otherwise. For example, 65.31.115.145 thinks I am an ultra-bad meanie face as I commented that he was not npov when he changed the definition of sexual orientation to be only about sex rather than sex and affectional preference. See bisexuality.

Right. <rolls eyes>

So given that most of the vostes that are actually there (excepting yours) are about whethere the person likes me, you may as well assume that I am not further interested. Evidence of something being a popularity contest is like the proverbial red rag to the bull to me. ;) Though I will continue to do what I actually enjoy though. -NickGorton 15:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep Red Links

I'm not an techy but as I understand it there are ways of deleting a page. One way puts a block on it being created in future. Keep red links means "remove it but don't block it's creation in future". Probably that's what I should have said explicitly but I read somewhere that's the Wiki way of saying it. Dejvid 16:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd have thought you would be well within your rights to that without asking - if we are talking about pages that have been voted to be deleted. I have never had the status of admin so I might be wrong but I'd check out what is normal practice on the en wiki. Dejvid 19:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Simple English lessons

Apparently the talk page isn't blocked. I overwrote spam there. But you should block the page if possible. -NickGorton 20:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Have a look

At talk:Homosexuality. -NickGorton 01:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

And how do you do that?

Generate the interwiki links? -NickGorton 01:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Duuuuh.... ok. ;) -NickGorton 02:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

AIDS

He's out of control. The latest is that if I can't cite proof positive (I guess by way of a survey of every single biologist, epidemiologist, and provider on the planet) he's going to keep reverting to his 'qualified' nonsense. Sorry, but what O'Riley and Coulter say about the efficacy of sex education is not what is in the peer-reviewed medical literature. He's asked for sources, he got that. Hell, I even looked up that Vatican's web address for him.

Now (having cited nothing supporting his POV) he's making some argument that despite citing sources, the following statement is NPOV: “Scientists who study (look at and learn about) people who use condoms, see that if teenagers (children 13-19) learn about condoms (and other birth control) they have less unsafe sex. Scientists see that learning about these things does not make teenagers start having sex earlier.”

I even agreed to the statement that kids given real sex ed don't have sex earlier instead of that they actually have sex later. If you look at the entirety of the literature as a whole, it pretty much says the effect is there (there are positive and neutral studies but no negative ones.) However, getting into an argument about why the neutral studies represent a type II error just isn't worth it.

However, the 'prove that Santa doesn't exist, or you must accept that he does' nonsense is way off. I am willing to accept reasonable changes (and to be honest, he's actually contributed some decent changes.) However, I do not think he's in this to improve the article. He's in this to discredit the article, as evidenced by the suggestion that it was not NPOV because I didn't cite a source that the Vatican is anti-birth control. Its nonsense and goes beyond 'good faith.'

Though I will admit the sock thing is kind of funny:

• He creates a sock to support his views in Talk:AIDS.
• I call the sock a sock (with a nice illustration.)
• He replies that he didn't upload that picture and does some other edits.
• Then I explain to him what a sock is.
• Then BallSack leaves for a while and Mr sock returns (duly outraged, moments later), objects, and does a few posts to prove he's not a sock, dammit!
• Then after a few posts proving he's not a sock, Mr sock stops, and within minutes BallSack is posting again.
• Then I point out that he's being obvious with the timing of his posts going B, B, B, B, S, S, S, S, B, B, B, B.
• Then immediately BallSack and Mr Sock begin posting nearly simultaneously, to prove that they are two different people.

Me, I would have given up on the sockpuppet by that point. But then I'm not still in the last throes of my adolescence.

Though if it helps in your addressing this, I will be humping ass in my clinic for the next two days – 10 hrs each day, a 2 hour commute, and I have to do some goofy 1-2 hour interview thing about the clinic (tranny doc treats tranny patients, news at 11, something dumb like that) in addition to the time I'm driving and working. So you will have a little peace. ;) -NickGorton 06:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

spam/vandalism

Don't be so soft on vandals. Particularly if someone posts spam links or vandalizes the main page, block them immediately (one month works well). If you don't you leave us open to more, and it could get worse. Some automated spammers keep track of how long it takes to be blocked/reverted. If we're slow, they may flag this wiki as being un-watched and come back with more. -- Netoholic @ 20:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

suggested addition to the front page

hey Ricky, I wander if we should add human rights to the front page, under the government heading, just thought I would ask before making any changes to the template --Sim 10:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce

Thank you for giving me a warning before hand. I'm sorry it took so long. It won't happen again. I made a copy of the Edgar Cayce article and will simplify from there before reloading. Please feel free to delete.--Jondel 05:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: Deletion requests

Sorry, I must have accidentally skipped over that notice. Thanks for moving them to the correct position. Michael 08:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

re: Deleting talk pages

Do you know if the live Wikipedia runs significantly different codebase to the stable release of Mediawiki? Deleting talk pages only works fine for me in 1.5.x. Michael 04:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Babel

The categories box of my user page has a link to the Category:Users that doesn't exist. Can you help me by fixing the Babel code for basic english? -- aflm 23:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hehe.. it was my fault... I've fixed it... :-) aflm 00:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey there!

