FisherQueen
| ||
---|---|---|
![]() [1] the_ed17 : Chat 01:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Fisher Queen, you deleted our article on Armorlogic. We entered that article because we saw a competitor's article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_Point and that led to our discovery of literally hundreds of other articles about our competitors and their products with content similar to what we posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGWatson ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Please either delete all of the business articles or let us post ours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGWatson ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Are you a queen of fishers? Or Fishermen? Or Fisher-Price? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Please either delete all of the business articles or let us post ours. Problem at User talk:70.108.118.234Can we get the talk page protected, this guy is such a character... Momusufan ( talk) 03:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Another admin just did it, he needs a much needed break. Momusufan ( talk) 03:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ![]() I was involved in the discussions between ICL and Sun that led to Solaris and/or SVR4.2. What do you need to know? -- Simon Kenyon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonckenyon ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen, some vandals have used your name on other projects, see sulutil:FisherQueen. I therefore suggest unifying your accounts. If you want you can get the existing accounts renamed at m:Meta:Changing username and w:pt:Wikipedia:Renomeação de conta. -- Erwin(85) 18:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you share her affection for cats? Do you use them similarly? Just curious. Your #87th fan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.156.201 ( talk) 06:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know how often you check Wikipedia e-mail, so I'm ringing the doorbell.— Kww( talk) 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() You placed a prod on this article would it not be better if it was redirected to The Amanda Show article which already has a paragraph on this character. BigDunc Talk 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahamdanis R3ap3R.inc ( talk) 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Drutasgub ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) When you're just a peon editor like me, that's the class of enemies you attract. If I were an admin :'(
I reverted an attack made against you on this page. Yours, Verbal chat 15:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen, could you please look over the dispute between myself and another editor at Bolton Wanderers F.C. and Phil Gartside? Any help and advice on the situation and what to do next would be appreciated! Cheers :-) John Sloan ( view / chat) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Hi, I see you've been helping that user (re. reverts and edit summaries); it looks to me like his/her question is dealt with, or now a part of an ongoing conversation with you - therefore, would it be OK to tn the helpme tag? Cheers, Chzz ► 12:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this range needs to be blocked again since this user clearly shows no respect and is personally attacking you in edit summaries. Momusufan ( talk) 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Hi. I realise this might be stretching your memory but I was wondering if you could shed some light on this block you did [2] on 6 July 2008 of User:Stevvvv4444. I can't find the relevent sock puppet case. This user is currently under suspicion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troy86. Thanks for your help. Broadweighbabe ( talk) 23:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 16:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks you for following 87.69.177.35 ( talk) to its new address. I wasn't looking forward to a new round of WP:GAMEing. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
User:194.189.32.65 legal threats and blusterFor what it's worth, the implication in the statement that this is "a widely shared IP, belonging to an organisation as large as the NHS" is complete cobblers - the implication being that "this IP address is used by the whole NHS and blocking it would affect the whole NHS". This IP address is one of a block of addresses at 194.189.32.0/20 - that is, one of approximately 1000 IP addresses, registered to a single NHS trust. Whether the trust managers would be sanguine about the usage to which that IP address is being put is a moot point - recent events in the news show that there may be a certain sensitivity in UK public offices regarding misuse of publicly-funded Internet connections. Also, the IP has been "consulting his solicitor" who is of the opinion that WP is in "direct breach of the Human Rights Act (1999)[sic]". They need a new solicitor; that's the Human Rights Act 1998 (not 1999), and I'm not aware that the remit of either the Human Rights Act (1998) or the ECHR runs as far as Florida. Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 22:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen, I recently received a reply from you on my request to unblock account Kurdish land. You refused to unblock my account on the basis that my contribution was disruptive. I tried to edit Al Qamishli article based on factual unbiased information. I've been resident of Qamishly for my whole life. At the moment I live in UK and a Human rights activist. The History part of article Al Qamishli represents Syrian Authorities opinion, which is discriminational against majority of Al Qamishli population who are Kurds. I am copying here my reply from the discussion page of Al Qamishli article. Have a read more about this issue from independent sources, not arabic media. "In my knowledge Qamishli is not an Assyrian town historically. During genocide in Turkey Assyrians fled to Syria and settled in a camp in Qamishly as a refugees. The Syrian government then gave them rights as Syrian citizens. Qamishly has always been predominantly kurdish The article Al Qamishli - especially "History" part is factually incorrect and offensive towards Kurdish population. It states someones personal opinion, not historical facts. It says that on 12 March 2004 Kurds start a riot. Have a look at the information regarding this event on Amnesty international and Human Right websites. