User talk:Netsnipe/Archive 2
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
|
What was with you?!
Why did you block the Showster as a "sockpuppet" in the first place? Is it reasonable to block whole communities over a few vandals? Thankfuly, my appeal to get him unblocked was a success but you could at least try to root out the vandals in a community first rather than blocking them all indefinitely? Bowsy 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, i looked on Lostlovers contribs and i'm not so sure you should unblock him. cos' it looks like he has never made a positive contribution to the wikipedia itself. DO NOT unblock him. He should stay blocked.
Thankyou!
YO!
- Patelco 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Netsnipe me and my friend Pikminlover are having a little trouble with a guy named Wheezy19. Recently, Wheezy19 awarded Pikminlover with a shiny new medal (Haven't a clue why he did). Anyway, since I barely have no information on awards and stuff like that I always thought that to get an award you had to be an admin and the person giving you the award had to be an admin too. Since Pikminlover and Wheezy19 are not admins I think it would be impossible to give Pikminlover an award. So if you would please to do the favor of blocking Wheezy19 or at least giving him a friendly message much would be appreciated. Again I know nothing about awards and probably wouldn't know what to do so I will leave this in your hands. (I also left a friendly message but I don't know if that did anything) Have a wonderful day and a bright future.
YO!
- Patelco 00:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Problems with User 68.88.68.110
This guy keeps vandalising the Ramones page and template, by adding an unsourced member to the band. When a source proved said member was not part of the band, he deleted the source. I have asked him repeatedly to stop be he has added back this wrongful information countless times.
The person who he claims is in the band is Billy Rogers. You can look at the history of that page to see his vandalism. The history of the Ramones page will also identify this.Hoponpop69 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 2 | 8 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you blocked this usert a while back, I would just like to note that they are a sock puppet of Willy on Wheels, Wiki Duct Tape, Shanel and Son of a Peach. I can't really do anything as I am not an admin. Thanks Somnabot 16:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I take great offense to that. First of all, I am not a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels (a wildly inaccurate claim that you seemingly pulled out of nowhere). Secondly, I have no idea now you deduced I was a sockpuppet of Shanel. To the best of my knowledge, Shanel is an administrator, and there is little plausability that an administrator would create a sockpuppet account as colorfully varied as mine. And thirdly, the other accounts are sockpuppets of me. Somnabot, I suggest doing your homework before flagrantly accusing somebody of evildoing, based on little to no evidence whatsoever. ~ Flameviper 21:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Your assistance needed
Another edit-protected page, which needs the attention of a sysop...sigh... ~ Flameviper 20:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Deadspirit90 is vandalising my page!!!!
Deadspirit90(Eric, he is in myy class} messed up my user page. the blue lines that were part of "The 5 pillars of wikipedia" are now just code! please, help!!! (Cant you just boot him and his IP address of wikipedia though? i detest him so much!) Crawfordknights 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Unblock
I didn't do a vandalism on Jesus-- somebody in my school's public computers' portal did that because I forget to log out. So, please unblock me. Thanks. â The preceding comment was added by Quikkings711 (talk ⢠contribs) 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
Retire...
Please see my userpage, ta. 1B6 13:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 | 15 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Review of unautoblock request for User:Ajo_Mama
Concerning this autoblock removal request, I looked over the requesting user account and made the unblock of the autoblock. I also left a "final warning" stating that if another such user account is created, the block will stand (maybe next time it should be AO) as it has been over a month and a half since the last block. I just felt like letting you know since you handled the request first. ZsinjTalk 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at Ajo Mama's block log and contribs as well as questions on his own talk pages asking about how to insert server-side code into articles. In my honest opinion, Ajo isn't here to contribute to the encyclopedia -- he's just here to cause grief. -- Netsnipe ⺠18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Decline unblock
You declined my unblock request. Barrymcpeedmipants or wev his name is, is probably another student at my school, NOT me. (Removed personal attack) â The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darthdarko (talk ⢠contribs) 14:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Radu article/ questionmark824 vandalism
Sorry about that, I think I may have formatted the request wrong. I am questionmark824, I just am not signed in right now. I was referring to vandalsim of other users such as Manties and other unregistered users. Many of the vandals I know to be using shared computers, so I was hoping for a complete protection of the page. -thanks â The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.238.252.15 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 4 | 22 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag | WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness" |
| News and notes: Talk page template, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: the anon IP blocked for making massive entries to articles with Jesuit alumni tags
Hello, this anon IP just sent me a message pointing out the link in Salma Hayek's article where she attended a Jesuit university. I have revoked my warning and apologized to this user. I apologize to you as well if I caused a problem. Ronbo76 07:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
137.164.143.112 Urgent attention required
This user has made numerous vandalous edits, and has now started racism, he needs to be blocked, this isn't the first warning he has recieved today, thanks. 1B6 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
User:205.222.248.234 Urgent attention required
You blocked this juvenile in December but looks like another block is in order as vandalism is underway as I write on Dept of Defense article as well as others HJ 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
del rev
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Assburger syndrome. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Random832 16:56, January 25, 2007 (UTC)
Death threat
I doubt you care but you received a death threat here. Feel free to blank this particular message from me, I've already cleared Mawman's talk page. --Yamla 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocking
Thanks, I hadn't seen anonblock before - I was going to make one, or have standard way of inserting the message. The only problem with anonblock is that it says "currently" disabled - this will become out of date. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44 18 December 2006 (GMT).
Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 5 | 29 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Jebus
Please see my rebuttal to your comment on AIAV. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Jebusmademedoit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I just blocked him as a failure of WP:USER. Although the name is a Simpson's parody, Jebus is used in that episode to closely parallel "Jesus". The username is similar to "Jesus made me do it." alphachimp 16:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
65.122.47.163
Just so you don't think I'm insane - the last three or four blocks on that talk page were spread out over the vandalism. There was a "hanging comment" tag, which when removed expanded the ~~~~ to my own signature and the current time stamp on all three warnings... :) Kuru talk 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Removing stale warnings
Hi Mdwyer, it's usually a good idea to leave at least one or two months worth of warnings instead of removing all of them as you did here, so as to justify to new editors why their shared IP has been blocked in the first place. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ⺠05:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- The WP:UW stuff says that the warnings should be removed in favor of only the block message. Did I understand that correctly? --Mdwyer 05:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"Messages should be removed without archival after three months or less, depending on the number of warnings. In the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them so long as recent warnings aren't removed." -- Netsnipe ⺠05:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users should be cleared of all content except the block notice. This block notice should explain the block reason, or link to the block log which does so." --Mdwyer 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- That said, it doesn't seem like the Right Thing to do... I'll mention it on the UW discussion... --Mdwyer 05:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Indefinite blocks should not be used on IPs". schoolblocks are usually set to 6 months, not indefinite. -- Netsnipe ⺠05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- OOoooh. My mistake. Thanks for the correction! --Mdwyer 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
My request
Well what would one do in a case like this [1], last time I know User:Molobo got banned for a year for repeated behaivour like that. There is blatant repeated violation of WP:SOAP and WP:POINT. I urge you to take a more vigilant stance. If not block than a stern warning...?--Kuban Cossack 12:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh well I raised it on AN/I here--Kuban Cossack 13:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: My Block
I said before that I do not yet have my own network. I am using my neighbors network...it is possible that it could have been them because the network is unsecured. If I were playing Dr Jeckle and Mr Hyde, why would I revert my own edits (see Kierra "Kiki" Sheard's history page)? I am using another network at the moment so I managed to get around this block. Is there any procedure I could go through to prove it wasnt me? Jgcarter 15:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Spammer
Thanks for blocking the IP and reverting their contribs. I don't think I've ever seen a spammer dealt with that fast! Shadow1 (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Re:Welcome template
I fixed the template with web safe colors. If your still disatisfied, please leave me another note and I will be happy to fix it. Kamope · talk · contributions 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:
|
Autoblock: Web Accellerator
Can this be explained in a nutshell ? While you're at it, list yourself in my Favorite Admin listings. Martial Law 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also while you're at it, make a copy of my toolbox as well. Martial Law 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: My Block...THANK YOU!!!
Thank you very much! I'll see to it that this mixup never happens again. Jgcarter 05:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for undoing all of 81.103.60.217 (talk · contribs)'s edits. That was a lot of work. Do you use a bot ? --Jackaranga 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. Just Firefox and Wikipedia:Revert#Shortcut. -- Netsnipe ⺠16:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Soap
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soap&diff=106353161&oldid=99936297 More vandalism still left in the soap article. Requesting semi-protect for soap article. History of long term vandalism by anons.
Open Source Soapmaking Wiki - The extremely nascent, community-driven wiki resource for how-to guides, recipes, techniques, and tips regarding hand-crafting soaps. <-Strange external link 63.17.56.12 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
RE stalker
He's the person who created the turboface page. Please send me an email about it educationalreplies@yahoo.com , I can provide police references. They have been activley seeking this person for the last year for multiple warrants. Send me a talk page. He's using his wikipedia account to create search engine spidered links to improve his link popularity on google. This account he create4d is for personal attacks.I can provide MORE then enough evidence. His old username on here was CUMBERBUND , search that user's history alkso,, you'll see it was also an attack account 65.184.20.38 16:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
PS His ip address will be 68.155.45.99. It's a permanent ip belonging to the Greensborough library. Email me to talk to the officer in charge of his case. Thanks. 65.184.20.38 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to insist that you email me from your ISP based email address, otherwise I will refuse to even investigate this matter. I refuse to deal with anonymous editors whose only point of contact are anonymous and easily forged/impersonated web-based email addresses. -- Netsnipe ⺠16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me how to email you or leave me an email address 65.184.20.38 16:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If I publicaly leave my isp email address out in the open he will use it for spam like he has done before. Please give me a throwaway email address I can send the information to from my isp account. 65.184.20.38 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Editing closed discussions
Please stop editing closed RfAs — it's expressly forbidden. If there are mistakes in formatting, etc., they stay as part of the record. --Mel Etitis (Îελ ÎÏηÏηÏ) 09:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's been pointed out to me that I was wrong on this. My apologies. --Mel Etitis (Îελ ÎÏηÏηÏ) 15:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Tintoretto
Would you check the possibility that there is one user editing as several sockpuppets at Tintoretto? Thank you, JNW 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any suggestion of that. I am currently trying to get User:DavidLeslie to play by the rules, while User:VGoldoni appears to be an uninterested third party that seems to be making good edits. --Mdwyer 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
message on my talk page
I did not make a report on WP:AIV recently. I think that part of your message might have been intended for another user. The sharedip template helps anonymous users who might otherwise be confused by messages intended for other users. It is not a "report" to admins, and the "tagging" of a talk page with this template does not require or request any action by anybody. Jerry lavoie 03:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the template discussion page here for discussion about intended use of the template. Jerry lavoie 03:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I saw your reply on my talk. Thanks. I do always use whois and review the contribs of the user before using the template. (Notice I always subst the ip owner, and location in it.) Thanks, Jerry lavoie 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy block. - TheMightyQuill 03:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
I appreciate the lifting of that autoblock, it saved me a lot of trouble. --[|.K.Z|]] [|.Z.K|]] 06:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
gorilla orang utan -rachelle anne go
Thank you for your understanding... I suspect that the vandal is a sock puppet of a regular editor - as it all happens so quick - gnangarra and I tried to keep up with him a few days ago - a third time and I'll think i'll prepare a case for checkuser.... Satu Suro 09:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
request for a favor
Hello. i would like toi ask you for a favor. Could you lock to new users the Him band page becaus it has gotten vandlised by people. If you could do this we would be very apperactive of you and i personaly would owe you a favor. Thank you!Razor romance 18:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sent you an email
I sent an email to your sourceforge.net address. Please read.
Lawry 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Recent vandalism on your user page
The guy in question would Traferetr. I found about this when it appeared in my watchlist, and reverted it. He essentially replaced it with "You're an Arsehole!". Sorry for taking this matter into my own hands, but I didn't think you would like it. crazyviolinist 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome note
That's it, just wanted to say thanks!Tt 225 10:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
81.182.0.0/16
The reason is continued editing by User:Kgeza67, and the fact that the "block anonymous editors only" feature didn't seem to be working. Let's hope it's fixed. Jayjg(talk) 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
IP Address
Ok. So can I edit at Panera Bread again now, or what? I never had that problem before when editing there. Just H 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for lifting the autoblock on my IP, and I reinstalled popups as you asked. Cheers, -- The Hyb rid 04:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I did, but it is still faulty. Should I let Lupin know? -- The Hyb rid 04:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. Might be a weird compatibility glitch with your browser. -- Netsnipe ⺠12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Google web accelerator
Thanks for the info ... I was unaware of that. Is there any reason not to just do a range block on that range? [2] says that at least one of the ranges is 72.14.192.0 â 72.14.192.255. BigDT 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I believe that User:R.bobby is another sockpuppet of User:Alfredosolis. Same record of not licensing pictures right. Same history of multiple edits to Celebrity Death match and Johnny Depp. Gdo01 19:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Live links on spammers Talk page
[3] This is common practice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, we put copies of the live spam links on talk pages when warning spammers, its apart of our tracking system. Spammers negotiate across a wide range of articles, shared IPs and sock accounts, this is how repeat offenders are found. Please do not remove these in the future. thanks--Hu12 06:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think banning Jelly Jiggler for a wek was a bit harsh...12.210.112.51 00:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw you unblocked IndoraSora (Toajaller3146 back then) [4]. Thing is... you forgot to block again :) — Deon555talkdesksign here! 07:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I initially thought we were dealing with a case of sockpuppetry here, but then realised that Toajaller3146 had a username change. Seeing as the original block was going to expire with 2 hours anyway, I didn't think that there was much point to reblocking. -- Netsnipe ⺠11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
I am all for blocking annoying IP vandals, but as an FYI I wanted to make sure that you saw that 67.183.242.249 (talk · contribs · logs) actually didn't do anything since the final warning that I had given... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The battle of Carfax_(Company)
On Carfax_(company) information was added about a class action lawsuit settlement against carfax. Since then there have been around 200 edits over this information, first by IP addresses until I requested semi-protect, and more recently by dummy user accounts: User:Lleafyplant User:leavyplant User:Cornellrocky, Teafyplant, User:BoyRoy, User:Roybuoy, User:Wikiboyy and most recently User:SpuriousQu. As these user accounts were blocked, admin User:Yamla established with checkuser that User:BoyRoy was a Verdict sockpuppet and added the banner on his talk page. Hope this helps...Leafyplant 13:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppets at Carfax (company)
We've had a number of sockpuppets beavering away at this article - you blocked the last one, SpuriousQu (talk · contribs). If you have a chance, would you also block Wikiboyy (talk · contribs)? He seems clearly to be in the same camp - the probability of this user's first (and only) edit, a revert to a fought-over article, done with a sophisticated edit summary, being unrelated to the other accounts that have been blocked seems infinitely small. Thanks. -- John Broughton (â«â«) 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't see the last version before someone tagged it for CSD G10: [5]. Maybe he's just screwing around but at the time I reported him to AIV it looked like an account created solely for personal attacks. — dgiestc 08:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've now blocked that account pending an explanation. -- Netsnipe ⺠08:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Roitr
Yes, the accounts seem to be inactive. I've just copied them in a bulk with more recent entities and didn't actually check them up. I'd probably just remove any trace of them from the reports, or he might discover and use them :) --Dmitry (talk â¢contibs ) 13:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Patricknoddy
Hi - I'm not sure of the background to the blocking in full, but it seems (from an ANI post (somewhere)), that Patrick was misusing NPWatcher, by adding to CAT:CSD all sorts of articles. It should be noted that Patrick has been approved to use NPWatcher for a few months now, and it was actually the case that an admin removed him from the approvals list when he was blocked. As a further note, it is *impossible* to use NPWatcher if one is not approved - it was the case that Patrick did meet (and probably still does meet) the approval requirements, which themselves are fairly loose. It might be worth your getting in contact with the blocking admin about this issue, as there seems to have been some misunderstanding somewhere along the line. Martinp23 17:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Question re edit.
