User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 17
 | This 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. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Re: Cookie
ThinkBlue has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
This user is requesting unblocking, claiming the WP:BLP-related exemption to the 3-revert rule. Having looked over the situation, I agree: there is no argument whatsoever to support the claim that this person is Native American. What do you think? If you agree or if you're okay with my assesment, can you unblock? Mangojuicetalk 05:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on the users talk page, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Tiptoety talk 17:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request posted there, can you check if it is legit? Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 14:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've unblocked - the number string matched. Did we ever track down a checkuser? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
My behavior
I like to apologize.Max Mux (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi Tiptoety, firstly, thanks very much for unblocking me, it is much appreciated. I also apologize for my behaviour, and from distracting you from dealing with other, more important, Wikipedia matters. I feel like I deserve a good troutage. Deamon138 (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are welcome. Just take this as a lesson learned and move on. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Blocked editor back with no change
A few days ago, you blocked User:Musicmogul09 for disruption. It was a 31 hour block and he or she has registered a new (but not very creatively-named) account User:Musicmogul08. And he or she is back to the same ol' stuff. Can you please look into this and see if it warrants another, longer block? Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my (attempted) cleaning up of User:Rktect's checkuser request. Normally, I'd leave it to the pros, but I think it may have gone unnoticed on that other RfCu, hence my moving it to the non-compliant section. Take care, user:j (aka justen) 04:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If Holla213 has been blocked for a month for edit-warring and block evasion, and we now have proven that Extensiontf is the same editor, shouldn't you have transferred Holla213's block term to Extensiontf when you extended Holla213's block to indefinite? Isn't any edit that Extensiontf makes during that one-month interval just going to be block evasion? Otherwise, the net effect is that the block on the editor has been reduced by 27 days, which doesn't make much sense to me.Kww (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Durh! The reason I choose Extensiontf as the sock master was that one that was the first account this editor created, two it has made the most edits, and three it is the subject of the RFCU, if you feel I have made a error feel free to correct it. Thanks for pointing it out though, I really should have thought of that myself..and the account is now blocked for one month. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
A couple of things
Hey Tiptoety! How's it going? I have a couple of issues that I'd like to address, so I'll make it quick: A—are you sure that there's nothing we can do about User:Deamon138's compromised account? B—User:Troy is a parasite worried me a little when he/she made a personal attack on my talk page the other day. I have updated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.215.40.3 (too long, I can't stand it) this morning, but I'm unsure about how I should avoid it. If you can help or suggest anything at all, that would great. Thanks! ~ Troy (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there Troy. In regards to Deamon, please take note of his block log (he was unblocked a few days ago by myself). User:Troy is a parasite appears to have been blocked, and there is really not much I can do about the RFCU until a CheckUser responds. Cheers as always, Tiptoety talk 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
re: Young Trigg note
I apologize. It seemed as if the motivation for the checkuser request was a point, with more than one note about the fishing expedition aspect of it. I thought what I noted was relevant to that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- You comment touched on topics that were not relevant to the case, but as you have stated you were confused, no fault in that. If you continue to have concerns with either the listing user or the subject of the checkuser, please start a thread at WP:ANI. Tiptoety talk 01:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, thank you
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Laugh90
Hi Tiptoety. This editor will not cooperate with the birthdate of Lil' Kim he keeps changing it from 1975 to 1974 using NNDB an unreliable source in some ways more than IMDB. I've even made an attempt on the talk page and I have talked to other editors about it, but User:Laugh90 refuses to stop. I even tried talking to him about it peacefully but he refuses to coopertate when a reliabe source has been provided for her DOB. Please help.Mcelite (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I have left the user a warning telling them that they need to discuss the issue on the talk page before they continue to change Lil' Kim's DOB. I have also stated that any further edit warring will be met with a block and would just like to let you know that applies to you too. If they happen to start up again, just let me know. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I replied with a few sources that could be used for Lil' Kim's DOB on he talk page.Mcelite (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Randomness
Eight months' worth of not-so-random thanks! Qwfp (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ssssh, Be Very Very Quiet, its Oregon COTW time
Howdy folks, its time for this week’s edition of Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week. First off, great job the last two weeks with Greg Oden & the Hospital red link drive. We had close to ten new hospital articles and two DYKs (
) plus other improvements to the list itself. So thank you to those who helped out. This week, we have on a sad note Kevin Duckworth, and the Statesman Journal. Duckworth should have plenty of sources so hopefully in tribute we can get his article up to standards. With the SJ, hopefully we can get it above a stub so all three of the top three papers are no longer stubs, and maybe even a DYK and GA like we got from the Register-Guard? Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Hasta la bye bye. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
apostraphe template
I'm guessing that few people, if any, have {{'}} on their watchlist; so sinse I saw your username as the last admin to touch the template, I thought I would ask you. Can you take a look at my comment on the talk page? It seemed too minor of an issue to bother with an RfC, but let me know if you feel that's the better route to take. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Un-protect request
I am working with the WikiProject Ships on a typographical issue. Please see the discussion here. I am hoping you will agree that adding a little padding in front of the apostrophe will solve the problem of "crashing" where the apostrophe hits the letter in front of it. I have posted a template that solves the issue: {{'s}}, which I can have speedied if I simply add padding to the current {{'}} template which you protected. This will help improve the appearance of apostrophes after italicized text throughout the encyclopedia and causes no problems with legacy browser display or text readers. Please let me know what you can do. 24.63.85.188 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, cross editing. Thank you! I switched to unsecure login by accident - I am actually Sswonk (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- You must've missed my comment at WT:SHIPS: see the the thread/post just before yours on this talk page :-) --22:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to have already been done. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thread closure
I noticed you closed an ongoing discussion with the summary of "enough already". Please do not use the archival templates to stop ongoing discussions. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Form my perspective the discussion was not really ongoing, but more just going in circles and for that reason (and to avoid further dramaz) I closed the thread, but if someone disagrees I have no problem with it remaining open. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Protect Pony, Please?
Knock Knock:
Who's there?
Pony:
Pony who?
PONY POO! YOU SAID PONY POO! PONIES POOP ON YOUR SHOE!
Please, the anon IP nonsense vandalism on this article, such as what I attempted to humorously illustrate above, is cranking up again on a daily basis. Pretty please with maple sugar on top can you restore semi-protection on this article? I have also made three requests at RFP. Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI
[1] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank'ee...
Hi there :) This is just a useless thank you note for responding quickly to my request on WP:RPP to semiprotect the Twilight (novel) page. I'm already thankful for the semi, IP vandalism was really heating up - no idea why.
