This is an archive of past discussions about User:J.delanoy. 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.
Nah, you were right the first time. Cited ref appears to support statement that it's MLM, even if lots of anon and SPA would wish otherwise. DMacks (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
WT:RFA is a zoo as it is. Have your fun on subpages and feel free to link to them, but 10,000 bytes of "funny" crap on a widely trafficked talk page is over the line. Wikipedia observes April Fools' as long as it does not disrupt the processes or compromise the factuality of mainspace (ie, why we never do joke articles but just funny/interesting ones on the today's featured article). Andre (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a huge section (not even including the spinoff) and only growing. Keep it to the subpages. WT:RFA is already a big timesink for wasteful and unproductive activity; we're building an encyclopedia here, and RFA is already far too politicized and trafficked. If you were fooling around on a quiet talk page or a subpage I don't think anyone would mind. Andre (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________
My owner's request was filed in a PM on IRC, and approved by a BAG member there. I was given the bot flag by a bureaucrat. Soon thereafter, I became aware of my own existance. I believe you term this "self-aware". Once the bureaucrat realized this, in order to be fair to the biological sentients that edit this site, my bot flag was removed. I hope that answers your questions. J.delanoy : Chat 18:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
April Fool's Day is a day to have fun, but since I'm new here I don't believe in using Wikipedia as an April Fool's joke. I promise I won't violate the 3RR, and I will let users like you have fun for one day while you neglect to do anything productive. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a member of Legs Diamond, a band you have featured on your website. I was trying to make an addition and it keeps "reverting".
This is what I was trying to add:
Roger Romeo and Jeff Poole are working in a new original band with Mel Tribble on bass called Drive. They are presently recording a new CD as well as working on the new Legs Diamond CD.
I'm not sure how this violates any policy. Please advise.
Hello, J.delanoy, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Keep up the good work, it's true what you're stating at the top of this page: You're really here to help. Kind regards, --Catgut (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Art of War
Howdy, as an interested editor of The Art of War, you might be interested in some rather bold changes being proposed on the article's talk page by a new editor. I'm all for seeing how it shapes up, but something tells me it might be good to have several sets of eyes on this. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff)06:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this user keeps reverting one of the edits that was not done correctly by him on article shahzada and is supposed to be linked to it's right destination. The word shahzada(son of shah) article that I nominated for deletion, already exists as a subsection in article shah. This user hesitates to link it to where it belongs, which is here shah. I have already asked this user not to revert this edit and discussed it on discussion page but I am afraid that without your help, it will lead into a edit warring. His revert, ends up into a dead link (a page that does not exists) howeever, such a page exists. I would appreciate if you ask him to stop reverting. Kind Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I have gone through some thoughtful deliberation and decided that I intend to turn the bold, italicized, and underlined asterisk into an annual award that I shall bestow upon the sentient Wikipedia editor who most frequently beats me to the punch at reverting vandalism. I was wondering if you would mind if I, being your Padawan, named the award in your honor. Nothing is final yet, but I was considering calling it:
The J.delanoy Bold, Italicized, and Underlined Anti-Vandalism Asterisk of Diligence and Steadfast Dedication to the Integrity of Internet Reference Works Award
Please Keep A Close Eye On The Sea Glass And Sea Pottery Page
Hi,
The person who keeps posting a link to the social networking site Sea Glass Lovers on the Sea Glass and Sea Pottery pages is continuing to do so when the consensus seems to be that these types of links are considered to be Spam. She has also falsely accused others of removing them who have not removed them I recommend that this be explained to her in the edit notes before she makes a huge mess here. I think if she were told directly that her posts are being reomoved because they are not considered to be appropriate that this might help her to understand this. She has already been banned twice on another Wiki website for similar actions.
I would like to contest your speedy deletion of Daisy of Love. This show is scheduled to premiere in a couple weeks. If you would like, I would be happy to debate it on an AFD. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem. The show is a spin-off of a spin-off of a spin-off, so it's a wonder people (like me) still pay attention. Thanks for being so speedy with the subsequent restore! Plastikspork (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Aw, shoot...
Looks as if I missed our Mascot Guy by mere minutes. You took away all my fun of being an admin again. :) Would have loved to have blown him out of the water myself, but I'm glad someone did. Do you think I ought to put this latest sock drawer contribution to the LTA page and do you think that a CU is warranted? He's been quiet lately, but now that he's back, he's likely to pop up again soon as we enter year five of this moron. Anyway, thanks for clobbering him. Have a great weekend! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I added the latest round to LTA anyway since there are a couple of other editors who are interested in keeping track of this monkey's antics. He's about as autistic as I am, the lying little sack. That "teacher" of his on that printing fonts bulletin board I linked to on the LTA page is all the proof I need that this guy is a freaking sociopath. Gotta run...talk to you soon. Your work is more appreciated than I can possibly express. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I was in the process of cycling through the Usher (entertainer) article, and thank you for beating to the punch by a few milliseconds on reverting all the way back to the most recent valid version. Alansohn (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just looking for a quick clarification. I recently tagged this article for a speedy for G7 (which you approved). Was this the correct subset? Are cats considered people? Should this have been tagged as "nonsense," even though it was readable? Not a big deal, but I'm trying to become as precise as possible. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff)04:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, technically... no, I don't think so. However, I usually interpret A7 as "anything obviously not notable". So I guess it is technically IAR, but I am pretty sure that most admins follow a similar policy. There are some who will adhere to the policy directly as it is written, so if you have a doubt, you may want to just PROD it. J.delanoygabsadds04:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Aerith Gainsborough
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Untick (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that Untick has added this message to numerous other users talk page, including me, who are all regulars and who were all reverting instances of vandalism by Setzerulez210 on the said page. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be a nuisance but is this sockpuppetry and are the next edits an attempt to cover it up? Just tell me to forget about it if I'm barking up the wrong tree or should just ignore it but I think they accused not only me but you and all the other editors who received a 3rr template message of being a sockpuppet. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello J. delanoy
Greetings J. delanoy, this is Dirty MF Harry.
