User talk:Nat/Archives 5

Britsh monarchy

Hi Nat. The problem though is that I don't think it's just a matter of one user against the community. I admit that I am not very familiar with this debate, however I tried to look at various places where this issue was discussed, and I got the impression that no consensus existed. First of all, the debate was fragmented, with different polls taking place on different pages, with different formats, etc, so it was hard to tell what exactly people were pronouncing themselves in favor of. However, this in itself I think is a problem. I think there should be a discussion on the talk page of the specific article to see how its active users feel specifically about this move. In that case, if the majority favors the move and only one obstinate user refuses to budge, the move can be made, as indeed consensus does not require unanimity. However, looking at past discussions, multiple users expressed an opposition to moving the British monarchy page, and although Thor was the most vocal, among those in favor of the move, also only two users actively pushed for the move. But as I've said, I only looked at this debate today, and I might be wrong. TSO1D (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as I said, this is not an issue I am very interested in or am very familiar with. I only intervened while responding to a 3RR report and an ongoing edit war. If you believe that there is sufficient consensus for a move, then an administrator should probably make the move and make an announcement on the talk page that this is the the decision that closest represents consensus and to urge users not to try to revert the change and if they wish to bring up later if they want to try to reach consensus for an alternative. Leaving the article in limbo, when one side thinks consensus exists and the other does not is probably the worst alternative as it is a sure recipe for an edit war. TSO1D (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am. TSO1D (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'll take that back, you might have been too involved to make the move. I made it myself and will explain my decision on the talk page. TSO1D (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: GoodDay

I tend to agree Nat, Tharky seemed to mainly be upset with the idea of the British page being lumped with the other 'Commonwealth realm' pages; as though he felt it was a sneaky way of making the 16 monarchies appear as equals (which legally, they are). Most regrettable, that he couldn't resolve his 'ownership issues' concerning British related articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Elections infobox

The infobox is a standard format which is required on all election articles, and "this information is already present in the article" is not a valid reason to remove it as the whole point of an infobox is to provide a quick overview summary of the article's content. If you don't like it, you're perfectly welcome to go to WP:CWNB and try to build a consensus for the position that Canada should be somehow exempted from using the same templates as other countries even though there's nothing about the Canadian electoral context that would actually require an entirely different infobox format. But you don't have a personal prerogative to override Wikipedia standards just because you don't like them. Bearcat (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't step outside of Wikipedia's standardization efforts because of personal preferences. We have to use the standard format infoboxes unless there's actually something unique about our elections that the standard infobox can't cover properly, like Australia with its 2PP issues. We can't refuse to use them just because three or four Canadian editors dislike the way they look — it's not like they magically look any different on a US or UK or Mexican or New Zealand election than they do on ours. Oh, and that special hardcoded "major parties contesting this election and their leaders" box on Ontario general election, 2007 was at least 58 times uglier than the infobox is.

Templates are supposed to be as standard a format as possible across all articles on Wikipedia. We create distinct templates for Canadian topics when we have unique needs that the standard format can't meet, not any random time that an individual editor dislikes the standard appearance for aesthetic reasons. (And no, the number of small parties contesting Canadian elections is not a unique need — UK elections make us look like slackers when it comes to organizing small parties.)

Can you honestly tell me that your reaction has nothing to do with the fact that you created the alternative Canadian elections template, and are consequently having a bit of an ownership issue here? Bearcat 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Then the appropriate response is to raise your concerns on the talk page of the standard infobox and see if they can be integrated into a design improvement of some sort, because the issues you raised are in no way unique to Canadian elections and hence don't justify any special Canadian entitlement to exempt ourselves from standard formats. Bearcat 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Redd Lock

Hey, did you lock the Michael Redd page before over an edit war? It is unlocked now, but I ask that you please lock it again. The people are at it again. The one makes the changes that I think are correct, which would be to not have the citations, and he has left his reasoning on the discussion board. The other one keeps reverting edits without reading the rationale in the discussions. I was hoping you could look into this.

Thank you.