Anyways, just stopped by to drop the note! IceUnshattered [ t ] 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to get into the block/reblock/unblock discussion going on. I watch this page and GdB's contributions, because he is a very disruptive editor, who has been blocked numerous times. When I read this I wonder if he's still trying to game the system. He won't simply answer, "I will never again make a legal threat." Instead, he uses complicated wording (which would impress lawyers I know) to set up loopholes. I think GdB has long ago used up any good faith remaining. I would ask you review his past, his recent NLT activities, and what the community has said about this before really unblocking him. Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, I am pretty aware of his past and am taking that into consideration. Notice that I have not unblocked the account ;) Tiptoety talk 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed. Guido hasn't been very good for this project, and I honestly think he has the victim/persecution complex with regards to these blocks. I don't think he gets it, and I was hoping that you'd take it into consideration before revoking his block. That's all. And I didn't want to get into dramatic kerfuffle on his page. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- And I respect you for not wanting to and completely understand where you are coming from. Understand that if he does get unblocked it will not be from me, I simply am trying to find a common ground to encourage constructive conversation and that means finding some form of agreement that Guido will stop doing the things he is known for doing, cause in all honesty I see him getting unblocked...so might as well make the terms clear. Anyways, cheers! Tiptoety talk 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe he'll stick with Chess. That way I'll never cross paths. Is there a Wikipedia god I can sacrifice an old computer to? :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- And I respect you for not wanting to and completely understand where you are coming from. Understand that if he does get unblocked it will not be from me, I simply am trying to find a common ground to encourage constructive conversation and that means finding some form of agreement that Guido will stop doing the things he is known for doing, cause in all honesty I see him getting unblocked...so might as well make the terms clear. Anyways, cheers! Tiptoety talk 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed. Guido hasn't been very good for this project, and I honestly think he has the victim/persecution complex with regards to these blocks. I don't think he gets it, and I was hoping that you'd take it into consideration before revoking his block. That's all. And I didn't want to get into dramatic kerfuffle on his page. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking another look. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
My talk page
Hi! Please see my talk page for a reply to your message there. Very best —SMALLJIM 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
ANI
Hello, Tiptoety. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Administrative_negligence_and_affront_towards_me.3B_reporting_vandalism_and_personal_attacks. Thank you.. Frankly, I think it's laughable. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Roxette
The reason for why i did it was that the other user is replacing the discography with a much worse one. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I can see that, but that still does not mean you can violate WP:3RR. Tiptoety talk 13:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
3RR responded
Yep, its the same feller. I've posted diffs where (s)he says as much. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Er, I think you made a mistake with the times, bud. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are right, I did! XD My bad, thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of that. Should the anon id 82.44.82.115 (talk · contribs) (representing the non-signed-in user Catiline63) be blocked as well? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- He already is, take a peek at his block log. Tiptoety talk 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thaqt was my bad. I thought it hadn't been there. Thanks for the follow-through. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- He already is, take a peek at his block log. Tiptoety talk 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of that. Should the anon id 82.44.82.115 (talk · contribs) (representing the non-signed-in user Catiline63) be blocked as well? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are right, I did! XD My bad, thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Doughnut article unprotection: premature egalitation
I've put in a request for semi-protection on the Doughnut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, and just noticed from glancing at its logs that you unprotected it less than a month ago. I really have no idea why such an innocuous article would be a constant target for vandals, but since you removed the protection it has been vandalized on an almost daily basis. I just thought you should know that your attempt to unprotect this article was apparently premature. I must admit, my primary purpose for posting on your talk page was to make use of the pun in the section header. « plushpuffin (talk//contribs) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Homelessness article
Thanks so very much for protecting the Homelessness article. It has been very hard as an author of it (one of many) to keep up with the vandalism, both overt and subtle, over the years. Even a little respite helps a lot. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and sorry for the unintended deletion of text here before. The browser dropped some buffers on the save not reflected on the preview. I had to temporarily switch browsers to do this. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Re
You recently said that the diffs "don't link to anything", I'm confused since they seem to work for me for example first diff [[2] 13:14, 9 September 2008 works fine for me, either by clicking or copy pasting the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=237277651. It shows Phlegm Rooster editing. Could you clarify what seemed to be the problem? Hobartimus (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Protection of Lenin article
Hi, I assume you protected the Lenin page at the request of user Colin4C. This is fine and all, since it's about time an administrator got involved in this revert war. However please note that the text that user Colin4C (and his numerous anonymous ip sock puppets) objects to being removed is a word for word duplicate of that in History of the Jews in Russia article. Furthermore, the title of the sub section that Colin4C chooses to use is POV and inaccurate. Before deleting the relevant portion of the article or changing the title of the subsection I brought it up on the talk page and explained the reasons. To this user Colin4C has not responded directly, rather preferring to engage in insults and conjectures about my motives (some of the worst insults were not on the talk page but rather when he was reverting the page - as page history can show). Through out all this I have tried to be civil and courteous and even suggested how the topic - if not the word for word copy of the material - can be included. Colin4C has been completely uncooperative, rude and failing to assume good faith. So while I'm fine with the article being protected - as it always should be when a revert war is happening - I want to request input from others, particularly an administrator such as yourself to put an end to this silliness, before the protection tag expires. Thank you very much.radek (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am not a "sock puppet" of Colin4C. You have violated WP:Good faith. --84.64.172.203 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strange. At no point did I suggest that user 84.64.172.203 in particular was a sock puppet of Colin4C. In fact, it would have been impossible for me to do so since user 84.64.172.203 has no prior edits and so I haven't seen him/her before. Why the defensive attack? This kind of weird behavior has been very prevalent in this dispute.radek (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Radek, you said "Colin4C (and his numerous anonymous ip sock puppets)". You know that there is no sock puppet activity on that article. I am the only significant anonymous editor for this article at present. Stop accusing people of having sock puppets without the proof. --84.69.41.233 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, there! I'm the Colin you have all been whispering about behind my back. I see from the above that Radek has been telling untruths about me. This statement by Radek above is absolutely false "However please note that the text that user Colin4C (and his numerous anonymous ip sock puppets)" as I don't have sockpuppets and never have. You are welcome to check my IP address any time. I am a long-term editor from Southsea, Portsmouth, England and published author, who has been constructively editing the wikipedia and the Lenin article for years and fighting against vandals who mass delete material against concensus. I am very annoyed that a lot of my hard work on this article seems to have been deleted against concensus by Radek and then false accusations like the above spread all around the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, most of the material was copied into other articles from the Lenin article, not vice versa. This is a common practice amongst lazy editors and should not be used as an excuse to delete the original material. If you look at the edit history you will see that the Lenin and the Jews section grew incrementally over a period of years, it was not copied en bloc from another article. Lenin and the Bolsheviks policy towards the Jews was a radical departure from the previous history of Russia and the whole subject has a bearing on Lenin's harsh attitude towards the church mentioned elsewhere in the article. Lenin saw the Orthodox church as the prime mover behind the Black Hundreds who initiated pogroms against the Jews. The whole issue of anti-Semitic pogroms was a live issue during the Revolution, with the Reds warning that they were a manifestation of right-wing White terror and the Whites using them as an instrument of policy in actual pogroms and also vis-a-vis their proposed bloody mass pogrom of what they saw as a Jewish/Bolshevik government if they had ever captured Moscow (as per the reaction after the Paris Commune in 1871). White Anti-Semitism was a popular rallying standard for right-wing opponents of the Bolsheviks. Basically the Civil War was a stand off between the extreme right and the extreme left. The liberals didn't figure either in numbers or military strength. Ant-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism it is an issue of a fundamental importance to the history of the time. Just out of interest do the deletionists think that in articles dealing with the history of the Third Reich that 'Hitler's attitude to the Jews' is an unimportant matter which should be relegated to a peripheral article. The Whites practised the same genocide against the Jews as Hitler. Lenin's attitude towards the Jews was therefore as important in historical terms as Hitler's attitude. Colin4C (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Cinema Museum of Melgaço
I didn't understood why you delete (with no discussion) the article about Cinema Museum of Melgaço. It's a small but very interesting museum. The museum as material from Jean Loup Passek, who was many years the responsible for the Cinema in Centre Georges Pompidou.