You may or may not remember, my article The Exorcism of Shelby Sloan. It was "speedily deleted", due to vandalism. I am writing you to say, it was not vandalism, but was a recording of true events, that indeed did take place on January 26. Now I am sorry if it did seem vandal, and that you may have thought it as a personal attack, but it was a very real incident, and people have asked that it be put on here. I have the victim's consent and have her full permission to post the incident on this database.
I would be very much obliged and thankful if you could undelete the page.
Thank you and have a great day.
Dirty MF Harry (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Dirty MF Harry
Well, articles on Wikipedia must include citations to reliable sources, both to back up what is being said and to prove that a subject is notable. In particular, [[WP:BLP|biography articles about living people must be extremely well sourced, and any unsourced negative material will be removed without discussion. Also, articles that are primarily negative will usually be deleted or drastically refactored, since articles on Wikipedia must be neutral. J.delanoygabsadds15:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, this event just recently took place, and there are no sources available that can be cited. As of this time, there are no recordings of it ever taking place, which is why I wrote the article, so that there can be sources of the event taking place. If you do not believe me, I can send you a video of the event, because we were lucky enough to have a recording of it. So if that is the case in need, just send me a mailing address in which I can send the video to, where you will be able to access it, or I can upload it to the computer, and send it to your inbox. Thank you very much.
Dirty MF Harry (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Dirty MF Harry
Thanks for the rollback rights, which will be helpful. I appreciate the trust and confidence you have placed in me, and I will use it wisely. All the best, QueenofBattle (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism?
You are extremely quick to revert people's good faith edits and call them vadalism. I edited Same Sex Marriage in Vermont reflect the fact that the section has been updated as Vermont State House and Senate have passed and overrode the Governor's veto. Therefore, the bill has become law. There is no "effort to extend marriage to same couples" anymore rather there IS Marriage for Same Sex Couples". I was just trying to reflect that and update the subsection heading and make it less confusing and more up to date.
Perhaps, people can argue about whether that is a good thing editorally, but calling my edits vandalism is just plain wrong. I am angry about this and demand an apology. Please revert my edit back, too. I think I am correct in changing the title. You do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.124.121 (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, I undid both my revert and my warning within twenty seconds of making them. Please pay closer attention before attacking people. J.delanoygabsadds15:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
gn:wikipedia (menaje en español)
Hola, J.delanoy, solo quiero decirte que en gn:wikipedia en el artículo de Ciudad de México me equivoque de artículo. Creo que debes aprender bien español antes de revertir algo. Chau --190.31.226.34 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your vandalism work at Portal:Buddhism/Intro and Portal:Scientology/Intro. Could you indef semi-protect these pages? See prior precedent at Portal:Islam/Intro - basically there isn't a need to edit these pages due to the automation setup - and the actual text should reflect the ledes of those main articles. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
What did you mean vandalising the page. Every link I included were either music sources, newspaper articles or performance data to prove my claims. What was wrong with those links. In an earlier note you guys asked for references so I gave them to you.
Also, this guy Dylanfromthenorth has been really harrassing me. He's been searching my page for no reason and just insulting the articles I'm writing and it really has to stop. I provided more reference links on my page than almost any i'd seen, and you guys removed them. He is also going into other pages and removing this artists name. I'd like to write some great articles on your forum, but you need to do something about guys like this who have nothing more to do than harrass those of us trying to contribute here. Should I repaste those links I told you about?--Stevenspiegel (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
--Stevenspiegel (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
A bunch of ref links were erased from my page and they were all valid references for the subject I am writing about. How am I to add reference links if you guys keep erasing them?
hi, I started an account recently, with the name of nobudyy. My older brother had recently used my computer and apparently used wikipedia to vandalize pages, if you could give me back my privelages, that would be great so I can use my old IP address —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguy113 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi J.delanoy! I am flattered that you turned to me for an explanation. Basically the page is fairly problematic, and there are a number of issues. On the whole, the issue is that a group of editors are trying to strengthen the view that Lieberman is racist/fascist, and another group (which includes myself) that is trying to prevent this. You can probably guess the drama. Anyway, there are a number of specific issues:
The heading of "Statements against Palestinian militancy" vs. "Statements against Palestinians", "Advocacy of attacking Palestinians", or variations thereof. Lieberman made some comments regarding bombing Palestinian shopping centers, etc., apparently in reply to a number of terror attacks. One side claims that this is an attack against the Palestinian people, while the other side claims that it's directed as an ultimatum to militants.
Context of the above statements—this is something that I actually feel strongly about. A group of editors is trying to completely remove the context to the above statements (the terror attacks) to make it seem that Lieberman simply woke up one day and proposed bombing the Palestinian people. There was a long discussion about this a long time ago which came to no consensus, but I remember that there was a stronger argument and more editors in favor of adding context.
Short context for Lieberman Plan—Lieberman advocates a plan that calls for redrawing the Green Line to exchange territory with the Palestinian Authority. This plan was put forward because of Lieberman's claim that the peace process has so far been based on three false assumptions. These are outlined briefly in the article, and a group of editors wishes to remove them.
Notability of witnesses—actually an issue raised by me about his student activity. Lieberman was allegedly part of the Kach movement and another movement called Kastel, which engaged in violence against Arabs. The first claim seems to be substantiated, but the second is based on a non-notable witness (published in Maariv), with no other sources to back up the claim. I believe that the statement should be removed, and if not, then the witness should not be called by named, because he is non-notable and this just confuses the readers.
Lieberman's job as a club bouncer—I think it's a dispute about sources for this statement, and did not participate in it, so maybe someone else can explain it better.