198.150.94.139 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your block of user Jeffpw

I would like to know on what basis you blocked this editor? Edit warring is bad but blocks should be used as a last resort. Editors subject to them (especially in cases such as these where no warning was given first) are usually offended and it can result in us losing valuable contributors. On reviewing it I'm sorry to say your block appears to me misguided and heavy handed to me. You treated in exactly the same way someone who reverted 4 times removing sourced material from an article as the person who did so only 3. While I agree that 3RR is not a license to revert three times, blocks of people who have not broken the rule should be exercised carefully, especially when dealing with a long term contributor. At the very least I would have expected you to leave a message explaining politely why you felt a block was in order when he had not broken the 3RR rule rather than leaving him only an automated Twinkle message. I think you could resolved this matter much better and created a lot less ill feeling had you talked to Jeffpw and reminded him that edit warring (even that short of 3RR) should be avoided rather than hitting him with a block, which is an indelible mark on a contributor's record here. There is an element of diplomacy to being a good administrator - those who feel they have been treated unfairly by those with power over them will understanbly feel resentful. WjBscribe 13:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the mistake with the pronoun. I think your block was a bad call in this case. You would have achieved exactly the same in this case by leaving Jeffpw a talkpage message reminding him of the need to avoid edit warring in general. I do not like receiving correspondence from good contributors stressed and upset by heavy handed admin action. I also think you were disproportionate in your sanctions of the two editors concerned. Your assumption of "baiting" is in my opinion a failure to assume good faith of a committed editor. I cannot see how you thought this block would in anyway make Wikipedia a better place, unless you think Jeffpw wanting to cease contributing to this project would do so.

In future I would strongly advise you to make more conservative use of blocks and to consider the feelings of those you choose to block. Again, I think any block of this sort would warrant a person message not a Twinkle notification. I'm going to assume that this incident is an isolated one, and doesn't reflect your general approach to making blocks, as such I consider this matter closed. Though I think it would be a good idea for you to apologise to Jeffpw for not seeking a more diplomatic route to making your point about edit warring. WjBscribe 15:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the way you are handling this - "If you feel the need to review your participation on Wikipedia, so be it." [1] is not the way to deal with an editor upset about the fact you have blocked him. The idea that you are unconcerned with editors leaving the project as a result your decision to block them is astounding. WjBscribe 17:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thank you for the kind message on my talk page. It was unexpected, and certainly welcomed. For my part, this incident is over. Please believe me, though, that I truly thought I had followed policy and had not violated the rules. This was a learning experience for both of us, it seems, so maybe some good has come out of it. I see you've just recently become an admin. Your communication with me on my page shows me you have the necessary qualities to do a good job of it. It is certainly something I would never attempt. I am a good contributer, but don't think I would have the patience to do your job well. So, hats off to you.

When my partner in this incident returns, I will definitely discuss the changes on the talk page further and not engage in any sort of edit warring--not out of fear for blocking, but because these sorts of incidents just lead to stress for everyone, and Wikipedia is supposed to be a joy. I will also leave a message on his page apologizing for my part in this.

Once again, thank you, and I look forward to interacting with you--in a more positive way--in the future. Yours sincerely, Jeffpw 11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

IMC-OnAir unblock for username change

The user that you unblocked for a username change did not follow the instructions on changing their username properly. Instead, they created a new user account for themselves, (see [2]), and then reposted the previously deleted content of the IMC-OnAir userpage at User:ElJay Arem (which I G11'd again). I'm not really sure how to proceed since you were the unblocking admin and I've never handled an unblock request before. I would really appreciate it if you could let me know what to do. Thanks! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I temp full protected your page due to the mass amount of attacks. Feel free to put it back to normal when you want. Kwsn (Ni!) 03:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, that header of your's makes it next to impossible to do proper rollbacks and such. Kwsn (Ni!) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

MrZ Man got the revert, I just got the socks. Kwsn (Ni!) 04:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Block

To be honest I did have doubts after making the block. We do allow editors to do whatever they like in the sandbox, but it seems to me that the editor was disrupting the sandbox to prove a point. The constant blanking, adding "xxx eats poop" randomly and so forth were symptoms of this. I've unblocked since it wasn't vandalism in the main namespace, but to be honest if he had vandalised anywhere else he would've received an immediate block. Graham87 04:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hi, I noticed that you blocked the China article already, but I think there is some editing that needs to be fixed. First, there is a user that changed "mainland China" to China proper, which as you know, it is a historic term used by western historians, not a substitute for the original term. I think it is best to revert the sentence back to the older version (below).

"The stalemate of the last Chinese Civil War has resulted in two political states using the name China: the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, which controls mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau; and the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, which controls the island of Taiwan and its surrounding islands."

Second, the "etymology" section has too many unreferenced and newly added materials added by user Aranherunar, I think it would be best to revert to the original version as well (below).

"China is called Zhongguo (中國 or 中国) in Mandarin Chinese. The first character zhōng (中) means "middle" or "central," while guó (国 or 國) means "state". The term is commonly literally translated into English as "Middle Kingdom", but is also sometimes translated as "Central Kingdom".[1] In ancient times the name referred to the "Central States" along the Yellow River valley and was not associated with any single political entity. The nomenclature gradually evolved to mean the lands under direct imperial rule.

