User talk:Wiki alf

Thanks for visiting my talk page. If you post here, I will reply here so the conversations don't get dis-jointed. If I have posted to your talk page, feel free to post your replies there...I'll watch. At present there is no archive, I just remove out of date stuff and keep a deletion log. Please add your message at the bottom, or click here to start a new section. Thanks

Navigation Navigation
Main Home Admin Babel Awards Recommended Esperanza Tools Tools Sandbox one Sandbox two Welcome message Kate's edit counter Interiot's edit counter Sister project accounts Commons talk page Meta talk page Art by ALKIVAR™ HTML ALF ASCII ALF

Thanks!

Great thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page!--Konstable 10:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. --Alf ^melmac 10:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public computer

This is a public computer. The vandalism is being caused by different people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.9.70.2 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

OK thanks for the feedback, I'll note the page appropriately. --Alf ^melmac 19:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am Scottandrewhutchins, and I believe the only update I made from that IP that wasn't for a page that I have already contributed to was for graphic novel. I didn't do the Indian earthquake or the al Qaeda guy or Eminem or anything. Scottandrewhutchins 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Jesus College

Thanks for reverting my inadvertent deletion of half the Jesus College, Oxford article! I find that seems to happen every once in a while when I've made a minor edit near the top of a page. No idea why. On this occasion I'd been unexpectedly signed out too! --Ed hazell 10:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I saw that it was likely an "unexpected error" as what was started seemed fine. --Alf ^melmac 11:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton...

...for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Great day!! --Gurubrahma 14:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem --Alf ^melmac 15:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question about pictures

I hate to bother you, but I couldn't seem to find the answer to this question in any of the Wiki guideline sections, so I thought I'd ask here. When uploading or changing the topmost (and in many cases, only) display picture for a biographical article, (such as with Arnold Palmer) is it most appropriate to use the most RECENT picture of the person in question, or an older (sometimes MUCH older) picture that would be most recognizeable to the average viewer? Thank you in advance. --Sestet 04:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the person has changed to being less recgonisable when older I think it would be worthwhile including both pictures, particularly if the article is long enough for the images not to looked cramped. I don't believe I've ever found any guidlines on that particular one. Good question though.--Alf ^melmac 10:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blatant vandal

Feel like blocking someone?

Take a look at User talk:212.219.232.87 - they've had their test4 already, and I've just warned them too. -- (James McNally) (talkpage) 10:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such grown up edits from a county council machine! Their test4 was a few days ago, I've added a last warning for today and put the shared ip notice up on the talk page and will watch for any further edits from that ip, will block if today's messages aren't effective. I frequently find vandals don't see the first warning until after their second piece of vandalism, so I'll give a few inches of rope on them. --Alf ^melmac 10:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]