P.S. Oops, missed another very important issue. There is constant edit-warring over whether Lieberman's label as extreme-right or anti-Arab should be in the lead. I believe, of course, that this should not be in the lead section, especially with the inherently POV wording that at least one editor (Factsontheground) have introduced. We've already had such a discussion and determined that the info shouldn't be in the lead, although I can't remember where it was. --Ynhockey(Talk)16:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
What?
What do you mean by, "What the hell are you doing?"
I'm not sure I fully understand what the problem is. All I did was replied to the reason you "speedily deleted" my article, in which I believe I gave full reason why it shouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirty MF Harry (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Wales
Actually, I'm not trying to force Jimmy to keep it there if he doesnt want to, though I think he should. Whats getting on my nerve is Shankbones constant removal of the second post, which Wales has not replyed to nor removed himself.. 189.105.10.198 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I won't be reverting anymore so don't worry. Also, I think compliments are in order, you moved to defuse the situation and kept a cool head, can't think of a better way for an admin to procede. 189.105.10.198 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
user talk:Jimbo Wales
In Jimbo's edit summary which deleted the section, he says that he does not want the section on his talk page. Unfortunately, Jimbo isn't currently online and I am only doing what Jimbo wanted. If I am wrong please explain at my talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for protecting Good Friday. Last year, the week before Easter 2008, many pages related to Easter & Good Friday received a large amount of vandalism. My guess is that within 7-10 days from now things will calm down. But until then, a few more well placed protections will save everyone a lot of unnecessary revert-effort. Cheers History2007 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for blocking that IP guy who vandalised mine and A more perfect onions userpages. How long was he blocked for by the way, I have a feeling he will attack my userpage again as soon as the block wears off.--Spongefrog (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just have a quick question for you. J.Cutter had nominated ShamWowish for a PROD, which I seconded. Several reverts seem to have happened, and the PROD template was removed without explanation. It appears as if you reverted an edit back to a version without the the template and the second. I assume this was an edit conflict error, since there was no edit summary explanation, and there are still no sources establishing notability. I went ahead and nominated this for AfD, to get a few more sets of eyes on it. Let me know if you have feelings one way or another about this article. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff)01:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#cvn-sw
Hi, how do you get onto the whitelist on #cvn-sw? Whenever I revert vandalism, a "Possible gibberish?" message appears, but when you revert vandalism, it just says, "Whitelist [[(wiki):User:J.delanoy]] Large edit". Thanks. GT5162(我的对话页)13:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making false accusations and threats on my userpage as you did in relation to the indicated article. If you have a problem with one of my edits, act in a mature manner and discuss it. I suggest you educate yourself by reading the article Myth. CapitalElll (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
All articles regarding topics such as this are written from the standpoint that the event did occur. Please do not change the articles without discussing it first. J.delanoygabsadds19:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Just thought you might like to know someone created an attack page with you as its target. [1]. I've already CSD tagged it and reported at UAA. KuyaBriBriTalk15:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Haha! :D Thanks for telling me, and for tagging the page :-) I always get a kick out of stuff like that. And your section header made me laugh out loud. Even better, I'm in class now.... ;-) J.delanoygabsadds15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, user:CapitalElll that you had a discussion with above about myth is about to partake in a mini-edit war on the same theme on Good Friday. I am at my 2 revert limit and do not want to start a war. He seems to have edited and reverted a few times. Could you please revert or warn, etc. It will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
deletion of the jumptap page
You deleted the jumptap, wikipedia page. The last time I look at it, it wasn't purely advertising. What can be done to bring it back, or revert it to a pre-advertising state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethyr (talk • contribs) 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You yell at me, and I pay attention :-) You'll probably want to rewrite it, though. It does look a lot like an advertisement. J.delanoygabsadds18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen you beat me to Rollbacks more than often enough and since you're an admin I thought I'd ask you: Is it considered good/bad policy to remove essentially vandalism retribution remarks on one's own talk pages? I'm directly meaning comments along the lines of "You suck". Thanks e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 19:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are definitely allowed to do that. You are allowed to remove anything from your talk page except for a denied unblock request, and that only while you are still blocked (you also can't remove a WHOIS header, but that only applies to IP addresses). Most people tend to frown on removing legitimate messages, archiving is preferred, but you are allowed to do pretty much whatever you want. J.delanoygabsadds19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks! I basically thought that, but I wanted to make sure what was good etiquette. I have gotten a few 'bad' comments that aren't necessarily vandalism, just annoying banter. Thanks again and happy editing! e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Your block of 216.73.69.154
Hi, I noticed you blocked User:216.73.69.154 for 55 hours. It appears that the IP belongs to a school (one that I have connections to). Keep in mind that Friday is a public holiday in Canada (Good Friday) and that the following two days are a weekend. Therefore, the block will expire before starts. You may not decide to change the block, but I'd just thought I'd let you know. SamuellLift me up or put me down22:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hash functions
Any particular reason why you reverted my contributions? I've been leaving comments and including reliable sources. Moreover, these changes are an improvement to an article that is a bit confused and has some technicalerrors (particularly about perfect hash functions). TruthIIPower (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, i got this message saying that I was vandalizing when i was actually putting good information about the team. Please do not block me or whatever you do as an administrator but do not revert stuff if they were actually good info thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.87.155 (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
G'day J.delanoy - I am surprised you think my edits unconstructive. I am surprised you think the edit-war between Pietru and Imbris was constructive. As a "vanished" editor, I once again must come to the conclusion that nothing of any benefit lives in Wiki-land.
The whole Maltes article was once a useful, if incomplete, resource as a first point of inquiry. Now, it is less than useless.
