User talk:NonvocalScream/Archive 1

Welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia

Hi, NonvocalScream/Archive 1! Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'edit summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. If you make a short article please mark it with {{stub}}, our guideline is here: Stubs Happy editing! SwirlBoy39 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Getting Started How to: change a page • How to write Simple English articles Getting Help Administrators • Leaving a message for administrators Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Can this be checked? Saying where the idea came from • What Wikipedia is not Copyrights • Using images and Pictures Spam • Vandalism • Deletion policy The Community Assume good faith • Be kind Community Portal • Simple talk • TASERING Announcements • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Peer review • Cleanup • Editor review Other Useful templates • Stubs

Note

Just to let you know, Chris G's bot won't revert you if you have more than 50 edits on here. Cheers, Razorflame 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was looking for the revert, could not find it. o.O Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I also was looking for the revert so that I could revert it for you, unfortunately, I, too, came to the same conclusion as I could not find it. Cheers, Razorflame 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like Chris G's bot likes you ;). Razorflame 04:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It would appear so. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikicup Notice

Yotbot (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Already started

I already started that discussion here.-- CM16 ^M_LB  08:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Just be sure to never remove any comment I make and we should be good, I'll change/alter/remove my comments as needed. But do continue to let me know like you just did, my comment needed altering, but not removing. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Blade Brown Article

The article was changed to only facts and it now sound less than a resume... what are the chances you can read it and see if you can change you vote. ThanksTwin Cities Facts (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I will take another look soon. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember if I looked at this, I'll look now. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for... several

On 4 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Capillary, to which you substantially contributed. If you know of another interesting fact from an article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

That's one... — RyanCross (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On 4 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phosgene, to which you substantially contributed. If you know of another interesting fact from an article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

And that's the other. Thank you for your contributions. — RyanCross (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll move these over to my trinkets place. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:WantedPages

bugzilla:16871

I've put a list up on my area on the Toolserver of all the pages that have got links pointing to them. Look at the bug report for more details. :-) :-) Stwalkerster talk 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this query. I've been needing it as part of my formulae, in order to help me budget time to which articles need creating first. Triage :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban!

You have been blocked indefinately for this! :) Kennedy ^(talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone didn't read...*cocks shotgun*....ROFL-- CM16 ^M_LB  20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not think anyone would notice. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I figured someone would do that ;) Kennedy ^(talk) 08:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments needed

Your comments are needed.

I have written an apology for enWP here that I intend to present to the enWP community somehow and I would like some constructive criticism please. Please read the "letter" and comment on the "letter" here. Thank you.-- CM16 ^M_LB  07:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On Simple? NonvocalScream (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Where else do you want me to do it?-- CM16 ^M_LB  22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RfD

I have closed the RFD as withdrawn. 1) I did so assuming you will "transfer more information with regards to notability, should be easy enough." 2) It's good to meet you. ;) TheAE talk 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you as well. What articles do you prefer, maybe I can help. I write them all, except I won't write on one subject. Incidentally, I'll be finishing the Christianity series here over the next few days. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't create unwanted redirects

I'm not going to patronize you with templated vandalism warnings, but please do not create pages where they are not wanted. If I want a redirect or anything on my user page, I will do it myself. Right now, I'm perfectly fine with leaving it as a redlink. Should I find a need or desire to create a "blue link" (or if someone can give me rationale explanations as to why I should have a blue link other than "it's odd to look at," "I'm sick of looking at it," or "it's not the norm"), I will. Thank you, Either way (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You got it. Sorry. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support in my RfA which passed 24/0/0. I will do my best to better Wikipedia with the administrative tools that the community has seen fit to grant me. Special thanks to Shapiros10 for nominating me and if you ever need anything, feel free to ask! Malinaccier (talk) (review) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sorry

You're forgiven.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t c r} 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7's RFA

The RFA isn't transcluded yet. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 23:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, don't vote until it is active. Kennedy ^(talk) 23:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Then remove the supports. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Supports from nominator(s) are allowed, though this seriously should not be a big deal. Majorly ^talk 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a big deal, I won't reinsert. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Majorly's has been removed (by him). Mine remains as it is the nom support. Note there is no timestamp after my sig. Kennedy ^(talk) 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I won't reinsert until the transclusion. It might be fair however to leave it and allow BG to address it in the acceptance. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidiasis

I went over Candidiasis on a basic simplify edit. It's original readability numbers were very bad - 18-23 yrs old with it's Flesch Easy scale at 23.3. Now given the subject, the numbers are going to be higher than we would like (10-14 and over 65.0) because of an excess of polysyllabic words (3+ sylables). As most of these are all linked when used or the actual subject itself, this is fairly acceptable.

