User talk:Adambro/Archive 2

Censorship
I added some background on Wikiversity talk:Censorship in response to your request for clarity on my talk page. I'm curious as to why you're interested in that particular page and not others such as Consensus. --CQ 14:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

image license info
FYI:  --mikeu talk 12:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't spotted that, I was just working on trying to reduce the number of uncategorised files. I'm not sure whether it would be appropriate to copy that information to the relevant files or leave that for the uploader to do. Adambro 13:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I have a bot maintaining User:Mu301Bot/Candidates_for_speedy_deletion and User:Mu301Bot/Contested candidates for deletion which allows me to watchlist when pages are added or removed from those categories. I also tagged all of the CC-NC licensed files. There are a lot, and the uploader has not been very responsive. --mikeu talk 13:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No license for image
Hi,

I recently uploaded a PDF image that I am using for a reference. You sent me a message that said the image would be removed if I didn't provide copyright information. The image is my own work and I don't have any issues with anyone else looking at it or using it. I think I added the necessary permissions to teh file but since this is the first time I have done this I am not sure. Please take a look at the page an let me know if I have satisfied the Wiki requirements for posting an image. The file name was Graph1.pdf.

Thanks, Joe Gaddone 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

civility stuff
Hiya. Not to in any way imply that you're the "bad dog in the fight", but comments like "I'm not going to waste my time trying to satisfy your appetite..." (on RFD) don't really help to raise the level of discourse.

If you think it's a waste of time responding to him, it's probably better to just not respond. --SB_Johnny talk 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to beyond what I have said and I hope that it now clear to him. Adambro 19:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to be the only active sysop at the moment...
I'd like to give you a heads up about. I've tagged all his created pages for speedy deletion; this user's usual behavior is to spam a wiki with a bunch of unrelated pages, which is what he's done here. U7a will show some of his blocked accounts (though the toolserver is a little wonky), but I can verify that he's blocked on en.wikiquote, en.wiki, en.wiktionary, and ru.wiki. His edits here are the same as his edits on enwiki and en.wikiquote (the latter is where I first ran into him, as I blocked him there after noticing his patterns and verifying his deleted contributions on enwiki).

So, anyway, it's Wikiversity's problem to deal with now. ;) EVula // talk // 19:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Adambro, why you delete my information about high techenologies?? Alexander Kalinins Lazars son 20:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please give me some time to appropriately review your contributions. Adambro 20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring, Adambro. i just put an information about the new technologies, i dont advertise any name or any company. let a reader to know what is under developing now:)
 * If you note on User:U7a's userpage, there's a section about the "Wifi universal card". This is a topic that has been deleted from both Wikiquote and Wikipedia. The content of both deleted pages is identical to what he has on his user page. As to not advertising any name or company, he's advertising (in a generic sense) products that he's developing. The enwiki talk page for "Wifi card" was "please leave this article, you cant find it anywhere else. its a new innovation:)", while he's also the author of the deleted enwiki page Alexander Kalinins Lazars son which was very spammish ("... could be interested in partnership with a group of developers"), and the talk page was " is a little biographie about me to explain to a reader what iam always working on technological ideas even if i dont say anything." Also created was Management on demand, which started off with "Electronic price labels - found by Alexander Kalinin Lazars son in 2004 year."


 * The user is here for self-promotion, not for creating freely available learning resources (or creating an encyclopedia in English or Russian, or for collecting quotes, or for creating a dictionary...). EVula // talk // 22:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your assistance with this. It took a little bit of time for me to understand the situation. Normally people just post a load of links when they are trying to promote something. As you've explained, it is clear having looked at all these pages and understanding the context, that they don't seem to be genuine attempts to make educational resources. As such, I've deleted the pages as being beyond the scope of the project. Adambro 10:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Uncategorized
Tx 4 all your work on tidying/organising this, much appreciated. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Adambro 14:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to tabbed portal template
Hi Adambro,

You may have noticed I have changed the following back to how they were previously:


 * Template:Make_a_portal/Tab1
 * Template:Make_a_portal/Tab2
 * Template:Make_a_portal/Tab3

Problem: the links on the tabs on Portal:FLOSS4Science stopped working.

Is there a way the collection of templates could be adjusted to serve both of our needs?

For example, a clearer way to add tabs without affecting other portals?