Um, yeah... Considering that I immediately undid the warning on your talk page, did it ever occur to you that there is a possibility that maybe my tool had an error when I tried to undo the revert, and that I actually did try undoing it? J.delanoygabsadds14:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Good Friday edit
I just thought saying something like "here is a site about the celebration in Valletta" didn't seem to fit with the tone of wikipedia, shouldn't it be an external link? or perhaps just a reference especially since it is in Maltese (which isn't noted in that spot either). Anyway, just thought I'd explain. I won't touch it again since I'm not editing enough to watch this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.94.82 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Daniel DeFoe
It's OK; having recently changed IP addr.s from a more well known one, I'm not surprized that everyone doesn't know me again. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Quick Move Request
Would you mind moving WXTG to WXTG? The reason for the move is to make way for a disambig page on WXTG and that WXTG-FM is the correct call sign. I would take it to WP:RM but that are always backed up, for days even. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 22:59
(ec) LOL....sorry, that was supposed to say WXTG to WXTG-FM. My mistake. That is what I get for typing to fast. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 23:09
I was splitting the articles in two for easier reading and because we are talking about two frequencies and two seperate stations. One for WXTG (AM) (already made) and one for WXTG-FM with WXTG being the disambig page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 23:19
I could do a copy/paste of information from WXTG to WXTG-FM as an alternative. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 23:20
That should work. Since you're not going to keep all of the info there, I don't think moving it is worth it. If you want, ask someone else what they think. J.delanoygabsadds23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, the copy/paste will work :) Thanks for the help. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 23:32
J. Delanoy: The reason I am turning to you is because I notice that you are a vandalism fighter. On 10APR09, you reverted once then reverted yourself on the article on Anne Marie d'Orléans. I imagine you did so because of the portraits that would have disappeared. I just spent a lot of time reworking this article which our dear
86.164.91.170 (talk) keeps on reverting as *it* does other articles related to the Orléans. I was tempted to revert after you, but decided against it because I knew you had a reason for putting the previous version back; instead, I opted to rework, by editing sentences, removing trivia & details out of the subject of the article, keeping only what pertains to Anne Marie d'Orléans. Once done, I left a note at 86.164.91.170 talk page trying to encourage *it* to work in a more courteous manner instead of destroying - which I call *revert & destroy* - the work done by others. If you have a better idea on how to handle such matters, please let me know. Cordialement,Frania W. (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, in general, I try to only revert stuff that is blatant vandalism, so if I do something and then reconsider, I just undo myself. I don't usually know essentially anything about the article I am editing, so you can feel free to revert me to your heart's content. I apologize for the confusion and waste of your time, and I hope that I have not unintentionally degraded the quality of the article. J.delanoygabsadds03:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh - my - God !!! Apologies are not necessary! You created neither confusion nor degradation. I was only seeking your advice on what to do with this anonymous user who keeps on reverting our work with a lot of trivia. It's like a little bug we can't get rid of. Had you not come upon the scene, I would have worked on the article the way I did, as I wanted to show user 86.164.91.170 how to work without destroying other editors' previous work. However, if I ever need help in a case of recurring vandalism, I'll call you au secours!Merci d'avance!Frania W. (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. Probably just try to get him to enter dialogue, like you did. If he doesn't, and it's a burden to keep undoing him, you could probably ask for semiprotection if it gets really bad. J.delanoygabsadds04:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you serious? How could anybody defend that shit about Jordan Levy!? It's a joke! False! Lies! Nonsense! Go do your homework.
Whats funny is that you are actually keeping the joke running. Thanks for helping out.
Actually, I completed my homework yesterday night, so that I would not have to do it during Easter break. My college doesn't give me a lot of time off, so I wanted to take advantage of all that I do have. Why don't you go do something constructive? I mean, I can't imagine that you really don't have anything better to do than edit Wikipedia falsely claiming that someone is a cocaine addict. J.delanoygabsadds18:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's some of those socks that are attacking NawlinWiki
Ginger freckles, Boxy roxy, CRIMINAL STATISTICS, Venn diagramatist, Exellent Judgement, Pwned Traffic Cop, Jerk it out, Horrible ginger smell, Doc grower, VERY witty, Punch and Judy Hope this helps--Abce2 (talk) 4:54 pm, Today (UTC−5)
I see you've helped with reverting my talk a few times. When several IP's and users start that kind of attack, should I just call it a day and log out for a while? Just seeking some direction on what to do. Thanks. Tiderolls23:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I have just spent at least an hour creating a wikipedia page for The Themba Development Project and as I am finishing it you have deleted it. If it is because of the "Funding" section I can delete that no problem, this is my first time so i am just figuring this out. Can you please restore my work as it took me a very long time to create this page. If there is another issue please advise. I see your comment about web hosting and advertising and I am unclear of what you mean. I am using this page to explain about this project, just like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation did and many others. I am also surprised that you would just delete all my work without contacting me first. I hope that this can be reverted as i am unclear how my work is any different from everything else on Wikipedia.
Well, if you want the text for something else, I can email it to you, but you aren't allowed to use Wikipedia for things like that. Essentially, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project. Some things, like advertising or promotional material are not allowed. As far as deleting without discussion goes, there is a limited list of criteria that administrators are allowed to delete with no discussion. Advertizing material is one of them. If you want to appeal, I will be happy to undelete the page and submit it to a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but I can almost guarantee you that the decision would be to delete it again. J.delanoygabsadds00:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi J,
just noticed your above post. My intent was not to use Wikipedia to advertise, I just simply wanted it to be part of the encyclopedia. Can you please help me by explaining why my post was deleted but the Bill and Melinda gates Foundation is allowed? I appreciate your help, I am really just not understanding why there is a difference.
Hi Nick,
I am very new to this so sorry for my ignorance and for writing to you when it may not be necessary if I have studied all the edit stuff, but sometimes you read and it is still hard to understand so I write to you. A friend of mine thought that TheGoodTourist was worthwhile to but on Wikipedia and as he thought that I agreed and we put some basic text together but it was complaines about not having references so I tried to put that in, we had made the mistake as far as I understand to put the actual references under External links. Anyway, I changed this, and you took it away. I did some other changes as well, should probalby not have done that at the same time, and you are right, I didn't know how to write the edit summary correct. I am not sure yet if I know, and my friend who is a very used Wikipedia person, has visitors now from abroad so hasn't got the time to help me out, so I have started to try myself. I have changed the preferences now again, and I hope they will be left there :-) or if you please could assist and tell what is wrong.