I article was a stub but with two photos, and could be much better in the future...Joseolgon (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would be willing to provide you a copy of the deleted material via email if you like, but with the understanding that you will work on asserting its notability before reposting it. Tiptoety talk 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
George Orwell
Hi - many thanks for semi-protecting George Orwell. I have been accumulating material for a major restructure/rewrite of the article but was deterred from making a move because the edit count was going through the roof, mostly from the persistent vandalism. I appreciate the protection; it's one of the least stable articles I have ever seen. I don't have any knock-knock jokes, but I do have a fund of lightbulb jokes: Q. How many Stalinists does it take to change a lightbulb? A. None. Thanks to the devoted efforts of our glorious leader the lightbulb is fully functional, and the vile and despicable rumour that the room is dark is entirely the work of fascist enemies of the people. (This may seem an old-fashioned joke, but one of the top 100 reviewers on amazon.co.uk is an unreconstructed Stalinist.) Lexo (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Your comment at arbcom
Thank you. Could you make it clear that I proposed and supported the 1RR restriction? I would also like you to consider refactoring the word "shopping", which in my experience is associated with bad faith.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you did not propose the 1RR restriction, so no I will not say that. And I have already stated that you freely supported it. Also, I feel it was shopping, that is just my interpretation, you are of course free to present other interpretations. Tiptoety talk 21:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Our edit summary convo
Ha, I actually edit conflicted thanking you on your first edit where you thanked me! :) Thanks again for the help! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- :D You are welcome, thanks for all your great work! See you around, Tiptoety talk 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Block of Supervox2113
- Supervox2113 should be unblocked. He did not persistently edit-war or use his socks to carry onan edit-war. His use of multiple accounts was unwarranted, but, particularly in light of AGF, seems to be innocent. However much I may disagree with the substance of this editors content, (and the offensive "humor" on his userpages should go too.) Nevertheless, he seems to have some legitimate content contributions, and I think he has not yet proven that he should be hardblocked from wikipedia indefinitely. He should be limited to one account as Lar suggested. As far as I know, he has complied with the one-editor, one-account rule since Lar blocked his socks. [also posted on user's talk page]. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a second look. That's what a
goodgreat admin would do. That Supervox guy is a pain the butt, but you judge a system by how it treats its most pathetic members. Even he deserves a chance. Still... close watch needs to be kept on him. He has a penchant for wasting time, and being subtley offensive. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a second look. That's what a
I need your attention
Hi Tiptoety, I feel that I need to draw your attention : I had had to approach you on your talk page on 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC) and on 16:12, 26 August 2008 and had received your reply on 16:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) on my talk page.
Please have a look there since the rest herebelow cannot be understood without that recollection.
As you will notice on my talk page I had also kept in touch with the administrator who had protected the article and upon his/her advice have requested formal mediation. This didn't go through because the related parties didn't consent.
The article is recently unprotected and I have restored the article to its version before the wholesale reverts undertaken in turn by 4 users. Promptly thereafter the article suffered again (as of now) 3 reverts back to a year ago; 1 by an anon and 2 by the users engaged in the previous episode. That is, what I experienced a month ago is starting to take place again; I am again being forced to engage in reverts due to users who take turns in making wholesale reverts.
The Administrator who has protected and unprotected the entry is informed and he/she is trying to talk to those users.
From our first encounter I got the feeling that you are, in your capacity as an administrator, specifically interested in user conduct/revert war. Therefore I thought that you need to be informed about the development, so that this time I don't get the burden. Thanks. Omer182 (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your message
Sure. I've got the perspective clearer now. Has my action raised its head so much that you got into the picture? :O :) Mspraveen (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Your statement at Arb
Hi Tiptoety. I want to see if I have the sequence of events concerning my run-in with Piotrus correct, per the evidence you provided at Piotrus' arb: At the time that Piotrus was ignoring my requests to stop reverting and to instead discuss his edits on talk (see here and here, and while in addition to ignoring my requests for a talk page discussion (regarding his reverting back in fringe, crypto-anti-semitic theories) he was compiling a 3RR complaint as he baited me with reverts, he was also simultaneously (and instead of discussing his edits with me) shopping off-Wiki for admins to look into the edits I was making in the hopes that an admin would block me? Have I stated the facts of the situation accurately? In other words, instead of responding to my requests to discuss the article on the talk page, he was instead filing a 3RR complaint (without notifying me) and actively shopping on forums available (only?) to admins to get me blocked? Thanks you for your attention to this case. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- While I can not speak as to the the purpose for Piotrus's actions (ie: whether he was ignoring you or not) I can say that he did in fact contact me off-wiki. As for the exact timing of these events, I am not sure. Tiptoety talk 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Could you say what the forum was where he contacted you and/or which admins he specifically approached? Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- ArbCom has been notified as to what the forum was. Tiptoety talk 03:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Notified offline, I presume? (sorry for the 20 questions) Will this evidence (if that's the correct word) be available to participants in the arb? Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, via email. And as for if it will be presented at a later time, that would be a question for a ArbCom clerk, I am not sure. Tiptoety talk 03:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK one more for now. You wrote on the Arb that Piotrus contacted you "in another forum [you] participate in that is unrelated to Wikipedia" and that there was a discussion among a number of admins. Was this a basic one to one email, or is the "forum" more elaborate, i.e., a discussion forum (for admins?). And if you can say, was a general request made for admins to look into my editing, and issue a block if they deemed fit, or were specific admins approached?
- As I am sure you can surmise, I find the info you added to be of interest with regard to the conflicts I have been having with Piotrus, particularly when weighed alongside other actions he has taken with respect to me (those that I know about anyway). So I just want to get as much clarity as possible. Thanks again. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Howdy, I also participate in the forum Tip references. Under that place's internal code of conduct and Wikipedia's rules on private correspondence, I'm not sure there is much more Tip can explain at this point. But do be assured that Arbcom does have a complete and accurate record of what occurred and will treat it with the utmost gravity in rendering a decision. MBisanz talk 20:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks MBisanz and Tiptoetry for your responsiveness; it's most appreciated. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Howdy, I also participate in the forum Tip references. Under that place's internal code of conduct and Wikipedia's rules on private correspondence, I'm not sure there is much more Tip can explain at this point. But do be assured that Arbcom does have a complete and accurate record of what occurred and will treat it with the utmost gravity in rendering a decision. MBisanz talk 20:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, via email. And as for if it will be presented at a later time, that would be a question for a ArbCom clerk, I am not sure. Tiptoety talk 03:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Notified offline, I presume? (sorry for the 20 questions) Will this evidence (if that's the correct word) be available to participants in the arb? Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- ArbCom has been notified as to what the forum was. Tiptoety talk 03:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Could you say what the forum was where he contacted you and/or which admins he specifically approached? Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Violation on 3RR on Giovanni Luppis
I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'm afraid that the user it's back as 83.254.6.139. Could you please block the page? Thanks--D'Agrò (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Help with semi-protection for Memphis, TN
Hello Tiptoety, I hope you are doing alright. On August 15 you lifted the semi-protection from the Memphis, Tennessee article after some months of protection. The article had been vandalized by the same person, adding the same un-notable information about the official songs of Memphis over and over again. Well, a few days after the semi-protection was removed the same exact thing started again. The article was vandalized in this manner nine times since September 1 already, a very persistent person it seems. The vandalism comes from different IPs and there were warnings left on the IP talk page. Furthermore, the topic had been discussed in great length on the Memphis talk page, where the clear outcome was that the material lacks notability and that it should not be added to the article. What can I say, I have tried to have the semi-protection re-instated indefinitely at WP:RPP but the request was declined. It is already getting annoying that someone has to remove that information almost every day now. What can we do or how long do we have to wait to re-apply for semi-protection? I hope that you might have a good idea from your experience as administrator. Thank you very much! doxTxob \ talk 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Tiptoety talk 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tiptoety. Yesterday, I looked at the new user contribs and noticed the edits of the above user and User:Redhearts11. I obviously didn't see any relationship at the time, but when I added the subst:welcome template to Redhearts11 talk page, and right after that, BlueCaper said it was his/her sister. Instead of immediately looking at BlueCaper's account creation log, I responded first, but I realized the close connection. I then went to BlueCaper's Log to see if there is a sock puppet involved — this could be a mistake, but I don't think we should ignore it, especially since BlueCaper was blocked before for creating nonsense pages. User:JP4Jackpot (another new account) then went to the same places that both BlueCaper and Redhearts11 edited (like here). On JP4Jackpot's user page, it says that the three have "relations". I'm not sure at all if any of these are "positive" relations, but nontheless, it looks to me as though we should contact a checkuser. ~ Troy (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would recommend filing at WP:SSP, seeing as I am not really sure if those accounts are being used abusively. Remember it is alright to have more than one account, as long as it is used correctly. Tiptoety talk 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
More randomness
On 5 Sept you kindly semi-protected Randomness for 9 months. The magic seems to have worn off already, however, and I can't see why myself — something to do with the intervening page moves on 6 Sept perhaps? Would you mind taking another look? Regards, Qwfp (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, the protection is still there. Tiptoety talk 16:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't when I wrote that, but it is now as User:Jj137 reinstated it then added move=sysop commenting "add move protection, since there have been problems with that", which seems to confirm my suspicion. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC).
