Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kbh3rd

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kbh3rd (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 26 December 2009 (japanese map symbols). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:36, 26 December 2009 by Kbh3rd (talk | contribs) (japanese map symbols)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

You can use this link to add comments to the bottom of the page. And please be kind.

St. Peter Sandstone

You moved St. Peter Sandstone to the uncapitalized version. However, geologic formations are always capitalized as a convention. Could you please move it back? Thanks! (If you reply, I'll be watching your talk page so the thread can stay together.) Awickert (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after fat-fingering it I managed to move it back. After making the original move I wondered if I'd done the right thing, looking at how other formation names are presented. I'd based the move on how it is referred to in the text of this article. I suppose it should be corrected there. --Kbh3talk 18:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
OK - thanks - I should do that - I'll start going through the geologic formations category and fix a bunch of the formations. The idea is like "Mississippi River" - it becomes a proper noun because something like "Sioux Quartzite" applies to a particular rock unit. Awickert (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Something I forgot to say - I looked at your userpage, and thanks for all the articles you've created and/or edited! It turns out that a lot of those were ones I read before I even started contributing here. Awickert (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

--Kbh3talk 05:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you help?

I note that you are both an Administrator and a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit.

Big Dipper, an article that I orginally wrote and continue to maintain, is constantly the subject of puerile vandalism, not misinformation, but nonsense insertions and obscene graffiti. The vandals are always non-registered. How do I go about getting the page semi-protected so that only registered members can edit it? Do you have sufficient influence/authority to do it yourself?

Thank you.

B00P (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I looked at the situation yesterday, and unfortunately it looks like Big Dipper does not receive more vandalism that many articles. I say "unfortunately", because that means that many articles receive regular vandalism of the sort you cite. The pueri are ubiquitous. After watching and reverting vandalism for a while it is often obvious that certain spates are from schools. With the right watchlist you can almost follow the syllabus by seeing when particular articles are defaced.
An abusive IP address that can be identified with a school can be blocked a bit more quickly than otherwise, and I put a temporary block on one address that vandalized Big Dipper multiple times in a short period. School blocks can quickly grow to a full term if the abuse continues. I'll add Big Dipper too my watch list, which I usually check at least once a day. But though the damage is recurring, it doesn't seem to me to require protection at this point. If you find another admin who thinks otherwise, I won't dispute him. If I change my view after watching it for a while I'll react appropriately.
The Big Dipper article looks good, and I understand your proprietary interest in it. (I'm an astronomy merit badge counselor, after all.) It can become disheartening to see too much vandalism, and it's easy to feel the cause is hopeless after reverting case after case after case of vandalism. For myself the cure occasionally is to stop dwelling on it too much and do something more creative. That's partly why I was a little slow to respond here — I've been on a map-making spree lately, and was deep into creating this one yesterday when I received your message. Illegitimi non carborundum --Kbh3talk 05:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I asked for some help in keeping Misplaced Pages working properly, and I'm being told to "stop dwelling on it." Since my last edit of the article there have been, as of this moment, fourteen mindless vandalisms, eight reverts, and exactly one useful edit. All the vandalism is done by non-registered jerks. While any article is subject to vandalism, of the ones I am involved with, this one attracts the most. I want legitimte additions; I don't want the barbarians fouling things up for the rest of us.

You are quite right about it becoming "disheartening to see too much vandalism." Is it too much of an effort for you to restrict editing of this one article to registered editors? I'm sorry, but I feel as I'm being brushed off. Being told that other articles are also attacked in no way solves the problem. If you were robbed, would having the police tell you that lots of people are robbed, so don't worry about, satisfy you? I suppose I can always stop wasting my time writing and copyediting for Misplaced Pages.