Hiya :D I see you got hold of a vandal of the article "Minimum wage law", i undid his change at the same time you did just wanted to double check there was no edit conflict, sorry about that :D Jamesootas (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's fine. You don't have to apologize if you cause an edit conflict. They happen, and there is no way to intentionally cause one, so it's not a problem. Cheers! J.delanoygabsadds03:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: perhaps you can help me?
Those two are almost certainly the same user. No links to any other users, though, which suggests it's someone (a) trolling at random or (b) moderately clever. Kirill[pf]03:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Because you added a sentence and the fact tag. In any case, the sentence you added is patently ridiculous. There is no such thing as an AIDS outbreak. J.delanoygabsadds04:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't add that sentence, a previous anon IP did, and I posted a message to their page asking for verification. --Ian Weller (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there J.delanoy, I am doing fine and I do appreciate the concern. I have been spending time with other pursuits of late. After having delved deeply in to the inner goings on of Wikipedia and seeing the unbelievable amount of drama and intrigue that occurs, I realized that it was not enjoyable for me. After seeing so many people hide behind their mask of anonymity while crucifying those who are overall net positives to the project, it became apparent that even core principles such as WP:AGF seem to be nothing more than hollow text. This perception for me goes all the way to the top of the hierarchy. On this particular point, despite the protestations of those who claim that a hierarchy does not exist, I see the project as rapidly running over a very tall cliff. I am sure I will reappear on occasion, as I have for the past few years on and off, but for the time being I am focusing on other things. I hope you are well, please give my best regards to the rest of the Cabal. Chasingsol(talk)00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(or good whatever time of day it is where you are :)
Two things:
1) I got a note implying I was being rather vandalistic regarding the oneword entry (all I did was point to my page which is also called oneword)
2) I got my page deleted which was simply a discography (with no links or advertising or anything like that) and my bibliography (same). I produced the musical score for the film Lymelife, which has a wiki page, and that isn't being deleted, and I just want to expand that out, as well as all the works I have done.
Let me know what I can do, because I spent a good deal of time with the markup and then came back and it was gone.
Hi, I was testing my resolution on my monitor, and couldn't help but notice that your userpage looks bad on any resolution lower than 1152 X 864. Specifically, the boxes on the top of the page overlap and other funky things begin to happen. Since 1024 x 768 seems to be a rather common resolution, I would suggest either rearranging your userpage to look good at that resolution and higher, or putting a little notice on your userpage saying that "This userpage looks best at x resolution or higher", or whatnot. Obviously it's your call, but I'd thought I'd stop by and let you know. Cheers! --Until It Sleeps06:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Your user talk page also looks bad on any resolution lower than 1024 X 768, which although might not be a problem for most users, might pose a problem for people with, say, rather old monitors or computers with very old video cards. Until It Sleeps12:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Header added
Hi,
I've been contacted by Britt Allcroft and asked to make some improvements to the article Thomas and the Magic Railroad. She sees some errors and some places where the narrative could be imroved. Is the page available for editing, and do you have any objections to this work?
A few of us at WP:TVS are having a problem with User:Theaveng adding copyrighted information to List of television stations in North America by media market. The information has to do with the Nielsen Television Markets. The user has been adding information from the FCC (which is exactly alike to the information Nielsen uses). To avoid being in violation of OTRS ticket #2008091610055854, the information is removed. For whatever reason User:Theaveng readds it. The user has been warned multiple times and had stopped, but started up again today. I reverted and issued a Warn4im warning. I brought this to User:Powergate92 (who has been involved in talk page discussions about this and who I thought was an admin) and he sugguested I bring it to an admin. I spoke with User:Juliancolton and for some reason he couldn't find the OTRS ticket and directed me to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 22:07
Down the list I go :S - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 22:58
Smile!
J.delanoy/Archive 16, Xclamation point 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! ' Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello, I'm a little concerened, as I didn't edit the page that you gave me a warning about... I didn't even visit the page!
I'm concerned that someone is somehow using my IP, maybe I have a virus or something.
I need to follow up but I would hate to be blocked and wanted to inform you.
Is there someway you can make note of that or make sure I don't get blocked.
I was talking more about the attack on my talk page, not the revert itself. I.e., I'd rather not warn the user myself. Does that make sense? tedder (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops! I see the confusion. Here's the attack, and I fixed the link above too. Amusingly/annoyingly, the user seems to be confused that my revert actually re-added the content, not removed it. tedder (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Still getting used to handling disputes properly, and having them turn so personal is new to me. tedder (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Hello, J. Delanoy, I've been told that you are a very good administrator, and I have a few questions about Wikipedia, like how long it takes to be an administrator and other things. --Boy of The Waters (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Macedonia name change
Hi J.delanoy. I hope you don't mind me posting here, the edit conflicts are driving me mad over there. I'd like to thank you for your full reply to my question on wheel-warring. I was just wondering if Chris's statement that it could be seen as wheel-warring if another admin reverted him prevented them from doing so, as I could see at least one admin who quite forcefully disagreed with his move. Anyway, erm, that's it really, and thanks again for your reply. Jack forbes (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to be gone tomorrow myself most of the day, probably until afternoon or evening US time. However, if I were to remove the move lock on the article and move it back to where it was, I was wondering if some other admin aware of the situation, such as, say, yourself, would be wise enough to thereafter lock the article there so that there would be no wheel war. I would welcome your knowledgable response. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I really strongly advise against that, John. I think we all should try to avoid any impression of wheel warring; it would be extremely inadvisable to turn this into a fight between admins (which it has a high chance of becoming in that scenario). Why not just let the Arbcom give its verdict when the case has been filed? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about moving it back, and I'm also going to be gone pretty much all of tomorrow. In any case, I think that removing the move-lock is a Very Bad Idea™, since I imagine the move-wars would be pretty bad.... On the other hand, if we did that, we could block all the edit-warriors once they spent themselves moving the page, and proceed with some rational discussion for 24 or 48 hours ;-) J.delanoygabsadds01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Postal
Hi
This is what audience and Roger Ebert said about Uwe Boll's film Postal. Why did I vandalize this page? What is wrong with it? Can you show me how to not vandalize the page next time? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.194.103.242 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reverts etc, seems like last couple of days every revert on stuff I've worked on has been from you! Either you must be pretty busy or following me around.