User:Miyokan and threats of outing
Hi Tiptoety. Could you please give a piece of advice as someone not previously involved in the matter?
Some time ago Miyokan (talk · contribs), with whom we had certain disagreements, decided to to reveal my true identity and advertise it in WP. This resulted in the following warning from Alex Bakharev. The deleted threads are at the talk page of User:Moreschi to whom I complained, because he knows this user well. Unfortunately, this warning apparently had no effect, and this user continued making similar threats here, and here. He is talking about "Georgians" because my real family name sounds as a typical misspelled Georgian name. Hence they want to paint me as an anti-Russian Georgian troll, which I am not.
Please also see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miyokan. Note that Miyokan and each of his sock puppets accumulated a lot of blocks. "Berkunt" was so good, even checkuser Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Miyokan could not identify that was him. So, I can only wonder who else might be him.
Now he continues to be distractive and comes uninvited to my user page with various accusations. And he is not alone. Some of his friends make uncivil comments like that. So, what do you think? Just looking at you recent comments and actions, I think you are very fair administrator. Of course if you need more information, I can provide it. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just in case, last uncivil comment does not mention Piotrus. Pieter is another user, apparently from West Europe.Biophys (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This is worse and worse with every minute. I asked one of the users to remove an inflammatory userbox that tells "polonium is a good substitute of sugar", but he inflames anti-national felings and attacks other users (fortunately not me) with phrases like "Russophobes will not be allowed to remove Russian POV from this or any other article." [3]. This is really offensive, especially if other users are Russians like me.Biophys (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Tiptoety. With regards to "outing" Biophys, I have done no such thing, I specifically asked Biophys permission [4], he didn't give it, so I didn't say anything.
- Even after he replied allowing me to show my alleged proof (he said, "What proof?"[5]), I STILL didn't take up his challenge and further asked "so you consent to me showing my proof?"[6]. Alex Bakharev said it is appropriate if there is a convincing reason to do so. Of course I would not mention it for no reason, nor was I even the user that even brought it up there. Other users believed Biophys to be hiding a conflict of interest - I was not even the one who brought up Biophys' "Georgianness", nor even the second. User:DonaldDuck did [7], followed by User:Russavia [8]. "He is talking about "Georgians" because my real family name sounds as a typical misspelled Georgian name." No, it is not this, but I won't reveal it.
- With regards to some ad hominem, vilification stuff that Biophys has added, with regards to my previous account, I announced to the whole community when I stopped using User:Ilya1166 and started using User:Miyokan [9]. When I walked away from User:Miyokan to User:Berkunt, I fully admitted I was the same user as soon as asked, I never tried to deny that I was the same user.--Miyokan (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It's Dodgechris
Hi, Tiptoety, me, the real life person of User:Dodgechris has just created an account, this is him (see on the signiature for name), i'm just saying i'm sorry, you were persuing the Dodgechris incident, weren't you? I'm just like to say sorry to you, and please can you forgive me and please don't block this account, all i want is to edit constructively, i love wiki, but if you chose to block me, i'll be sad, but i won't use socks, i'll stay away, maybe i'll just add 1 unblock template, but that's all, if you let me keep this account, i'll edit constructively, and never, ever vandalise, i'll also be civil, avoid spamming and stick with the rules, and i'll say sorry properly to the others i harrassed , can you please send them my apologies. Gabazauls 20:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for a few good editors....
...who are willing to help hack through the labyrinth we call Wikipedia Policy. I've started up a project called Wikipedia:Policy condensing to help address the increasingly problematic instruction creep on the 'pedia. Ideally, this project will work to condense, merge, and in some cases delete the jillions of policies and guidelines into their basic components, so that both new and experienced users only have a few pages to read through if they have a question or concern instead of many. I'm hoping that once this project is through, we'll be able to reduce the number of policy and guideline pages by half while still keeping all the nuances and interpretations clearly available for users to understand. I'm contacting you about this because either you have previously expressed an interest in this, and/or I know I can count on you as a reliable editor who knows their way around the project. I'm not advertising this in the open just yet, as I'm hoping we can get a good foundation started with the few editors I'm contacting now so that when we do make this more public, we've already got a head start to show people what this project can do. So, if you've got the time and are willing, please stop by Wikipedia:Policy condensing and jump right in. If you have any questions, post to the project's talk page or leave me a note - I'll see it quickly either way. As always, thanks for your help. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Requests for checkuser/Case/Footballfanirl
Thanks for the clerical corrections. Aaron carass (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you please look at this
If you have time, would you please take a look at this 3RR report. thanks--«JavierMC»|Talk 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- The reverts were made in an attempt by me to prevent vandalism. I use huggle to patrol page changes and in this case I saw no edit summaries, removal of sourced information, addition of information followed with a "?" as if the veracity was in dispute even by the editor. I issued warnings concerning the edit summary, as well as, the removal of sourced information. All reversals were made in a good faith effort to stop vandalism. --«JavierMC»|Talk 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
A follow-up
It seems that I am now very popular among Russian users for the lack of "patriotism". A User:Igny you know about just came back from your block and and immediately stated this, which is a bad faith accusation at least. He was soon supported by others. I believe this edit by LokiiT (talk · contribs) is certainly over the top. Although I had absolutely no disputes with Igny, the latter user (LokiiT) was repeatedly coming to my talk page with various accustions he shows in his diffs. I am not sure if these sanctions apply, but something should be done I think. Thank you for consideration.Biophys (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I never make references to blogs. I have provided a link to "La Russophobe" web site (LokiiT is talking about) only from a talk page, because this site provides English translation of an original text published in a different and reliable source.Biophys (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Something should be done alright, just look at my post and tell me there isn't a problem here. And I'm not a "Russian user" so don't accuse me of being some patriot. You've constantly gotten in the way of and often prevented me from improving articles by continually reverting me in different articles and tag teaming with your buddies. It seems anything that isn't anti-Russian doesn't belong in Wikipedia according to you. Enough is enough. LokiiT (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have never reverted you, or even engaged in any form of edit warring with you. I am simply a uninvolved administrator attempting to resolve a long standing dispute between a large group of users. Honestly, I could care less if you are Russian, American, African, or Chinese. What I care about is the fact that you are attacking users, that others are edit warring, and that Wikipedia is being disrupted because of it. I have never interacted with Biophys prior to this incident, and do not care what his WP:POV is in this case, all I care about is insuring that he and everyone else abides by the rules. Tiptoety talk 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking to Biophys, sorry for that misunderstanding. I responded to your comment on my own talk page. LokiiT (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, well in that case disregard what I said above. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for causing this trouble. Next time I will ask another administrator. I asked you only because you were a blocking admin of Igny. At least you can see their attitude. Thanks again, Biophys (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Biophys, my comment above (in this thread) was directed at LokiiT, not you (though seeing as his comment was meant for you, mine is now really directed at no one). Please understand that I am happy to look into this issue, and have left LokiiT a short waring. Tiptoety talk 02:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for causing this trouble. Next time I will ask another administrator. I asked you only because you were a blocking admin of Igny. At least you can see their attitude. Thanks again, Biophys (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, well in that case disregard what I said above. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking to Biophys, sorry for that misunderstanding. I responded to your comment on my own talk page. LokiiT (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have never reverted you, or even engaged in any form of edit warring with you. I am simply a uninvolved administrator attempting to resolve a long standing dispute between a large group of users. Honestly, I could care less if you are Russian, American, African, or Chinese. What I care about is the fact that you are attacking users, that others are edit warring, and that Wikipedia is being disrupted because of it. I have never interacted with Biophys prior to this incident, and do not care what his WP:POV is in this case, all I care about is insuring that he and everyone else abides by the rules. Tiptoety talk 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Something should be done alright, just look at my post and tell me there isn't a problem here. And I'm not a "Russian user" so don't accuse me of being some patriot. You've constantly gotten in the way of and often prevented me from improving articles by continually reverting me in different articles and tag teaming with your buddies. It seems anything that isn't anti-Russian doesn't belong in Wikipedia according to you. Enough is enough. LokiiT (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Interpretation of the rules
Regarding the notice you put on my page, can you explain something to me. The rule says: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia
Where was I repeatedly warned? Where did I repeatedly make personal attacks? I even removed the part that you interpreted as a "personal attack" at my own will prior to the notice. LokiiT (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is a warning, that's all, a warning. It is just like the one I left you earlier, except I have linked a relevant RfAr case, meaning that if you continue you will be repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, and there for subject to sanctions, understand? Tiptoety talk 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, now I have a question too. I have just been warned as well. I feel like I was reprimanded for doing nothing wrong. I have never been uncivil, have I? I understand that I participated in an edit war in an article on a controversial subject, and I was already punished for that by a block. Was that the reason for the "restriction" or "sanction"? If so, why Biophys and others were not warned as well for participating in the same edit wars? (Igny (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC))