Thanks for your welcome :-) --HappyCamper 03:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Thanks for the welcome, I'm sure you know if you go to english wikipedia that I am a user there having problems. So I've decided to come here to edit some without having to deal with problems (not problems with wikipedia, just other reasons). Thanks again for the welcome, and I've been working hard and doing some good work on here don't you think? Private Butcher 06:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfair Treatment (Unless I am Mistaken)

07:50, 21 October 2005 Ricky81682 blocked "User:202.173.204.250" with an expiry time of 1 month (vandalism).

04:19, 21 October 2005 Ricky81682 blocked "User:148.244.150.58" with an expiry time of 1 month (Vandalism)

I believe that is an abuse of admin power, 1 month for a small amount of vandalism? And no warning! All you did was instantly block this person, a week would be satisfactory, but a month? Unless I'm not seeing all the information, I believe that this may cause for a check on all of the blocks you've ever done to see if you should be stripped of admin powers. Write your response to my talk page and prove to me that my accusations are unfounded, or I will be forced to bring this to a higher power. Private Butcher 22:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that a few days ago, I thanked you for your welcome, and now a few days later, I am commenting on your possible abuse of admin powers. Private Butcher 23:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't picking on you, I just wanted to know your reasons behind those blocks. Because I felt that there could be possible abuse, thank you for showing that my accusations are unfounded, because if they weren't, I would of had to bring the hammer down. Sorry I accused you. Private Butcher 18:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also you said "Well, that was fun. You beat me to User:Testestestest! No fair! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)" that would mean that you would of tried to block him too. So why, what did he do? I can ask you the same things since you tried to block him. My accusations may not be unfounded after all. Private Butcher 19:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I am definately sorry I accused you. If I ever accuse anyone of anything again, I'll make sure I'll research the entire situation. Thank you bye. Private Butcher 19:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty poo, Jimmy = Sorry

Alrighty poo, Jimmy's done. Jimmy's sorry. Jimmy'll never do it again. Jimmy (You May Know Me From English Wikipedia) 02:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad I came just in time, to see all of this. That was a lot of vandalism, way too much. I'm sorry I wasn't here, usually I'm around all the time, but I was out and about today. Sorry, I reverted some vandalism, but I should of had him earlier, I could of stopped him before he did so much. Sorry I failed you, I won't do it again. I'm going to be an RC Patrol hawk. Private Butcher 02:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Rafterman

Oh My God! Please ban this vandal, Ricky! He added a Adolf Hitler photo on the turtle article! -- aflm 23:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw you got me, nice job. I just wanted to see if someone was paying attention. Rafterman 21:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

There he is. See the Special:Recentchanges history and give him a eternal ban. -- aflm 20:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for not responding to you sooner, I will try not to make those mistakes again!--Hailey 14:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Newcomers galore!

Looking at the recent changes area of this wiki (at the time that I am writing this), you sure must be tired introducing all these newcomers at one time!

I first met one of them, a Turk, on the Scots version. It seems that he is more of a designer than an editor! --Slgrandson 15:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:years

So you're telling me I wasted my time working hard for nothing? God dammit, I can't believe that. Private Butcher 02:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I saw your conversations with Hailey, I believe, and you told her to use the category:years, so I thought that's what had to be done in each one. It took a long time, I used copy and paste, and worked for a long time and fast, thats probably why it looked like a bot. But alright, next time I'll ask before I do something like that. Everyone makes mistakes I guess. Private Butcher 19:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Album Categories

I don't have any ideas and suggestions, I think your idea is just fine, and would probably be the best thing to do. Private Butcher 05:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Vert

Generally, if a user wants to act so much like a known vandal, it doesn't much matter to me whether it is actually the same person or not. Either he's blockable for being the vandal, or he's blockable for being an impersonator. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page spam

Netoholic, I've noticed that Talk:Main Page is getting spammed repeatedly by a number of users in the 80.68.2.x range. Next time it happens, I just want to block the whole range (one day or so should be enough) just to make the point. I'm not exactly how to do that. Looking over meta's range blocks page, I think it would be "80.62.2.0/24" for the range. Does that look right to you? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Your conclusion and range calculation are correct. I've put the block on. Watch out for more from addresses near that range, and we can extend the range further if needed. -- Netoholic @ 07:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

United States

I know, but only because someone moved the article. We should match article names with en: unless there is a compelling reason. -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Privacy policy

Someone vandalized the Wikipedia:Privacy policy page. The history just shows this edit, and I don't know what to put there. Please fix this useful page. -- aflm 18:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandal

The user 24.77.213.69 is a vandal. See copyright and others edits.