I urge you to reconsider, and semi-protect this page. Thank you. B00P (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The proper place to ask is at WP:RFP, a.k.a. Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. The subject can be discussed further, if needs be, in that forum, making it superior to a request on one single admin's talk page. --Kbh3talk 02:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, will do. You might be interested in taking a look at the activities of Kingsupaspence.
B00P (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent reversion on Talk:Christopher Columbus

I'm sure I've done this by mistake also -- see . I've cleaned it up and blocked Gama brain (talk · contribs). dougweller (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually check recent revisions, too, along with the perp's recent edits, but obviously missed it this time. --Kbh3talk 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem, you clearly do a great job! There just isn't time, is there? One thing I wish more people would do is check the IP addresses, I keep finding IP's that have been vandalising forever and no one has noticed they are a school. But lack of time and automated tools... dougweller (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bidgee

Hi. Was this a mistake? –Juliancolton 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that was a mistake. I've removed the block and left my apologies on the unintended victim's talk page. I tried to, or meant to, block an anonymous user who was repeatedly vandalizing Lightning, and whose edit history consists soley of vandalism. Thanks for the notice. --Kbh3talk 01:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have gone to the anon user's page (where you left the message related to Bidgee's block) and applied the 48 hour block you were intending to make.--VS 02:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, no worries then. Just wanted to confirm. Cheers, –Juliancolton 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Kbh3rd - if you are about can you meet this request please--VS 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have dealt with the autoblock problem in your absence. Cheers.--VS 05:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not impressed