Hi, I'm curious about your edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.172.163.54. Why would you note that this address is registered to www.campbell.pvt.k12.ca.us? When you tracert this address it routes to an adelphia network, and has nothing to do with this school. Arin notes this as owned by Road Runner. Thanks. Awr29886 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I made a judgement call looking at the editing pattern and noticed that their school website describes themselves as independent and Episcopal. I've noticed that a lot of private schools in the US often do not have RIR allocations. Feel free to shorten the block and remove the tag, but I was counting on getting an email either directly or via unblock-en-l which I subscribe to if I had gotten it wrong. -- Netsnipe ⺠17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I understand. I do think it is likely it is one of our students. I just didn't want the people at these other pages he's also vandalising to think he's doing it from our campus which he isn't. His ip 76.172.163.54 must be his home computer. I don't think I have any ability to adjust that top note though? Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place? Thank you very much for banning the ip though. His vandalism was becoming troublesome. Awr29886 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. On second thought, I've removed the school IP tag and shorten his/her block to 1 week in line with blocks on residential IPs, and yes you are allowed to add or correct tags whenever you feel necessary. See Template:SharedIPEDU and Template:SharedIP for further documentation. -- Netsnipe ⺠17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for second chance
Thanks for allowing me a second chance. I will do my best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies from now on. Ahlicks456 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Wondering why you just deleted my links on icelandic film 101 reyk? Maybe remove one or two but there are some useful links there to help imrpove the article⦠Sir Blofeld ⦠"I've been expecting you" 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I probably got too over eager weeding out non-professional (e.g. blog) reviews from that article among others. Our Wikipedia:External links policy currently only allows links to "professional reviews" (in line with Wikipedia:Attribution which discourages self-published sources) -- otherwise every movie page in the encyclopedia would be flooded with links to every person's and their dog's review. Feel free to revert my removal if you disagree. -- Netsnipe ⺠15:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Name
An editor has revealed a person's real name against their consent and right to privacy. This person knows the rules and had prior knowledge not to do this. This editor does not stop commenting at the Arbcam case involving Fyslee. This is blockworthy. This is a very serious matter. QuackGuru TALK 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That Mcbob sock
I figured that if I left the sock's first edit you'd know who it was and then remove the rest later. Take care, Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
82.109.66.146
If you would care to take a look at my talk page you will see that I was asked to block the IP by the IT administrator in question. If the users of that IP wish to edit then all they have to do is create an account - it's not difficult! But I fail to see why we should tolerate sustained vandalism. By refusing to indefinitely block anonymous IPs we merely send the message that vandalism is fine as long as you do it anonymously, and, personally, I do not believe that is a message we should wish to send. Do you really want to encourage the idiots to use Wikipedia as their own personal playground? Because that's exactly what you're doing by letting them get away with it. -- Necrothesp 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Problem with IP 74.109.244.5 and new account
I'm sure you remember vandalism trouble with this user, and it seems to have gotten much worse. They appear to hold a grudge against me because of my frequent reverts of their vandalism to Southwood Secondary School, and reporting them because of this vandalism. This user has indeed created an account in a parody of my own, with only one letter being different. You can compare my User Page with their own here. I realize that this may not be against the rules, but with this account that is so similar to my own they have continued to vandalize SSS, as seen in this edit, which I have since reverted.
I just want information on Wikipedia to be accurate, and since you were able to deal with this user last time, I thought it best to bring to your attention what has transpired. MelicansMatkin 03:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it's against the Wikipedia:Username policy for someone to register a username similar or parodying that of an established editor. In future, please report all impostors to WP:AIV and they will be blocked on sight. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ⺠03:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the help, and the clarification. :) I'll be sure to do that in future. MelicansMatkin 03:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Question from 218.186.9.5
Why u ban me! ********* â The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.5 (talk ⢠contribs) 04:19, March 16, 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, whose ban are you referring to? I block dozens of accounts and IP addresses each day. Please be more specific if you want an answer. -- Netsnipe ⺠04:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see why you put quotes round "perfect" but it doesn't have these anywhere on Wikipedia:The perfect article, so I think it would be better to keep the template consistent with the guideline? Tyrenius 06:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
DON'T PANIC!
Would you mind making a category of people who want Wikipedia to be Earth's version of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (albeit in a more acceptable manner)? Or else, a category of wikipedians who are fans of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Zuracech lordum 11:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Admin
Can I be an administrator? So I can delete articles, block users, protect/unprotect pages and all that? --BlakeCS 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Netsnipe. Thanks for taking care of the User talk:Cremepuff222 situation. I'll surely have a stern talk with him. Xiner (talk, email) 12:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just going by what I see.
I've seen people with slightly shorter names get banned for their name. If an admin says it's okay, that's all that matters; I'm just following what I consider procedure. You have to admit, it is fairly long. And I admit, I only took a cursory look at his history, so that's my fault. HalfShadow 17:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Spammy usernames
Moving the conversation here for your convenience (I imagine your watchlist is longer than mine) - I have no intention to be contentious, I was just hoping (for my edification) to find out which of my WP:AIV reports you felt were disruptive, besides the User:BlueMoonCandles report you objected to.
I should say I've been spending most of my Wikitime lately with WP:WPSPAM, and the spamming problem seems to get larger each day; it's probably become larger now than the number of editors dedicated to fighting it can deal with - even with the use of monobook scripts (which lead to complaints of bot-like edits) and use of actual bots (which leads to other complaints.
I decided to try patrolling new usernames for obvious business and product names, because, in my experience so far, the vast majority of these are spammers. The idea is to get to them before they spam, and prevent having to expend resources on cleaning up after them later. WP:U is pretty clear that company and product names are strongly discouraged, and a user creating an account is informed of that policy right from the beginning. In my defense, I should point out that a very high percentage (on the order of 90-95%) of these usernames I reported to WP:AIV were blocked on site by a variety of admins. Some were referred to WP:RFCN, where, in turn, a large majority were disallowed by consensus. (See the archive for the past few days.) So I hope you see where I arrived at the assumption (right or wrong) that there is broad admin and community consensus to block obviously promotional usernames on sight.
No rush on the reply...I don't have any hard feelings but it smarts to be called disruptive when you spend a lot of effort trying to be one of the good guys. RJASE1 Talk 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Ockenbock's back
I reported Mister Tuba Face (talk · contribs · logs) to AIV for this edit [6], purporting to be a sock of Ockenbok (or however it's spelled). Though you'd want to know. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually he got blocked before I got there, but the point's the same... Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
66.167.214.211
Actually I don't think he is revert warring at all. It doesn't look much of a war. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- My bad. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I just looked at his/her first and last diffs and noted that the "Controversy" section had been blanked in both cases and assumed it was a 3RR violation in progress. -- Netsnipe ⺠18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for unblocking my account. Regards, H.T. Chien (Discuss|Contributions) 04:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Man
thanks for fixing my auto block makaveli 4 life Supreme euphanasia 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
hey i thought i added them? cause i did it? didnt i? Supreme euphanasia 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
haha yeah man its all good -- Supreme euphanasia 17:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
is it a link now? :) -- Supreme euphanasia 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
haha yeah and probably the bad weather to -- Supreme euphanasia 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
WHOIS vs RDNS
Hi Selket. Is there any chance SelketBot can give preference to Reverse DNS lookup queries over WHOIS or at least try to fill in the host= switch to SharedIPEDU when possible. I find that there's a lot of primary/secondary school networks that are listed under University RIRs. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ⺠04:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Probably. Can you give an example of a school where this is the case please? -- Selket Talk 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Another unblock thank-you
Thanks much for relieving my six months of waiting! I will show my appreciation by holding to my initial promise. Thank you for believing me!Jean Girard 05:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC) âThe preceding comment was added by Jean Girard (talk ⢠contribs) 05:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
AIV
Hi there! Apologies for the late reply but them reports to AIV did seem to be vioaltions and other administrators blocked my other reports. Anyway - under no circumsances did I mean to offend you and I hope we can remain civil and put this behind us. Regards - Tellyaddict 18:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
sorry
I must've been effectd by the block on the place i was at. sorry for wastin ur time. -- True ozzy 00:48, March 19, 2007
thanks for the help mate, i think i tried signing but i didn't work, better luck this time i guess True ozzy 01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
help a brother out
hey man can u help me out on my user page i have 5 boxes how do i make them straight and close together? -- Supreme euphanasia 08:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thanx man i fixed up my page :) -- Supreme euphanasia 11:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Backlogs
Could you take a look at the backlogs at AIV and unblock request? They're pretty sick right now. Part Deux 15:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry...about to sleep. I've done enough blocking for tonight = ( -- Netsnipe ⺠15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
i am confused
i am confused please explain. thank you anisha 16:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)starfire&robin 3-21-07
RE: School IPs
Sorry! I'm quite a detail oriented person and cannot help but type adequate explanations. Next time I'll key in {{schoolblock}} somewhere in the block log box. Rest assured I always alert IPs with block templates ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Netsnipe, Thank you again for assuming good faith and un-blocking my account. I am very appreciative of the good faith you showed. I will be more protective of my account. Keep up the GREAT work! --Bfissa 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
All right, just keep it up, best regards --Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
School IPs
Heh, thanks... having the tools for only a month or so means I'm still a little edgy about blocking IPs for too long, but if you say it's safe, I trust you :) – Riana ঠ13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Picture not working
on my user page a have a picture and it does not show up but when i click on it it works can you help Owainbut 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
209.105.210.130
Hi there. I'm a newbie admin of just two days. You just changed my block on 209.105.210.130 from 1 week to 1 month and put the {{schoolblock}} template up. As I'm a newb, I'm trying to learn from this. The anon editor in question had a bit of a history of vandalism only, had recently come off a 1 week block and had got straight back to business. I re-instated the 1-week block but in light of your block, maybe I should have extended it. Can you maybe give your insight into why it should have been extended so I don't make the same mistake again? Was I going too easy on this vandal? Thanks! - Alison⺠17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah - disregard this! Our edits clashed :) Thanks for sharing your rationale. I'm a lot clearer now - Alison⺠17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Example
WTF? I dont understand how its doing that, I actually reported User-multi error: no username detected (help). but its displying User:Example. Anyway I did not report example and I dont know why its doing that, anyway your probably thinking I'm lieing but I'm honestly not sure why? Cheers! Tellyaddict 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Forgiven and forgotten, apologies for any confusion - Happy editing! Tellyaddict 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It does still say in WP:USERNAME that they must not contain the word Wikipedia, any Wikipedia terms or other Wikimedia Foundation titles or terms, and thats an official policy so I tend to go by that.Tellyaddict 19:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Please remember that "wiki" itself is not a trademark. -- Netsnipe ⺠19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting it out
Apologies accepted. Thanks for sorting it out :-)
Badeggbill 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Roitr
Just to let you know:
- I filed a request for a community ban on User:Roitr;
- Ryulong has just blocked a significant part of Bezeq Int (CIDR 88.154.0.0/16 and 82.81.0.0/16).