After a quick pass, I dropped the numbers to 11-17 and 42.8. (see here) These are still out of range normally, but again - tricky subject vocabulary is needed here. One of the biggest changes was not vocabulary (although there was some), but structure. Little sentences are your friend. This is a very important part to remember when writing in Simple English. Your entire intro was one sentence with 26 words and it didn't even explain simply what the topic was - an infectious disease. It gave the type of disease, but never said it was a disease. New version - 4 sentences with the longest being 13 words. It covers all the basic information in quick to the point bursts rather than one long blast which is harder to understand. Its a disease. its this type of disease. its cause by this type of thing. this is the most common thing that causes it. done.

Don't be afraid to over link here. Unlike En:wp, here linking is another good friend. If we have an article on it, link it. If the word is not very simple to understand, link it (here or wikt: though half the time its hit or miss if wikt: has the article). Red links happen, but eventually they get less and less and the reader tends to be less confused even looking at a red link. Black words they should know, blue words we don't expect them to know but they are important enough to provide the info, red words they also are not likely to know, but since no one got around to writing it, it must not be as important to know it to get the general idea of the article. Personally, I would rather see a red word I'm not expected to know (and don't) than a black word I should know but don't.

General MOS was fine, no issues with that at all. The main issue is in the vocabulary, grammar and structure. These just come with practice. The readability charts can help you measure what level you are at and point out where the problems are (too many words per sentence (under 15), too many polysyllabic words (depends on the size of the article and topic), too many syllables per word (< 1.6 is good) --Creol(talk) 18:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Side point: at the top you piped Immunocompetent for healthy, at the bottom you piped Immunocompromised for healthy as well.. Not exactly certain here, but changed the compromised to unhealthy. --Creol(talk) 18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dyk noms

Please stop adding lots of DYK noms. TurboGolf 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. I thought I could add the nominations. I recently created and converted those articles. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that you have got 4 noms. For me, one is plenty. TurboGolf 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c x 2) You can't tell someone to stop adding too many DYK noms. That's like saying, "stop editing too much." I actually think that shows a lot of dedication to DYK, and Wikipedia. — RyanCross (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm really confused here. Stop adding them, or can I continue? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You can continue. TurboGolf 05:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. As a personal goal, I only nominate articles that I create or significantly expand. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dodo

It is a pity really - the paragraph was written well and sounded so possible. But I'll keep looking, maybe a dodo will turn up. Peterdownunder (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Hehe. Let me know if you do, I'd be interested to read. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidiasis

Don't forget the inuse. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I forgot. I think I actually fell asleep editing that one. Cheers! NonvocalScream (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Or got distracted editing something else. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Two notes

Hi there. I have two things that I would like to discuss with you:

Photo that pops up on sidebar

While I think that having a photo on your user talk page, I do not appreciate it being from the sidebar because when I go to check the recent changes, the photo blocks me from accessing the getting around box in my browser. Could I politely ask you to either remove it all together or change it in such a way so that it doesn't block access to the getting around section? Cheers, Razorflame 19:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is affecting usability, I'll remove it. I'll probably place it on the right side. Are you sure you won't wait untill the head pops back out. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure, because whenever I wait for it to pop back out, I try to get to the RC link, and right when I am about to click it, it blocks me from clicking it ;). Cheers, Razorflame 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And done. I'll probably invert and place it on the right. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit its been making me laugh for days. Especially when it was the ultra tiny 10px lol. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Imported pages