I'm sorry but you should be more careful! Sometimes I really wonder why I bother with this project since I've put a lot of time, effort in trying to improve the project whether it be reverting vandalism, adding content, citing content in unsourced article ect. What I can't get over is that you didn't double check, Juliancolton left a message (above and I like to thank them for doing so) 11 minutes after the block but it wasn't partly removed until 1 hour and 47 minutes later but after coming back home from TAFE I was wondering why I couldn't edit then looked up at the page I was trying to edit to see that I was blocked! It wasn't until 4:29pm (My time and 05:29 UTC) which is almost 6 hours blocked! I think to thank Steve for trying to get the autoblock to unblock me (which failed) but unsure if J.delanoy fixed it or it fixed itself. Now my block log is a complete mess which is a mess that I don't want. Tell you the truth I'm still fuming over this and it doesn't matter what anyone says as the damage has been done. Now I have to see if I request a rename of my account and have my edits moved to see if the block log move with it as well. Bidgee (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bidgee, people will see Steve's annotation. You want an example of how mistakes can happen? Look at my block log. These things are relatively common and not a big deal. Contrary to your opinion, most users would not judge you based on your block log. You do great work around here; don't let a harmless error get the best of you. Scarian 23:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
How can't you say that your block log is the same when you blocked yourself, It's not as I haven't blocked myself it has been other administrators. If I ever decide to request for Admin-ship it will make it harder since some people will just look at the block log without reading it's meaning and I've even had editors trying to user my block log in debates so how can you say it's no "big deal"? Bidgee (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You put a big addendum at the top of the RfA explaining to other users. If someone opposes per your block log then they're going to look awfully stupid. Also, 'crats take that sort of thing into consideration. Scarian 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to but a addendum in a RfA because of the actions which were done by other administrators! I've seen some past RfA's were the block log of a editor (similar to my block log) only to have it voted against just because they had blocks in the block log! So who's to say that my block log will not be used against me? No one can because it can't be guaranteed that no one will use it for there own benefit! I've also asked you how can you say that my block log is no "big deal" but you haven't answered my question (Not the only question you haven't answered). Also if I make a mistake when editing (whether it be editing, creating or moving an article or even reverting vandalism which also re-adds a past vandalised page )? I'm not going to lie but there are trigger happy Admins (Not many but there is some) here which will block as soon as they see that edit and see that user already has a blog log (without reading any of the reasons) and blocks that edit. So if you call my blog log "no big deal" then you're very wrong as it is a big deal. Bidgee (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Bidgee - you are a great editor. If you ever decide to run for Admin I'd be more than happy to nominate you and then spend the first 100+ words on explaining that the blocks are incorrect. I'm certain that Pat would do so also. If others didn't see that as a fact then that would be their and Misplaced Pages's loss. That said, I am a little disappointed in Kbh3rd not having a bit more to say about this, I mean I've seen the first apology but I think another one for the continued autoblock of your IP (unless I have missed it somewhere and then my apologies) should have come quickly. Everyone makes mistakes - I have done this once myself to a good editor and was mortified - and couldn't say sorry enough. Oh and I should answer the question that you ask above Bidgee - it was I who managed to turn your autoblock off. Stay sane my friend.--VS 13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Bidgeei, you have reason to be miffed, but I extended a simple, straightforward, sincere and honest apology and can offer no more. I am careful about such things, and you can be sure this episode will only enforce that. I did not add explanations and excuses when I apologized as those would, to me, seem to detract from it -- I wanted to apologize, not to impress. But you and VS seem to demand more...
As for no action for close to two hours after the block was initated, I make no apologies for sitting down to dinner with my family. My wife frowns upon laptops at the table. As soon as I saw the message from Juliancolton I lifted the block against your user id and apologized on your talk page.
Besides eating dinner a least once a day, I actually have a real life outside of Misplaced Pages. This is my first chance to revisit this. There is also a matter of timezones to consider. Criticism by VS concerning timeliness is out of line.
Concerning the autoblock, from Misplaced Pages:Autoblock:
It is important for users to understand that administrators do not set autoblocks; once they have blocked a user with autoblocking enabled, autoblocks are set by the MediaWiki software. Autoblocks do not appear in administrators' block logs, and the administrators are not notified of them. This is a necessary consequence of Misplaced Pages's privacy policy, to keep logged-in users' IP addresses private. So while the IP address responsible for each edit is recorded by the MediaWiki software, this cannot be accessed, even by administrators and even when the user is blocked.
Upon realizing the error of the block against your user id I immediately removed the block I had placed and did not realize that all that was going on in the background. It seems to me that there is room for improvement in the wiki software -- it would reasonable that when a user id block is lifted any associated autoblocks should be removed automatically. I didn't apply the autoblock. I was not notified that it was placed, and I was not notified that it remained when I removed the original block. I rarely if ever apply a temporary block against a registered user, so I did not anticipate the looming difficulties. The apparent trouble the other admins had in getting it fully lifted argue further for a more streamlined process.
There's more I could add, but I've already written more than I thought necessary. I'm sorry for the trouble. I am careful with these functions and can only increase that care due to this episode. The other option is to ignore it all and let the vandals have their way. Then there would be no reason for doing the good stuff.
This is the last that I have to say on the matter. --Kbh3talk 14:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Rockwoods.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rockwoods.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

uncomformity image size

lot of the folks coming to wiki are looking for information and beyond that won't ever set their image size preferences so I tweaked the thumb to 200px, which also gives it a nice layout conformity with the other images on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozarkhighlands (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding which, Misplaced Pages:IMGSIZE#Displayed_image_size still stands. By giving a specific pixel size you override individuals who do set their preferences, and prevent the wiki software (present or future) from properly sizing it based on anonymous users' screen size. This is bad practice because we're all using different pixel resolutions on differently sized displays. That 200px exactly looks right on your display has little bearing on how others experience Misplaced Pages.
I understand and generally agree with the reasoning behind the larger images at the top of the article. But this is in relation to an ordinary thumbnail deep in the body of the article. If it requires a specific pixel size, then I don't see how Misplaced Pages:IMGSIZE#Displayed_image_size would ever have any bearing anywhere in Misplaced Pages.
To quote the Manual of Style:
Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include:
  • Images with ave not give aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image
  • Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts
  • Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article
  • Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image
  • Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels
None of those conditions seem to fit this rather run-of-the-mill case. FWIW, I visited a site recently that was obviously created many years ago. The images where way too small for modern displays. Is someone supposed to go back and adjust the |200px| in a gazillion thumbnails on Misplaced Pages in 5 or 10 years from now? I prefer to let the software do its job. --Kbh3talk 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