If you would take responsibility for blocking 88.153.0.0/16 and 88.155.0.0/16, I and Autocracy will try to get someone to care for 88.152.0.0/16 - and that might be it for a while. --Dmitry (talk â¢contibs ) 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Block of PepsiCoke
I wasn't too sure of that one – did you know we have an admin named Pepsidrinka? Majorly (o rly?) 13:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if my revert to Ptpgta was a mistake (I notice that you've undone it again). Please don't be annoyed, as any recent changes patroller does make mistakes from time to time. Lradrama 15:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Regarding Madhubot
Well, I guess I am a little confused here. I created the user page for Madhubot while I had logged in as Madhubot.. and I just tried submitting a request for Bot Approval - again, while logged in as Madhubot (I thot that's how it's done), but I got this message saying it was blocked... Umm, what exactly should I do now? (1) Update the userpage of Madhubot while signed in as Nmadhubala? (2) Submit the request for bot approval, again while signed in as Nmadhubala? Is that right? I am totally confused here, so any assistance would be appreciated! --Madhu 17:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. That's right. Just copy and paste {{unblock|[[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Madhubot]]}} into User_talk:Madhubot when it's approved and the account will be unblocked. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ⺠17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you!! --Madhu 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
- for the sprot and IP-range block after the Hag incident :-) - Kathryn NicDhà na â«â¦â« 19:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
How exactly is this an inappropriate name? John Reaves (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Not sure why I got blocked or what caused the autoblock but thx anyway Victuallers 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Billy Ego
Hi: With regard to your block review of User:Billy Ego, please see my comment on my talk page. Should you decide to unblock, though, I'm puzzled why you think arbitration would be a good idea at that stage. What would there be to arbitrate that can't be solved at WP:AN level? The ArbCom would decline such a RfAr simply because there has not been enough subsidiary dispute resolution. Sandstein 06:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Netsnipe/User VCN has been requested for unprotection due to editing needs. Take the unprotection template off if you, an admin, change it yourself. -PatPeter 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Flavio
Go ahead and deny his unblock. He obviously has not qualms about his block evasion on it:, and has no regrets to his poor edits and language skills here on en:. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Nevermind... Tom Harrison got it. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Concerning Bfissa
Hi there, Netsnipe. I just wanted to talk about the recent comments you made on Bfissa's talk page regarding a removal of his block. I just wanted to remind you (Because we ALL forget, sometimes!) that blocks in EVERY case are preventative and never punitive. I'm really glad that you assumed good faith in unblocking him, but I think the comments such as "you may not be so lucky next time" aren't really that productive. I agree in your way of approaching this; that any future instances of vandalism should result in a block, but you started this user out with an immediate indefinite block, which I disagree with. It is so hard to deal with vandals because every user account is different. Much of the time you here people say that their user account was user by a friend and that their friend vandalized the offending pages, but, honestly, I would rather assume that this is the case and be proven wrong than assume they are lying and be wrong in that instance. Anyway, I really appreciate the work you do here, and I hope this doesn't come across as an attack by any means, but more of just a discussion. Take care :) Kntrabssi 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser and Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Hi - regarding your input at this checkuser request, I agree. There's definitely a fishy editing pattern, although it's unclear how many are sockpuppets and how many are meatpuppets. I asked one of them directly about the situation and got this response. Hmm... In any case, maybe checkuser is superfluous - most if not all of those accounts have edited in a way that warrants a zero-tolerance policy and quick preventive block for any further disruptive editing. As I'm not an admin, perhaps you could look at the situation and see what you think? I know little about the subject of the article (came to it via AN/I dispute), but disruption is disruption, and even without the credit-card incident there's plenty of eyebrow-raisers in the talk page archive. Thanks. MastCell Talk 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a note on User:RJASE1
Could you try to tell him when he is messing up, looks like a legit effort is being made from him. If he is getting a few wrong, a few kind pointers would be helpful :) ââ Eagle101 Need help? 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have replied, I think the instructions on the two pages are somewhat conflicting, and might need sorted out,l as this is not the only user I have seen have this problem :). ââ Eagle101 Need help? 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have replied again, do you mind if I or someone puts something up on the village pump, and we can have a nice debate on this matter, and figure out what instructions (probably a bit to both sets) need to be modified. This sort of confusion is just wasting all of our time :) ââ Eagle101 Need help? 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Re:Schoolblock
As in put it in the blocking summary? I doubt they are likely to look at that either. Or do you have a way to detect that if I add that to the block summary, unblock-en-l will know to ignore it/respond appropriately? VegaDark 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at MediaWiki:Blockedtext if you want to know what blocked editors see. You can also subscribe to unblock-en-l yourself if you want. -- Netsnipe ⺠02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, perhaps I will subscribe in the future. VegaDark 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
More vandalism from 68.226.131.48
I reverted some vandalism from 68.226.131.48 and was about to drop a notice on their Talk page when I noticed that you had previously blocked the user and threatened to block again for a longer period of time if the vandalism continued. Well, it's continued. --ElKevbo 06:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The blocking of Ayatollah Rhobijnie
Ayatollah Rhobijnie isn't the same person as Mrlob, Mrlob just lied to get away with it. He told me that he was going to say this so he wouldn't be banned indefinetly as a sockpuppet of me (what he isn't) but he would only be banned for two weeks and he didn't like Ayatollah Rhobijnie anyway but now Ayatollah Rhobijnie is banned for nothing, proof of this is on the dutch wikipedia on my talk page, I'm called Kermansjahi with a j instead of an h on my talk page we discus it, the only problem is that it is in dutch so if you understand dutch there will be no problem, if you don't i could translate it for you but I'm not sure if you'd believe me. -- Kermanshahi 12:45, March 29, 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi proved that User:Ayatollah Rhobijnie, User:Mrlob and User:Kashwialariski all operated from 84.87.138.105 and as such, their blocks will not be overturned. -- Netsnipe ⺠16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
well could you remove the sockpuppet of kermanshahi template from El Alamajins page, he is not my sockpuppet and this only makes a bad name for me. Kermanshahi 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well thanks for changing it, now people don't see those things anymore
Thanks
Thanks for blocking that vandal and cleaning up my talk page. Grika 17:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think this is a username vio. I think you should remove the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was reluctant myself, but considering "Ripple Effect Management" doesn't seem to exist online and what was written at Talk:Ripple Effect Management, I suspect we may be dealing with a troll here -- hence my lack of good faith. -- Netsnipe ⺠18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Schoolblock
Re your message: You lost me a little here. I did note schoolblock on the block reason on the last two blocks, though I did forget to put in the parentheses this particular time (I usually do, just forgot these past two). I didn't put in the edit summary, but did use the correct template on the Talk page note itself. -- Gogo Dodo 19:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Re your message: Ah, okay, right. Normally, I do. Just had a slip-up there. Will remind myself to remember that. Sorry about that. -- Gogo Dodo 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for resetting the blocks. =) -- Gogo Dodo 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
IP Blocked
Just wondering which pages were being vandalized by a user in 58.10.0.0/16 range. Since the entire range is blocked, which is that of Mahidol University in Thailand, it would be nice to know since now all the library computers cannot edit. ArchonMeld 10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Schoolblocks
Hi again. Just another quick newbie admin question. I took your advice re. schoolblocks and block times, etc. You definitely have a point there. Re. this block, which I applied today, I notice you put up {{SharedIPedu}} and extended the block to 6 month. In the case of anon vandals, should I be checking the origin of the IP address using reverse-DNS and blocking accordingly? Am I slipping up by not checking this first? Thanks - Alison⺠18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- In my experience, you should. It saves everyone a lot of time and effort down the track if you knew exactly who you were blocking to begin with. Reverse DNS lookups are very useful in telling you the exact role of a host is, for example, it can reveal if it's a proxy server and who owns it, or if it's static ADSL home connection or from dynamically-allocated pool of IP addresses. -- Netsnipe ⺠18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time out to explain your rationale. This makes perfect sense to me. In future, while reviewing for blocks, I'll check that, update the talk page and block accordingly. I'm still learning here, but slowly getting there. Thanks again - Alison⺠19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Does this look about right? - Alison⺠19:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk page
Can I blank my talkpage? KlakSonnTalk 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
When Declining Unblocks.
This refers to your decline re: my unblock request. I found it very rude, that when declining my unblock request, you also made a taunting comment. This is not the way to deal with people, it encourages them to continue vandalism/rulebreaking, which, as we all know, is not a good idea. You may think it "witty", but others just find it insulting. In future, please, for the good of Wikipedia, think about how the other person might take it.
Sincerely, Omega ArchdoomTalk 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh!
You keep beating me to blocks! Keep up the good work. I'm glad that somebody is patrolling AIV on a Friday night here in the US. Regards, alphachimp 04:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Happy Easter
|
I wish you and your family a Happy and enjoyable Easter/Holidays and although its a little early I'm sure you will enjoy it!! Dont forget that its April Fools Day soon and I also hope you enjoy that as well.
|
Something I don't understand
I'm sorry to bother you Netsnipe, but I need you to explain a few things to me. I created a template of a userbox that I saw on many userpages. The box reads "This user supports armed resistance to hostilities." I also created a category of "Wikipedians who support Hezbollah" per "Wikipedians who support Israel". As I was editing the category after I had created it, I received this message: "Warning The template you created about Hezbollah has been nominated for deletion, since it is devisive or may be viewed as inflammatory. You are welcome to comment on this request on the template talk page, but please do NOT remove the tag on the article itself. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 03:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"
Three to four seconds after I had received this message and as I was about to discuss the deletion, the template was deleted. I sent this to the user who had sent me the message: "Hezbollah template Don't I get a chance to discuss the template first? KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 04:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"
He replied: "Your post on my page Unfortunately, no. Simple as that. The template is viewed as inflammatory, since it may induce others to start a counter template, counteracting yours, which could lead to arguments, edit wars, or all out bloodshed! Sorry, but those kind of templates just don't belong here. The category is fine, providing you take out the reference to Hezbollah - it would be more suitable if you list the category as "These users support the use of arms in conflict." - Listing it with Politics/Israel is ok. Thor Malmjursson 04:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"
I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia policy, but did that really happen or am I in Lala land? This appear as purely dictatorial and biased. Can you explain it to me, or does Wikipedia view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization? If not, I await the template and category to be re-created KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Happy Easter. I really hope this episode was a practical joke on April fools' day. KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
Hello Netsnipe. Wikipedia has grown a lot lately and I cannont find the way to see if I can be a, "sysop". Don't fuss at me about this but the help discussion is pretty lengthy. Can you direct it to me? Also...... Do you play Gaia? â The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vladimir Stalin (talk ⢠contribs) 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
- See Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and don't nominate yourself until you've been active for around 6-9 months and have around 3000-4000 edits to your name or you will be rejected for being too inexperienced. And no, I don't play Gaia, but I do play World of Warcraft. Why do you ask? -- Netsnipe ⺠07:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the autoblock on this user. If you read through his talk page carefully I think you will see he wasn't trolling but simply didn't understand how to use the unblock template. He was told to create a new account by another admin, couldn't because of the block so put the template on the wrong page. To be honest I would have thought you could have worked that out. Anyway just letting you know for future reference. On april fools day we should still assume good faith. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
209.146.77.167
Hi, Netsnipe. I saw you blocked this ip for about six months as School ip. Is there any reason you blocked school ip for 6 months even it could be shared by different students in School? I hope you could explain why you blocked school ip for 6 monthes. Please reply in my talk page. Cheers! Daniel5127 | Talk 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- The block is anonymous-only and was imposed after these vandalism edits as a preventative measure. I along several admins who patrol WP:AIV regularly schoolblock IPs of K-12 schools for 6 months at a time since our experience shows that 95% of edits originating from such schools are pure vandalism. -- Netsnipe ⺠07:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious?
Are you for real or is this another practical joke? Wikipedia is full of userpages with political userboxes. I was hoping you would be realistic instead of taking me for an idiot. I was hoping I would find assistance, not someone telling me there is no place for political userboxes in Wikipedia. I hope this is a joke and excuse my anger. KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 10:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I was a pretty disgusting thing to do. I ask for your assistance and you cause even more harm. KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
what about these?
Should it be called double-standards or Aussie racism? (examples). Does enforcing policy consist of allowing every "I support..." userbox except for the ones who bother your kind? KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing stopping you from nominating them for removal at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion or raising the issue with the wider community at the Wikipedia:Village pump. Under the Wikipedia:Civility policy, I'd also strongly caution you against calling others racist without diffs to demonstrate systematic bias. If you go through my editing history, I've always asserted my neutrality when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. -- Netsnipe ⺠17:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't play games Netsnipe, be fair for one time. Every political userbox cannot be deleted, you just want to attack the Hezbollah one to be because it irritates your people. KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually Netsnipe is correct per a ruling of Jimbo Wales such userboxes are to be deleted on sight no questions asked. just because we havent caught them all doesnt mean that they should be on wikipedia. (Im going to TfD the boxes you pointed out) Betacommand (talk ⢠contribs ⢠Bot) 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Pathetic. What you did surely gives Wikipedia a good and respectable name. So much for freedom of speech and belief. God forgive you Lau, really. KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't you delete all of these as well? Category:Wikipedians by politics KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you delete them or should I recreate "Wikipedians who support Hezbollah"? KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 18:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Netsnipe, can you help me out here? It is very impolite not to reply. I'm trying to delete categories of "Wikipedians who support.." I expect you to help me. KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Klaksonn & Your intervention on the Hezbollah template
May I thank you warmly for defending my decision to CSD the template. I had no idea that Klaksonn had previously been blocked, and I trust you have not been too inconvenenced by being drgged into this mess. Thor Malmjursson 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (talk)
I will take your silence as a green light to recreating the template and the category. KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 18:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And if you do that, either myself or an admin will tag it for deletion again. If you don't want to get yourself blocked, I recommend you aim for a deletion review before you do it again. Thor Malmjursson 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (talk)
Oh! And I thought it wasn't allowed because it's political. My bad, racist. KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't talking to you Thora, buzz off. KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not fighting. I just want to know why is someone allowed to support Israel and not Hezbollah? KlakSonnKeep it to yourself 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Your last 2 comments breach WP:NPA (No personal attacks) and WP:Civil (Please be civil). I am requesting am immediate apology for your accusation and rude comments, or an admin may be requested to deal with this breach. I am not racist, I have a job to do, and you are making it much much harder than it already is. Thor Malmjursson 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (talk)
What
You mean TiSP doesn't exist? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh :o -- Tawker 19:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Hello.
WoW Pwns. I play it but I am a level 5. There's so much I want to ask..... Any wheel wars? Myspace owner? Uh........ Do you play Habbo? What else....Oh yeah....How did you get your name in that box thingy with an arrow on the side? I am a newb at this. If you call me a n00b, I friggin pwn you. âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Vladimir Stalin (talk ⢠contribs) 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
Dear Netsnipe, request your follow up to discipline or block two vandals NavyChaps and USMC Padre who repeatedly violated the Bio of Living Persons rules by disparaging and posting private information about Gordon James Klingenschmitt, leading to deletion of his entire article. The Checkuser report (which you requested) suggests they also routinely violated Sockpuppet rules. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/USMC_Padre Suggest using your "admin powers" to block these two users, and also Commanderstephanus and MiddleLinebacker who routinely used foul language. I'm not informed of proper procedures after Checkuser confirms the identity of abusers. ChaplainReferee 20:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Users: Mad Game, Korean History, and King Legolas III
Hi, it's Patelco The users you see up there, well those are my friends and I'm having some trouble with them. Recently, I tried to contact them via user talk pages and I could not not. There user page and their user talk pages were mysteriously missing. I even tried to contact User: jane 562 and thankfully her user page is still there. So, if you know anything about this like if their pages were vandalizes or if they got blocked by someone then please let me know.
Sincerely,
- âªPatelcoâ» 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk Page Confusion
I noticed you have recently blocked someone temporarily for page blanking . . . is that still enforced? Because last time I reverted someone's talk page, another admin came and told me to stop. >_> -WarthogDemon 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Channel4 links
Hi! Thanks for pointing out that this issue could be brought up at ANI. From what I can tell with the external links tool, there are 1974 links to Channel4. From randomly looking at them, some appear to be valid links, while others appear to be spam. I am not certain if this enough to be brought up to have it checked on, but I have seen at least a few IPs and at least one username posting these links, so what would be my best course of action? Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 14:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
RE: 3RR report
This user also reverted past the final warning. He also erased warnings on his talkpage and left a comment there. He is very borderline on personal attacks as well. Ronbo76 15:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Spam?
What makes you think I've contacted other admins about this? Plus. Even if I was blocked for this it would not stop me from emailing, as blocking only prevents editing. Darkness of meta 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering. WoW Pwns. I play it but I am a level 5. There's so much I want to ask..... Any wheel wars? Myspace owner? Uh........ Do you play Habbo? What else....Oh yeah....How did you get your name in that box thingy with an arrow on the side? I am a newb at this. If you call me a n00b, I friggin pwn you.