Sorry, I forgot to sign. Thank you. -- aflm 01:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Userboxes

I'm not sure if you're aware of the flack taking place over on en: wikipedia lately about the various userboxes (en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes). I'd like to know your thoughts on the issue before the (inevitable) spread to Simple. As far as I can tell, the only boxes we have right now are languages. -- Netoholic @ 21:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

12.210.252.227

This user IP spammed some articles. I added the {{test}} template on his talk page, but he did not stopped yet. -- aflm 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ramones/The Ramones

I just noticed that someone on EN: used cut&paste to move the content that was at "The Ramones" to replace the redir that was at just "Ramones" last September. Since you're an admin there, and I can't edit there at the moment (long story), I figured I'd let you know here and you can either report it or fix it yourself. Freshstart 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Netoholic

Hi,

Sorry to drop this in your lap, but from my short time here you seem the most level-headed of the 'main players'...

I'm not going to contribute to this wiki, and I'm going to actively discourage others from doing so because of the actions of Netoholic. Because I failed to put the source/copyright of images I uploaded (my mistake, I realise), not only were the images deleted (no problem, I could put them back easily), but also the articles I had written as well. The warning was given in the same minute as the first image was deleted, the articles deleted within 5 minutes:

• (Deletion log); 04:34 . . Netoholic (Talk) (deleted "Image:Matsoro Xiao.jpg": no source, not on en:)
• (Deletion log); 04:34 . . Netoholic (Talk) (deleted "Tchen Hong": not on en:)
• (Deletion log); 04:34 . . Netoholic (Talk) (deleted "Hitami Yakima": not on en:)
• (Deletion log); 04:33 . . Netoholic (Talk) (deleted "Image:Hitami Yakima.JPG": no source, not on en)
• (Deletion log); 04:31 . . Netoholic (Talk) (deleted "Image:Tchen Hong 2005.jpg": no source)
• (diff) (hist) . . N User talk:HentaiFan; 04:31 . . Netoholic (Talk)

If I had had time to see the message from Netoholic, I would have gladly provided the information about the images, which I own copyright on (see my response to Netoholic. Even if the images were deleted, it would be no great hardship to re-upload them. But to have the articles deleted too is both insulting and intimidating. I'm not prepared to spend my free time working for a community that will destroy all my work because I failed to cross a 't' or dot an 'i'.

If you can do something with Netoholic, then please do. He/She/It is ruining this wiki, and I'm pretty sure I'm neither the first, nor the last, who is leaving this wiki after a short space of time, and with sadness, because of Netoholic.

Thanks for reading this, goodbye and good luck,

HentaiFan 10:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Request to be an administrator

I want to be a syop and I requested it a week ago. Please say if you support or oppose my nomination. -- aflm 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Semi-protection has been enabled on Simple:. I've placed a basic policy for its use on on Wikipedia:Protection policy. If you use it, please document the page and reason on Wikipedia:Protected page. -- Netoholic @ 20:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks and no problem--I was glad when I checked RC and saw you'd gotten the email. I've found that when it's sustained like that, trying to revert it all before an admin can block them tends to just egg them on, so I after sending the emails I just went about my business until you showed up (and it seemed plenty prompt to me). I've been thinking of requesting to be an admin, mostly for cases like this (altho it would be nice to be able to fix cut&paste moves, etc. myself), but I'd want to still just add speedy tags on articles that I wasn't sure qualified, to let someone with more experience here like you or Netoholic decide whether they should actually be deleted. Does that seem reasonable, or would it just feel like I was creating more work for you guys, that I had the power to take care of myself? (I included a briefer version of this question in the email I sent to Net.) Freshstart 07:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

movie categories

I'm not a fan of these. Can we get by with a single Category:Films (just to have one alphabetical listing) and then create pages like en:1989 in film? -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

email confirmation

Sure thing, I'll work on putting the notice on watchlists. Can you take a crack at simplifying MediaWiki:Confirmemail text? That's what shown when people go to Special:Confirmemail. -- Netoholic @ 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment requested

Hi Ricky81682, 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 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

#vandalism-simple-wp

Forgive the spamming of admin talk pages, but I wanted to inform all the active admins that there is now a Counter Vandalism Unit IRC channel devoted to Simple English Wikipedia. If anyone is interest: #vandalism-simple-wp. -- Psy guy 16:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Babel boxes

The Babel boxes have been renamed to conform to a new accepted scheme. Please remake your boxes or change the references to fit with the new standard format. The old boxes will be deleted. Ask me any questions on my talk page. Thanks! --Cromwellt|talk 03:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiReader

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 16:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic

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 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

List of coins

I'm glad to see you back. Thank you for your message about that list. Sometimes, I have to do something else and forget to finish what I was doing here.

I marked List of coins for deletion because it is not much useful. It is unordered, lists old and modern coins together, and does not say anything about some of those coins. What do you think about replace this with a List of circulating coins? -- aflm (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reri Horlockon

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 10:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Football clubs

Hey Ricky81682,

How is the editing coming on the association football clubs? I'm asking because it is still on the RfD page, and I'm one who would like to get it off there. I guess now that some action is being taken, you could probably just move it straight to the log. Thanks. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 20:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles?

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? 08:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)