- This. Tiptoety talk 03:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- So? I still do not understand. I was uncivil or disruptive? Or that edit constituted a personal attack in your opinion? Please explain. (Igny (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC))
- Saying that he "whitewash Georgia's images" is a bit of a personal attack. Like I said to LokiiT on his talk page, calling people names does nothing but turn Wikipedia into a battleground. All that message is is a warning, so that you do not end up being sanctioned in the future, that's all. Tiptoety talk 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- So? I still do not understand. I was uncivil or disruptive? Or that edit constituted a personal attack in your opinion? Please explain. (Igny (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC))
Please
Could you please close this, because of the 3rd policy paragraph: "III. If the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days, the report will be closed by an administrator."? Many Thanks--D'Agrò (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- But he has, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove. Tiptoety talk 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
No, at least, not concerning my account(of course, because his "evidencies" against me has been proved fakes,see here I don't like to keep in my talk page an accusation proved as fake and where "the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days". I see two option only: 1) do a CU that can prove that I'm not a sockpuppet 2) close and erase the accusation notice because "the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days"
BTW, did you consider my request here? Thanks for your time. --D'Agrò (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Many Thanks--D'Agrò (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
My userpage....
Umm, About my userpage thingy, what exactly do you want me to do? And why the f*ck is my talkpage always being replaced with muslims rock and other crap? II MusLiM HyBRiD II 20:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Shoot me an email and I will be happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted material (with the understanding that you will not re-post the info about your age). Also, I have been trying to revert all the sockpuppets that have been vandalizing your page, but no luck. If it gets really page, request your page be protected at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Second eyes
Tippy...I'd like another set of eyese to close the loose ends here, so I didn't totally finish all that is needed. I'd appreciate it if you'd look this and all the sublevels over here: Wikipedia:RFCU#Eastbayway. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Golden Wiki Barnstar
|
The Golden Wiki Award | |
| For your exceptional contributions in defending wiki from socks, trolls, and vandals, especially at WP:RFCU — Rlevse • Talk • 20:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
- Why thank you sir, that is very thoughtful of you! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Tiptoety, long time no see. Listen, User:AtlCrash, in the Kirsten Storms' article, is adding unsourced statements of her "supposed" engagement, I added a hidden note stating to add a source for her "engagement". If you see the history page in the article, you'll see that the user keeps undoing edits and going back to the engagement claim. I was hoping you could talk to him/her about this situation, since the user refuses to stop adding the unverified claim. I'll appreciate your help in this.... A lot. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, maybe the article could use a break from the user. For the future, and stupid question, would it be suitable to report the user to AVI or what? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, AIV is not the correct venue for that (that is for reporting simple vandalism). For issues such as violation of WP:3RR or edit warring you can report those to WP:AN3, for issues with adding unsourced content you can direct those concerns to WP:RSN. Like always, my talk page is open for you to bring it here too. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for the know. The reason I asked, is cause I didn't want you to get stressed out by me, you know, coming to your talkpage and telling you about a user who's..... That's why I wondered and wanted to know. Alright, if the user continues, I'll let you know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, AIV is not the correct venue for that (that is for reporting simple vandalism). For issues such as violation of WP:3RR or edit warring you can report those to WP:AN3, for issues with adding unsourced content you can direct those concerns to WP:RSN. Like always, my talk page is open for you to bring it here too. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Endless saga
It seems that User:Igny did not learn much. Now he conducts edit warring by removing other users comment at an article talk page. I believe removing or modifying comments by other users is against WP:CIV and some people were blocked for that. But you can see for yourself. I could advise Igny myself, but he probably would not listen.Biophys (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously, another gay does not like these comments to be placed to his talk page. But that is understandable. He wanted to tell something, but that was deleted without asking. That is how flame wars are started.Biophys (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps this discussion should not be at the article talk page, and Igny right about that. However, the problem is how he does it.Biophys (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- This endless harassment is getting ridiculous. Biophys, why do you keep bugging admins with your complaints and baseless accusations? (Igny (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC))
FYI.
Hi Tiptoety;
Please spend more time in order to understand the article Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force
BR« PuTTYSchOOL 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
....for the message and vaulable information in it. Cheers!--GökHan 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:ORE COTW Version 2.2
Hello WikiProject Oregon contributors. It's time for another COTW. Thank you to those who helped improve Kevin Duckworth and the Statesman Journal last week, we received another DYK () for the SJ. This week, by request we have Mr. Ken Kesey and not by request Nike, Inc.. Nike is the only Start class article in the top 30 of those articles selected for the hard copy edition, and it could easily be improved to B class. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Tom Anderson (MySpace)
I asked that Tom Anderson (MySpace) be re-protected. Unprotecting was worth a try but alas the vandals found it. It's been pretty bad the last week. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Tiptoety talk 04:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi Tiptoety. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Dels
I've been trying to stick to the low edit count pages. Iliad had 1800 edits -- that doesn't usually lock the server. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are you bulk deleting old RFAs? I can see they're all (or seem to be, I haven't checked them all) untranscluded, but unfinished doesn't mean someone wasn't planning to come back at some point. Was this discussed anywhere? – iridescent 15:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I started this project some time back and Tip was helping with it. The discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_138#Deleted_RfA and I ran test MFDs here and here to demonstrate that such a task was not controversial. Currently there are about 1500 RFAs that do not have a category placed on them. About half are untranscluded pages from retired/SPA editors and the rest are old RFAs. I am categorizing those that were transcluded and deleting those that were not, from the list and script at User:MBisanz/RFAlist2. MBisanz talk 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, no problem; makes sense now. – iridescent 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for any confusion I may have caused, Iridescent if you happen to run across a RfA I deleted that you feel should not have been or was not given enough time before deleted please feel free to restore it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, no confusion at all. Although you've prompted your very own conspiracy theory over at everyone's third-favorite attack site. – iridescent 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for any confusion I may have caused, Iridescent if you happen to run across a RfA I deleted that you feel should not have been or was not given enough time before deleted please feel free to restore it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, no problem; makes sense now. – iridescent 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Unblock for Dstern1
I would like to thank you for unblocking me. I intend to follow the agreement and not edit information about Sarah Palin until after the election. While I cannot think of an example at this time, it is possible that I will have something to add in an article in which she has a remote connection; in which case, I will avoid discussing her. Your wording raised immediate concerns but I am assuming that you did not have ultra-concrete intentions. Again, I appreciate your assistance.--Dstern1 (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Death treaths on user pages
I don't know if you have noticed it but User:Kuban kazak has had a death threath on his user page for two days. User:Irpen removed it but now the threath is back again even though without the picture. I don't know if there is a rule against death threaths here but I sure hope so. Närking (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can you provide me some diff's, please? Tiptoety talk 13:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is how the page looked like before Irpen removed it: [10]
- But now he instead has put the same text there and a link to the picture instead. Misha that he is waiting for is Mikheil Saakashvili. Närking (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Unjustified blocks
You have recently blocked indefinitely several users with no other reason besides "suspected meatpuppetry". This is clearly against wikipedia policies and rules. Please unblock the users and restore deletion discussion disrupted by your strikings out.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletion
Hello Tiptoety! I'm here on behalf of an editor on his/her request to see the deleted text of an article you deleted. The article was this one. He/she contacted me over email (He/she thought I was an admin ;) ) and asked why you had not yet responded to his/her email(I assume you were busy) and why his/her article was deleted.(I should mention it was an extremely polite request) I've already explained some of our policies but it would help if you could provide the deleted text. Thanks--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 01:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please send me here email address via email and I will send her a copy. Tiptoety talk 01:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Stop disruption
Stop disruption at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Galkovsky discussion page. It is strictly prohibited to use blocks in content disputes. None of the users you have blocked is sockpuppet, so your blocks are totally unjustified. Unblock new users and restore their comments on the discussion page.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- DonaldDuck, all these users are obviously your "meatpuppets" who came here by your request. Look at the last User:Serebr who just voted for Galkovsky [11]. Among his ~20 edits in English WP, a half are votes in various AfD. For example, he voted for
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation (that was deleted, thanks to meatpuppets like him. Sure, there was no Soviet occupation),
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Russian sentiment (2nd nomination) (this is kept of course - a lot of "anti-Russians" are around here),
- Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II and
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homophobic propaganda- those suppose to be deleted, but not enough meatpuppets came.