Your decline to Parkway Central Middle School's IP unblock request
I can arrange for the libarian at my school to check my user talk page occasionally. From the date and time on the vandalism diff, we can see who was in the libary/ computer lab at that time. They will be suitably punished. :) W1k13rh3nry 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that won't help unfortunately. The IP address isn't limited to your school library, but it's shared by your entire school district! If you want the district-wide ban lifted, refer your network administrator to the meta:XFF project so that we can identify editors on a school by school or terminal by terminal basis. At the moment, Wikipedia sees everyone coming from 198.209.13.253. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ⺠20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Ummm no it is not. My friend at Parkway Northeast Middle School (feed school to Parkway North High School) tells me her school has a different IP dress. W1k13rh3nry 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are you sure Network address translation isn't in use? What's the IP address so I can check it out myself please. -- Netsnipe ⺠20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I forgot the IP. I'll have the libarian take care of the XFF thing and that should work. Thanks! W1k13rh3nry 20:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Stale warnings
For crying out loud, stop reverting my edits to User talk:137.132.3.11 User_talk:141.150.54.2. It is now standard procedure to remove old warnings for Shared IP addresses because they serve no useful purpose since a warning issued months ago will very likely not apply to the person looking at the talk page today. Secondly, your blind reverts are restoring outdated block notices and tags. That IP is currently under a CheckUser block, not an anonymous vandalism block and schools are meant to be tagged with SharedIPEDU, not SharedIP and you're also missing the host= argument on your tag. When an admin has cleaned up an IP talk page, don't undo it because all you're doing is unnecessarily clogging up my watchlist. -- Netsnipe ⺠12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, the IP is 141.150.54.2, not 137.132.3.11. I was restoring warnings on the school IP talk page so that people can look at it for reference. Now I understand that you want to clean it. I go to this school. You should have told me that before. Amos Han Talk 13:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
About your question of the edit summary -- I believe that is the automatic edit summary generated by administrators using the "rollback" feature that only administrators have. See WP:ADMIN#Reverting. Leebo T/C 14:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are scripts for vandalism fighting too. They have similar, but subtly different edit summaries, I believe. Leebo T/C 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I use Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups and User talk:141.150.54.2/warnings is a waste of space by the way. No one will ever look at them again. If someone really want to look at old warnings, that's what the talk page's history is for. -- Netsnipe ⺠17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are scripts for vandalism fighting too. They have similar, but subtly different edit summaries, I believe. Leebo T/C 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
How do I make the edit summary "Reverted edits by Username to the last version by Username"? Do I just type the whole thing or what? Amos Han Talk 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
âºI know that there are page history, but I just restored warnings because I thought it was for reference. At least the page history is easy to access. Amos Han Talk 17:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC) âºâºPS: I really like your user page and your signature.
- Automatic edit summaries are a built in feature of the revert function in the Navigation popups scripts. PS: It's very poor Wikipedia:Etiquette to modify anyone's posts on Wikipedia unless you're removing a personal attack. If something offends or confuses you, ask for a clarification instead of jumping to conclusions. -- Netsnipe ⺠17:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been on an extended leave but I just temporarily came back to warn you about another possible alfredosolis sock: User:N.Flen[contributions]. Same "initial.name" user name, same focus on Celebrity Deathmatch. Seems like Alfredo will never learn but at least he is being consistent with his usernames. Gdo01 00:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
OK understood, thanks for looking into it Netsnipe. I usually do give users a few warning before reporting to them ANI, but in this case seeing his edit summery, especially the "myspace.com/wikipediasuckscock" part I was pretty sure in was a vandal only account.
Anyway I'm pretty sure he won't be making any more edits so I guess it won't really make a difference. Thanks anyway and sorry for wasting your time. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 07:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I left warning on wrong page
You just left me a messege saying I had failed to make a proper warning. Apparently I left it on the wrong page. I have now left the proper warning on the offending user's page. However, then you left a messege saying it was a conflict dispute? I don't understand. The user repeatedly deleted sourced material from Enclyclopedia Brittanica, amoung others, replacing the information with truly questionable info sourced to a private website. I ahve looked at all the definitions of "vandal" and these repeated actions, from a user account with no other contributions, fits the description of Vandal. Please explain and help me understand what is happening here. I have been fighting vandals for almost over 6 months now and really care what is going on on these pages I've watchlisted. Thank you.Smatprt 07:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry
I'm actually a newcomer to Wikipedia myself and I should have paid more attention I guess. --Candy156sweet 12:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Didn't bit a newcomer...bit an oldcomer
Hi Netsnipe. Thanks for the clarification. I did notice one big thing though - much of your coment assumed that User:Vero-Nihil-Verius was a newcomer. Based on his/her edits, I knew this not to be the case, and this was confirmed by the following statement from Vero himself: "I have not, by the way, due to time limitations, visited the Wikipedia Oxfordian theory page, having only monitored and quietly supervised the Edward de Vere page for some years now as an anonymous user. Iâm frightened to think what I might find there at this point." As you can see, he has appointed himself "supervisor" of the page. So we have someone perfectly aware of the rules, repeatedly breaking them to push what herredaily admits is his own research (" I am a scholar on the cutting edge of Shakespearean Authorship research--unlike Smatprt--and am utilizing, as far as possible, the most up-to-date and accurate data.") Both these quotes are on the latest talk page at [7].Smatprt 14:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet tagging
Hello Netsnipe. When tagging a user as a sockpuppet, please don't also use an indefinitely blocked template like {{indefblockeduser}}. This places the page in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, whence it is manually removed by maintaining administrators.
{{sockpuppetCheckuser}}, the template you used[1], mentions the indefinite block already. Other sockpuppet templates include notation for blocked users: {{Sockpuppet|Example username|blocked}} (suspected) or {{blockedsock|Example username}} (confirmed). Thanks. :) â{admin} Pathoschild 02:01:24, 09 April 2007 (UTC)
Something to add
In reference to the Richard Marx editing problem, I wanted to add that this person edits with three different IP#'s. The numbers are 63.3.69.133, 63.3.69.136, & 63.3.69.6. The first IP#, was the one that he was blocked from using. You can WHOIS each set of numbers to show that it comes from the same source. This is the link where the user was notified that he was blocked by Oscarthecat:
I'm not crying over spilt milk, I'm just simply showing that I wasn't wrong on the blocking issue. Otherwise I admit my mistake. Sorry again about the misunderstanding. Take care and have a good week... --Candy156sweet 05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi Netsnipe,
Thank you for unblocking me. I am new to contributing to wikipedia and was wondering why i was being autoblocked.
Thanks,
Vinwe 01:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo is coming to Sydney
Sorry to spam you if you aren't interested. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#April 25th for more info if you are interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
User:74.14.32.156
I don't think it was right of you to uphold the second block of User:74.14.32.156. While the first block on this person was clearly a violation of 3RR and POV, for the second one, he/she was just asking a question and his/her question kept getting deleted. As admins, you guys should be giving new users honest answers to questions so that they can learn how Wikipedia works. Blocking users for asking questions and calling it "vandalism" is not going to build a good atmosphere here. âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.229.208 (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
I just posted on WP:AN. I'd appreciate if, while the matter is discussed, you'd refrain from blocking schools for 6 months when they have no history of vandalism. If consensus does support 6 month blocks, I'd be happy to go back through and fix the block times for you. Thanks, alphachimp 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Dear Netsnipe, thank you very much. I will not upload anyway, to avoid any further complications. I will only edit articles for NPOV compliance. Thanks again. Ldingley 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Schoolblock
Please use {{schoolblock}} as your blocking reason for school IPs, especially 1 & 6 month blocks, otherwise the unblock-en-l mailing list gets flooded with irate or confused emails from school staff and innocent students. I'd appreciate it if you would go back and update the reasons on your most recent blocks. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ⺠17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I've been adding the template to the talk page, but not in the text of the reason for the block. I've gone back to my recent month+ blocks and added the template as the blocking reason - and will continue to do so from now on. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have recently unblocked and reblocked for longer a couple of school IPs that I blocked for ~1 month. Do you think I'm being too lenient, is there a specific reason you are doing this? Not that I really object, just curious mostly. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, those blocks that I've redone are where you have missed identifying as schools in the first place. You really need to perform WHOIS and Reverse DNS lookups and then do a quick Google search on the hostnames and results returned. e.g. Illinois Century Network IPs. Actually, I've come under fire from some other admins for being too harsh on school IPs with long blocks, so its really up to you whether you want to block longer or continue assuming good faith and playing whack a mole with vandals every few days or a month later. The main thing I'm correcting is that you need to use {{schoolblock}} as your block reason first and foremost. -- Netsnipe ⺠18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
A question
Thanks for the lift (autoblock). But is it a drawback of the MediaWiki software? It may be possible that anonymous edits from the IP may be banned but account holders can login and edit. Under this circumstance if vandalism is by a particular person, everyone wouldn't have to suffer. 54UV1K 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a drawback. The autoblock stops vandals from logging out of their accounts and continuing to create new ones or vandalizing anonymously. -- 02:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Reverts on Richard Marx Page
...Thanks for your note to 'candy156sweet' (Denise). I don't know why she keeps undoing my edits as they are 'CORRECTIONS' of HER innacuracies! She has dates, Grammy categories and chart positions WRONG!!! I left her a note as well asking her who died and made her God! She appears to live on this site...must not have much of a life! She was also sent a notice by Wikipedia not to send me warnings. I think she needs to get a life! âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.69.133 (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
This person continues to use personal opinions mixed with some facts on certain pages. I merely corrected the errors that contained this person's personal opinions. If they were factual, I left them. Most of the edits this person makes, are uncited as well. This was explained to him in this message on AVTN's talk page. I've also mentioned his various edits under three different IP addresses in this last entry on your talk page. Evidence of the same type of edits from him have also occured on Duncan Sheik's page as well. This person also vandalized my profile page, for the second time, rather than using my discussion page. --Candy156sweet 02:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to make it animated, I didn't thank it twas vandaldalism
Vandal
Netsnipe, I'm surprised no one has banned this IP [8] from editing and creating an account. Please check his contributions and consider banning him. Obviously, his edits are of no good faith. KlakSonnTalk 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 16 | 16 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replacement of images
He replaced the images from WLS and WMAR with the one from WJLA; he replaced the image from WSB with the one from WMAR; he then returned to WLS to replace that one with the one from WJLA. The images from WLS and WJLA are indeed similar, but they are labled differently, and he shouldn't be just swapping images out of the blue. Conversely, the images from WSB and WMAR are completely different, and there is no way one could mistake one for the other. His swapping without conversation, IMO, is what constitutes the apparent vandalism. --Mhking 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your revert on the LTTE article
Hi, I saw your revert of the removal of Alledged links to other terrorist organisations [9]. Just for your information, I can not see that there is much in that section. I have however given up on the article as it is more or less taken over by partisan editors. But since there is not much to that section you should expect more reverting edits. I dont want to spend more time on that article that I have, so I keep to the Norwegian version, but the article is not NPOV as it stands now - you may see my comments on the article's discussion page. Ulflarsen 16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, would be good if you read my last comment on the LTTE article's discussion page [10], I recommend that the source to the organisation SVIK be removed and that the LTTE article be tagged with a POV tag. With the escalation of the conflict in Sri Lanka we could have more attention paid to the article and it could be a new mishap for Wikipedia when informed readers find out how unbalanced it is. I trust you in taking action on this. Ulflarsen 11:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
vandalism by 217.117.225.17
Respectfully, what are we supposed to do? Ignore it? Efforts from this IP address have caused lots of wasted time/effort over the past 3 months. â BQZip01 â talk 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Indef blocked user by email disruption
Hey. Since I seen you wrote on Darkness of Meta's userpage about that dodgy emai. It turns out hundreds of Wiki-users has recieved it (Including me), and one of the users has created a userpage section about it, where you can comment, [11]. Plus, this user has became a big, big problem after violating several policies and has been using open proxies to create hundreds and hundreds of sockpuppets. Just to inform you, the debate is here. [12]. Retiono Virginian 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!!
Thanks for unblocking me, though I'm not sure I understand what happened... GlassFET 16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the info... GlassFET 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Userpage reverts
Hey, I dont edit my userpage much, so I was a bit surprised to actually look at the history and see that you had removed some vandalism back in January. I dont quite know what I did to upset the guy, and his edits actually gave me quite a laugh looking at the diffs, but I'm very thankful that the correct version was restored. Thanks for the eye on my page -Mask? 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh, you guys are really taking a 'no more shit' attitude from school ips.
That must be the fourth one I've seem blocked for a month-plus. Not that I'm complaining; school ips seem to be more trouble than they're worth: for every good edit we get, we get four vandalism edits...HalfShadow 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
hi netsnipe - thanks for the unblock
i am not worthy, i am not worthy... thanks again netsnipe, not really sure why i got blocked my comments on the ref desk discussion page where meant to add to the ongoing debate, but i can be too frivolous on the ref desk so i will rein that in pronto the 'sock' thing? possibly because i use to call my self 'abe' before i learned to log in (abe normal was already being used) and as perry-mankster i use several networked computers and a home pc to log in this could have caused the sock thingy? and yes using a spoonerism like perry mankster will have you marked as a naughty boy, but it was in ref to tom, ken, jack, and neal rather than trolling i have a fun sense of the world and don't take myself to seriously, and of course this might not transfer to well to something like wiki, so i will try and be more intune to wiki standards when replying on the desks.
wiki has to be the best thing i,ve ever found on the net and hope it stays as good
thanks again --Perry-mankster 09:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
oompapa
I have seen that you are tagging the sockpuppet as oompapa but the original or the sockpuppeteer actually is Mr oompapa because he started editing on April 17th whereas oomapapa started editing on April 19th...--Cometstyles 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for unblocking me!
Please block account creation for my IP (which is shared) so this won't happen to me again. (2nd time it's happened) Anyway, thanks!!! --Pupster21 Talk To Me 17:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
School blocks
Answer on my talk page JoJan 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: WP:AIV
Hi there. The recent IP vandal reports that I've been filing were automatically added to the list using the reporting feature of VandalProof. If the program is reporting IPs in the wrong way, perhaps we should make a suggestion to the program's developer. :)
Chrisch 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Peddie School block
Netsnipe:
I am senior (4th year) at the Peddie School. On behalf of the Peddie community, I apologize for our continued vandalism. I have contacted the dean of students about this issue pointing out the several acts of vandalism and the 6 month ban.
I completely agree with a ban, but I disagree with your decision to ban us for 6 months. Peddie students are the Wikipedians of tomorrow. If Peddie is banned for 6 months, students will learn that Wikipedia is a non-editable website. How can students "be bold" in editing if they cannot edit?
Again, I'm sorry for the vandalism. If I could identify the student/students responsible, I could assure you that this would stop.
Thanks for your tireless contributions to wikipedia!
Nburoojy 15:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- but Netsnipe, this is a boarding school. I haven't been home in several weeks. Some students are from Korea/Afghanistan etc.. I don't know any student who are savvy enough to know that they have to e-mail and request a username. I do know brilliant students who would contribute greatly to Wikipedia. Let's not let the awkward interface scare off Wikipedians. Nburoojy 16:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedy tag
Hello, I saw that you removed my speedy tag as inappropriate since a cfd was ongoing. Please note that the current tally on this cfd is 9 delete, 7 speedy delete and 1 comment. I believe that in cases like this, precedent has supported a speedy deletion. --After Midnight 0001 14:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- An admin reviewing WP:CFD will speedy it him/herself in that case. Template:db-attack is for pages, not categories. -- Netsnipe ⺠14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your response. If you don't mind, I would like to discuss the philosophy of the argument a bit more. As I understand it, the General criteria apply to all namespaces. If this applied only to articles, then it (G10) wouldn't have been created and superceeded A6. --After Midnight 0001 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that I am going to take this discussion to WT:CSD --After Midnight 0001 18:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
hi, can you please check this page and see if it is fit for speedy deletion? I am not really sure so i removed the speedy delete tag i had added earlier. Thanks. :) TwoOars (T | C) 05:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see that you have already deleted the article. That was fast. :) TwoOars (T | C) 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Only because I was online at the time. -- Netsnipe ⺠05:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well actually I already knew that you are online (from WP:AIV hisory). Thanks. TwoOars (T | C) 05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning
Thanks for the warning, which I'll respond to in detail:
- The legality of the link. I personally have no idea whether the content of the link or the article where it deals with firmware modifications that facilitate PSP piracy are illegal. But if it is they should be shut down, which can only happen if they've transgressed the law, authorities are notified and action taken. Until then, I doubt Wikipedia will be able to play much of a judicial role.