Thanks - K 15:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm not really familiar with these templates. My only involvement was to revert some vandalism that recently occurred. The widths seem to have been changed by Duydude. I get the impression from a quick look at these templates that they could probably be improved to enable them to be used more widely in different situations but I suspect it would take a reasonable length of time to achieve. Adambro 15:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Appropedia assistance
Hey Cormaggio, I was wondering whether you are interested in joining Appropedia; we currently need someone with experience in the wiki-software; see http://www.appropedia.org/User_talk:Chriswaterguy#Members More precisely, we need to add some extensions/semantic updates to automate a few things (ie member listing, ...). Let me/us know if you're intrested or if you know someone that might be intrested. KVDP 10:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Trout of Doubt block
Hi Adambro, I'm wondering about this: - that maybe thinking about this should be discussed first? The account has been inactive for some time and was openly an account of User:JWSchmidt, an editor in good standing. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there wasn't any particular reason why I blocked this account now, it was just because I rediscovered it today and that prompted me to think about it. The account was only acknowledged to belong to JWSchmidt after he'd misused it by trying to mislead others into thinking it was unrelated and the username itself was an attack of sorts on User:Salmon of Doubt. There are many legitimate reasons why you may want to have an alternate account but it is generally accepted that such accounts should be declared and obviously not used for disruptive purposes. Once you use such an account for disruptive purposes then you've lost any right to the alternate account. History has shown that leaving a user with large number of accounts can potentially have a negative impact on the project and so, considering the low likelihood that this account would ever be used for constructive purposes, a block of the alternate account that has been misused seems fairly reasonable. Nevertheless, if you feel it would be appropriate to unblock this account then please go ahead, I don't wish for this issue to escalate any further. Adambro 23:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of this. I'm just concerned that we might potentially end up with more difficulty if we block non-vandal accounts without discussion - my sense, especially at the moment, is that the WV community wants to see more discussion about custodian/bureaucrat-level actions which might be controversial. So, I've unblocked the account, but am open to further discussion. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "he'd misused it" <-- I admit that it was an unconventional learning project, but there was no "misuse". "an attack of sorts" <-- I suggest a new learning project. Adambro can define Wikipedia terms like "troll" and "attack page" and "attack of sorts" in language that Wikiversity participants can understand. The "Salmon of Doubt" was an interesting wiki phenomenon, an invader from Wikipedia who vastly disrupted Wikiversity, a phenomenon that was worthy of careful study and analysis. It is interesting that Wikipedians interpret study of Wikipedia and Wikipedians as constituting "attack" on Wikipedia. That knee-jerk response to scrutiny speaks volumes. "disruptive purposes" <-- another example of Wikipedia double-speak that we can add to the new learning project. I suggest a definition... "disruptive purposes... anything that explores the unusual antics and actions of a Wikipedian". "seems fairly reasonable" <-- blocking an account that has only been used for a learning project seems to indicate that someone has far too much free time on their hands. --JWSchmidt 00:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions JWSchmidt. Adambro 08:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlicensed images
Thanks for all your work tidying up unlicensed images. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully the problem will be easier to manage if we now try to keep the backlog small. Adambro 08:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish that people were either less eager to delete images (lots of people who use wikiversity are not online or onwiki all the time, and giving them only 7 days to respond may be no better than not asking them at all), or that there were a separate project to follow up with people over time and try to get them to come back and license/classify/confirm-as-their-own-work images that have already been deleted.  For example, the file history of [[File:Composite Tapazoidal rule.png]] suggests that they uploader was creating that graph him/herself, since the second revision adds axis labels to the first rev.  Without active followup it's unlikely that that person will ever come back to clarify the image license, so the time to capture good license information was at the point of upload (or via a followup project).   –SJ + > 00:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable about the hundreds of files you deleted a few weeks ago. Some of them seem to be useful if not important files for projects or courses on Wikiversity, and some were clearly uploaded by their authors. See for instance the edit history for File:Uploading Files to Wikiversity.pdf (which I implore you to undelete), where the uploader indicates it is his/her own work. Where are the current license policy and its implementation being discussed? –SJ + > 01:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There will be a few recent examples but in most casesthe files in question have been uploaded significantly longer ago than seven days, more like years ago, and many of the uploaders have been informed. I don't doubt that many of the files would be useful and/or there to be suggestions that the uploader is the creator. The problem is not just identifying the creator though, but also what free licence the work is available under. Wikiversity, like all the other WMF projects, isn't just meant to host educational resources, it is specifically intended for resources which are freely licensed. It is one of the most fundamental aspects of the scope of all WMF projects. That means that unclear copyright is a big problem because readers and others who want to reuse our content should be able to be reasonably sure that content we host is available for reuse. As the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy explains, the mission of the WMF projects is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license" and all projects "are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works'".
 * In the case of your example, File:Uploading Files to Wikiversity.pdf, it was uploaded on 30 March 2007 and highlighted as having problems on 12 February 2008 when the uploader was notified. The message explained that a licence was needed in addition to the source. By 21 March 2010, no progress had been made, in fact the uploader hadn't contributed since 20 April 2007, and so the image was deleted due to the lack of licensing information. I think at that point all that could reasonably be done had been done and so I'm not inclined to undelete the file. Adambro 07:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Theories of gravitation
Please, help with Template:Theories of gravitation, if you can. It is not in a good form. May be you know who can?90.151.220.49 09:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it. Adambro 10:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. 90.151.220.49 10:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture for: Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter
As I see in the article may be a picture: File:Raëlian cosmology.jpg.