Am I importing the pages correctly? Cheers, Razorflame 19:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears so. The key to importing is the attribution. It looks like you have done it in the comment field of the file upload import. Because file upload does not do it automatically. I use file upload only after transwiki fails. But yes, it looks good. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Special sig

would you mind if I designed you a special sig?-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 03:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Please understand that I may not use it, I was never fond of them... but I don't mind. I'd be interested to see, yes. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what I have:  NonvocalSCREAM 

And this code if you want it:

 <font face="Times New Roman">[[User:NonvocalScream|<font color="black">Nonvocal</font>]]</font><font face="Chiller">'''''[[User talk:NonvocalScream|<font color="red">SCREAM</font>]]'''''</font> 

I understand if you don't but I do hope you do.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 03:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a listing of available fonts somewhere? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No but you can usually use the ones on you PC....but you just gave me an idea for a tweak above.- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 03:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna do that! TurboGolf 15:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what do you think of that sig?-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You can only view the font if you have it on your computer; if you pick a strange font that nobody else has, they won't see your sig in the same way. EVula // talk // 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew that.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 20:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but NonvocalScream may not have. *shrug* Just thought I'd make sure everyone knew, so that the custom sig looked "right" for everyone. EVula // talk // 20:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 20:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You never have answered what you thought of the sig.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 20:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No Snow in the forecast

At this point, I am wondering if letting certain things run full term is "cruel and unusual punishment" or a last hope at making someone try and understand.. I am siding with the first but not entirely certain that it is a bad thing that could prevent the second.--Creol(talk) 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I had to put my jacket on, there was a surprise blizzard. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Current DYK grammar

Hi, shouldn´t "that the MyDoom computer worm caused web speeds to drop by about 50% during it's lifetime" be "...during its lifetime..."? I´d hate to see a basic grammatical error on the main page. All the best. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed this. Some weird things happened with this hook and the process of getting it on the main page... Either way (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

NonvocalScream/Archive 1, thanks for your comments in my recent RfA which closed as 12/11 or "no consensus". I hope to work on the things that were raised and prove to the community that I am worthy of the mop, this includes showing my RL stability, that I don't have Ownership issues with DYK and also showing that I know what consensus is. Special thanks go to Kennedy for nominating me! Thanks for your comments! GoblinBot3 (talk)

GoblinBot3 (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a total of 21/5. I will try to the best of my abilities to maintain the trust of the community, and I will carefully consider the opposes to learn how to further improve. Cheers, Juliancolton (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, NonvocalScream. You have new messages at ChristianMan16's talk page.
You may take off this notice at any time by getting rid of the the {{Talkback}} or {{newmessages}} template.

-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 23:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I watchlisted your page. Kindly, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Ok.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 23:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Majorly's checkusership

NVS, I fully back Majorly to become checkuser, but surely the request has to run until the time period is up? I wouldn't worry if it were an RFA/B, but there are bigger issues involves here Soup Dish (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In my judgment, I do not expect the small community to change from support to oppose in the next few. There is an extremely low chance of that happening. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

uhhh.

What the meaning of this? I don't know if it was a joke, (fail) a fail put there purposely (still fails) or vandalism (Yeah, right) Simon^KSK 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sticky keys. I thought I corrected it right away. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Whew, I thought something was wrong.... Simon^KSK 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wristband

Hi, we are using other "websites" not other "sites". I've undone you edit. Cheers :) fr33kman ^talk 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Sexual fetishism

The page you wrote, Sexual fetishism, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was a copy of a page that was deleted by RfD. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Gordonrox24 (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry about the delayed response. I rewrote the article. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

Congratulations, as a result of your successful RfA, I have promoted you to an administrator. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. (P.S. I have found your T-shirt. Don't lose it. ;)) Chenzw  Talk  09:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, congrats, you got it after all! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 09:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats. Barras (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats. I think that I supported you. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do my best. Cheers, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work and congrats. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert.