- What is the status of this "official warning"? And why would you use such threatening language - however unexplained - when this very page of yours lectures others about being civil. Physician heal thyself.
- The link is not promotional anymore than any other content about PSP is promotional about the system, games or whatever.
- I agree Wikipedia ought not be a directory of links, but I found it useful and wondered why it was removed. I'm yet to recieve an explanation about why. Why is it inappropriate? You say it links to a personal web site, it doesn't seem to be that, that it's a website with which I am affiliated, it isn't that and exists to attract visitors to a site or promote a product, I don't see that it does that either. If there's more material on this (which you suggest there might be) please point me to it because I may be missing something. What I believe is going on is that there are Sony company employees involved in determining the content of this article and I really do wonder how appropriate that is.
- I agree the link should be discussed. I'm not one of those people who believes I am right about everything. I have fully participated in the discussion and am open to a coherent, rational argument but I haven't yet seen one, including from you.
Carlblackburn 05:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Question
Netsnipe, if I requested adminship, would you support me? KlakSonnTalk 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Mouthpiece of the New Guys
A few months ago (11 Nov), I made an account and brought up a discussion point about World War II, regarding the cultural significance of a new novel (Jeff Shaara's The Rising Tide). I consider it a personal attack that you are responsible for a warning on my first action as a user, citing some advertisement rule that has no bearing on my post. I notice that you do this to other first-timers as well. If you have a problem, we can talk. Otherwise, quit it. -- Ironchefnorse 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- From Wikipedia:Talk page: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources.". Promoting a fictional novel about World War II in no way helps editors with the goal of improving the World War II article, so as a Wikipedia:Administrator, I was politely asking you to refrain from such behavior in future using a stock standard template warning (i.e. Template:Uw-spam1). Please remember that Wikipedia first and foremost is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox. Thank you. -- Netsnipe ⺠12:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Cambridge
- It is an anonblock. If there is a registered account it is unaffected. If there is no registered account, well, if you were part of unblock-en you'ld see the volume we get.
- It came off of a three month block recently.
I believe your reaction was a bit excessive. Further, academics or not, we do not countenance death threats here. A month is not excessive and I would request you restore it if you have taken it off. -- Avi 14:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#Cambridge University Vandals. Further, last I checked, it was common courtesy to discuss the block before with the blocking admin before reverting it. -- Avi 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, but what do I do now? I have no clue who placed the autoblock on my account nor do I seem to have any means to remove it. I did not realize that someone can simply place a block on another user's account without any warning or rationale. I do not want to change my username, and in any event should not have to because it does not violate any of the Wikipedia guidelines. Quidam65 18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for lifting the autoblock. Quidam65 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 17 | 23 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
vandalism
MiFeinberg actually did several vandalisms on his account in the past. Other users have complained about him as well. Perhaps we could look here: [13]
Or perhaps when a full RFA is going on he decides, bah what the heck, I don't have to listen to anyone, I'll just keep reverting all I need to and ignore the 100 some odd people talking about it on the discussion page, and when they revert it back to what the consensus agreed on, I'll just keep going!
He IS a single purpose account, all he has ever wanted since day 1 is for the information to be added to the gun pages "The VA Tech killer used this gun"
Out of close to 100 edits, I'd guess that close to at least 80 are of reverting other users edits to include that statement even though people had already talked about it on the talk page and decided NOT to include it. Personal attack?
You need to start looking through his contributions.
CINEGroup 17:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd consider changing votes on a page as vandalism, or are you telling me you still haven't seen any vandalism yet from this user and that everyone else is just imagining things? Cmon now Netsnipe, you've been here a long long time, is this guy a friend of yours or something? Not trying to be rude but , perhaps you need to smoke a cig, drink the coffee and relook at what he's been doing all over wikipedia. CINEGroup 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
personal attack thanks your unperfsional you should not personal attack users
thanks ps im 18 buddy
Staffwaterboy 17:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC):
So here is a question. It was CINEGroup's agressive attitude towards MiFeinberg that got MiFeinberg blocked in the first place. Since its already established the titles being placed on MiFeinberg were not justified, that would make his reverting a non issue and his being blocked not entirely justified. Perhaps you could look into having him unblocked? Alyeska 17:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
re
Thank you and sorry for any problems that it may caused i am in school and i im typing to fast :-) schools about to end so anyway have a good dayStaffwaterboy 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Please Help
I just came off a 1-hour block instigated by CINEGroup, as you know. Thanks for coming to my defense on my Discussion page. A couple more episodes like this and I'll find something else to do on the Inernet besides hang around Wikipedia.
This CINEGroup guys is a bully. I received four 3RR warnings on [my disussion page] in the the space of 10 minutes. This guy has also threatened the following editors in the past day with being blocked from editing:
This guy is clearly a bully. Can you do anything about this? MiFeinberg 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Stop overreacting. MiFeinberg isn't a bully either. All the above examples you've provided with the exception of Jon6810 were clearly vandalizing Wikipedia. Did you even review any of the above users's contribution logs at all before making that accusation? Both of you please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and grow up -- you're fighting like kids here. -- Netsnipe ⺠18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CINEGroup (talk ⢠contribs)
Please review my comment. I think you were a bit too quick to act on MiFeinberg's word alone. -- Netsnipe ⺠19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see that you left this message minutes before checking Dina's evidences. I know now that you agree w/ the block. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Catanich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The block is actually 6 months -- I thought that as a new administrator I shouldn't do an indef block without someone else reviewing. I can make this an indef block if desired. --Shirahadasha 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
StatisticianBot
Thank you for unblocking the bot account. Much appreciated. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 17:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
Why did you not accept it?--Nosxalc 10:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because your username spelt backwards is Claxson and I care very little for trolls like yourself. Any more disruption to Wikipedia and you may find yourself under a community ban which will mean indefinite blocks of all your accounts on sight, so tread very, very carefully from now on. You've all but exhausted my patience since I have yet to see any productive contributions from you to the encyclopedia -- Netsnipe ⺠12:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Here in discussion, Talk:Daleks in Manhattan; I have been bringing up an issue about whether a piece of continuity information on this particular episode. It remains for now, but I highlighted something that was confusing not only myself but another user also had been confused. I hope you see this is a productive contribution, and I hope in time you'll think less of me as a trolls.
However I am concerned with this user, Klaksonn; my concern is that this user is doing what I believe should be refered to as 'Shadow Puppetery'. They have created a disruptive User profile using a similar name to my own. I do not want you to believe that we are the same.--Nosxalc 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
your account
Hi,
I am improving your account. when your improved account is nice, give me a barnstar. Thanks! Jer10 95 Talk 05:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Falklands War casualties
Many apologies about what I did. It was a mistake. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 18 | 30 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Dude, nothing personal man!
I never meant anything personal!!! --My name a Barato! 05:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for helping me out.
Btw, I know about the whole thing. I spend a lot of time on Digg, and posted an article about it on [http:www.politics.wikia.com politics.wikia] about it. I just couldn't think of how to explain it. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
HD DVD warning to anon
Hi there. I noticed that you left a template warning against leaving the HD DVD key as an edit summary on the talk page of an anon, but looking through his or her list of contributions, I see no such edit summaries. Am I missing something here (it would be kind of stupid of HD DVD's creators to set their key to something like "rv {weasel words}"), or did you jump the gun on this one? --Dynaflow 18:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- The edit was deleted from the page history and is now only visible to administrators. -- Netsnipe ⺠18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I edited his invisible comment saying Wiki doesn't censor, indicating the hyprocracy of that statement, and made the key my edit summary. Now that was probably not a good contribution at all in a moment of ill temper - however... it got purged from Wiki, not just edited, talk about point illustration. Now if that isn't good old fashioned book burning, what is? WikiLaywering, plain and simple. Admins acting like this risk provoking massive edit wars - of the sort that destabilized Digg - NetSnipe gave me a warning, consider this a friendly word of advice back in return, if you push in such a hypocritical manner - it will come back to haunt you, not by me - but eventually the user base will pass a critical mass of aggravation as is the case on Digg. 71.204.133.75 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator Abuse by User:Netsnipe, and I quote a response from Jimbo Wales , To my knowledge, the foundation has not been served with a cease-and-desist order, and neither has the Foundation expressed any opinion on this matter. Speaking in my individual capacity in my traditional role in Wikipedia, I am simply advising everyone to stay relaxed and focussed on the big picture goals of Wikipedia, and understand that people who disagree with you on this point are also human beings who love freedom of information.--Jimbo Wales 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 71.204.133.75 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, I have no absolute fundamental objection to legal compliance. What I have a problem with is mis-charaterization, as evidenced by claims that Wiki does not censor - when the same sentence follows on by doing just that and then claiming higher authority (US Law) - the application of higher authority in no way redeems the contradiction of the statement. Had you not alleged it was not censorship it would be a non-issue. This row has a lot more to do with claiming not to censor and then doing so by low level purging than the law. 71.204.133.75 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hypocrisy does leave a bad taste. On the other hand, we all indulge in a bit of self-delusion now and then (we need it to stay sane). The RIAA have successfully managed to get people scared of them and fear makes people act irrationally. Sure, you can prove a point over the "magic DVD number" but its a cheap shot... wait till there are a hundred or a thousand illegal hex numbers roaming the net and admins are going nuts deleting anything that even smells like a big number. Oh what fun we will all have then :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.12.133 (talk • contribs)
AN/I notice
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator_Abuse_by_User:Netsnipe for discussion concerning you. --Ali'i 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for finally putting a long-term ban on The Blake Upper School's IP address. In my four years here, I've seen a ridiculous amount of "joke edits" from students, and zero legitimate contributions. Hopefully this will finally put an end to all that, and those kids will just go back to playing flash games instead of vandilizing. vertigociel 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
concerning the ban on ip 12.163.10.190
This is a high school ip address (12.163.10.190). I understand that some students have absolutely no respect for the wiki world of any kind, but this 6 month ban is affecting people who want to make an account at school. I've had many people ask me to show them how to make an account only to be blocked, and just give up... this isnt good. If its possible could you please make it so that the ip is still banned but make it so that you could make an account? Thanks 'Scaper 19:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Block of MrWez
They are autoblocked due to a sock of Claxson (talk · contribs), and while there is some overlap in articles, MrWez (talk · contribs) started editing well before any Claxon accounts were blocked. Also, you suggest that a checkuser be used to exonerate them, but checkusers aren't granted for exoneration, only to confirm socks. I suggest that the autoblock be lifted barring any stronger evidence, but you may wish to open a checkuser to confirm they are a sock. —dgiestc 06:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this page was [14] by User:Zscout370 on April 17th and again by you on April 20th (I'm guessing it was recreated by someone in that interim or something), and that there was no discussion beforehand as to why. I don't think there's evidence this was an attack page. Many positive qualities of Mr. Furey were espoused, with links to sites supporting his views even presented before ones critical of them. Furthermore, the criticisms on the page were not unsourced. It's pretty confusing, what initiated this? Furthermore, criticism serves not simply to badmouth, but to inform people of the content and healthiness of the methods. It is much like listing the dangerous of pharmaceutical drgs. Tyciol 17:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The article you're referring to has been deleted twice if you look at its deletion log. After it was deleted the first time around, it was recreated as an attack page with statements such as "it is fair to describe his business persona as a slimy used car salesman". As to the nature of the complaint leading to the article being deleted the first time around, you'll need to contact someone from OTRS. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ⺠17:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've contacted the editor who deleted it the first time to attempt to resolve this. User_talk:Zscout370/Archive_8#Matt_Furey Tyciol 14:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Netsnipe
I was inserting a new tourism template that I made up when I noticed an offensive comment about Sydney in one of the articles. It metioned Sydney as being a gay capitol or something like this. As soon as I noticed it I removed part of the sentence to make it sound normal. Was I justified in doing this and can we stop comments like this being added in future. Mindys12345 11:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 19 | 7 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
09 F9... editors
I feel someone should know about User:Ghost_of_starman and his edits Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#Post_the_key. I may disagree with what the current feeling about how to deal with these types of users -- WP:KEYSPAM, i thought you might want to review this editor's edits. Thanks, MrMacMan Talk 08:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Got a response, User_talk:Bryan_Derksen#09_F9_editors. Sorry for inconvenience. MrMacMan Talk 09:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This I.P.
The ip i am using belongs to my high school and is blocked because of vandalism. I would appreciate it if you unblocked this ip address because it conflicts with my "editing wikipedia" hour. Dflav1138 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
How many hits per page
Hi Netsnipe
Is it possible to find out how many hits a page receives, it would be interesting to find out. Mindys12345 05:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
School IP Blocked
- IP address: 208.63.46.9
- Blocking admin: Netsnipe
- Block reason: {schoolblock}
Hi, while it isn't a big deal to me since I have an account, I know that there are others that use wikipedia at my school and are helpful contribitors. I request that you unblock my schoool's IP address and, if you can, tell me what time the vandilism takes place and what page (I can forward it to the network admin at my school and she can look up which users visited those pages around that time and wither warn them or cut them off).--Cadet hastings 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for getting you wrapped up in the mess. I left a little more info on my talk page so you can see where I'm coming from. If you have any additional advice, send it my way. -- I already forgot talk 10:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 20 | 14 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Help needed with SEO article
I've nominated search engine optimization for featured article status, and you've helped edit this article. Could you possibly look at the references on the article and then leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization as to whether you think the blogs and forums cited as references qualify as reliable sources. In order to achieve featured article status we need community consensus that the references are reliable. If you know any other Wikipedians who have expertise in this area, we welcome their comments. Thank you! Jehochman â / â 19:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits to MediaWiki:Blockedtext
Hello, autoblocked and directly blocked now recieve different messages so there is no need to re-include the section you just added. The other message can be found at MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, that wasn't meant to have the header of one of the user warning templates. GDonato (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is. An editor affected by a range block or a hard IP block will NEVER see MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext. Instead they'll get MediaWiki:Blockedtext and when they post {{unblock}} we'll be unable to do anything because we won't know what their IP address is. Case in point, see Smileydude66 who just got hit by a stale open proxy block. -- Netsnipe ⺠19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Aranherunar
Regarding Aranherunar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I see the block has now expired and you have left a 1 second note in the block log. I don't believe it the user's explanation, though. I checked carefully, and there is no "Japan is pure bullshit" diff to revert to. If I am missing something, though, I should apologize to the user, which is why I'm asking you, do you have a specific reason to believe I erred? ··coelacan 20:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't either after a casual search, but I decided to assume good faith considering he made a legitimate edit immediately afterwards. Aranherunar certainly didn't fit my expectations for an editor gone rouge (they usually go out with a bang) and I think a warning or a demand for an explanation might have been more appropriate in this case. You don't need to apologize, hopefully I've mitigated any anger on his part if you did indeed make a mistake in blocking. -- Netsnipe ⺠20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I'll just chalk it up to "who knows?" If nothing like that happens in hte future, the block log won't cause any trouble for the user anyway. ··coelacan 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Smile!