when setting the px I looked at the page all the way down to 800x600 screen resolution about the lowest res used and these days by almost nobody. the 200px seemed fine at that end of the scale and more appropriate with each step to higher res from that baseline. Ozarkhighlands (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several things you have not considered. Number of pixels is only one factor. The size of those pixels and the corresponding size of the screen will vary widely. Consider:
  • PDAs
  • Cellphones
  • Netbooks, OLPC
  • Print media, which is happening now.
  • Other things that neither of us have thought of and that might not even exist now on which it will work much better if the resolution of ordinary thumbnails is not set in stone to some dimension that looks good to one person now using one sort of technology.
I see no reason why official Misplaced Pages policy, which has been established with those contingencies and more in mind, does not apply here. None of the exceptions to the rule that I quoted above are relevent in this situation. In a way we're making mountains out of molehills, but in certain contexts these things matter. --Kbh3talk 23:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting started on a new bridge

Here it is, as requested, Boss!

side that's going to face the fingerboard
side that's going to face the tailpiece

Quite a while ago you mentioned that it would be neat to see pix of a bridge carved from a blank also shown, and here is the blank I propose to use for the next setup in the queue. I'm hoping that showing you this will motivate me to take further photos for the commons. Be well, and thanks for all that you do here, __Just plain Bill (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Three years and three months or so qualifies a quite a while ago! Still, it would be good to see and quite educational, IMHO. --Kbh3talk 23:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-confessed sockpuppet

Following your block of Ohjaypea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you may be interested in the oh-so-subtle name and edits of Ohjaypea1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm an admin on an monobook-enforced wikibreak from my account, otherwise I'd block him myself! Regards, 94.196.138.129 (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it. THanks. --Kbh3talk 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Bencherlite (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, Kbh3rd- I want to thank you for reverting this. I am not sure if it's vandalism, but it sure is weird! Maybe they like the puppies? Thanks!! Basket of Puppies 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

nice edit summary

lol :) --Waldir 22:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally, my talent is recognized! ;0) --Kbh3talk 22:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: New Madrid Seismic Zone

I history merged the old edits from New Madrid Fault Zone to New Madrid Seismic Zone, so all the content edits are in the latter location. I use this method of history merging, which is usually kinder on the servers, but generates more log actions than the normal method. I'm going through this list of candidates for history merging. Graham87 15:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


dyslexia orthography

single or one are the best options which was the meaning in the context.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is quite a sentence that probably could be improved further, beyond my meager attempt to make it easier to parse. On first glance "sole" does seem to fit the phrase better, but once the entirety of the sentence is successfully digested, "one" or "single" are plainly more appropriate. I believe that "single" is the more apt phrasing, a point on which it appears that we agree. --Kbh3talk 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
the real problem for me is that unfortunately I have a communication disability, and these types of long sentences make up most of my written communications. I have problems trying to make these types of senstences shorter, and more comprehensable for others. This may sound strange, but due to the nature of my disability Auditory Processing Disorder I can make sense of whole range of written text, which may not always make sense to others, so for instance i can read what msot dyslexics write even with no corrections. So I do need to the support of others to help when it comes to making texts nore accessable to others. I hope you understand dolfrog (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Missouri barnstar

The Missouri Barnstar of Merit
For you work on Missouri State Parks, Geology, and Historic Sites. Thanks you Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Bradley

