User talk:Richard D. LeCour/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Richard D. LeCour. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

MartinBot bug

Hi - thanks for reporting the bug - it was quite a serious one, whichn was very noticable, hence I was able to fix it last night, almost as soon as it was brought to my attention. Thanks, Mart inp23 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Verdict (yet, again)

You said: "Another suspected sockpuppet, User:O.C12. on the Brock Lesnar pages. There are days I wish I was an admin..."

It wasn't initially clear to me that this was a sock, especially as Verdict emailed me and specifically promised not to create any more sockpuppet accounts and not to edit until the end of March. However, this was just confirmed by checkuser. I guess I am a sucker for believing Verdict was anything other than a blatant liar. --Yamla 15:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Kurt Angle

It wasn't that I thought it was a bad edit, I've just noticed a precedent set on other pro wrestling articles where the full name is mentioned at the very beginning then just the last or first names are used throughout the rest of it. You can change it back if you like, doesn't bother me one way or the other. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Verdict vandal

You said: "As annoying as Verdict is, I think semi-protection might be more appropriate. Both sockpuppets used today were new, and would not have made it past the four-day requirement. Just my two cents."

Actually, the sockpuppets used today did make it past the semi-protection on Brock Lesnar. Verdict long ago figured out how to create abusive sockpuppets, let them sit for a few days, and then bring them in to play. --Yamla 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User 72.10.124.202

Link to User's Talk Page

this user has received a number of warnings about vandalism and being blocked, but has not been blocked to date, yet continues to vandalize articles. what is the procedure for blocking that user? Whateley23 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway

I noticed you changed to an opposition on my RfA, the only reason I'm posting here is because you apologized. It's nothing to apologize for, I really do want whatever is bets for the project and my idea of trading experience for recall/openness may not work. I appreciate the time you took to give the idea some good thought. Anynobody 02:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)