Jer10 95 Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Jer10 95 Talk 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I left a note at that talk page about my earlier change in the template wording--discussion there is solicited. Regards, 75.62.6.237 05:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:uw-attack
I've moved it back. the uw- space is for the standardized templates at WP:UTM. Proposals should be brought up on WT:UTM. It seems this template is a copy of the uw-npa series or the uw-biog series. If not, a standardized template will probably be made. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 16:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Recurring abuse from Kitler05
I see that you've given an "absolutely final chance" to Kitler005 on 6 September 2006. Since then, the user has created a nonsense article (21 May 2007, Talking Cats) and made a frivolous edit to a usertalk page (17 May 2007, User talk:70.179.107.79); both warnings were posted to the user's talkpage today. Would it be safe to assume that this user still does not take Wikipedia seriously? Derumi 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 21 | 21 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: RFVWSXEDC
I din;t actually unblock anyone, I couldn't find an autoblock for them so I just assumed it was expired. You're welcome to as you like though. (You might want to remove that wikibreak notice by the way.) -- John Reaves (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Unblocking
Thanks, dude. Lexicon (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Re:Since you're a new admin...
Could you please tell me how you handled Moon Rising's unblock request? I don't see anything in your log entries detailing how you went about handling what appears to be a range block (which is somewhat trickier to handle if you're unfamiliar with CIDR notation. -- Netsnipe ⺠11:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's the thing, see- I accepted the request for unblocking, but I could not see anything in the block log of 4.245.121.6- could you tell me what I did wrong? That led to about half an hour of confusion- in the end I just assumed that it had expired. I'm definitely unfamiliar with CIDR notation. You say it was a range block- how do we unblock that range? Thanks in advance for your help- CattleGirl talk | sign! 22:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thomprod
I noticed that you removed the autoblock on Thomprod. Please see my posting at ANI. This is corporate spam at its worst. --Selket Talk 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
School block appreciation
Thanks for your recent block of 209.80.150.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)}. This gives us regular editors some encouragement that it's worth filing those boring vandal warnings, and attempting to make an impression at the frequently unsympathetic ear of WP:AIV. I guess the rules must have changed lately, because when I used to file things at AIV several months ago, they were even cleaning out the *vandal warnings* from some of the talk pages, which did not seem much reinforcement for continuing to report things. EdJohnston 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemo
Hm. Preemo, Preemo... let me check.
checks
Oh yes. Luigi30 had protected a few articles against Colbert-incited vandalism, and in response Preeeeeeemo criticized him as being "unamerican": Colbert-themed nonsense if ever I saw it.
However, using Colbert vocabulary to criticize someone for preventing Colbert vandalism does not itself constitute vandalism. I overreacted; I won't object if you reduce his block to a day or so. DS 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm unblocking User:Preeeemo immediately. It may have warranted a level one personal attack warning, but definitely not a block. -- Netsnipe ⺠19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Catanich Request
Please see WP:COIN#User:Catanich 2 for discussion of a request by User:Catanich, who claims that Google searching is identifying discussion of the block and this is hurting his business, and is asking to be unblocked for purposes of changing his username so google searches on the business won't the Wikipedia block. What do you think? Please see the additional info at and respond on WP:COIN#User:Catanich 2. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
No, nothing to do with the RfA, this comment came after that, and I didn't block at that time. The user was identified as a sockpuppet and blocked for 72 hours. I thought that either no block or a long-term block were the only two options that made sense, and no block had been overruled. I understand the RDNS/pooled IP issue should likely have precluded any block under the circumstances. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Answer
Hello, Netsnipe,
I had already been told that warnings should be put at the bottom of a User Talk page, and have submitted a patch to correct this bug in the tool I use (fr:User:EDUCA33E/LiveRC). This has been corrected and now, warnings are properly done. This is culture shock! fr:, at the top, en:, at the bottom... Have a nice day! ⦠Pabix 05:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
IP's at it again
Hi there!
You had blocked 60.241.54.145 (talk · contribs) for continous addition of non-existent films to several Bollywood articles. I believe it is the same editor as Sc4900 (talk · contribs) who I also reported at WP:ANI for intentional disruption by adding in non-existent films.
Just wanted to say he's at it again - these edits. Your guidance in this would be appreciated.
xC | â 07:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am disturbed and disappointed by your decision to summarily delete the Daniel S. Nevins article. The first sentence of the article makes the rather explicit claim of notability as "Dean of the Rabbinical School of the Jewish Theological Seminary". A click on that article would have indicated that the school is one of the primary rabbinic seminaries of the Conservative Judaism movement and a school affiliated with Columbia University. The proffered explanation of WP:CSD#A7 is unacceptable given the explicit claim of notability and the breadth and content of the article. Your assistance in undoing the damage you have done will be appreciated. Alansohn 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- There were no 3rd party reliable sources to substantiate his notability as required by the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. A "personal website" link is insufficient in this regard. The article was also part of a series of biographies all started and mostly written by User:Rabbijason who made substantial Wikipedia:Conflict of interest violations including authoring his own autobiography at Jason A. Miller. If you wish to have my actions overturned then file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Netsnipe ⺠02:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- One would assume that, as an administrator, you would be familiar with the various mechanisms that exists to request the addition of sources. Again, and as you have ignored, the article you took it upon yourself to delete made explicit claims of notability, in complete contradiction to your improper and destructive use of WP:CSD#A7 as a rather poor excuse for deletion. I find it disappointing that you are hiding behind the Wikipedia:Deletion review process, rather than revisiting and undoing the damage you have caused. It astounds me that there are administrators who exercise such poor discretion in using the powers they have been granted. Alansohn 02:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to blame anyone, you can blame User:Rabbijason for violating Wikipedia:Sock puppetry in the first place. This in effect brought his Wikipedia:Conflict of interest violations and non-compliance with Wikipedia:Notability (people) to my attention. -- Netsnipe ⺠02:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know who this user is, have never interacted with him and do not know who he is in real life. I didn't delete this article, you did. This and other deletions were somehow intended to cleanse Wikipedia of any articles that this user had contact with. There is the alternative possibility that among all his edits, there might have been some legitimate edits. A check of the links to this now defunct article supports the claims of notability, including providing sources to his background, especially at the Frisch School article, where I had added a reliably sourced article that clearly demonstrates notability. I will again ask you to take a look at the article and those items that link to it and see if there just might justification for keeping this article, despite the fact that you see issues with its creator. Your efforts in doing this review and recreating the article will undo the damage created by the deletion of the article. I will be more than happy to add additional reliable sources sources to address any of your legitimate concerns. Alansohn 03:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've now undeleted Alan Silverstein, Daniel S. Nevins, Jason A. Miller and William H. Lebeau and tagged them as requested by you. I will send them to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if they do not meet our Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines within 2 weeks. -- Netsnipe ⺠17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the restores. I only wanted Nevins, but thanks for all four. Reliable and verifiable sources have been added for Daniel S. Nevins, William H. Lebeau and Alan Silverstein. I would say that Jason A. Miller has by far the weakest claim of prospective notability, and I am unlikely to be able to make any substantive improvement. Feel free to review the others to see if notability has been claimed and supported. Alansohn 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
More Wayne Smith crap
Andrew,
I am not very wikipedia-capable, so it is very difficult for me to use the proper syntax, etc.
I would be easier for me (and much better for wikipedia) if an admin adds to the linkspam lists etc.
Wayne is now using 58.165.66.172 Can that be blocked?
Also he is pointing to his myspace rant. Can this also be blocked?
http://www.myspace.com/universedaily
Yale s 05:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
yale
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 22 | 28 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Bijanse — indefinite block?
I can't see grounds for an indefinite block of this User; having poor English is not grounds for a block of any kind, and he's only had one previous block of twenty-four hours. My impulse was to unblock, but perhaps you'd prefer to do it (or to give a better justification for it — though indefinite blocks of named accounts are not easily justified). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well if you want to keep cleaning up after Bijanse (talk · contribs) and mentor him/her, then by all means unblock this person. If the warnings on their talk pagepage didn't get through to them, I doubt any further clarifications I post would. -- Netsnipe ⺠06:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Clarification required over User:White2020
Please clarify why this new user has been issued with a username block. PS: In future, please stop using "user..." as your block reason when {{usernameblock}} has been provided for you in the drop box, it only confuses users. -- Netsnipe ⺠06:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- The username meets the criteria "Usernames that refer or include allusions to racism, sexism, hate speech, et cetera." according to WP:USERNAME, since "white" refers to white people. If you disagree with the block however, feel free to unblock. About the block reason, next time I'll use the template. Yamamoto Ichiro (å±±æ¬ä¸é)(ä¼è©±) 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's preposterous. If Barry White and Jack Black were to use their surnames as part of their usernames, I'd suppose you'd block them too. -- Netsnipe ⺠14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I decided to stop monitoring for username violation anyways. Infact, I was going to unblock them myself later on. Thanks for the warning I guess. Yamamoto Ichiro (å±±æ¬ä¸é)(ä¼è©±) 18:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's preposterous. If Barry White and Jack Black were to use their surnames as part of their usernames, I'd suppose you'd block them too. -- Netsnipe ⺠14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Your block of IP 204.174.188.9
Hi, I'm new to this whole anmin thing, so I was wondering if you could explain to me why you gave IP 204.174.188.9 a six month block. I thought that first blocks should be around 24 hours; and for school-owned IPs like that one, I've only been giving 3 hour blocks because by then the students who were causing the problems would have gone off to another class. --Arctic Gnome (talk ⢠contribs) 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
User Jonathanmbaez
User:Jonathanmbaez Only vandalize the Wikipedia Page once and it was by mistake....He is new to this place and when he saw the great vandalism in the History Section of the Dominican Republic he couldnt do nothing but delete the whole section...he found it so offensive that he was forced to delete it thinking that it was the right thing to do!..I'm his cousin and i told him not to do that again!...they gave him a warning but then he learned not to do that and he didnt do it again...so could you please unblock it?EdwinCasadoBaez 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
F1Fanaticsz
Hello. I noticed that you recently banned User:F1Fanaticsz, who I've been monitoring because I had a gut feeling that they might be a sockpuppet of User:Davnel03. I am now certain of it. To explain why, I shall try and summarise events so far.
A conversation between several WikiProject Formula One users started developing on my talk page due to suspicions being aroused that the new user User:Daviiid was in fact a sockpuppet of Davnel03, who was indefinitely banned. Daviiid left a message on my talk page admitting to the sockpuppetry but followed it up with a threat to vandalise Wikipedia if they were blocked. As he was evading a ban, I reported the sockpuppets and they were banned. Immediately afterwards, my talk page and several others of users from the Formula One WikiProject were vandalised by 87.127.39.114, who has now been shown to be F1Fanaticsz. It is therefore my opinion that F1Fanaticsz is a sockpuppet of Davnel03 and should have their ban made indefinite.
If you require any more information then feel free to ask. Readro 00:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thomprod
I noticed that you removed the autoblock on Thomprod. Please see my posting at ANI. This is corporate spam at its worst. --Selket Talk 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
School block appreciation
Thanks for your recent block of 209.80.150.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)}. This gives us regular editors some encouragement that it's worth filing those boring vandal warnings, and attempting to make an impression at the frequently unsympathetic ear of WP:AIV. I guess the rules must have changed lately, because when I used to file things at AIV several months ago, they were even cleaning out the *vandal warnings* from some of the talk pages, which did not seem much reinforcement for continuing to report things. EdJohnston 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemo
Hm. Preemo, Preemo... let me check.
checks
Oh yes. Luigi30 had protected a few articles against Colbert-incited vandalism, and in response Preeeeeeemo criticized him as being "unamerican": Colbert-themed nonsense if ever I saw it.
However, using Colbert vocabulary to criticize someone for preventing Colbert vandalism does not itself constitute vandalism. I overreacted; I won't object if you reduce his block to a day or so. DS 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm unblocking User:Preeeemo immediately. It may have warranted a level one personal attack warning, but definitely not a block. -- Netsnipe ► 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Catanich Request
Please see WP:COIN#User:Catanich 2 for discussion of a request by User:Catanich, who claims that Google searching is identifying discussion of the block and this is hurting his business, and is asking to be unblocked for purposes of changing his username so google searches on the business won't the Wikipedia block. What do you think? Please see the additional info at and respond on WP:COIN#User:Catanich 2. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
No, nothing to do with the RfA, this comment came after that, and I didn't block at that time. The user was identified as a sockpuppet and blocked for 72 hours. I thought that either no block or a long-term block were the only two options that made sense, and no block had been overruled. I understand the RDNS/pooled IP issue should likely have precluded any block under the circumstances. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Answer
Hello, Netsnipe,
I had already been told that warnings should be put at the bottom of a User Talk page, and have submitted a patch to correct this bug in the tool I use (fr:User:EDUCA33E/LiveRC). This has been corrected and now, warnings are properly done. This is culture shock! fr:, at the top, en:, at the bottom... Have a nice day! ♦ Pabix 05:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
IP's at it again
Hi there!
You had blocked 60.241.54.145 (talk · contribs) for continous addition of non-existent films to several Bollywood articles. I believe it is the same editor as Sc4900 (talk · contribs) who I also reported at WP:ANI for intentional disruption by adding in non-existent films.