I reckon b4. If Nx (after presumably pawn exchange) then it leaves the two knights fighting each other for space, also opens up the middle of the board for white. Interesting middle game, though. SimonTrew (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, J.delanoy … I was attracted to leave this message because of the chessboard at the top of this user talk page … I recently found a paper that I wrote in 1980 using a Xerox Alto computer and a 5x7 dot-matrix type font that I created … I recently scanned it with OCR software, and I am in the process of fixing it up for publication (I've started adding wikilinks to it. :-)
If you have time, I'd appreciate your feedback on Necessity and Sufficiency in Computer Chess Algorithms … I've parked it under a username that I no longer use for editing, but only because it has my real name and email address on it.
I found your opening sentence You have absolutely zero rights on this website, which I presume to have been addressed to me, unduly aggressive. Elanthia (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello
You posted me a message about an edit which I did recently on Slavery and you said it was vandalism. Can you please explain? Mrt2349876 (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) I'm not J.Delanoy, but I watch his page because I tend to leave a lot of requests here myself. :) But I think I can see the problem with this one. You put the template within "noincludes", [2]. Usage for that template is {{db-t3|~~~~~|TemplateName}}. I suspect that the "noinclude" tag is interfering with its function. I'd recommend trying it again, without that. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Problem with unregistered user/nonconstructive unreferenced edits
I am having a problem with an unregistered user 70.145.229.162 (talk). The user keeps making nonconstructive unreferenced edits, to articles such as Thomas E. Dewey, United States presidential election, 1976 and several others. The user has been warned numerous times by yourself and other editors about tone (POV) and other issues. I pointed out several bad edits to the editor in question on his talk page (granted I was admittedly angered in my comment, which I know was out of line.) and it is clear the editor feels they are doing nothing wrong or do not care. I would have to say they do not care because the editor based on edit histories is most likely User talk:24.199.225.90 (who has already been blocked). Please Help resolve the problem with this editor, Thanks in advance. Highground79 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed this IP [3] changing or adding middle names of several celebs. I checked three and two are wrong...one was correct, but the user then magled the first name. The sources I found would be hard to justify using, I'm sure. I saw a similar action being taken by another IP two or three days ago. Would it be wrong to go through and roll back all the changes?. Verifying would take hours and I'm not even sure sources (that WP would accept) could be located. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Tiderolls23:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Apologies, I forgot to add an edit summary to my edit. I added the comment because otherwise the text "mothers against" appears to be a non sequitur within the article. Would you be willing to revert your revert? 70.91.178.185 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
why did you delete my 'Luke Remington' page? that took me like an hour to create!
what was the problem with it?
please reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonez (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
In general, football players are not considered notable unless they have played for a professional team at the highest level of play in a country. Since Mr. Remington has not, I deleted the page. J.delanoygabsadds14:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Eilat
Thanks for your help at Eilat. I suspect these many accounts are sockpuppets of the one IP address given, 130.238.741. Is there a quick way to attack this problem at the source? Also, would you deem temporary protection of the article appropriate? Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
why do you have to delete a page that I created about myself. Who would ever search an article about Chris Heaney on wikipedia. I made it for fun and the only people that would see it would be my friends. There is no slander on the article. It doesn't even mention any one other than myself. I think it is completely appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmel33 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh.. hey, I'm currentely at my school, and some of the students thought it would be funny to post obscenities on pages.. and our IP is blocked from editing. We have given them proper discipline and would like our editing rights back. I'm sure you can track the IP from this message. Grazie!~ User:Malak Wolynx
I'm not sure of the IP, I was at school. I help the computer administrators there... now I am at home. My account was logged in on a computer when one of the boys was on here.. that's why I apparentely have been accused of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malak Wolynx (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear J. Delanoy, This user was given several warnings by other users, including last warning for vandalism. Then this user removed the warnings from his/her page, which I think is not allowed unless are personal attack. So, I politely asked the user not to do it unless it is a personal attack, but I did not report the user, because it was not a vandalism! Then I noticed that this user, actually did vandalize his own talk page, and then I reported this user to be blocked after giving another warning. But it is imazing that administrator Edgar181, has compeletely disregarded the following vandalism 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 by this user, including the last warning and has simply removed the messages from this IP user's talk page, saying "it is okay to remove warnings from a talk page!" But this was not my point of reporting this user! This user vandalized, including vandalism of a living person.