Hey,

I reverted that edit on Simple talk because the editor removed the whole "New EN" section and replaced it with his question. I think this warrants a revert and warning. Am I reading the history wrong?--Gordonrox24 (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What would have been better to do, would be for us to replace the section, and add his question properly. Then kindly on the talk page, explain what happened. But instead, we reverted and warned. We should have fixed it. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A warn/notification is a kind note on what a user did wrong. The warning says that the edits have been reverted, if it was a truly important comment he would have taken the advice in the warning and re-instated his comment himself in the popper fashion. If nobody notifies an editor when they do something wrong then how do we expect their edits to become constructive. The welcome you added after removing my warning does not indicate that he did anything incorrectly. If we don't show people what they did wrong they will continue to do it wrong.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, I thought I had told him. Fixed. Sorry about that. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected MediaWiki localization

Since you've been doing the MediaWiki: localization, could you take a look at my editprotected request at MediaWiki talk:Emailpagetext? Thanks. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Goblin 11:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

Thanks. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Goblin 11:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

This edit

We agreed a while back to drop the whole "more than one reviewer must comment" thing, as that was part of what was "destroying" DYK. I will find the discussion later tonight. Also, there is ample time for the hook to be further looked at and tweaked before it is Main Paged - just because they are moved to the Queues doesn't mean that they should be forgotten. And any updating/moving user should always be double or triple-checking the hooks, so I really do think your move was un-needed (and yes, i'd be saying the same even if it wasn't my own hook). Regards, Goblin 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

Well, currently I'm reading and preparing to write a review for that hook... plus another editor asked for a second look. I moved it so I could review, and I anticipate there might be a response to mine... for example, if I say there might be work needed, then it should not be going to the queue untill someone responds. I should have made my intention clearer. Give me some time to review it, in this case.  :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How about leave an edit summary saying that then? Rather than what you put which means something completely different imo. Goblin 18:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

I'll be more clear next time. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Scream, unprotecting without discussing with me is wheel warring. Simple etiquette says that you should have at least consulted with me first. This is not a case of circumstances changing (like when I reprotected prior to Chenws' unprotect; ie: vandals started up), it is a case of one admin disagreeing with the action of another admin and reversing the action without consultation; aka wheel warring. (ps: I'm not upset at you just the action :-) ) 01:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it [my action] will be undone. I did not think you would object, since the circumstance did change... the vandal was blocked. Really sorry, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not upset with you (scream: the fingers behind the keyboard), just that it was changed without asking. My reasons for protecting the article are: 1) He was mega famous, 2) he just died, 3) he had a great deal of controversy about his later years, 4) he recently announced a 50 date tour of the UK (which has to be refunded now) and that all these put together, there may be an abundance of people who wish harm to this article (most of whom [all, I should hope] are new or anons). Since I started seeing actual vandalism on the article and from more than one IP address, I felt it prudent to semi-pp it. If you feel otherwise, please explain. fr33kman ^talk 02:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Reason

RFD is already in there, under "other". Did you want to make it its own section, or could I revert your change? Exert (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I failed. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem ;) Exert (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Asteroids

Hi there! Any problems if I start to delete some of the pages? Best Barras (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No issues, go ahead. I noted about the notable asteroids, just keep those. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Also, we all need to remember to use the flood flag. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 15:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, don't use the flood flag for administrative actions, those actions are grouped in RC, so no issues. If you are using enhanced RC. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Imo, it would have been okay to use the flood flag. Since, not everyone uses the enhanced RC. Exert (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I ended up using the flag. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Query

Hey, can you come on IRC when you have a mo? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm there when I'm there. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

ST header

I think your recent change to the header on Simple talk (diff) is rather ugly (to be direct). Do you mind if I revert or change it to something else? (I know I can, but just wanted to find out why you changed it.) EhJJ^TALK 20:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it... perhaps there is a better well you could replace it with? It is a wiki, after all! Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you know improvements

Hey NonvocalScream,

I'd like to point you in the direction of this discussion between myself and Fr33kman regarding the DYK process. I am notifying you because you are an active member of the DYK process.