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=15984 I am surprised that such political discrimination against Qamishli Kurds is allowed on wikipedia. This opinion is of Syrian authorities to protect their crimes against Kurdish population of Qamishli. I hope that administrators will check facts regarding information on this page. I hope that they are aware about arabic-kurdish conflict and understand that article should be impartial to both sides" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qamishlo ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to argue about unblocking my account. I don't know who to discuss the new wording with, who created this article originally? All I see is that users there revert article to original version every time, the one that is offensive against Qamishli kurds. This group of users organized by Syrian authority to offend kurdish population of Qamishli, how am I going to discuss it with them. Read their comments, they write like kurdish nation does not exist. They also create different accounts every time, why they are not blocked. Qamishlo
Thank you for trying to help. I would like to follow wikipedia's rules, but I cant sign in into my farhanbavealan account, my password does not work any more. So I don't know how to apply to unblock this account,because i can't sign in. User:Farhanbavealan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.72.107 ( talk) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Please extend the block of this bastard for a long time: [3] [4] [5] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:91.108.227.162]
Based on my observations, Farhanbavealan was an WP:SPA used only for edit warring. However, I will assume good faith and unblock based on the condition that he initiate a discussion about his edits on the talk page as opposed to sterile reverting. The article was also protected because the banned user Am6212 was being disruptive. The Suryoyo Sat article was protected for the same reason. Khoi khoi 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear FisherQueen, I am the other editor 70.71.22.45 was referring to in his comments. I don't know 70.71.22.45, and didn't realize she/he had been blocked until last night. However, since I think 70.71.22.45 was just trying to help me, I've added some comments and background about how 70.71.22.45 walked into the 3RR, for the record. I posted my comments here. Thanks, -- strmlbs| talk 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC) (Responding to your comment) Too true! I've been starting to feel that the entire issue of nationalist WP:BATTLEGROUNDing deserves to be under general sanctions. Not just Ireland/UK, not just Israel/Palestine, not just India/Pakistan, not just Eastern Europe, but everywhere. It's gotten to the point where any specific nationalist conflict not under general sanctions ends up giving way too much leniency to users who are here, fundamentally, to use Wikipedia to right great wrongs. You know what else makes me cringe? Unblock requests that are basically, "oh, I'm sorry I didn't spam properly. I promise I will spam according to Wikipedia expectations from now on, please unblock me." Mango juice talk 14:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi FQ, You're tagging socks ( [6]; [7], etc.), I think you're tagging socks of User:ResearchEditor. Unfortunately I can only do a RfCU if the account gets used more than once - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ResearchEditor/Archive. ResearchEditor uses a lot of throwaway accounts and doesn't tend to revisit the same account, meaning I can't request a checkuser (I read this guidance somewhere but can't find it right now). I requested a hardblock, but apparently that's a no-go. Which makes me sad because I'd be much more productive if I didn't have to track down socks all the time. I don't even bother tagging the accounts anymore. Referring to your comment in this edit summary, ResearchEditor is permablocked for socking (even though his arb hearing was a year block, he managed to up it to indef through abuse of mutliple accounts). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Undent. Here's a question, do you think page protection would be an option? Single-purpose, blatantly sockpuppet throwaway accounts are doing drive-by edits to the article and reverting to the same version pretty much every day. Indef page protection would pretty much solve the problem - throwaway accounts wouldn't work, and if they ended up accumulating enough edits to actually edit a semiprotected page, that means a RFCU would be allowed (which would also turn up socks who I haven't found yet). What do you think of the idea as an admin? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Undent. No worries, they've actually got a plan for that - see, they (whoever "they" are, possible contestants include the CIA, the worldwide satanic conspiracy, Freemasons, baby-eating alien-lizard hybrids and transdimensional baby-eating alien-lizard hybrids) use torture and drugs to induce an endless series of alternate personalities, each with a specific role - assassin, baby breeder, sex slave, footstool, the list is endless. So really, they could use anyone as an assassin because their techniques are just that good. Oh, and the technique was created by a Satanic Jew (?) working with the Nazis (??) who then moved to the United States to work for the CIA (???) who control the entire world but leave no evidence except for children who finally break their programming after months of coercive questioning and grown-ups recovering their memories of this abuse after months of therapy, and then go on to pronounce the conspiracy of world-controlling CIA/Freemasons/Satanists/baby-eating alien-lizard hybrids/transdimensional baby-eating alien-lizard hybrids on Geraldo. I think the specific techniques involve drugs, torture (that leaves no physical evidence), and a box of some sort. It's all very complicated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I had no idea about all of that stuff concerning those two companies aside from one appearing to capitalize on the other's reputation after the fact. Thanks for being the voice of reason and restoring my faith in the wiki process!