Regarding your recent edits to Bill Bradley, couldn't we just use a {{refimprove|section}} template in the appropriate sections? Your requests for cites may very well be appropriate, but those sections are now very difficult to read with all the tags.  Frank  |  talk  15:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The right answer is to replace those tags with numbered tags generated by proper footnotes. Each and everyone of those can be and should be verifiable and supported by citation. I'd guess you agree with me on that point.
I agree with you that it breaks up the article. I considered a banner template at the top of the article, but there are already a fair number of citations for other parts of the article, and I consider (incorrectly?) that template appropriate for articles devoid of citations. A flag on each of the lacking sections is a possibility, and one I wouldn't necessarily oppose if you care to do it.
The advantage of flagging individual statements or paragraphs is that it, perhaps, helps educate editors about just what should be cited, especially in BLP articles where the standards are by necessity much higher. Any statement of intent or position attributed to a person needs to be backed up -- I assume that mind reading is not a reliable source. No analysis should be presented without being presented as analysis and attributed to someone, not presented as fact. Superlatives and simliar claims demand citation in any article, as do most statements with specific numbers and statistics; those can't be pulled out of the air.
--Kbh3talk 17:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm with you as to needing citations; I'm a stickler myself for BLP. I just think the refimprove, with the "section" parameter and placed at the top of the section(s) in question, does the job. (If you add the parameter, it reads slightly differently so as not to give the impression that the article has no citations, which would clearly be incorrect.) As for educating editors, well...we all try. :-) I think if we can flag individual edits and/or get people involved on the talk page, that does more.
Thanks for your response. We agree on the problem; I'm just talking about the response, and my main response to this will be the intended one: to find sources for the article, so...no worries.  Frank  |  talk  17:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Followup

Not that I claimed the article was pristine, but I thought you'd be interested in what I'm finding so far (in case you're not watching the page). I am a little disappointed at what I've found. The "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" carried mention of what appears to be a non-existent Senate commission for a few days. Interestingly, other info by the same editor does appear to check out, so there may be some grain of reality but I just haven't found the right sources.

Perhaps more significantly, I can't find anything reliable to support any change in his marital status either (although one article did list "former wife of former Senator" but I think it was a typo - one extra "former", and the original "cite" for that claim is a dead link, doesn't appear on archive.org, and a search of the site doesn't come up with anything). That gem was in there for about ten months. Again - as I'm sure you know, "truth" isn't the issue, but if it can't be cited, that's a problem, and I can't find source to cite.

Still digging up cites for other stuff.  Frank  |  talk  17:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And another

I think Bill Bradley has come a long way since you tagged it. Would appreciate your input. I wish others had contributed but I think it is much more stable and sourced now. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I'm very impressed with all the work you put into that article, and it is much, much better for it. I added a few references in the college section. I think the statement at the end where Phil Jackson is pinned as a "vocal supporter" who often wore a Bradley campaign button should be cited as well, as a Jackson-BLP matter. Thanks! --Kbh3talk 03:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks also for your edits. They improved it as well, and I think there's still some room for more. I'm off to find a Jackson reference; you're right about that one as well.  Frank  |  talk  11:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Still more

Did you see this? Interested in helping move it further?  Frank  |  talk  03:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

hey you say i am trying to place a ad

whats the problem with my add to the page.. Mud truck tv is no diffrent than what i said about my company —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.105.41 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

pictures

I received permission from these patients to use these images. Do not however have formal documentation. The lady with Langer-Giedion syndrome was very happy to have this published and actually offered to have her sister come in for photos aswell. Of further note it is my opinion that hiding the eyes really detracts from an image. Also the one of the gentleman with jaundice is being published in a 2010 Emergency medicine textbook with credit to Misplaced Pages.

Also does Misplaced Pages have a formal policy? I could get people to sign something?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I have a bunch more yet to upload just have not yet found the time.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NCIS

Something is wrong with the table of the main cast, so it now has the rest of the page in the format. How do you end the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.83.58 (talk • contribs)

The problem seems to be that there is a web citation template started but never closed: "{{cite web|..." I'm looking at the page and its edit history to see if I can figure out the way it's supposed to be. --Kbh3talk 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked IP: 121.73.20.214