Can anyone to add the picture for Wikiversity, taking it from Wikipedia, where GNU Free Documentation License is for the File ? 188.19.159.170 12:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. The image should appear on that page now although it may need a hard refresh. I've transferred the image from Wikipedia to Commons which makes it available for use in all the Wikimedia Foundation projects. Adambro 12:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems the article now look more interesting.

188.19.159.170 12:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

disclaimer
"Please don't use pages like this to effectively protest about Jimbo's actions". <-- My edit was not a protest. Nobody should participate at Wikiversity without first reading this disclaimer. --JWSchmidt 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to call it what you like, just don't reinstate the content. Adambro 14:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate content for that page. <-- If you have ideas for improving the page, use this link. --JWSchmidt 14:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should practice what you preach and start a discussion there before making changes which are likely to be controversial. Adambro 14:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While I do not object to your keeping the wikiversity disclaimer as is, remember not to confuse the edit button with the block button. If there is Custodian 101 then it should tell us that the former is to be encouraged and latter restrained; moreover, it is simply a bad idea that a party involved in edit-warring should be doing the blocking as well. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 15:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * JWSchmidt is welcome to his opinion on the recent incident involving Jimbo but he should be well aware of the appropriate venues to express it. Changing pages such as the disclaimer to effectively protest about Jimbo's intervention is completely inappropriate and we should be encouraging users to participate in constructive discussions about these issues. That is why I acted here to nip this in the bud. I have no concerns about blocking someone who is disrupting the project where I've also been involved in reverting those disruptive edits. Adambro 16:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your bad-faith assumptions and false claims about my motivations are truly offensive. I provided important information to Wikiversity participants about existing conditions for editors at this wiki. I was not making a protest, I was providing information on a page where it should be provided. You violated policy by treating my edit as vandalism. You imposed a bad block. You are disrupting Wikiversity by preventing important information from being added to the disclaimer. It is an abuse of sysop power to settle disagreements over content by deleting pages out of process and imposing bad blocks. An honest Wikiversity custodian provides warnings before imposing a block. --JWSchmidt 22:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

On deletion
Hi Adambro,

After skimming the past thousand+ log entries, I wrote up some thoughts on deletion at the Colloquium. I think the image deletion process in general needs to be reconsidered; I don't mean to focus on your recent work, but that just happened to be almost all of the deletions in the past month. A spot check suggests that many of those deletions were uploaded by their creators. Do you think there's some way to bulk-undelete and work through a more careful inspection/move-to-commons/deletion process? For instance: making sure all editors have been notified; trying to email those who have email addresses; leaving discussion open for a month; reviewing these publicly in batches of 50 to see if anyone disagrees and points out reasons to keep.

I don't see any reason to rush to delete those images, and I know how discouraging it is to come back to a project after being away for some months to find one's work deleted with only an impersonal template as explanation. Among other things, at least 1/5 of those images seem to be related to homework assignments that students from various classes uploaded; it would be good to eat least get in touch with the teachers running those courses before deleting all of their students uploads.