Thanks,

Goblin 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

Why would you not have that discussion in a more public area? NonvocalScream (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it was actually a "private" discussion between Gobby and myself; I was sounding him out on a couple of ideas. It was not meant to be on WT:DYK, I would have initiated a discussion on WT:DYK after I had spoken to Gobby about a few things. He decided to invite others into the discussion. fr33kman ^talk 18:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This was on wiki, so not a private conversation. The discussion appears to be garnering support for "ideas" so that would effect a change on DYK, thus, that should be on the talk page. The reason for not having it on the WT page... was not that it was a private convo, but that no one reads the page. It should have been moved. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was on-wiki so not truly private, hence my using quotes around the word private above. I can not control the reasons BG7 gave you why he felt it shouldn't have been on WT:DYK, I can only say that it was my intention to speak to him about some ideas and then move to a full discussion on WT:DYK. Editors are perfectly allowed to talk to other editors on their talk page about anything that is WP related, so it was right and proper for us to initiate discussion between the two of us on his talk page. As I said, I didn't invite others to come to his talk page and comment, BG7 did. I agree that a discussion proposing changes to a process belongs on that processes talk page, but initial discussions about how two editors feel about a process and what they think is wrong with it, is very appropriately discussed on their talk pages if they so desire; prior to formal discussion with the rest of the team. fr33kman ^talk 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then my apologies. I was under the impression that he had invited the team of participants. But it is more than likely I am mistaken. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, scream, you are not mistaken! Gobby did invite participation, and at that point it really should have been moved, but I just wanted to set the record straight that it was not my intention to involve everyone at that point. I was just chatting with Gobby about some stuff (not all related to DYK). Please don't think I'm upset by it all (or at you), I'm not; I really don't get upset about stuff per my life rule #1 (Fr33kman's Rule #1: "Unless you are going to worry about it on your death-bed, it's not that important now.") I think we should initiate a discussion at WT:DYK at this time, however, because I think the process needs very slightly tweaking a tad. Take care! :-) fr33kman ^talk 22:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't think your intention was ever in question, it was not. I assure you... I understand your involvement and the intent was good. And yes, the process needs tweaking. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletes.

I don't fully understand why that was necessary. If you wanted to remove the RFD discussion why did you have to delete the page in order to do it?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:QD#G7 permits quick delete of a page if the author requests and the author was the only one who edited it. This was the case. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you deleted the whole WP:RFD page which was not blanked or requested to be deleted.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops. It had been instantly restored. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

QD

I couldn't help but laugh at this and how you couldn't fit your whole comment in. I usually prefer "see RfD" :P Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ BG7) 21:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I wanted to be extra sure people knew why I was deleting it while the RFD was in progress. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: CM16

Hello, please allow him to edit his talk page. This is his only means of communication on-wiki. The protection is just a temporary one to prevent further edit-warring and will expire soon. Chenzw  Talk  06:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done it as it seems NVS wasn't here all day. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this action fr33kman ^talk 20:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yot, thank you... I've been in the field all day, so I was not able to reverse it myself. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:RecentChanges

Hi. It is not ok to remove sections as you did here. I disagree, with this decission and therfore, I undid this edit. "(these have been red for quite a while)" isn't a reason to remove them. Please discuss first and remove this later. Barras (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Ok... I've entered discussion. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

RFD

Hi. I've altered your edit to the RFD discussion for The Seventh Brother as it was causing a malformation of the main WP:RFD page. fr33kman ^talk 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My RfB

NonvocalScream, Thank you for taking part in my request for bureaucratship, which closed as successful.
I promise to do my best and justify the trust the community has placed in me!
fr33kman ^talk 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Kremlin

1R makes it a content dispute? You can unprotect it. I'm not going to remove it again and I have left a message with Goril. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it can... I'm glad you two are discussing the change. Good luck, and Cheers! NonvocalScream (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