Hi Kbh3rd! I notice that you put a one-year {{schoolblock}} on IP: 121.73.20.214. However, you didn’t put any of those notices that indicate that the account has been blocked and that if people at that IP address want to edit, they need to register. (You’ll notice that’s why I later added a warning template after the block went on, because I didn’t know that the IP address had been blocked. :) ). Anyway, I was going to add a “you’ve been blocked template” and one of those {{schoolblock}} templates, when I realized that it has to be done by the blocking admin. Would you mind adding them so other editors won’t place any more warnings and would-be editors at that IP address will know that they have to register? Thanks! — Spike (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! I started in trying to nail down exactly where that IP is, got distracted, then forgot to put up the notice. Things got a little out of order I guess. D*mn Telstra's whois & rDNS are absolutely worthless for trying to id an ip. Thanks for the heads-up. --Kbh3talk 05:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a better way? Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it’s a great compromise. There is persistent vandalism from that IP address. With a schoolblock, anyone can edit so long as they register, which is still anonymous since no personal information is required. — Spike (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have not been able to tag the exact institution that this IP is associated with, but I'll bet doughnuts to dollars that it's a school. It is obvious to anyone who has spent any time dealing with this sort of schoolboy vandalism that this is a group of immature kids amusing themselves in irresponsible ways while incarcerated in some sort of institution that specializes in torturing young souls by trying to give them an education. I looked at every edit from that IP. Out of 47 edits over the past year there was one single positive contribution, 45 vandalous edits, and one self-revert. Most edits involve some sort of overt sexual content for which you or I could be arrested were we ever to initiate such a conversation with the self-same little darlings. --Kbh3talk 14:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Frustrating that Whois doesn't work well sometimes. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:208.40.129.229

This oft-blocked account vandalized several more pages over the past few days. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been dealt with by Mr. Spinningspark. I appreciate you taking the time and making the effort to get the problem taken care of. The best way to get issues like that in front of someone who can deal with it promptly is to post to the appropriate page under Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, such as Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. That way someone who is currently on-line should see it. Thanks.

Hi i love yuor username —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.124.249 (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Taum Sauk 2005-12-15 053 USGS-DHoffman-DSCN5128.jpg

File:Taum Sauk 2005-12-15 053 USGS-DHoffman-DSCN5128.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Taum Sauk 2005-12-15 053 USGS-DHoffman-DSCN5128.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Taum Sauk 2005-12-15 041 USGS-DHoffman-DSCN5116.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Taum Sauk 2005-12-15 041 USGS-DHoffman-DSCN5116.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Taum Sauk flow path-USGS-DSC 0081.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Taum Sauk flow path-USGS-DSC 0081.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Taum Sauk 2005-12-15 110 USGS-DHoffman-DSCN5185.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Taum Sauk 2005-12-15 110 USGS-DHoffman-DSCN5185.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Taum Sauk reservoir-FERC 12 22 05 02.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Taum Sauk reservoir-FERC 12 22 05 02.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

98.220.41.194

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I agree with the block, but I was a bit puzzled by the edit summary. It appeared to indicate that removing warnings from one's own talk page was vandalism. It was my understanding that removing warnings was indication that one had read the warnings. Of course, after the user has been blocked, then restoring the warnings is understandable to provide context for the block. If you could point me to the WP policy that states that one cannot remove warnings from one's own talk page, I would be happy to be corrected on this issue. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 20:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Update, here is the policy: WP:BLANKING. So, I am assuming it was just my misunderstanding on the edit summary issued? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 20:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

SVG Maps

Please note my comments on the following page :

Regards Yug (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Taum Sauk Photo

I took this photo along with a few others while flying between Branson and Farmington last Sunday. I was showing a friend how easy it was to edit Misplaced Pages. About all I took was of a few lakes and some random shots of the woods.
As for Misplaced Pages Commons, I am learning this in bits and pieces. My first few attempts at edits brought responses that almost ran me out, and I haven't done much since then. So far, all of the photos that I have uploaded have been for my own use in articles that I write or otherwise edit. I will eventually figure out commons and move everything there. KTrimble (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I was out for a drive that afternoon and remarked that it would be a beautiful day for flying. Haven't done any of that since I've been out of school where I had several friends who were pilots. Never did it myself. --Kbh3talk 04:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kbh3rd. You have new messages at Mononomic's talk page.
Message added 04:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hope this gives you some insight on my process. Cheers! Mononomic (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome of 174.16.205.151