–SJ + > 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for welcoming me to Wikiversity! Much appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

your violations of policy
About your request, what do you mean? By the way, stop using "rollback" in violation of policy. --JWSchmidt 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * attacks on Jimbo <-- Attacks? Please list these attacks or retract your charge. --JWSchmidt 17:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "What I consider to be a silly attack is what was been added to Wikiversity:Vandalism." <-- There was no attack. Please directly quote what you think was an attack and explain why you are calling it an attack. This is not Wikipedia; this is not a place where abusive sysops can make false claims about other editors without consequences. --JWSchmidt 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're not happy with the "attack" description, how about "petty juvenile nonsense" as an alternative? Whatever we call it though it is still inappropriate. Adambro 17:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view it is inappropriate for abusive sysops to treat non-vandalism edits as if they were vandalism. Such policy violating sysops are a disgrace to the Wikimedia Foundation and particularly offensive in this community that is dedicated to thoughtful learning. The most active current learning project at Wikiversity is the study of what might constructively be called the "petty juvenile nonsense" involved in deleting a Wikiversity learning project that was explicitly designed to help improve Wikipedia, calling the creator of that project a "troll" and blocking him from editing and performing an emergency desysop on the Custodian who correctly undeleted the learning project. It is shameful for sysops to disrupt the efforts of Wikiversity participants who are studying and documenting the "petty juvenile nonsense" that has been inflicted on Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 18:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, you are welcome to your opinion. You do however seem to continue to ignore that the rollback policy does not state that the tool is only to be used for vandalism. Your suggestion I abused my admin rights by using rollback is flawed. Adambro 18:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your judgment about how to use the vandalism-fighting tools is flawed and your flawed judgment is shown in how you use "rollback", "delete" and "block". Every time you hammer on an honest Wikiversity participant with the vandalism-fighting tools you disrupt Wikiversity and subvert the mission of this community. --JWSchmidt 18:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have again ignored my suggestion that using rollback in this way isn't against policy. It is somewhat ironic that you are so quick to accuse others of ignoring policies yet seem happy to ignore what those policies actually say when it is convenient. Adambro 18:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No,I pointed out that you follow a flawed interpretation policy and do so in a way that disrupts the mission of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 18:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Adambro 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't remember there ever being a rollback "policy" that was passed here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See Wikiversity talk:Rollback. Adambro 18:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, that's unfortunate. I was busy during that period of time. Why would you guys bother with such a pointless policy as that and not, say, put up a deletion or blocking policy? Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, Ottava. Violation of Rollback policy is minor, since any editor can really do the same thing by popping back a version, the rollback tool is merely a little easier on the processor load, AFAIK. Here we have major issues over blocking and deletion of pages without consensus, etc., and suddenly there is worry over rollback? Something easily undone if it was wrong? This is, unfortunately, wikilawyering, focusing on a technical violation -- if that! -- when the substance is somewhere else. I've now warned JWSchmidt over disruptive editing, because I hope he will stop, and I fear for what will happen if he doesn't. At the same time, I'm preparing to work on the new Response Testing project, to study what's happened with response testing, an observational study, no lab! But nobody else but Privatemusings and myself have signed up, and because of the special circumstances, I'm not willing to proceed with the actual study until there is at least one more editor. So ... the substance is that there was a project which had some good features and some controversial ones, and it was deleted because of concern (rightly or wrongly) about the controversial aspects, and some editors were blocked over the affair. So here is an opportunity to actually purse the good part, the part that is appropriate for a University, and that, properly done, should not raise ethical questions, and where are the participants? Instead of joining the actual project, JW and another editor are out making a big flap over the "out of process" stuff. I heartily invite them to actually do some work that could lead to change, or, if not that, then, at least, stop stirring up the shit, which could attract more flies. --Abd 21:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Having said this, Adambro, it was improper to use Rollback here, and the reason is clear: because the edit you were reverting was not "clear vandalism," but rather was a more subtle kind of inappropriate edit, the policy requires that rollback not be done (because there should be an edit summary that explains why you are reverting), and suggests that an editor who doesn't get a satisfactory response to a complaint on this go to the custodian feedback page. I don't see any value in disruption over this, so I respectfully suggest that you acknowledge, explicitly, the error, and state an intention not to do that again. A couple of words could avoid a whole lot of wasted time. Thanks. --Abd 21:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't consider it inappropriate to have used rollback here and feel that we're getting sidetracked. The method by which I reverted these edits is pretty trivial in my view. As you've suggested yourself Abd, exactly the same effect could have been achieved by similar methods, such as clicking undo. Additionally, I don't consider my use of rollback here