Just wanted to say he's at it again - these edits. Your guidance in this would be appreciated.
xC | ☎ 07:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am disturbed and disappointed by your decision to summarily delete the Daniel S. Nevins article. The first sentence of the article makes the rather explicit claim of notability as "Dean of the Rabbinical School of the Jewish Theological Seminary". A click on that article would have indicated that the school is one of the primary rabbinic seminaries of the Conservative Judaism movement and a school affiliated with Columbia University. The proffered explanation of WP:CSD#A7 is unacceptable given the explicit claim of notability and the breadth and content of the article. Your assistance in undoing the damage you have done will be appreciated. Alansohn 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- There were no 3rd party reliable sources to substantiate his notability as required by the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. A "personal website" link is insufficient in this regard. The article was also part of a series of biographies all started and mostly written by User:Rabbijason who made substantial Wikipedia:Conflict of interest violations including authoring his own autobiography at Jason A. Miller. If you wish to have my actions overturned then file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Netsnipe ► 02:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- One would assume that, as an administrator, you would be familiar with the various mechanisms that exists to request the addition of sources. Again, and as you have ignored, the article you took it upon yourself to delete made explicit claims of notability, in complete contradiction to your improper and destructive use of WP:CSD#A7 as a rather poor excuse for deletion. I find it disappointing that you are hiding behind the Wikipedia:Deletion review process, rather than revisiting and undoing the damage you have caused. It astounds me that there are administrators who exercise such poor discretion in using the powers they have been granted. Alansohn 02:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to blame anyone, you can blame User:Rabbijason for violating Wikipedia:Sock puppetry in the first place. This in effect brought his Wikipedia:Conflict of interest violations and non-compliance with Wikipedia:Notability (people) to my attention. -- Netsnipe ► 02:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know who this user is, have never interacted with him and do not know who he is in real life. I didn't delete this article, you did. This and other deletions were somehow intended to cleanse Wikipedia of any articles that this user had contact with. There is the alternative possibility that among all his edits, there might have been some legitimate edits. A check of the links to this now defunct article supports the claims of notability, including providing sources to his background, especially at the Frisch School article, where I had added a reliably sourced article that clearly demonstrates notability. I will again ask you to take a look at the article and those items that link to it and see if there just might justification for keeping this article, despite the fact that you see issues with its creator. Your efforts in doing this review and recreating the article will undo the damage created by the deletion of the article. I will be more than happy to add additional reliable sources sources to address any of your legitimate concerns. Alansohn 03:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've now undeleted Alan Silverstein, Daniel S. Nevins, Jason A. Miller and William H. Lebeau and tagged them as requested by you. I will send them to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if they do not meet our Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines within 2 weeks. -- Netsnipe ► 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the restores. I only wanted Nevins, but thanks for all four. Reliable and verifiable sources have been added for Daniel S. Nevins, William H. Lebeau and Alan Silverstein. I would say that Jason A. Miller has by far the weakest claim of prospective notability, and I am unlikely to be able to make any substantive improvement. Feel free to review the others to see if notability has been claimed and supported. Alansohn 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
More Wayne Smith crap
Andrew,
I am not very wikipedia-capable, so it is very difficult for me to use the proper syntax, etc.
I would be easier for me (and much better for wikipedia) if an admin adds to the linkspam lists etc.
Wayne is now using 58.165.66.172 Can that be blocked?
Also he is pointing to his myspace rant. Can this also be blocked?
http://www.myspace.com/universedaily
Yale s 05:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
yale
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 22 | 28 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Bijanse — indefinite block?
I can't see grounds for an indefinite block of this User; having poor English is not grounds for a block of any kind, and he's only had one previous block of twenty-four hours. My impulse was to unblock, but perhaps you'd prefer to do it (or to give a better justification for it — though indefinite blocks of named accounts are not easily justified). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well if you want to keep cleaning up after Bijanse (talk · contribs) and mentor him/her, then by all means unblock this person. If the warnings on their talk pagepage didn't get through to them, I doubt any further clarifications I post would. -- Netsnipe ► 06:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Clarification required over User:White2020
Please clarify why this new user has been issued with a username block. PS: In future, please stop using "user..." as your block reason when {{usernameblock}} has been provided for you in the drop box, it only confuses users. -- Netsnipe ► 06:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- The username meets the criteria "Usernames that refer or include allusions to racism, sexism, hate speech, et cetera." according to WP:USERNAME, since "white" refers to white people. If you disagree with the block however, feel free to unblock. About the block reason, next time I'll use the template. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's preposterous. If Barry White and Jack Black were to use their surnames as part of their usernames, I'd suppose you'd block them too. -- Netsnipe ► 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I decided to stop monitoring for username violation anyways. Infact, I was going to unblock them myself later on. Thanks for the warning I guess. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's preposterous. If Barry White and Jack Black were to use their surnames as part of their usernames, I'd suppose you'd block them too. -- Netsnipe ► 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Your block of IP 204.174.188.9
Hi, I'm new to this whole anmin thing, so I was wondering if you could explain to me why you gave IP 204.174.188.9 a six month block. I thought that first blocks should be around 24 hours; and for school-owned IPs like that one, I've only been giving 3 hour blocks because by then the students who were causing the problems would have gone off to another class. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
User Jonathanmbaez
User:Jonathanmbaez Only vandalize the Wikipedia Page once and it was by mistake....He is new to this place and when he saw the great vandalism in the History Section of the Dominican Republic he couldnt do nothing but delete the whole section...he found it so offensive that he was forced to delete it thinking that it was the right thing to do!..I'm his cousin and i told him not to do that again!...they gave him a warning but then he learned not to do that and he didnt do it again...so could you please unblock it?EdwinCasadoBaez 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
F1Fanaticsz
Hello. I noticed that you recently banned User:F1Fanaticsz, who I've been monitoring because I had a gut feeling that they might be a sockpuppet of User:Davnel03. I am now certain of it. To explain why, I shall try and summarise events so far.
A conversation between several WikiProject Formula One users started developing on my talk page due to suspicions being aroused that the new user User:Daviiid was in fact a sockpuppet of Davnel03, who was indefinitely banned. Daviiid left a message on my talk page admitting to the sockpuppetry but followed it up with a threat to vandalise Wikipedia if they were blocked. As he was evading a ban, I reported the sockpuppets and they were banned. Immediately afterwards, my talk page and several others of users from the Formula One WikiProject were vandalised by 87.127.39.114, who has now been shown to be F1Fanaticsz. It is therefore my opinion that F1Fanaticsz is a sockpuppet of Davnel03 and should have their ban made indefinite.
If you require any more information then feel free to ask. Readro 00:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Cory thompson1
The user behind the Cory thompson1 had created these accounts at the same time:
Just a heads-up. --健次(derumi)talk 08:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
White Dragon (England)
Significant abuse going on here at the hands of WhiteDragonSlayer/WDS1/WDS2/WDS3.
Deletion to the discussions page. All material being put in is POV/non-referenced/lacking citations/ridiculous. I believe 212.139.218.107 to be the same person. White43 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 23 | 4 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
alucard changer who you just blocked and is...
here... 76.166.146.69 (user name)Charred Feathers 09:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Alucard/Arucard war is continuing
I've spotted edits by a similar IP: 76.166.146.69. The editing is exactly the same, which brings suspicion that the same person has simply switched seats in a computer lab. I'll leave it to you to decide any action. Bob f it 09:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the articles in question and blocked the IP as well. Next time you're involved in an edit war, please report the person to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (WP:AN3) instead of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV) which is for Wikipedia:Vandalism only. Thanks. -- ~~
Better source request for Image:Gavel_icon.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gavel_icon.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
BoojiBoy
I concede my error, and have reduced his block to 12 hours plus time served; I've also notified him of this. Thank you for pointing it out to me. DS 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Block length
Replied at more length on my talk page, but feel free to extend the block if you consider it inappropriately short. MastCell Talk 20:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Really?
This isn't vandalism:[15], also inserting Canada just to be silly isn't either? I know what vandalism is btw. Quadzilla99 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes frustrated people do silly things when they think they're being treated unfairly. As for Canada, he does point out on his user talk page that Steppenwolf were Canadian. -- Netsnipe ► 15:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not even a contributor to the page I just have it on my watchlist. But saying Heavy metal music didn't originate in the US or originated solely in the UK is absurd—Jimi Hendrix and Iron Butterfly are always considered some of the proncipal forerunners by every source I've read—and has been reverted by others as well. To me it's like saying President Bush is a woman, that's why I considered it vandalism. Maybe he hasn't read up on it as much and doesn't believe so. I could see how that might be the case. Quadzilla99 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Noticed your block change on the above. Good call - I was unaware of the Bess thing - Alison ☺ 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've been blocking SharedIPEDUs far, far too often to know these things. I hate how online anonymity has turned an entire generation into brats who have no respect for the Commons = / -- Netsnipe ► 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Monitoring many IP addresses
Hi,
I saw you added the RSS notice on the SharedIP template so I figured you may have some suggestions for me. We have nine class C's and I'd like to monitor all of our IP addresses for abuse so we can revert it quickly and let the teachers know about the abuse. Is there an easy way without subscribing to or watching 2300 different feeds or talk pages?
Thanks.
-Dan : Dsm 01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Removal of autoblock
Just wanted to say thanks for removing the autoblock on my IP address! It's the second time this IP address has been blocked in as many weeks, and I think the IP address is used exclusively for the company I work for, so it puzzles me who would be doing things like that. Keep up the good work. Sidasta 15:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Brittany roach
Thanks for the speedy + block. Keep up the good work. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
SS chart
thanks for unblocking me, i appreciate that. i have noticed that some ss or nazi related articles are sometimes dominated by ss rank or military fetishists. is there a place where i can carry a more general discussion about what should be in an article and what should not? or is this discussion already taking place somewhere. oh and i did get a second opinion from some random admin once who agreed that the chart was a bit too muchtrueblood 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest the Wikipedia:Village pump. -- Netsnipe ► 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your Help
Thanks for your actions on the Rudolf Hoess article. User:Trueblood at last posted what his intentions were which cleared it up a little bit, although there was a little bit of personal attackness going on in his reply. See me reply [16] for why I reported him in the first place. I didn't mean to get a editor in good faith blocked, at the time it really seemed like he was vandalizing the article. Anyway, thanks again. -OberRanks 16:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
A Late "Your Welcome"
Hi Noldoaran,
You welcomed me to Wikipedia all the way back on Nov 21, 2003. So, thanks. Hope this makes you feel warm and fuzzy for the rest of today. = )
You're very welcome. That did make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Noldoaran 05:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: 64.38.3.218 unblocked
Thanks. That's why I had reblocked, pending a WHOIS check, but I got kinda sidetracked and never got around to doing it. Thanks again. ^demon[omg plz] 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Bluefire princess/ User:Anubiz
RE: the Anubiz autoblock... I had a very strong feeling that would happen when I blocked Blue Princess. I've been fairly certain there has been some trolling shenanigans going on here. Good call to decline. WP:BEANS, I expect one more autoblock to happen very soon.--Isotope23 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The Hitler Guy
Yeah, I didnt pay any attn to the username. By the time I realized it, you had already cleaned up my mess. Thanks for that. :) --soum talk 14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
BABOON MAN has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Good Job!
Graet Job at WP:AIV you were the only 1 there, again good job,Take Care--Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
Just a heads up, he's still at it right now. I know he's upset but it's getting disruptive to keep cleaning up his messes. Wildthing61476 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Smeggypants / Vexorg
Hi. Thanks for helping the above editor work through that weird block. Looks like the username block moved over when the 'crat moved their account history (same as page protects do, I guess). Thanks for the help! - Alison ☺ 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext
Hello, Netsnipe! A user who noticed the recent change in MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext asked a question about it at WP:VPT#WHOIS links on IPs' talk pages. I'm sure he or she would appreciate it if you commented there! Thanks, Iamunknown 05:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The Spinning Star
Hope ya enjoy, I never even heard of Barnstars until somehow finding my way to this page.--Eloc 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
74.211.84.233 and the Theory of everything
You've blocked him once for vandalizing Theory of everything. He went on. I gave him a "uw-vand4im" warning. He still goes strong, including this gem. What do we do? --Friendly Neighbour 15:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Problem solved by another admin. A pity that only for 120 hours but that's better than nothing. You may want to see for your self how he got agitated to the point he blew a sock account he kept in reserve (Betanon (talk · contribs), now indefinitely blocked). Cheerio. --Friendly Neighbour 16:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Opps
I guess i was on high on crack when i did that. Sorry, hope it never happens again.--Nighthawkzx 15:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Question
Hi! In your block summary for 12.207.12.28 , you said that the user was a sockpuppet. Do you know who the other puppets are? mcr616 Speak! 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- No I don't. But it's safe to say that IP editors don't target the user pages of other editors unless they've been here before. If you believe that 's harassment is part of an ongoing campaign, then file a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. -- Netsnipe ► 17:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles for deletion/AFOL
Hi Netsnipe, I'm bringing this to your attention because I'm not sure of the right place to go. A few users who have voted on the AfD for AFOL seem to be single purpose accounts. There are 2 at last count who all voted keep that have very few contributions. If you could look into it, that would be great. Thanks! mcr616 Speak! 21:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:Block
Um...I don't exactly understand what "circumstances of your Internet connection" mean. however, I can say that I am not in Korea or anywhere that area. I'm from Malaysia. So...does that help? Cheers!! -Zachary crimsonwolf 12:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Open proxy block for 161.200.255.162
Hi. I see that you blocked 161.200.255.162 (talk, contribs) on 30 May for being an open proxy. Apparently, the proxy is used by Chulalongkorn University and all traffic from the University's networks seem to go through it. I already put an unblock request at WP:OP, but thought you might be able to tell me what if the network configurations need to be fixed, so that I may notify those responsible. - Paul_012 (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the block was actually by Dmcdevit, sorry for the confusion. - Paul_012 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Barnaster
Why did you delete the barnaster? Pro Game Master87 09:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
RE: your comments at User talk:202.27.83.43
Hi there,
Thanks for the recommendation. However I would like to inquire if a permanent block is possible where the actual IP address is blocked however account creation is allowed, for legitimate uses. I believe most students make quick-fire vandalism and most would not spend the simple effort to create an account (also it is against school rules - teachers will be on the lookout). Also with our security systems, account creation is blocked by students - leaving it open for staff to make use of this wonderful resource. Even if a student does create an account and proceeds to vandalize Wikipedia, we would be able to track them down and discipline the student appropriately.
Thanks, - Tbcadmin 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with allowing account creation is that students could just keep on creating new accounts each day just to vandalize Wikipedia since no email verification is required. And if one of those accounts is blocked, all editors at your school's IP address including registered users will be autoblocked for 24 hours. This is a countermeasure that's built into MediaWiki to stop a blocked vandal from just logging out and then continuing to vandalize using another account or anonymously. owever, that does cause collateral damage on Shared IPs such as yours, so we strongly recommend disabling account creation or else genuine editors would have a hard time editing without constantly being disrupted by autoblocks. Could you please elaborate how "account creation is blocked by students" by your "security systems"? Does your web filter prevent access to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup ? -- Netsnipe ► 05:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
RE: our security - yes, we can have any page blocked from individual student logins. Thanks, - Tbcadmin 05:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- You do realise that the URL for logging in is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin, while the one for account creation is the same with &type=signup appended to the end of it. Are you sure your webfilter can discriminate against variables in URLs? If so, then yes, we can block editing by anonymous users and still allow for account creation. -- Netsnipe ► 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would think so, I will check with IT tomorrow. Cheers, - Tbcadmin 06:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, sorry about the delay. I think a school block of the mentioned type (above) should serve us well, and the school has been spoken to at an assembly. Cheers, - Tbcadmin 09:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
An admirer
FYI, Netsn1p3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked tonight. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 25 | 18 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for lifting the block, I am going to have a little chit chat with my roommate about Wikipedia etiquette! --Sopranosmob781 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
E-mail address
I have an e-mail address listed, what do you mean by registered? Thank you btw, for the range block. They use a variety pakistani ip addresses, but the most seem to come from that range and the unprotect requests in bad broken english have slowed down since you did that. — OcatecirT 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies
Hope I didn't make that block of 58.168.243.99 any harder than it should have been. All the best. Mmoneypenny 13:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
A question
Did you block Hepburn because in hepburn block log it says:
- 18:58, 19 June 2007 Chaser (Talk | contribs) blocked "05hepburn (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
- Does my username look like "Chaser" to you? = P. Anyway, I'll reblock it indefinitely now. -- Netsnipe ► 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Yes, I was still a rather new admin back then; anyways thanks for the heads up, and sorry for my mistake. —Anas talk? 13:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
First World Problems
Thank you for the deletion (although G1 doesn't really fit; that's for gibberish) Could you copy the revision immediately before the AfD tag was put on to my userspace? I want to be able to cite it as a Horrible Example (and do leave me a note if you do). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Your Sig is Nice!...