NVS, your protection of this page was inappropriate. I see zero evidence of an actual editor war in the history. An edit made some changes, another editor undid those changes (thereby stating he disagreed with them) and the original editor undid those. Changing the protection on the page was plainly too aggressive. Both editors should have been asked on their respective user talk pages to discuss the changes on the article talk page prior to you protecting the page. Please fully consider the need for actions such as this in the future. fr33kman ^talk 03:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On a second, more detailed review of the history, I see there was no evidence of a content dispute. I only scanned it briefly and I'll be more careful next time. Secondly, there was nothing aggressive about my action. It got the results desired... an editor came to my talk page, stated he was entering in discussion, and I unprotected. It is not like a blocked anyone here. Protections can always be reversed. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you see the need to be careful in the future, but I stand by my comments. fr33kman ^talk 03:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As do I. A note however... when is a reversion a good form of discussion? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A reversion is a normal and standard method of saying "I disagree with you". More than one reversion per editor for the same edits is edit warring, but that didn't happen here. Both editors would have benefited from talking to one another; something they actually did do. Admin action was unneeded. fr33kman ^talk 03:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand... the action was immediately reversed. Will be more watchful in the future. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict) I don't want to get in an editwar, but Goril isn't answering me and his claim is not at the Joseph Stalin or Katyn Massacre articles at enWP or at the Joseph Stalin article here at simple. I would do it, but I want admin authorization (since admins did protect the page) to do it. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I might give him some time (he may have stepped away form the computer) and see if he answers. You might post a message on the article talk also. If need be, post at ST requesting more discussion participants on the article talk. You should be able to get a few folks in to help generate a consensus. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be leaving the computer in a few minutes and I won't be back for over 12 hours. I will post to article talk, and Simple Talk. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, anytime. Thank you for you work. Cheers! NonvocalScream (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked for attack edits. They do, however, have access to their talk page so discussions may be held there. I'd not hold my breath however. fr33kman ^talk 04:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

block notice

Are you supposed to remove the previous warnings when you add the block notice (like you did here)? Just checking for future reference. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In some cases I will remove automated warnings if the editor did something s/he knew would be against our rules, thus needing no warnings, in order to bring direct attention to the block notice. Such cases, are deliberate harassment, or trolling. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

protection

Where is the excessive vandalism? You suppressed the edits so we (non-admins) can't see it, and one user has vandalized it in the past 48 hours (if I recall correctly). Please give your reason for deleting it (maybe with diffs?) Griffinofwales (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I hope I don't sound too demanding, after all I have opened 3 threads here in the past 48 hours

I removed those revisions... the edits were particularly ugly, by usernames such as Aspies burnt to death. The edit history was cluttered with that type of mess. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

But was it recent vandalism? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

On the article page...

19:36, 24 July 2009 
21:42, 23 July 2009
19:43, 20 July 2009

This is recent and a pattern. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NVS, did you notice that all three of the vandals use the same style of vandalism? Exert 03:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with differing usernames. So the blocks appear ineffective. I have semi protected the page in order to prevent more disruption. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict) I will use enWP's policy because I don't think we have a policy here. Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents anonymous and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time. and Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. I don't think the 2nd one applies in this case. 3 edits over 4 days? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I will reduce the semi protection to 3 days time then. However, it is an active target where blocks are ineffective, so I'll leave it. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)@Griffin: I support NVS's pp of this page for the period he has protected it for. I'm sorry, but we can't provide you with diffs because you aren't able to see them (not being an admin), but rest assured that the page needed protected as multiple vandal accounts (probably the same person IRL) have attacked it recently. Cheers! fr33kman ^talk 03:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to file a RFCU? If we can get the IP or IP range blocked then we could remove the protection. Exert 03:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've not filed one before... can you? :) If a targeted rangeblock can be done, no issues reversing the protection. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

scream: I think you should file it. It'd be a good learning experience for you! :) fr33kman ^talk 03:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Meh... ok. Give me some time and I'll go and do it. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict) @NVS, Did you mean to unprotect the pages?, and I don't mind the article being protected but as the quote above says, both pages shouldn't be protected at once (this is a wiki after all), but I will keep my mouth shut (you've heard enough). Agree with Exert. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Since both pages are targeted... I'll leave the protection. I've relaxed the protection length in light of your concerns. I'm also going to request the edits be checkusered so that I can do a targeted rangeblock and remove the protection. Does this sound ok to you? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise. Thanks for listening to my concerns. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A Helping Hand?