to have been outside of what is permitted by the policy. It says that rollback is for "quickly undoing edits which are blatantly unproductive such as vandalism". It doesn't say it is to be used exclusively for vandalism. In this case I considered, and still do, the changes I reverted to be blatantly unproductive. We should be more concerned that there are users who think it is appropriate to use polices/proposed policies to have another stab at Jimbo. Whether their dislike for Jimbo is justified or not, these pages are certainly not appropriate venues for them to express that. If we want to be treated like a serious project then we have to act like one and not tolerate such juvenile behaviour. Adambro 07:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The substance here is that you removed inappropriate content, and I very much expect that broader consideration would confirm that. The detail is that you used rollback, and you should acknowledge what is clearly a problem with that. The problem is the lack of an edit summary. I agree that the project should not tolerate "juvenile behavior," generally, though that is not the most diplomatic way to say it. (Should we ban juveniles from educational institutions?) However, those removals should have had edit summaries that explained clearly, if succinctly, why you were removing the content, even though you and I may consider the reason obvious. This is why you should have removed them with an ordinary undo or version restoration, so that you could add an edit summary. I do not know if the editors involved will be so foolish as to request review of this use, but you can head that off, easily, by acknowledging this relatively minor error. It is possible that, with a simple edit summary, some of this discussion could have been avoided. Is there a problem with not using rollback in a situation like what you fixed? Is there some reason that you could not state that, in the future, you will avoid using rollback this way? It appears that I parachuted into WV in the middle of a big flap, and I'm trying to help calm things down. Thanks for considering this. --Abd 15:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will only use rollback when I consider doing so is in line with the relevant policy, for "quickly undoing edits which are blatantly unproductive such as vandalism". This was such an instance. I felt, and still do, that the edit I reverted using rollback was blatantly unproductive. That JWSchmidt has suggested I've misused the rollback tool is hardly unsurprising since I assume he wouldn't have made the edit if he agreed with my assessment that it was "blatantly unproductive". I do suspect though that the vast majority of the community would agree with my assessment which is why I don't think it needed explaining in the edit summary. To write an edit summary in such a situation would be to allow myself to waste more time than necessary dealing with this situation. For the same reason, I don't feel I have anything more to say on this issue. I think I've made my position clear. Adambro 15:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunate, Adambro. Yes, you made your position clear. However, your position is based on the lede to rollback, depending on a "loophole" there which contradicts the rest of the policy page, which is emphatic that rollback is to be used only for vandalism. Your position is in direct contradiction to the overall policy, which explains quite well what I've attempted to explain here. I urge you to read the whole policy page, which is explicit and clear, and the only thing unclear is that phrase in the lede ("edits which are blatantly unproductive such as vandalism.") This is typical wikipolicy weasel, which is based simply on the fact that other situations can possibly exist where an edit summary would not be necessary and therefore it might be allowable to use rollback. If there is any possibility of objection, I'd say, rollback should not be used. As the matter stands, you have now openly rejected policy. I don't recommend that, but I'm a new user here and have no intention of taking this to one of the recommended pages for review. I expect that, if you respond to this, it will be brief. Your time as an administrator is valuable, and I'm trying to preserve that, by avoiding possible future need for you to defend what is not defensible. --Abd 15:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've become more familiar with the underlying situation now, and, while I still agree with the point I made (it would have been better to just use Undo instead of Rollback, and it would have been somewhat less provocative, less likely to trigger the wikilawyering that resulted, but .... this was actually an emergency situation, and your response reasonable, or even better than that, in context. Indeed, you did more than might have been necessary, not less, because the purpose of avoiding rollback is to require an edit summary when reverting a possibly good-faith edit, and you did, in fact, provide your reason, just on the user's Talk page, not with the edit summary. Substance was satisfied, fully. I commented on this situation in response to a question from the editor, at . The whole discussion is quite long, and I only put this much time into the matter because the editor is a long-term Wikiversitan, a casualty of old disruptions, and he could be valuable if returned to normal editorial -- and administrative -- function. I don't know if it's possible, it looks grim at this point, but it's not necessarily over yet. Thanks for all your work. --Abd 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User names at the Response testing/Newbie treatment project
It's okay with me that the user names are there, but given all the flap about this kind of study, I kept them from immediate visibility. It was done as much to show caution, to alleviate worries, as much as absolute necessity. Thanks for looking at the page and helping. I've found it fascinating to read these discussions and reports, but I'm not going to write about my reactions at this stage, I'll want to think about how to organize such a discussion. I'm thinking of doing interviews with participants. --Abd 14:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Transparency is the key. If we're going to link to pages relating to particular users then let's make that clear. Adambro 07:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

account block
これらのアカウントの無期限ブロックをお願いします. *Gogochiben、Kanjy Kanji--Kanji 09:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you make sure im a confirmed user...thanks