How did you do the sig? I might need to work on my sig a little more. Do I?-- PNiddy-~ // My edits 16:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Rambutan autoblock
Thanks for unblocking me.--Rambutan (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.
It worked! Hanoi Girl 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Mrdoody55
Your asking me to defend a username block I made 14 months ago. See the urban dicitionary entry for doody to see perhaps why I blocked him. Honestly that may have been the only reason, it may have been a reach on my part, but 14 months of no one bringing up the issue seems to be that it wasn't a controversial block. Looking at my block log from that period, I also blocked User:Poomonkey000. For all I can remember, there may have been "many" feces-related user names created during that day/week and those may have the only 2 I blocked. That's all I have to say on the issue. Pepsidrinka 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Since it was asked upon me to defend my block, I'll do so, with some more facts, which seem to have been overlooked. I made the block on April 24, 2006. The policy regarding usernames can be found at [17], that is, the appropriate policy corresponding to when I made the block. Interesting to note that specifically mentioned in the policy is "Names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body", which would correspond to the urbandictionary reference I provided earlier. Also interesting to note is that I also blocked User:Lumpypoo, User:Funwithpoop, User:Superpoo, User:Poopooface, and User:Poomonkey000. I found those, and I've blocked less than 500 people in my admin-career. While none of them use the term "doody", you can see the kind of childish names some users select. For a greater assortment of names you may need to second guess, when you finish going through my blocks, you go through User:Curps, I'm sure he has many questionable blocks. Pepsidrinka 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Doody is an excretory reference? Wow! Someone should update this page, so - Alison ☺ 04:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- As it happens, it's also baby-talk word. I'm tickled here! Poor Mr. Doody - Alison ☺ 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm
No blocks in quite a while, it seems - Alison ☺ 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
block of NielsMayer
I would like to discuss the situation. What NielsMayer did was rather drastic but I believe he did not mean to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. There is currently much controversy about the article titled Morgellons:
Is it delusional parasitosis?
Is it an illness caused by an infectious process?
This is a illness concerning living people and after reading what NielsMayer wrote he may be one of those people.
On your page is a quote "But it's got the public playing the encyclopedia game. To extend the analogy, it's also like playing a game in the sense that playing it has no consequences." |Robert McHenry (Encyclopædia Britannica) |[1]
I submit this article does have consequences to people with Morgellons. To a living person that has this illness, calling them delusional seems to them to be libel, if they are delusional, or if they do have an infectious disease.
Calling them delusional has another consequences. Many emerging diseases have been claimed by the psychiatric community. The most famous recent one is AIDS. There were others, epilepsy, diabetes, tourette's syndrome, autism. What happens is a fight over turf and jurisdiction with science taking a back seat over politics, sometimes for decades.
When an illness is termed a psychiatric illness, research on organic causes is slowed. In the case where the illness has an organic origin this causes unbelievable suffering to the afflicted. Ineffectual treatment, isolation because no one believes them, and despair are some of the consequences of having an illness that no one believes in. Unfortunately, people labeled with mental illness are ridiculed. That is not right but it is a fact.
Whatever Morgellons is will be decided by science not by Wikipedia. But Wikipedia will shape public opinion affecting research and treatment of living people with Morgellons. If Morgellons is an infectious illness and the Wikipedia article is biased incorrectly toward delusional parasitosis it libels a group of living people in a most injurious manner. The opposite argument can also be made. I read Wikipedia must be right concerning living persons. This article affects tens of thousands of living persons.[18]
I urge you to help NielsMayer become a contributor to Wikipedia and not be blocked unless he demonstrates that he can not be taught to constructively edit.
I also urge others to become involved in this very important article.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ward20 05:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Maurice27 and his edits at Antoni Gaudí
Hi!
I saw on Maurice27 talk page that you appear to be familiar with this chap and his edits. His continued tagging of Antoni Gaudí to prove a point and incivility on the talk page is becoming disruptive. I can understand why he may disagree with other users about the exact term to be used in the infobox but tagging it as a hoax repeatedly (which is why I found it because I monitor the hoaxes category) is blatant disruption. The guy obviously did exist. Since he may respect you given that you advocated for his unblock could you please explain to him why doing so is wrong? Thanks! MartinDK 07:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 26 | 25 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Block of Hobblehobble
Hobblehobble (talk · contribs) left an unblock request on his talk page. Although he says he was hacked, my real reason for coming here is because I feel the indefinite block is a bit in excess. Most of Hobblehobble's edits have been made in good faith (all except for the last one), and I think if he read MOS and other editing guidelines, his edits would look more constructive. Would you accept if I changed the block duration to 72 hours or a week perhaps? Nishkid64 (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, feel free to reduce the length, but the fact that this guy is currently lying about being hacked and has previously sneaked in other vandalism edits over time such this on January 15, 2007 tells me he doesn't take our attitude towards vandalism seriously. -- Netsnipe ► 19:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ron liebman strikes again
You said to notify you when he starts up again anonymously, and here he is:User talk:149.4.108.135. An account he's not used for a while, maybe b/c he's exhausted so many others (an actual sockpuppet, User talk:Kluszewski, got blocked today). Whatever you can do to stem the tide of Ron-mania would be muchly appreciated! :) -Ebyabe 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- He's also using this one. -Ebyabe 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- And just started with this one after about a lapse of a month. *sigh* -Ebyabe 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- And another one. -Ebyabe 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- And just started with this one after about a lapse of a month. *sigh* -Ebyabe 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The entire Queens College network range of 149.4.0.0/16 has been blocked for 31 hours. -- Netsnipe ► 17:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you sooooo much! :) -Ebyabe 17:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, why 31 hours? I've always wondered why that particular length of time is so popular for blockage... -Ebyabe 17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's on the drop down menu and because it's 24 hours with enough extra time to stop someone from returning at the same time the next day if vandalizing Wikipedia is part of their "daily routine" without being a full 48 hour block that might affect innocent editors on the same network. -- Netsnipe ► 17:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I thought it might be something like that. Thanks. :) -Ebyabe 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's on the drop down menu and because it's 24 hours with enough extra time to stop someone from returning at the same time the next day if vandalizing Wikipedia is part of their "daily routine" without being a full 48 hour block that might affect innocent editors on the same network. -- Netsnipe ► 17:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- A non-anonymous (and abusive) version - Special:Contributions/Scott_flatow. -Ebyabe 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Its edit from a week ago at Sportsdude is way too much information about this character. Baseball Bugs 17:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- And he's started again. He's also getting abusive again, plus using other sockpuppets of his as "documentation". I'm going to report him at ANI, but could you do another range block, when you get a chance, please? Thanks. :) -Ebyabe 23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- He's at it again, Special:Contributions/149.4.108.135. Reported it to ANI, but whatever else you can do would be appreciated. Thanks. :) -Ebyabe 14:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- And this one Special:Contributions/149.4.108.72. *sigh* -Ebyabe 15:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for helping me with my block. Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
fyi
You might be interested in this thread on Jimbo's talk page. Not much there, but I thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Help! - Important
Yes, This is important, and I've tried to get it across many, many times. I'm a student at Tauranga Boys' College and currently we are banned from editing for six months due to some devious little s.o.b. He's made the user 'Tbcadmin' and is/was trying to get us blocked. I've confronted him at school, numerous times, which is maybe the reason he's stopped caring about it. All I request is that you delete that user, block the IP he's been using, since I personally know he's running through a little network of them, and reduce the ban to one more month. I understand if you think that I'm just trying to get out of this ban so I can vandalise wikipedia even more, but ask yourself; Would I be bothered going through this effort just to kick you in the face again? The answer is, no. I wouldn't. Please, listen to me. I understand you'll be busy, as you're an admin, but I know you have a sense of humour, I've read that thing about User_Talk:66.133.207.244 and I know you're dedicated to wikipedia, so if you'll please agree with what I'm asking, I'll do everything I can to make sure that nothing comes through at my end. I'll get wikipedia blocked on the school servers, If it takes that. Thanks, and have a great day. Precisionless 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Kermanshahi (talk · contribs)
User owns several sock-accounts, and has much connections to several sockpuppets. this might be interesting? He is also did some rather useless edits, and marked several articles for blocked users for deletion, without even watching sources. He also triedv to change his own RfA, months ago. here, connections with the vandal Murlock can bed found. I think, you'd better ban the user indefintelt now; he has got away with it to often. block him indefinetly, and protect his talk-page, so that he cannot svae his ass this time. Just the way you blocked Haggawaga - Oegawagga aswell. Randalph P. Williams 11:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Your block of User:72.79.115.175
I think this could be a (low-grade, but) longer-term problem. These 3 users appear to be the same person:
Tanninglamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72.79.115.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.115.23.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
If so, tanninglamp has more experience than I thought and managed to evade a 3RR block in the past (per this contrib [19] and Tanninglamp's block log [20]).
Could you look at their edit to Rick Reilly? I reverted a while back, but forgot about it because I expected someone to back me up on that article (too few eyes on it, I guess). If I need to report this somewhere else I will, but I thought as you were uninvolved (contribution-wise), you might take another look . . . thanks, R. Baley 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
He/She has just posted again (link) on the talk page (69.115.23.71 IP listed above). Comment isn't especially outrageous, but once again evading a block. R. Baley 23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just so you're aware, Bobblehead has reported this latest over at WP:ANI (diff here). R. Baley 23:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 27 | 2 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome. I'm a fellow Aussie (Sydney) living in Seattle, Washington and am looking forward to finding ways I can add to Wikipedia. I just made my first edits and I added a lot of citations to the article, but I wasn't clear on whether my edits consituted a major or a minor edit since there was no change in the meaning of the article. GayCurmudgeon 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
His latest request makes sense to me. The thing is, those other accounts you have tagged as sockpuppets are clearly abusive, and related to one another. However, I noticed that User:Jaasmeimer Zoosteraatz was tagged as a sockpuppet of a different user, User:Molag Bal. I don't see the connection to Molag Bal myself, which is, I guess, why you replaced that tag. However, this particular user, Zwerrifringweraand, doesn't seem to be following the abusive pattern of the other sockpuppets: can we reconsider here? Also, the five sockpuppet accounts were all created one after the other, while the Zwerrifringweraand account has been around a lot longer: this suggests further that the real vandal jumps IPs, or they would have been hit by autoblocking. Even if you're not comfortable unblocking, I'd prefer if that whole category became a category of sockpuppets of User:Klerksdoorp, since that seems to have been the first one. Mangojuicetalk 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't see the link between User:Jaasmeimer Zoosteraatz and User:Molag Bal and don't forget that Molag had a "good" puppet in the form of User:Retiono Virginian too. To be honest, I'd prefer a checkuser be conducted before any unblocking occurs. -- Netsnipe ► 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 28 | 9 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks a bunch for unblocking me
Franco 03:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocking
Hello. When blocking users, please do not also protect their userpage. Wikipedia has an appeal process that relies on blocked users being able to edit their own talk pages. Thank you, and happy editing. --74.14.36.60 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're probably mistaking me for User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. I only protect talk pages if they've been abusing the unblock process or vandalizing their talk pages. -- Netsnipe ► 03:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That IP talk link change
Yet another brilliant change you've made to the blocking/unblocking process, I have to say. I've been meaning to check who changed that, since I saw it showing up on unblock-en-l pretty consistently. Excellent idea. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Gatxer
He wasn't blocked for WP:3rr violation (this was never stated in the block log). He was blocked for edit warring. He had first edit warred with User:Nescio on Iraq resolution causing that article to be fully protected. Almost immediately after he had finished edit warring on that article he moved to Movement to impeach George W. Bush and started edit warring with User:Nescio there. This has been going on for more then a month now and I must say that I strongly disagree with your unblock of this user as it sends the message that this behavior is acceptable on Wikipedia. Good day.--Jersey Devil 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
GATXER was not a first offender
Since this editor removed a previous warning[21] in which he was told to stop edit warring,[22] as well as to stop violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, you unfortunately missed that. Maybe you can reinstall his warnings so others won't be misled like you apparently have been. Respectfully.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 04:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just more of Editor N playing fast and loose with the truth again. I have never been Blocked....NOT EVER till now....I had never been warned till I meet editor N. Editor N has had many Meditors...I had never had one till Him. Now hes found a admin who Blocked edits on one page because I dared to put a POV label on it. That Admin has never done any edits on the page and has done no talking on the talk page....then that Admin saw that I backed up another editor edit and removed another POV edit on anoither Bush page. Editor N refers to Bush as Furher and spend allot of time editing Bush pages and defending himself with Meditaor after meditator. Editor N had so much respect for the Admin that as soon as his Block was up he re-made the same edit he was blocked for...I plan to remake my edit since hes allowed to do it.
For the record even though you removed my block....I made no edits till it was over...I just wanted the fact that Editor N and Admin jersey Girl are workjing together. GATXER 09:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 29 | 16 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for blocking my school IP (User Talk:207.236.90.177)(That's the right address I just can't seem to link to the talk page)
It spurred me to register on Wikipedia and now my classmates stop reverting and messing up my edits.
Now I can get some real work done on this encyclopedia
Anyways I just wanted to let you know that the block expires around the time the next school year starts so you may have your work cut out for you when it comes to reverting all those vandalized pages.
If there is anything I can do to help please let me know
Cheers!--AragornSonOfArathorn 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 30 | 23 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatcan I actually make a page about thats all I really want to do. But whenever I tried to make one I got blockedSparkylad 01:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 31 | 30 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank You!
Thank you for acting swiftly - unlike a lot of administrators! Mwmonk 13:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
A template you created, Template:Aolblock, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 00:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
NetSnoop
I presume NetSnoop (talk · contribs) has nothing to do with you. See the history of the user page for why I am pointing this out to you. I blocked on site as the user previously vandalised my user page. --Yamla 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 32 | 6 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thank you!
For creating an account/password for me!
And on behalf of comcast, (I don't work for them, they're just the only high speed 'net access around here), I apologise for the idiots using comcast that have created a situation requiring the administrators vigilance. (I admin a few sites so I have some sort of a clue, but nothing on the scale of Wikipedia's traffic and visibility).
Again, my thanks for your time. Silversmithing 18:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Silversmithing has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- ^ Orlowski, Andrew (27 October, 2005). "Why Wikipedia isn't like Linux". The Register.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)