Hi there Scream just wanted to let you know if you wanted in helping on the Royksopp article i just created to make it as simple as possible. Thanks again. --71.254.110.148 (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Thank You!

for saving the Dig Dug article stub. I guess some people on here just think it was not important enough but English Wikipedia has a article on it so idk. Thanks again. --71.254.110.148 (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be made proper... look at the changes I made and try to start the articles like that. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hung

It's a HBO Series. I knew it needed some improvement but HBO is not unnotable.--83.71.101.180 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Please recreate the article, and tell us a little about why it is notable. Who writes the series, anything you can add other than a singular statement. Also, if you could find a source, we would be much better. Thank you for your work, and sorry for the delayed reply. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I created it again. Here is the English version of the article.--Occono (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your actions

I find your actions and suggestions that I be punished on this project appalling. If you want to talk to me, do it on my en.wp talk page. Don't suggest I be banned from this project because of your interpretations of my attempts to remove cross-language vandalism.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to punish you. I simply want:

• You to not remove useful content.

• Adopt a NPOV with regards to articles.

• Follow local policy and guidelines.

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OS heads up

I spun out all the candidate sections into individual subpages; make sure to add Wikipedia:Oversight candidates/NonvocalScream to your watchlist. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, and thank you. I have it watchlisted. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

NVS

I wish you the best in your time off-wiki. You have been a fine admin and are always welcome to come back. Shappy ^talk 03:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't be gone but for a day or two. Work may be sending me to the field. I'm just trying to work with these away messages. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert for Health Effects in Cannabis

Please point me to the discussion referenced by your comment made during this change. I'm very interested to know what discussion has come to the conclusion that local newspapers are more of a reliable source than the International Journal of Epidemiology. --EpochFail (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There were four references, one of the being the times. I'll add more if need be, you want more references? Maybe from the WHO and CDC? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That ref to the times was a letter to the editor. --EpochFail (talk)

E-mail

I've sent you an e-mail. Exert 04:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Pong. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Right back at cha ;) Exert 04:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Missed one.

Hey, you might wanna grab this page also. Looks like you missed it when you were cleaning up after that vandal.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I was attempting to delete it and gave up. Wikipedia was giving me an error. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hello there. I believe that you should have used the undo tool instead of the rollback tool in this instance. Cheers, Razorflame 02:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I clarified the use in the follow on edit. However, it appears that the edit was unneeded, I ended up rolling myself back. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Permission

As per our talk on IRC, you have my permission to undo this edit. fr33kman ^talk 04:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I've committed the change. VR, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Man from Earth

Could you add {{pp-dispute}} to the article? Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I had questioned myself today... should I add something like that? I don't see it done anywhere, or at least, I've not noticed. If there was a page where these templates are displayed and I could easily pick one, that would be nice. :o) I will look for one, I'm sure it is around here somewhere. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

question

Some admins do not put a block notice on some of the accounts they block/ban (VOAs, bad usernames). Should I add block notices or leave them alone? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some examples. Majorly talk 00:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will try. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• 14:45, 8 August 2009 Majorly (talk | changes) blocked Undersight (talk | changes) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (Vandalism-only account). There are more, but this one jumped out at me. Can you see why? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• 00:45, 8 August 2009 Majorly (talk | changes) blocked Heave A'Prawn (talk | changes) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (Vandalism-only account) Griffinofwales (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• You've been told before, but I'll tell you again and hope it will sink in this time: things are not always black and white with regards to rules. It is not required to post a block notice; especially for accounts that have been harrassing editors and that have had to have edits oversighted they were that unpleasant. Did you even look at the diffs on these accounts' edits? Do you truely and honestly believe that the edits were made in good faith? For testing purposes? I don't. These two accounts are the same user by the way. We do not extend courtesy to trolls and banned users. Have you been looking through people's logs? What made you stumble across Tharnton's ban, which occurred months before you arrived here? Majorly talk 00:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • It was a question. Should I add the templates. I was not questioning the admin over his actions, I was asking a question. I found Tharnton by accident. I had gone to this project, and I was looking through the list of members. I noticed a lot of names I didn't recognize and since quite a few long time editors have been blocked here, I used popups to check whether they were blocked or not. Tharnton was. I was inquisitive and decided to find out why he was blocked. No, I do not go through your logs (too time-consuming). I do go through WP's logs (Special:Log) though. That's how I found the two examples above. You were ABF in this case. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Answer some of your questions: Did you even look at the diffs on these accounts' edits? No I did not. That was not why I was checking. Do you truely and honestly believe that the edits were made in good faith? No I did not. You do not ban people just because you feel like it. For testing purposes? See previous answer. Have you been looking through people's logs? Yes I have looked through logs but not yours. I looked through Netoholic's logs (do you remember him?) and several other banned users. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I do not think that placing block notices on banned users' talk pages is a courtesy to them. It's a courtesy to other users who may think that the user is not blocked. You can always fully protect the page (several admins do that). Griffinofwales (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want a to seem bothersome, but I see a point in leaving a notice. The editor may seem not be acting in good faith, but he may just not know what he is doing. I think a little note will help let him learn and become an actually helpful editor.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually tried that argument a long time ago (2 weeks?). Admins don't like it. They say that most vandals are socks and the others are VOAs and they say that VOAs already know that they are doing something wrong. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. The stuff that these accounts were posting was plain and simple harrassment. This person has been going a long time. Why do we want somebody like that joining us? This person knows absolutely what he was doing, and it was horrible. Believe me, a notice saying "You're blocked" will make them do nothing more than laugh. Majorly talk 00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As Majorly says it comes down to Don't feed the trolls. -Djsasso (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the comments. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