Serebr usually tells something like that: "Delete, POV-fork and per User:Ghirlandajo". Do not you see that such "voters" are bad for English wikipedia? So, Tiptoety has every right to block User:Serebr, even though he did not do this yet.Biophys (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, that was wrong answer. You also apparently did not like the warning from FayssalF.Biophys (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Biophys (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm writing to Tiptoety, not to you, Biophys.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
A hilarious WP:DUCK joke
A funny performance takes place at this AfD. This article is about Dmitry Galkovsky known as "A leader of Ducklings movement, a group of several hundreds MMOG players and bloggers, said to aim at planetary domination". The article is vigorously defended by User:DonaldDuck (also a "Duck"). So far, eight users voted to "keep": R l (talk · contribs), Volodymir k (talk · contribs), 69.142.115.39 (talk · contribs), Asolver (talk · contribs), Anton Rau (talk · contribs), Vsevolod makeev (talk · contribs), and 24.82.155.49 (talk · contribs). As you can see, all of them are SPAs. It seems this Galkovsky has a lot of "Ducklings".Biophys (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I currently do not have the time to look into this, but will sometime later tomorrow. Either you can file a WP:SSP report, or you can just wait for me to get around to it. It is up to you. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. You asked to leave you a "hilarious joke" at your talk page. So, I though this is the one. But maybe I was wrong. "Donald Duck" took my comment at an AfD very seriously and already complains at the BLP. Fortunately, it was not me who nominated this article for deletion.Biophys (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I had a few minutes so I took a look. First off I spoke with a CheckUser who said the results where inconclusive, meaning this is probably more of a case of meatppupetry then sockpuppetry. Either way, I indef blocked all of the SPA accounts and blocked the IP's for 1 week. As for DonaldDuck (talk · contribs) I have left him unblocked seeing as there is really no way to link the other accounts to him, I mean just because the !voted like him does not mean they are him. I have also stricken their !votes from the AfD. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wow! That was swift. It is good to know this is not a sockpuppetry at least. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I believe that it was - see my decline for his unblock request. This says nothing about DonaldDuck, but does about Volodymir k and Vsevolod makeev. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wow! That was swift. It is good to know this is not a sockpuppetry at least. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I had a few minutes so I took a look. First off I spoke with a CheckUser who said the results where inconclusive, meaning this is probably more of a case of meatppupetry then sockpuppetry. Either way, I indef blocked all of the SPA accounts and blocked the IP's for 1 week. As for DonaldDuck (talk · contribs) I have left him unblocked seeing as there is really no way to link the other accounts to him, I mean just because the !voted like him does not mean they are him. I have also stricken their !votes from the AfD. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. You asked to leave you a "hilarious joke" at your talk page. So, I though this is the one. But maybe I was wrong. "Donald Duck" took my comment at an AfD very seriously and already complains at the BLP. Fortunately, it was not me who nominated this article for deletion.Biophys (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Update: Mangojuice has shortened the blocks of Volodymir k and Vsevolod makeev to 9 days, in order to let them resume editing once the AfD is closed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Knock, knock
User:Jehochman/joke Jehochman Talk 15:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Who's there? Tiptoety talk 22:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Stop disruption
You have blocked several new users without any reason and disrupted deletion discussion at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Galkovsky. Checks by checkuser have confirmed that no one of the blocked users is sockpuppet, so your actions are strongly against any wikipedia policies and rules. As you stay uncooperative, and don't give any answer, I will have to report your actions to administrators noticeboards and arbitration committee. DonaldDuck (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note, that User:Biophys, making numerous allegations here, used a confirmed sockpuppet on commons. Maybe this will help you to reconsider your decision.DonaldDuck (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just wanted to let you know that I reduced Volodymir k's block from indef to 9 days. Based on the CU result, the user's claims to have been solicited for his vote, and the number of accounts involved, I think it's quite clear that this is a case of meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry. The 9 day block will help keep the new AfD from being disrupted by the same call for votes. Mangojuicetalk 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think if these users want to be unblocked, they should tell who contacted them off-wiki and send these off-wiki messages to the blocking admin, Tiptoety.Biophys (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I am not sure unblocking them was a good decision as they are clearly SPA's, but I will assume good faith and see what happens. Thanks for the note Mangojuice! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently it was a blog posting by the AFD subject itself. He doesn't call for anyone to come participate, but given that the audience of the notice are much more likely than the general population to be fans... anyway, here's the posting: [13]; Google translate does an okay job with it. Mangojuicetalk 20:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I am not sure unblocking them was a good decision as they are clearly SPA's, but I will assume good faith and see what happens. Thanks for the note Mangojuice! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Following the shortening of Volodymir k's block, 2 other accounts had their block shortened similarly - Vsevolod makeev by Mangojuice and Asolver by me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think if these users want to be unblocked, they should tell who contacted them off-wiki and send these off-wiki messages to the blocking admin, Tiptoety.Biophys (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You might want to look at this user's talk page. He made a promise along the lines of what you had requested he do... I declined the request because I don't think he has any understanding of what he should do differently, but don't let my action stop you from unblocking if you feel it's warranted. Mangojuicetalk 14:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, declining was the right thing to do here, he clearly is just saying what he thinks we want to hear. Thanks again, Tiptoety talk 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Blocking Skywriter?
You've just blocked Alleichem and SkyWriter for edit warring on an article. However, looking at the history, I see that SkyWriter reverted Alleichem's edits only twice, and in both cases, spent an inordinate amount of time trying to discuss things with Alleichem. Both he and I have been doing our best to explain things to Alleichem, who is a new, single-issue editor, but to no avail. SkyWriter did not edit war, and should not be blocked.