English and many other languages use various forms of the name "China" and the prefix "Sino-" or "Sin-". These forms are thought to derive from the name of the Qin Dynasty that first unified the country (221–206 BCE). The pronunciation of "Qin" is similar to "Chin", which is considered the possible root of the word "China"[2]." (don't forget to add on the references)

Could you also rv the names of China article back to older version as well, before the vandalism by the likes of User:Fueglao and the massive new edits by User:Aranherunar. It really needs a lot of copyedits and references. Thanks! I know that you are busy, but a response would be great, I was hoping that you could help with the edits.--TheLeopard (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied the user on his talk page about his concerns and I see no valid reason to unprotect the page, especially when les marionnettes (is that the word?) don't seem to have given up. Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 09:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

how did you do that thing to the pics on the land camera article? I added two pre-uploaded SX-70 photos and want them in those little frames... Landcamera900 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, those comments aren't nice at all

Hey Nat, just checking to make sure you're not stressed out. It seems like someone was being very impolite to you and your mom. I think you should semi-protect your talk page and perhaps file a checkuser request because I feel that a few editors are behind this from how they word their comments. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays too! (I reverted to anther version your talk page I didn't know you are online) -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:St Micheal's College University of Toronto.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:St Micheal's College University of Toronto.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Heay Nat, do you know who I'm? Guess, one of your neighbors... Seems you got lots of enemies here, good luck man. Tionqo (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Taipei 101

Hi Nat. I'm wondering if you can semi-protect Taipei 101. Recently there are several anonymous users vandalizing the page, and that is not good for a GA. Thanks!--Jerrch 21:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Sock

He's not just adding his crap, he's also deleting my comments[3]. We already know who he is and he's banned, just revert him, block him, and ignore him. Why nobody has blocked him yet, I do not know. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

How can I check a sockpuppet?

How can I check a sockpuppet without having to make a complicated checkuser case? For example in this instance User:EU_01 I'm almost 100% sure it's a sockpuppet of user:Bonaparte, the guy is obsessed with changing numbers about Romanian economy and this account is new and didn't edit anything else. Do you have any suggestion, is there a quick edit template for checkuser/sockpuppets? Sorry for bothering you. -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I guess I will familiarize myself with that checkuser form... man... why all Wikipedia forms are a pain in the butt? -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to eat my words this form seemed pretty easy to fill in, now I only hope there's enough evidence, not sure that using a proxy is enough proof... -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with The Rape of Nanking (book)?

I wonder if you could help with The Rape of Nanking (book). I'm trying to make an FA push - it's not been nominated yet, but it's listed for peer review. One editor insists on inflating the article with criticism of the book when plenty of criticism was already offered and the article was in a balanced state.[4] Please take a look and see what you think. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Blockedsockpuppet|Peter zhou}} (or just any tag, really!)

I beg you, please tag the socks when you indef block them! I spent 30 minutes of my life I'll never get back checking all the socks found by Checkuser, to see whether or not they were already blocked ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

By the way, your link to "sysop" is not working, it should probably be [5] :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I got a message on my talk page from an editor who is involved in a content dispute on Christianity in China. I am not involved in any dispute, so I feel quite weird getting a message. But anyway, I looked at the page and it seems like editors are edit warring. Since you are an admin, can you look into the dispute and do something about it (protection may be needed, in my opinion)? Thanks. Chris! _ct 20:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your questions in my currently on-going RfA. I would like to inform you that I have indeed answered your questions and would be happy to see what you think to my responses. Thanks, Jhfireboy Talk 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up but a user that goes by Peonuxio has left me a message saying "User:Nat is just a piece of shit, ignore him." I thought you might like to know, as I consider this a personal attack to you and not me. Jhfireboy Talk 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Armon reported by User:Timeshifter

Hello. I copied your comment and my reply from the 3RR notice board:

• The individual was warned after the fact, as this is the case, I am assuming that he/she did not know about 3RR before. Therefore no action. nat.utoronto 21:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Armon was warned about 3RR a few weeks ago, and self-reverted. So he knows about 3RR. Further warnings about 3RR are a courtesy, not a requirement. Also, Armon has been editing Wikipedia since February 2006 and well knows about 3RR since he has been editing contentious Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles for a long time. Also, quoting you from a comment higher up; "3RR is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"". --Timeshifter (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Nat. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nat, I’m a bit confused. You seem to have blocked Armon for only three reverts, without warning him to lay of the article first, which I think would be only fair. On top of this, even if Armon were edit-warring, surely there was someone helping him out by reverting/edit warring-with him?