RFD closure

Hi there!. You closed the RFD about the "Pewter City Gym". The problem, you left the "in process" tag. Please remember to change it to {{kept}} or {{deleted}}. I did it for you. It is important, that the RFD will be in the right category after the closure. Best. Barras || talk 06:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: again please use the template. It produces the right cat and so on. I fixed your last closure again. Regards --Barras || talk 15:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And please use if you delete, the right rfd delete reason, which links to the closure. Barras || talk 15:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'km sorry, I will do this next time. I did not know we catted them. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

removal of rights

Hello NonvocalScream, per your request I have removed your sysop status. Thanks for your work! Regards, Leinad (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke?! Griffinofwales (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

isn't see here. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked using popups (it lists the user rights). I don't see why he did though. He was a great sysop. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• No... I mean no alarm... I had to debug something on the java editor tools I'm developing. I'm really sorry, I do a heads up next time. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Or make a sock for the testing. I'm really sorry about that. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Don't do that again! Scared me! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Agree with Yot. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I did not think anyone would notice if I did the debugging quickly enough... I did not see much activity on the feed. The admin tabs were interfering with the debugging. I'm really sorry about that. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Next time tell the steward not to post a notice to your talk page. That was the mistake. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, the main thing is that you aren't going and are still an admin! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 00:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny or what?

Why would you say "Hi. I have retracted any threat of blocking" to a regular and extraordinarily committed contributor? Are you trying to be funny? It doesn't work for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he is saying he retracted that statement you got upset about. I would say he is apologizing in his own way. Please assume some good faith. -DJSasso (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I had thought about what you said... and I did not want any mention of blocking... to exert any pressure on legitimate questioning. I should have waited for anything bad to occur, rather than pre emptive cautioning. I was telling BG7 that I took that part back. Do you understand better now? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the blocks/protects/deletes (I'm losing track in the mess), and thanks for doing additional research into the soap article. I haven't had time lately. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

See here. Your work isn't over yet. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Barras added those already. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Those blocks, protections and deletions were needed. Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  Does it add them to all the entries? I'm talking about my name in particular. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restricted new accounts and pages containing your username. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should watch what I paste in the future. Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You did fine. I'm just denying vandals the attention they crave. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 2 down, 1 to go (IP attacks). Griffinofwales (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed one? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the links, I've removed the other one. Mythdon (talk • changes) 04:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I meant but yes you did. This one. What I meant is, have you located the source of the attacks and blocked that source from editing here? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just found another IP. Please see 68.168.212.12 (talk · contribs). Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And now please see 12.47.44.197 (talk · contribs). Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like I'm being harassed now. Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please protect User talk:66.235.180.173 due to attacks. Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Now see 208.78.218.130 (talk · contribs). Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

IP's blocked, pages deleted, and IP has been forbidden to edit talk page. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good job. Thanks! I hope there's a way to see if all of these IP's are actually an open proxy or TOR. Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Now 72.167.131.219 (talk · contribs). I used rollback on this edit, and then shortly after starting seeing attacks from it as well. Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please protect User talk:Griffinofwales due to recent attacks. Mythdon (talk • changes) 05:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)