User talk:PeterSymonds


Just a friendly reminder to check the page history before you delete an article, as you did in Tsunami. Next time, I'll have to trout you. EhJJTALK 00:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


75px The Admin's Barnstar
Nataly8 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. You deserve it. Nataly8 (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


I put in peer review 7 articles, which need some simplification. Can you help? Nataly8 (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This Whole German Boy Thing

Has the editor who created the offending content been warned? Purplebackpack89 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Flood flag

Can I have this flag? I have to revert many changes of Hazard. Nataly8 (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

i think your page should be deleted!

Krishna consciousness‎

I saw your recent blocking of Template:User-multi with an expiry time of 1 month (anonymous users only, account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing: Sockpuppet on enwiki). The IP created an account — Template:Noping (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) — which also created a number of similar articles. There are also many non-rolled-back changes by both the IP and Whizkid. Based on your block, I'd assume we should rollback the edits and delete the other articles, but just wanted to check with you first, since I don't know the whole story. Thanks! EhJJTALK 01:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


Hey Peter. Just wanted to let you know that I changed your block on User: from 31 hours to 3 years, as it is an open proxy hosted at Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No access to wikimedia pages but want to post pictures on simple

How would I do this? Barras referred me to you. I do not have access to wikimedia pages. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


What was this about? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother, he's just drunken and likes to troll around. (just kidding) -Barras (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Wheeeee. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Heya there, do you think it would be a lot of work to come up with a stub on Kate Middleton? - She has the attention of the media currently, and it may be time well spent (as it can attract editors). Unfortunately, I am no good at writing biographies...--Eptalon (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So you're my prison guard eh?

...awww. Mr. Berty talk/stalk 08:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


Punitive? I thought you knew me better than that. Disappointing. fr33kman 16:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your judgement in this case is equally disappointing. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is my judgement in question? Because I chose to give the user a chance instead of just indef blocking him? I saw a user who was blocked on another site for socking, came here and began to comment how they are here only to serve time for enwiki. We've been here before Peter, and you are well aware of how these things usually play out. Indeed this user is already disrupting the project, but, I guess I'm the bad one here, not the user and not you, of course, for assuming I was acting in a punitive manner. Nice to have people respect you! ;) fr33kman 17:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
If you wanted to give him a chance, leaving him unblocked would have been more sensible. Why block for two weeks? If you're so sure how it's going to play out, why not wait until they do something actually blockable? That is why your judgement (in this particular case) is questionable. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not up for giving them a chance, but reading the comments on AN I felt that a block was in order, but not an indef one, which seems to have been equated here on simplewiki to mean permanent, which it does not. The user has done something block-able, just coming here whilst blocked elsewhere. Additionally, going around and explaining that they are here to pay penance is disruptive. fr33kman 17:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of revert

Why revert here on my AIV request? It's dealing with non-vandalism, good-faith edits by an established user. Shouldn't you have undid instead, and/or left an edit summary of some kind Purplebackpack89 06:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well at least the user's blocked now. That was the only thing needed to be done. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 10:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It's still inappropriate use of the rollback. When I did something similar, I was told I might lose the tool. Purplebackpack89 21:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well he tells you if it's wrong. If he just reverts it, then you know he's done it. Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) talk/stalk 16:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year