Alleichem violated 3RR, and has been unwilling to work within Wikipedia guidelines. I do not think that blocking both editors here is wise when there is a qualitative difference between the edits of the two editors. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am willing to take a second look, please bear with me. Tiptoety talk 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see one, two, three, four, five reverts. Sorry, I am not comfortable unblocking him at this time, though he is always welcome to request a unblock. Tiptoety talk 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I also disagree with this block. While I see that he has violated 3RR, what Lisa said above is basically true, and he's not been the only one reverting Alleichem's edits. Would you mind if I shortened the block? L'Aquatique[talk] 23:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Whoa, I looked at your diffs again and only two of them are within a 24 hour period of each other. The first two were back in August, the next one was at 7:45 on the 21 of september, then, more than 24 hours later he made the final two. I'm an involved party, but I don't see that 3RR was violated here so I'm going to unblock for now. However, I don't want to wheel-war and run, so feel free to trout me and we can talk about it, 'kay? L'Aquatique[talk] 23:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message, but as you will note I blocked for edit warring, not WP:3RR. Either way, I am not biffed in he is unblocked and I appreciate you reviewing the case. Tiptoety talk 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I noted that, it seems like there is a fine line there that I do not yet have the experience to fully grasp! This is something I hope will come with time. I am curious, though, and I'm not being in the slightest bit sarcastic here... I had thought this fell under one of the exemptions to 3RR/edit warring- when one is reverting something that is fairly obviously inappropriate, i.e. original research. I suppose that is essentially a content dispute, though, huh? L'Aquatique[talk] 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. To answer your question, his reverts do not fall under the 3RR exceptions, please see [14] this is nothing more than a run of the mill content dispute, and remember it always takes two to edit war. Tiptoety talk 00:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Or, in this case, three or four or five... Thanks for your help. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. To answer your question, his reverts do not fall under the 3RR exceptions, please see [14] this is nothing more than a run of the mill content dispute, and remember it always takes two to edit war. Tiptoety talk 00:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I noted that, it seems like there is a fine line there that I do not yet have the experience to fully grasp! This is something I hope will come with time. I am curious, though, and I'm not being in the slightest bit sarcastic here... I had thought this fell under one of the exemptions to 3RR/edit warring- when one is reverting something that is fairly obviously inappropriate, i.e. original research. I suppose that is essentially a content dispute, though, huh? L'Aquatique[talk] 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message, but as you will note I blocked for edit warring, not WP:3RR. Either way, I am not biffed in he is unblocked and I appreciate you reviewing the case. Tiptoety talk 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Whoa, I looked at your diffs again and only two of them are within a 24 hour period of each other. The first two were back in August, the next one was at 7:45 on the 21 of september, then, more than 24 hours later he made the final two. I'm an involved party, but I don't see that 3RR was violated here so I'm going to unblock for now. However, I don't want to wheel-war and run, so feel free to trout me and we can talk about it, 'kay? L'Aquatique[talk] 23:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I also disagree with this block. While I see that he has violated 3RR, what Lisa said above is basically true, and he's not been the only one reverting Alleichem's edits. Would you mind if I shortened the block? L'Aquatique[talk] 23:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see one, two, three, four, five reverts. Sorry, I am not comfortable unblocking him at this time, though he is always welcome to request a unblock. Tiptoety talk 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
3RR noticeboard
Hi, looks like you blocked User:Prophaniti for 48 hours according to the block log. However, in the result section of the report you put 24 hours. I have changed it to 48 hours, I hope I was correct in doing so. Landon1980 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, you are correct in doing so. It appears I made a mistake, thank you! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again, you may want to keep an eye on this users talk page. He is using his talk to make comments like this. I would do it myself but I'm off to work here in a little bit. Have a good day, Landon1980 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Any editor that you blocked is asking to be unblocked. I'm sending his request to you for a possible unblock. From a personal standpoint, I'd go with the unblock, as the editor's final edit was not on the disputed material. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
ABOUT User:Dicting
To the adimin of en. wikip. I see that you've blocked User:Dicting for 24 hours because of 3RR. AND it've been confirmed that he's a sock-puppet of a long-time vadalist 十字军大屠杀. PLEASE notice this guy.--1j1z2 (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I can not block him for his actions on another wiki. If he chooses to sock here, then I will deal with it. Tiptoety talk 14:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ancient Olympic Games
Hey; the vandalism had been going on far before the 2008 games, and 99% of it tends not to be related to the olympics at all. Vandalism has started again after the removal of the protection tag; could you reinstate it? Ironholds 08:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I will add it to my watchlist, and if it gets worse I will reinstate protection. If I am offline and it gets hit hard, just file a request at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 14:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent! And in response to the message at the top of your talk page; How many presidential candidates does it take to change a lightbulb? None; they only promise change. Ironholds 14:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Tiptoety talk 21:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent! And in response to the message at the top of your talk page; How many presidential candidates does it take to change a lightbulb? None; they only promise change. Ironholds 14:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Archeopteryx autoblock question
User talk:Archeopteryx is autoblocked. Normally, I'da just handled it myself, but the person who led to the autoblock is User:Mr. abcdefghijklmnop, who's first post was to Archeopteryx's talk page, which is somewhat suspect. Since you are obviously more familiar with the case than anyone else, could you look into his request, and see if it has merit, or if Archeopteryx is another sock of whoever it was that was socking in the first place. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was looking over that myself and was not too sure what to make of it, like you said it is something suspect. I will take a closer look over their contribs here in a second. Tiptoety talk 23:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Bogorm
A sockpuppetry case has been opened about Bogorm (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bogorm. I had thought it was put to rest with the RFCU, but he/she appears to not want to let go. Your comments would be appreciated as you were involved in the situation and had previously commented on the RFCU. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Question about protection at Petroleum
I'm curious why you only protected Petroleum for 24 hours. This is the 5th time this year that it has been protected from IP vandalism, and it is relatively stable besides that. NJGW (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because the vandalism appeared to be rather slow, and up until the last few days it was reverted rather quickly. I am hoping that 24 hours will cause the vandals to go find something else to do. Tiptoety talk 18:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
ANI
This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Bogorm again. Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
CU Page Updated
Hello Tiptoety. I am just here to notify you that I have updated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.215.40.3 to include a new, recent case. Please feel free to comment when ready (or if prompted by a CU). Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Blocking Skywriter?
You've just blocked Alleichem and SkyWriter for edit warring on an article. However, looking at the history, I see that SkyWriter reverted Alleichem's edits only twice, and in both cases, spent an inordinate amount of time trying to discuss things with Alleichem. Both he and I have been doing our best to explain things to Alleichem, who is a new, single-issue editor, but to no avail. SkyWriter did not edit war, and should not be blocked.