User:Tiamut has reverted, by my count, five times in 29 hours. This falls under the category of both edit-warring and system-gaming.

• Revision as of 00:52, 18 December 2007: [6]

• Revision as of 23:03, 17 December 2007 [7]

• Revision as of 11:07, 17 December 2007 [8]

• Revision as of 19:59, 16 December 2007 [9]

• Revision as of 19:48, 16 December 2007 [10]

I note also that Tiamut has been blocked three times on related topics for violating 3rr, and once for edit warring, as recently as September, [11], so does not require a warning.

I must say I’d find it distressing to see an editor blocked without warning who was staying within the rules and not attempting to game the system, while one who was went off scot free. I really think it sends the wrong message, and encourages folks to use the 3rr board as weapon, as has been done in this case. IronDuke 01:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Confused

Hey Nat: Did you get my last message? I'd appreciate it if you could respond to it. IronDuke 15:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nat! I noticed that IronDuke is trying to get me blocked for my edits at Second Intifada, and without having filed a 3RR report to boot. To be clear, the edits in question are not simple reverts and are genuine good faith edits designed to improve the article. I have also used the talk there throughout this process, with both Timeshifter and myself pratically begging Tewfik (talk · contribs) and Armon (talk · contribs) to explain the specific problems they have with the almost 4,000 bytes of sourced material they keep deleting. As you can see at the talk there, there has been little in the way of substantive response. Anyway, I'm sure that this would be clear to you in your review of the matter, but I thought would be explicit anyway. Thanks for hearing me out and have a great day! Tiamut 15:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Tiamut, I'm not trying to get you blocked, simply pointing out that what you did on the article is clearly, demonstrably more like edit-warring than what Armon was doing. I think the best thing to do would be to unblock Armon, as he violated no rule, and was not warned. If none of that matters, my question is why is the person edit-warring with him, (who herself has a history of blocks for 3rr violations and edit-warring) not blocked? I think it's a fair question. IronDuke 15:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well IronDuke, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree, quite deeply actually. You will notice that the five edits you point to, make modifications in response to the concerns of other editors (as raised in edit summaries, since they never bothered to use the talk page). You will also note that I twice invited both Armon and Tewfik to discuss what their specific concerns with the material was, and that they failed to respond substantively. I even left a message on Tewfik's talk page which as you can see he reverted as "trolling", something he has done with such messages from me, and others before. I don't think it's fair to characterize my editing as edit-warring when we are in fact talking about the deletion of sourced material without any real explanation or any willingness to engage in discussion to come to some sort of consensus (i.e. vandalism and disruptive editing). So please don't make equivalencies between my behaviour and that of Timeshifter's (who made no reverts and used the talkpage extensively) vs that of Tewfik and Armon. There really is no comparison. Tiamut 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Domer48#Remove_block

I have just had a look at this situation and I have to say that I am amazed at the stance to you have taken with regards to this.

R. friend was in conflict with Domer48 and then R. friend revert to "his version" and blocks Domer48 without warning or an official report or without anything said to any of the editors on "his side". Surely this is not the correct procedure that an admin in conflict with another editor should take.

Domer48 should be unblocked, R. friend should have a sever wrap across the knuckles and then if needed an official report should be filed to determine if any blocks are warranted. I hope you have time to look at this situation with a fresh pair of eyes as it seems pretty unjust to me. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking (book)

Page protection for that article is problematic. As you can see from the article history, other editors have been making edits to the article as well, notably User:Binksternet and User:Appletrees. By all means, if I make the same revert again anytime soon, block me. But don't punish those other editors because of an edit war between me and Saintjust, let them improve the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A City Warning

why'd you delete A City Warning? They meet WP:BAND. They have a RECORDING CONTRACT therefore they are notable. Afd if you must. City warming (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Menu thing...

Thanks. I assume anything we find on Wiki is ok to use on Wiki given the licensing. I thought you had something pretty cool, especially the links to the statistics. I'm still not sure how it all works. The bottom three icons are a mystery to me. Thanks again for fixing it. Readin (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw issue

Noting that you had blocked him for civility issues arising out of edit-warring, I thought maybe you might want to take a gander at some rather uncivil statements made in both article edit summaries (1), article discussions (2) and his user talk page (3, 4) before accusing me of harassment (5, 6, 7, 8) . I think maybe he's just having a 'wrong side of the bed week', but the comments seem to have moved beyond simple dissent and straight on the uncivil and personal attack side. Your thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyndale University College & Seminary