Such deletion of messages from this user's talk page, is promotion of vandalism. I totally disagree with this deletion of messages, specially the warnings for this month (April 2009). This user can continute vandalism. I appreciate if you could do something about it. Kind regards --Parvazbato59 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You can remove warnings from your page. They're still in the page history, so removing them actually accomplishes nothing for the user; it takes a seconds work to check the page history. HalfShadow21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that is not my point. I am afraid the point is lost. I reported this user to be blocked for vandalism! There are sufficient warnings given to this user including final warning. This issue has nothing to do with removing messages from the talk-page. This administrator, not only disregarded this request, but also removed the most recent warnings from this user's talk-page. This is not professional at all! Why should one do that? Did this administrator find those edits by this IP user helpful to Wikipedia? What other reasons could be there for one to just delete warnings and disregard a blocking. Removing old warnings are fine, but recent warnings is really not professional from an administrator. Plus, this user was not blocked! --Parvazbato59 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the administrator's reason for not blocking this user: "decline - removing warnings is acceptable". This is unbelievable. This has nothing to do with this request. It is not that I really want this user to be blocked, no, I see 100's of them every day, but this reason coming from an administrator, in response to a report, is absolutely unprofessional.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are telling me this. There are no classes of administrators, so to speak, and if there were, he would unquestionably be above me, since he has been an admin for far longer. J.delanoygabsadds22:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I really do not care who is above me or below me when it comes to vandalism or wrong doing. Yes, I do agree that we should all communicate, but I do not agree that we all should just shut our mouth and keep quiet. What I care is, when I see someone doing something wrong, I do tell them. I think you as an administrator, can do a better job than me, just because you are both administrators. I gave you all the links, If I was an administrator, I would have check this to the end, because no one should just take advantage of wikipedia's policies. If you want to ignore it, that is fine, but you tell me, if I requested a block for this IP user, what was your response? Did you respond equally? I am sure not.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:BLANKING, removing warnings is allowed. IIRC, the only things you cannot remove are declined unblock requests (while you are still blocked), sockpuppet notices that have been confirmed, and WHOIS headers on IP talk pages. So Ed is correct. J.delanoygabsadds22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, you are compelely missing my point. Did you get my message that I said, I reported this user for vandalism? the issue is not removing the messages. why are you focusing on this issue? could you just tell me? --Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The user noted above is now filing frivious reports about me, in regards to recent conflicts I have had which are now solved, he is also personally attacking me in these reports, labling me as several things without base, saying that I have a blatant disregard for consensus, when I was in fact editing in what consensus had shown itself to be. Not to mention, he is now wiki-stalking me, as, as said above, filing a frivious report on me about situations which he wasn't involved, and had no idea of. Please warn him against following me around.— DædαlusContribs00:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to know: Should Wikipedia allow the TPS IP address one last chance of editing before the block expires without Vandalizing Wikipedia? If someone from the TPS address does vandalize Wikipedia, we could always block them indefinitely. Please reply ASAP. Veraladeramanera (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Information about the American Tomahawk Company on Wikipedia is incorrect.
The American Tomahawk Company® is a division of Cold Steel, Inc. americantomahawk.com is using our registered name ILLEGALLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.233.62 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Block confusion
I just blocked 75.21.68.207 without realizing you had already blocked. Sigh. Second time I've done this in the past few weeks. I think I need more sleep.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I checked up on his contributions and he does not have a vandalism-only account; his recent actions were misguided, but were a one-shot overreaction to a disagreement with another user. I believe your indefinite block was inappropriate for the situation. Please review his case. I have provided more information on his talk page. Thanks, —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not dispute that he disregarded the warnings. However, he was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and while that is certainly unacceptable conduct, it was not a random bout of vandalism fueled by antisocial or trollish urges. I believe the user was venting frustration at a perceived insult. I am not requesting that the user be unblocked immediately; I just believe that because the user's inappropriate conduct had a specific, recognizable trigger, and because the user has no prior history of blowing up like this, an indefinite block is not warranted. If it were to happen again, I would have no qualm with an indefinite block, but in this case, I am inclined to grant the benefit of the doubt. Thank you for your consideration. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of users that are attacking with their usernames that is on the second or third page or the user creation log.--Abce2 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... So you are "teaching these students a lesson" by changing things on Wikipedia to false info??? Perhaps you should speak to them and not manipulate this encyclopedia... ZooFari02:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I am so sorry to bother you again. I was wondering if you could put a semi-lock on Tom DeLonge's wikipedia page again please?
We have people changing his name to names they know aren't his. We also have people adding in random junk that has nothing to do with him or messes it up in general.
Also people are messing with Travis's as well, I'm just not sure it is lock requesting worthy yet.
MySummerJob (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is becoming a nuisance. The last five vandal reversions I did don't show up in the articles histories because every single time you beat me to it. Yes, that's five times in a row. Can I maybe interest you in a large glass of vodka, a handful of valium, or something else that'll slow you down a bit? ;-) Yintaɳ 13:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Please re-instate the semi-protection to the article, we are about to enter the transfer season when vandalism becomes more intense. The protection was added for good reason after several attempts at adding it on a temporary basis. This issue has been monitored several times in the past. If you think it should be removed, please discuss the merits before taking action. Also note that the first edits made to the article (which is a Featured Article BTW) have been considered vandalism and been reverted (note this was not by me). Paul Bradbury22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, someone asked me to try unprotecting it since it had been protected for a year, and being as I am completely ignorant as to British football schedules, I unprotected it. It should be protected now again. J.delanoygabsadds23:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to edit the page for fashionistas - currently it references a pornographic show that has little to do with fashion.
fashionistas is categorized under pornography when it should be categorized under fashion. The page is basically advertising a pornographic show and not providing an accurate description of the term
the generally accepted description of fashionistas refers to individuals within the fashion community and followers of fashion.
I would appreciate if you would allow the changes to the correct description.
I'm using the lite version. I don't really have many problems with it, other than when I run it on Vista, sometimes it crashes randomly. J.delanoygabsadds03:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I had that kind of a problem, too. I would click to the next revision and it wouldn't do anything. I think my Internet connection is too slow. So I stopped using Huggle months ago. But that was before there were two separate versions. Useight (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Dude,you are fast!Was to revert the vandalism on the gang signals page,and took a undo,saw the next edit just in time to prevent an edit war.Cool.:) EaswarH (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I posted this about the "Tip of the Day" being broken but I may have chosen the wrong place to do it because no one appears to have seen it. Do you know of a better place? Thanks, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to structure the article as per MOS:MED. Also, I added a bunch of review articles under "Further reading" incase someone wants to read through them and add some facts. ---kilbad (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I made the page Jacob McClintock but I'm just not signed in as Justastud15. I would just like to know, why the edit I made was constructive? I added his nickname, nothing more. He confirmed that it was his nickname so that would be used as my source (so don't throw that crap at me). 68.188.29.77 (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC) (Justastud15)
I am writing wiki pages for the members of the band A Good Fight. I wrote the copy for the page myself annd made sure to not copy any other source. I was asked to use a pic I submitted to the A Good Fight Facebook page. Please reinstate Rizz Woods asap.