Alleichem violated 3RR, and has been unwilling to work within Wikipedia guidelines. I do not think that blocking both editors here is wise when there is a qualitative difference between the edits of the two editors. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Lisa? You also have broken the 3RR rule but no one reported you. I don't think it's right really. We both broke the rules, but it was Sky who was using a different user. Alleichem (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think he thinks I'm Garzo. Admittedly, I AM a fan... SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think that was Alleichem who brought it back up. Lisa's edit is dated 9/22. In any case, it's advanced to an RfC. The user has not stopped the activity. Thanks for helping the other day. It gave about five editors and an admin a break from the multiple battles. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Map for Wales Page
Hi there Tiptoety, I just came across your page and noticed that you seem to be keen to help. If you have the time, would you mind looking at this request please? We are looking to improve the map on the Wales article. The style we have in mind is something like the Monaco or Andorra articles. Sadly, the creator of those maps has a notice on his talk page saying 'No more map requests'. So, I was wondering if you knew where I could go, and/or who I could ask instead. If you don't have the time, would you mind suggesting someone you think may know, please. Many thanks and (Welsh: diolch yn fawr), Daicaregos (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can I take it that your lack of response means you don't have the time? Daicaregos (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Would it have been so hard to say you were too busy to help? Daicaregos (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- OH! I have been slapped! :D Sorry for not responding, I have been attempting to find someone who might be able to actually help you seeing as I have no idea how to do that. Anyways, I have been unable to find anyone to help, and like I said, I am not sure how to help you either. Sorry, Tiptoety talk 04:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Would it have been so hard to say you were too busy to help? Daicaregos (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- You might try poking around Wikipedia:Requested pictures and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Requested_and_orphan_maps to see who from there is still active. Also, commons:User:Rarelibra looks like he does some good European maps. MBisanz talk 04:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
A probable sock
I strongly suspect that two Russian users User:Offliner and User:Krawndawg are the same. I asked Offliner, and he replied that he never had any other account, although he is obviously not a newcomer. Although they carefully avoid any common articles, they edit in the same WP:DE style. They talk and behave very similarly, and they edit in the same general areas. I checked their time schedule during the July-September period and found that they do not edit in the same time. Say, O. did not edit during Sept. 2-11, but K. edited during Sept 6-9, and so on. Krawndawg often worked together with User:Miyokan, almost as a team (Moreschi should know him). Should anything be done about it?Biophys (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- That is far too little of evidence for me to block on, but if you have a concern and legitimately feel that they are in fact the same user, compile some evidence and file a report at WP:SSP. Tiptoety talk 23:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- And what if checkuser defines them as the same user?Biophys (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Then they would be blocked. Tiptoety talk 01:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The reason I've pretty much stopped contributing to wikipedia is because of Biophys constant attacks, attempts to get me blocked, and stocking/revert warring with me all over the place, in almost every single article I ever contributed to. This isn't the first time he's accused me of sockpuppeting. In fact I've almost come to expect it, which is why I still check his edit history once in a while. I am not the same user as Offliner, I don't know who Offliner is, and I don't plan on getting involved in wikipedia editing again (aside from maybe a few updates here and there) because of the sort of harassment Biophys has put me through since I first began editing. Kind of takes the fun out of it. I mean, what's the point in spending countless hours contributing to this site for free in my few spare hours of the day if it only brings frustration, conflict and continuous paranoia/accusations of bad faith? I can think of a million things I'd rather do, up to and including eating glass. Krawndawg (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Then they would be blocked. Tiptoety talk 01:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- And what if checkuser defines them as the same user?Biophys (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I now believe that Krawndawg (talk · contribs) and Offliner (talk · contribs) are socks of Alexandre Koriakine (talk · contribs) who also edits as 82.138.29.29 (talk · contribs) (see this diff) and lives in the little famous town of Vatutinki, the headquarters of GRU cyphering department. I never communicated with him directly except this episode where he discusses me with Vlad_fedorov (talk · contribs). Biophys (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Youre kidding right?
Ive seen teens like me post their ages on wiki... so, why cant i do it too? and anyways, forget the crap i stated above... just send me the copy of the info.. thanks -.- II MusLiM HyBRiD II 22:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just because other people post their ages does not mean it's a good idea. GlassCobra 22:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Glasscobra. There is no valid reason why you (or anyone) should post their age on wikipedia. Keeper ǀ 76 22:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- HyBRiD, the reason I am doing this is for your safety, so please try and treat me with a bit more respect. Also, I am not sure I am confident in re-sending you a copy of your deleted userpage seeing as I did that once and you just reposted the same info. Tiptoety talk 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Umm, i need you to send me the info, i didnt save my formats and layouts. I wont post my age, since you three tell me not to. If you decide not to send it, well, ill have to start from scractch again... II MusLiM HyBRiD II 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- HyBRiD, the reason I am doing this is for your safety, so please try and treat me with a bit more respect. Also, I am not sure I am confident in re-sending you a copy of your deleted userpage seeing as I did that once and you just reposted the same info. Tiptoety talk 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Unblock
Tiptoety, please see my talk page for a comment I made, which perhaps you could address. It is regarding half of the reason for my desire to withdraw from Wikipedia. --G2bambino (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Old RFA deletions
What is up with these deletions? What is the point or goal here? KnightLago (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, after looking into it further I see what you are up too. KnightLago (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Red red links make me feel so fine...
Greetings WikiProject Oregon editors. It's time for another edition of the COTW. Thank you to those who helped improve Ken Kesey and the Nike, Inc. last week. This week, by request we have the Northwest Forest Plan and then a Red Link Elimination Drive. For the red links, pick any one you want from any article, the list provided is just to help make it easier. And if you get a good article started, don’t forget to nominate it for a DYK. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser request updated
I've added a supplementary request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sinbad barron - could you please move it back into the active column? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Pearl Harbour protection
Hi Tiptoety,
since your unprotection one week ago, Attack_on_Pearl_Harbour has been subjected to 9 IP-user vandalism attacks. Any chance of re-protection? Jaimaster (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected Tiptoety talk 13:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Civil language in edit summaries
User:Russavia is back after a block with comments like this: [15]. It's comments like this that makes editors leave articles, which is probably also the meaning with them.Närking (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's totally ok to call people nutters apparently. Refer to Moreschi for comments on this. And yes, the comments are pure nuttery. And yes, it is OR. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- While I can think of a few words that could have been better used, I see nothing block worthy or really even worth a warning. I will note that a whole lot of small issues such as thing can lead to one big issue and I urge Russivia to take it slow and be careful to make sure he/she stays withing the boundaries of WP:CIVIL. Tiptoety talk 19:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
checkuser list
Unfortunately, it's a closed list: You can't send to it if you're not on it. I wish I could figure out how to configure IRC. Tried a couple of times, but failed each time. Thanks for your help though.Toddst1 (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, you are right. I guess I have seen it used before because I work with CheckUsers and assumed it was an open email. And anyways, I am currently on IRC and there are no active CheckUsers. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Booker Huffman and other articles
Hi, Tip, I've come across a number of articles of late when you've removed anon-only protection, but the IP vandalism has continued and I've had to reimpose it. Could I suggest that you watchlist the articles yourself so that you can decide whether unprotection was a good idea? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
user:Sinbad barron
Because you are checkuser in this case I am interested to hear if his IP is from Belgrade, Serbia. If answer is yes there it will be OK to give data to checkuser Thatcher for new check. If answer is no then Balkan articles are having new puppeteer.....--Rjecina (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am not a CheckUser, but instead a CheckUser clerk meaning I do a lot with RFCU's but am not able to run checks. You might try leaving a note with the CheckUser who processed the case. Tiptoety talk 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid this new user is continuing aggressive POV editing, at Flag of Ireland and Irish nationality law. Is there anything that can be done? -- Evertype·✆ 15:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I left them a warning, if they persist I will block. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
A confirmed sockpuppet
I have a policy question. If someone was confirmed by checkuser as a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user, can he continue editing? For example, User:Guyver85 is a confirmed sock of banned Top_Gun (talk · contribs), as follows from this report [16]. As you can see, he simply stated: "no, I am not him" and continue editing. This is obviously him, as follows from the same problems, like copyright violations [17]. Should he be blocked per existing rules? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Odd... I am not sure why he has not blocked fallowing that request for CheckUser. Per policy a sockpuppet of a indef blocked user is blocked themselves, but remember we do have such policies as ignore all rules and sometimes give users a second chance. In this case though, I think he should have been blocked...but seeing as the case was closed a while ago you might want to check with the CheckUser who performed the check to see if in fact they want the account to remain unblocked. If they don't and it was simply a mistake, I would be happy to perform the block myself. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Bullying threats
As you know, Piotrus and I are on 1RR. Would you mind looking in here regarding harrassing fact/page tagging and bullying threats by Piotrus? Thanks. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please do. At Żydokomuna, I have reverted Boody's once and I ceased, per 1RR. But he has been revert warring there, before and after my edit (he was at 3 reverts there yesterday), with incivil edit summaries - and in addition to edit warring, he claims that me and Tymek are spreading anti-semitic propaganda ("This is Jew baiting claptrap. Pure and simple. tymek and Piotrus think the article is simply a repository for them to insert arbitrary claims about evil Jews"...as a justification of your own attempts to make this entry into a vehicle for anti-semitic libels"" and so on), now complaining here about bullying threads... Is his behavior acceptable in light of our 1RR restriction and our other editorial policies? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Smile
NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 15:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)