Hi - I noticed your welcome message at user talk:174.16.205.151. Very nicely worded! I think we in general do a very bad job with new editors, losing sight of both WP:AGF and WP:BITE, and in the process become effectively the opposite of welcoming. It's heartening to see someone actually reach out to a new user and try to help them, particularly a grizzled old admin. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ktrimble's remark above left me feeling a little guilty of how I sometimes deal with misguided efforts. You spend so much time battling the intentionally malicious that it can affect how you deal with newcomer's well-intentioned gaffes. There aren't templates for all situations, though, and sometimes you have to talk (write) person-to-person. --Kbh3talk 18:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

78.149.49.119

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:78.149.49.119

I made an account on here on the off-chance I wanted to edit something.

But, with inaction comes me being logged out.

So when I visit the site after a long absence, I received that message on the talk page of that IP address, apparently mine.

Now, I did not make that edit. I am slightly worried that someone is using my IP apart from myself.

Is there a way you can block edits from my IP unless I am signed in?

Thank you for your time,

Fat Man Spoon (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see how that might seem something to be alarmed about, but it probably is nothing of concern. That IP address is owned by an ISP that in all likelihood dynamically assigns addresses to its customers. If your computer is not connected to the ISP 24x7, then it is very possible to get a different address when you do connect. And it is equally possible for the address to have previously been used by someone else for some wiki-mischief. It is technically possible to block anonymous use of that one IP, but there are no grounds to do so based on either Misplaced Pages policy or the chance that it would actually achieve what you want -- the next time you connect you could get still another IP termporarily assigned to your equipment.
See DHCP for details of how that works, if you're not familiar with it. There may be more details there than you want if you're not a network geek. The upshot is that IP addresses can be dynamically assigned on demand from a pool of addresses. When an address is assigned to a particular piece of networking hardware, it comes with a "lease" of a given duration. If the equipement does not renew the lease before it expires, as would be the case after a lengthy disconnection, the address is released to the pool. Your equipment may or may not receive that address from the pool upon next connection, and someone else may be assigned it in the interim. What a "lengthy duration" is cannot be known here -- it's a configuration option entirely up to the discretion of the ISP.
It is good that you have an account. If this or any other address from the pool you are assigned from is used for too much abuse in too short of a time period, it could be temporarily blocked. Such blocks usually only affect users who are not logged in, and you shouldn't be affected. You can just ignore those sorts of warning messages on the IP's talk page. The cause of your concern is the belief that the IP address is yours, but that is not really the case. Your reputation, earned while editing under your logged-in account, will not suffer in the least from these anonymous vandals even if your IP addresses are intermixed over time.
Let me know if I've left anything unanswered. My sons will warn you, though, that once I get started on a topic that I know something about, there's no stopping me. ;-) --Kbh3talk 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's a relief. Thanks for the thorough response. Oh, and I know how Wikitext works, being an major contributor on the Fallout Wikia. Fat Man Spoon (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mississippi River Photo

Dear Kbh3rd,

I'm sure the New Orelans photo does nicely:)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

64.134.220.37 (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Japanese map symbols ‎

You appear to believe that my edit of the Japanese Map Symbols was a test, well you are gravely mistaken my dear friend. I am trying to reveal the truth ! The Third Reich is still alive and people need to be aware that it is still a threat. Don't try to stop me from showing everyone what is really going on here. I know Misplaced Pages is working for the Nazi's. I'm watching you buster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.201.14 (talk • contribs)

Ist das eines Ihrer amerikanisches Witze? --Kbh3talk 06:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)