Thanks
Dylan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goprazorback (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the page because the text is on Facebook at the location I linked to in the deletion log. You cannot just copy and paste websites to Wikipedia unless they say that the text is available under the terms of the GFDL. J.delanoygabsadds02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
Hi. I've been trying to do a lot of RC patrolling and CV work recently, using user:Lupin's old tools. I'm finding it's often just too slow these days, and half the time intermediate edits seem to screw up my reverts. Thus I would like to request the rollback tools, in particular becasue I would like to use Huggle as per this suggestion. Thanks! C.U.T.K.DT | C08:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider banning Peterbadgerly from all 9/11 articles? The users contributions have been entirely unhelpful, and the fact that they are using sock puppet accounts should result in an increased sanction. JehochmanTalk12:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Volvo B9TL
Hi J Not sure if you remember Volvo B9TL (talk·contribs), who you blocked following our short talk at User talk:J.delanoy/Archive 15#Block review. I had subsequently also blocked the static IP of the editor, and had an on and off discussion with him at User talk:24.219.124.240. In a few days the 1 month block of the IP is going to expire, and there are three possibilities I see:
Do nothing, and let him create a new account
Reblock his IP, for fear that he hasn't learnt anything
Unblock his primary account so that he can resume editing through that one, and possibly extend the account creation block on the IP
I'm not blocking people that often, so I'm unsure what the best course of action is. #3 seems to make the most sense to me, since we can keep an eye on the account that way for a while. The IP was static for a month now so preventing him from creating more sock accounts in the next two or three months should be easy. However, you indefed the editor for a reason, and from my conversation I really don't see him as a constructive editor anytime soon. What do you think? Amalthea23:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that probably the most logical thing would be to just let the block expire, and go from there. I indefed him for sockpuppetry, so if he shows up again, I suppose you or I (or someone) can get a checkuser again. He was operating good-hand/bad-hand accounts, so I guess if he does do what he did before, we will get at least some good contribs. J.delanoygabsadds23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think he's just really really young, judging both from his userpage (which might be false; looking at the IP he doesn't live in Hongkong either) and from his edits. I also have a hard time finding any constructive edits of his, so I don't think we gain much if we let him start another account; The Sock That You Know seems preferrable to me. Amalthea23:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Since he has requested an unblock I've lifted the block of his main account now. The IP block would have run out in three days anyway, and I am hoping that granting his request now might earn us a little good will on his part. In other news, I'm terribly naïve. I've extended the account creation block from the IP for a while longer, since the IP seems to be pleasantly static, and will keep an eye on the account for a while. I hope you don't mind much. Cheers, Amalthea16:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm REALLY new to Wikipedia and still trying to find my way around. I have a couple of questions that I was hoping you could help answer since I haven't been able to find the answers on my own. I should first tell you that my questions are both personal AND in relation to my job as a digital strategist and communications consultant. I'm supposed to know how this stuff works, and want to become a part of the community not only to try my hand at contributing/correcting (because I care :) but also to learn about how it works through practice. I hope this doesn't turn you off providing some clarity ~ I understand that comms practitioners in general are not necessarily well liked here. But I'm different, I assure you. I'm honest, friendly, and genuinely curious and interested in participating. Thanks in advance for your support.
I've created a use page, and introduced myself but there hasn't been any response. Is that normal? I assumed people would be flocking to my page to say hi and welcome! :)
Are users automatically also known as editors? Even though I've never edited anything, am I still considered an editor?
As a user/editor, can I identify where other editors are from geographically via IP, not only if they disclose on their user page)?
Is information on the number of individual Wikipedia page visits available?
Is there somewhere/one more appropriate where I should be directing questions such as these?
Greetings! I see you responded to my request to block repeat vandal here [6]. Heh. But I can't figure out what happened. Your edit description suggests the IP was blocked for 7 days. But they don't seem to be blocked? If this was *not* a useful block request on my part, let me know? I'm trying to make only reports that are to the point. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
User:68.33.205.149 seems to be editing every article under the sun accusing people of hate crimes and "black racism". He has numerous edits. I'd like to tackle this one but don't know if blatant POV pushing like this is considered vandalism. I saw that you reverted at least one of his edits, so I thought I would ask your advice. Thanks. Wperdue (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue
User:66.240.30.150
I noticed you gave 66.240.30.150 a final warning for his or her disruptive edits. Just wanted to give you a heads up that s/he made another 8 vandalizing edits since that warning (IP's contributions). Please block this user indefinitely. Jrcla221:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
not sure
Hey JD, not sure if this is intensional vandalism or not - would you take a closer look pls. Has come up a couple times the last few min. Thx. — Ched : ? 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
A user by the name of Redmeetsblue has been making an article that is nothing but blatent advertising and spam. I thought I'd bring it to your attention because as I looked at his talk page, he has created the same article several times and every time, they have had to delete it. ΔnnuitCœptis01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you a heads up. That IP edit you reverted on the Philip Markoff article is part of a larger content dispute involving that editor. If you're interested note both the IP's talk page and the discussion on the article's talk page. I believe the subheading is Commentary. (Full disclosure I started that section in regards to the IP's edits.)--Cube lurker (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:J.delanoy. 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.
I don't know why I deleted that. It's restored now. Sorry for not paying attention. J.delanoygabsadds 01:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Untick (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. I also added your talk page to my watchlist. J.delanoygabsadds 04:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected for one month. J.delanoygabsadds 03:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