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to reconsider your 48 hour block of User:Alwaysright101. Even though technically in violation of 3rr if you include the IP edit, after recieving information about edit wars being a bad thing, the editor, rather than reverting made a good faith modification edit rather than reversion edit. [10] Also, such a block after your editing of the article for content reasons could be considered bad form. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. I do need your help. I left a longer message on my talk page. BlinkyMcChuck Talk 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Please protect this talk page as he keeps removing the isp template which is againest WP:BLANKING. Momo san Gespräch 22:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Following on from my previous blocking, I have now resumed editing. I reverted edits made to the page "Cilla Black", removing all the unsourced, unverified and unreliable comments. The administrator "rodhullandemu" posted a message on my talk page saying that he would allow the edits. Prevously he deleted the exact same edits, claiming he thought it was "butchery". Hardly consistent. For whatever reason, he seems to insist on posting comments to my User talk page. I have deleted them as they seem deliberately provocative and I do not intend to rise to his bait and earn another block. After removing the last of his comments, I also posted a warning on the page regarding unwanted comments. This warning was COPIED directly from rodhullandemu's talk page. It seemed to me that if it is appropriate for his page, then it must be appropriate for mine or indeed any other user. He not only deleted the warning, but deleted my entire talk page. I have now had to recreate this. On the last occasion I complained about his behavior, his uncivil manner - he has previously called me a "troll", a "loser" and a "whinger" - he belittled me by describing my complaints as "whingeing". I trust that as an administrator who has involved herself in this dispute in the past, you will not take the same attitude and will assist me in stopping this administrator from abusing me and abusing his power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 ( talk) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) As a footnote, having agreed the edits I made to the Cilla Black page, administrator rodhullandemu has now reversed them and locked the page. I expect to receive a block within the next few minutes. It's a shame that administrators abuse the 'powers' that wiki grants them. He is not the first administrator to lock pages and issue bans simply because he cannot get his own way. I would be very interested to know your thoughts on my "whingeing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 ( talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why I bothered. I was advised not to appeal to you specifically, but I thought it was worth the shot. As a final note, I will just point out that in deleting my User Talk page, rodhullandemu also successfully deleted the entire history of the back and forth that had occured before I contacted you. I don't know how he did that, but as an administrator, it is clearly within his power. Shoot the insults, create the problem and then hide your tracks. Very egalitarian. Very honest. Very professional. Enjoy the benefits of belonging to the administrator's club, where wiki laws no longer apply. It clearly does something for you both. From my view point, it just makes you very sad individuals. Good bye. Good luck. But above all, good riddance to you both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 ( talk) 11:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Much easier for you to patronize than to engage in any research into what this administrator is actually up to. Civility is a stranger to him, and it appears, to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 ( talk) 12:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Meh. All the "English-English"/"American-English" language wars, come to that similar wars regarding US as opposed to GB foreign policy come down to this – what we Brits need to realise is that Yanks are actually not Britain, you're a different nation, just like what Laos is, or Portugal (but a bit bigger). As a great writer once said: …he realised now that Americans were foreigners and not, as he had thought at home, a kind of obstinate Colonial English, who persisted in speaking and behaving in a queer and rather objectionable fashion. First time I've read J. B. Priestley (that's from Faraway), but it won't be the last! Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 00:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I'm tired and off to bed, but I think that 144xwhatever has been arguing against any link at all, whereas MarkaCohen clearly wants a link. I may be confused again - it was on the Leuchter talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 21:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm letting you know that I've mentioned you in a statement I made at a request for arbitration. See here. It relates to an unblock decline you made. Would you be able to comment there? Carcharoth ( talk) 01:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Two editors have removed a cited direct quotation from the
Soliton article (an article that has precious few inline citations) stating that the quotation is not relevant. I consider that it is relevant, they consider that it is not. They have suggested creating another article but that seems ridiculous to me considering the article is still little more than a stub. May I please have some advice about how to progress this stalemate? Please refer article talk page.