I reverted your edits in regards to this organization. It's not a full University, and thus doesn't qualify for inclusion where you've tried to place it. That's why places likes University College of the Fraser Valley aren't listed for example. GJ (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. It's a purely religious institution and has the name "College" as well. GJ (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Still not a University. Saying so doesn't make it one. GJ (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your evidence doesn't mean anything. It's just peacockery. Tyndale and the other one are only religious seminaries. Nothing more. GJ (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your insistence that they are Universities is clouding your judgment. You cannot turn a rabbit into a hen. GJ (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not listed here. GJ (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't access that article. You should know that a site that requires registration isn't acceptable as a source. You're an admin. You should know better. GJ (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The brief part I did read said "university college status" meaning... NOT A FULL UNIVERSITY. GJ (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Granting a degree != University. Ontario Colleges too award degrees. GJ (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean this in the nicest, best possible good faith way. The page wouldn't load. GJ (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I got it to load. We have conflicting reports. One link says "university status" another says "university college status." I suggest we take this discussion to the List of Uni in Canada talk page so we can invite others to talk about it with us. GJ (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes an edit vs. a revert

Just a question about 3RR.
1) If I edit text (not an undo) that had been stable for days, on a page and
2) another editor reverts my edit. (that editor had not made any edits to the page in several days)
3) I later revert his edit.

Is my first edit considered a revert? (#1 above)

Main Page

Could you please change the main article's featured article image to Image:Tikse monastery.jpg since this image is clearer, less blurry, more appealing and shows the same subject. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus

Hi. The reason for protecting Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not readily apparent. Could you point out the dispute in question? Thanks. --B (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the edit-warring has resumed. FYI. Avruchtalk 23:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, just remember, no good deed ever goes unpunished ;) --B (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello- thank you for protecting the page. However, you've done so on a bad version- Juanholanda had recently added some OR material which, while being a valid assessment, is sourced only to scripture (and therefore can be considered to be unsourced in the manner presented). This isn't pressing, but Juanholanda is endorsing only one viewpoint (as you could probably see, he continues to deny the ambiguity of the word commonly translated as "brother"- a word which, even in English, has several possible meanings.--C.Logan (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

China

I see. Sorry for not informing you. If you see fit to protect it again, please do. bibliomaniac15 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Since you protected the page, I thought you should be aware that I have requested unprotection for Jesus. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

05kinjac

Hi. You offered him a conditional unblock. Since then I have been in discussion with this user, mainly on his talk page. I wondered if you could come and leave a message clarifying some things. The user appears to think that as he has moved house, he is allowed to create a new account, I have explained that this is block evasion, but the user disagrees. I am not sure what course of action should be taken on the new account, or existing. Thank you. Tiddly-Tom 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:07kinjac - nuff said ;) Tiddly-Tom 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A if he hadn't put the helpme tags on his page, probably would have not noticed ;) Tiddly-Tom 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The user appear to have comply changed. He has been spending quite a bit of time expanding the article as requested by yourself. He is very civil and thrives on the advise I have given him for improvement for the article. He has placed another unblock request on his talk page. Please could you look over the changes and review his block. Thank you. Tiddly-Tom 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for you time and understanding! pedro gonnet - talk - 04.01.2008 09:39

Regarding Republic of China article

Hi,

I made some changes to the article called "The Republic of China" to make it more politically neutral. I understand that trying to call Taiwan a country is your poilitical position, but according to the rules of The Wikipedia, the articles here should be neutral and impersonal. Most of the countries (at least 170 out of 190) recognize Taiwan as a part of PRC and the Republic of China as history. So please, respect the opinion of International community and my time also.

Thank you, Anmiol (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent unblock

Nat:

Please know that I’m not trying to antagonize you in any way, but I am concerned about your recent lifting of the [12] block of Pedro Gonnet, especially the edit summary where you wrote that admin B had used “a punitive measure rather than a preventive measure”. I’ve looked at it, and I can’t see how you’ve come to that conclusion, or why it is that you unblocked Pedro (and please note, I am not asking for you to overturn your unblock). Pedro has been here over a year, and just recently filed a 3RR report himself [13], so it isn’t that he’s unaware of the policy.

Sometimes I’ve seen people unblocked from a 3rr block with a summary along the lines of “User promised to be good”, but I don’t see him doing that here at all. Oh, in fact, as I’m in the middle of composing this note, I see that Pedro has gone right back to edit-warring on the page, making the same edit he was blocked for reinserting: [14].

I wouldn’t even bother you with this, but I’m concerned that in the area of Israel/Palestine edits, both sides need to be treated equally, otherwise it just ratchets up the tension. Thanks for your attention. IronDuke 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "K"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "L"s through "O"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)