User talk:NrDg/Archive 090430

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.

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

How to use talk pages: (guidelines from Template:User talk top)

Please continue any conversation where it was started.

Thus if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here.

I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

If you want to initiate a conversation, please create a new heading here.

Continue existing conversations under existing headings.

Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

Indent your comments when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
Sign your comments automatically using ~~~~.

Archives:

070625-070920-071102-071231

080101-080131-080229-080331-080429-080531-080630-080731-080831-080930-081031-081130-081231

090101-090131-090228-090331-090430-090531-090630-090731-090831

User:Samgel27

Hmm, had to share this to you; I was warned yesterday for misusing Twinkle, but the fact that I'm having hunches that the said user is another Gerald Gonzalez sock makes me go Twinkling again, although I apparently misused it. Can you take a look at him, since he passes the duck test or something? Blake Gripling (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Painfully obvious. --NrDg 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So, is it necessary to semi-protect Angel Locsin? Blake Gripling (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That article is permanently semi-protected for edits and fully protected for moves. You can tell it is semi-protected by the message you get when you try to edit the article. Gerald sometimes gets on WP:RPP and asks for an unprotect, and sometimes admins comply, so have to watch for that. --NrDg 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fan Site Tending Articles

Just a note of thanks for keeping an eye on articles tending to go toward fan site status. Sometimes I wonder if there are professional PR firms that assume Wiki user names and try to promote their popular up and coming celebrity clients via Wiki articles. No way to confirm what I suspect, but if people like you keep articles honest (i.e., follow WP style conventions) even the PR originated articles will be just fine. Thanks Pknkly (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

HM?

I edited the Triple Crown of Comedy section on the DC Wikipedia page, but you edited it out. The information I got was from Burgandy Ranger (The Forum Site with the DC Schedule) and Wizards is moving to Sat. With JONAS, so that block is ending. Can't I keep it up? - Alec2011 (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that was someone else doing the edits. The only thing I have done on the Disney Channel article is vandal reverts. --NrDg 00:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, can you do me a favor? I know I can't link to the Forum, and it is official so I can't really Refrence it, but could you help me keep an eye out for it and help it not get deleted? - Alec2011 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AussieLegend?

Have you noticed that AussieLegend has been taking over the Hm S3 page? Once someone edits it, she chages it like instantly, and says "oh it's fine the way it is, and you can't post that." I told her somethings so maybe she might cut back. What do you think? - Alec2011 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you have posted on User talk:AussieLegend about this issue. I have found AussieLegend a reasonable person to work with and expect you both will be able to work out something that is acceptable to both of you. --NrDg 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ABSCBN Interactive

This blood clot's messing with us again, this time with another username. Axxand and I immediately pointed out the user's similarities with Gonzalez, since he had the same old userbox style and signature template:

The similarities of his signature ABS-CBN Interactive (talk) with I ♥ Love Philippines (talk), who is a blocked user and is identified as Gerard's socks. Their userpages are also similar , look, I love Philippines and ABSCBN_Interactive. Haha! Huli ka! (Gotcha!)

Informing the sockpuppet noticeboard might not be of much use, since some of the mods aren't really that aware of the situation. Can you take care of this guy, please? Blake Gripling (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Light usage so far but newbie user with excellent skills, and duplicate of a known sock's page along with edit patterns is convincing. --NrDg 14:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Bell-Gentles

I've done a search for the string and I'm 90% sure these have all been reverted now. 169.227.254.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 65.25.178.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have both been active with it but have stopped. Have you seen any other involved IPs? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 23:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we got them all. 169.227.254.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just came off a 6 month schoolblock so I blocked for another 6 months. 65.25.178.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks to be this persons home IP. --NrDg 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which explains the two sources for one attack, thanks for ending that mess. I'll have to make sure to search for "Vanessa Bell-Gentles" at some point when the search indexes have been refreshed just to make sure. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Please see my comment here. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 08:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

?

I see you have found someone with a Flickr photostream, seems like you went through a lot of trouble. Anyway it was for information purposes, and by the way good resourcefulness. I'll be a bit more myself the next time. Shayanshaukat (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC) And by the way i provided the Roxen22.JPG to this website [1], funny how that got deleted. Shayanshaukat (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Our presumption when we see a published picture somewhere with a copyright notice attached is that the picture is copyrighted. If you took the picture that was published and the publication did not credit you and copyrighted the article, which that publication did, we take that as meaning the publication owns all rights to the photo. You claimed on commons that you are the photographer of the pictures in that flickr photostream. Those pictures have a copyright notice on them. If you own that photostream then change the copyright notice so we can use them. As it stands the copyright notice on flick overrides a free-use licence you gave when you assert you took the pictures. Since the flick pictures have EXIF data and the pictures you posted do not the presumption is that the flickr stream owner is the photographer. --NrDg 16:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Good opinions.

I really like your opinions and your way of stateing them.--Sweetheart2009 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)sweetheart2009