Hello, I just reverted an IP talk page which had been blanked, supposedly "according to DOD policy". The edit is here. I thought you should know because similar blankings have been happening. Thanks. Loves Macs (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
|
FisherQueen
| ||
---|---|---|
![]() [1] the_ed17 : Chat 01:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Fisher Queen, you deleted our article on Armorlogic. We entered that article because we saw a competitor's article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_Point and that led to our discovery of literally hundreds of other articles about our competitors and their products with content similar to what we posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGWatson ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Please either delete all of the business articles or let us post ours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGWatson ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Are you a queen of fishers? Or Fishermen? Or Fisher-Price? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Please either delete all of the business articles or let us post ours. Problem at User talk:70.108.118.234Can we get the talk page protected, this guy is such a character... Momusufan ( talk) 03:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Another admin just did it, he needs a much needed break. Momusufan ( talk) 03:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ![]() I was involved in the discussions between ICL and Sun that led to Solaris and/or SVR4.2. What do you need to know? -- Simon Kenyon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonckenyon ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen, some vandals have used your name on other projects, see sulutil:FisherQueen. I therefore suggest unifying your accounts. If you want you can get the existing accounts renamed at m:Meta:Changing username and w:pt:Wikipedia:Renomeação de conta. -- Erwin(85) 18:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you share her affection for cats? Do you use them similarly? Just curious. Your #87th fan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.156.201 ( talk) 06:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know how often you check Wikipedia e-mail, so I'm ringing the doorbell.— Kww( talk) 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() You placed a prod on this article would it not be better if it was redirected to The Amanda Show article which already has a paragraph on this character. BigDunc Talk 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahamdanis R3ap3R.inc ( talk) 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Drutasgub ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) When you're just a peon editor like me, that's the class of enemies you attract. If I were an admin :'(
I reverted an attack made against you on this page. Yours, Verbal chat 15:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen, could you please look over the dispute between myself and another editor at Bolton Wanderers F.C. and Phil Gartside? Any help and advice on the situation and what to do next would be appreciated! Cheers :-) John Sloan ( view / chat) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Hi, I see you've been helping that user (re. reverts and edit summaries); it looks to me like his/her question is dealt with, or now a part of an ongoing conversation with you - therefore, would it be OK to tn the helpme tag? Cheers, Chzz ► 12:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this range needs to be blocked again since this user clearly shows no respect and is personally attacking you in edit summaries. Momusufan ( talk) 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Hi. I realise this might be stretching your memory but I was wondering if you could shed some light on this block you did [2] on 6 July 2008 of User:Stevvvv4444. I can't find the relevent sock puppet case. This user is currently under suspicion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troy86. Thanks for your help. Broadweighbabe ( talk) 23:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 16:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks you for following 87.69.177.35 ( talk) to its new address. I wasn't looking forward to a new round of WP:GAMEing. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
User:194.189.32.65 legal threats and blusterFor what it's worth, the implication in the statement that this is "a widely shared IP, belonging to an organisation as large as the NHS" is complete cobblers - the implication being that "this IP address is used by the whole NHS and blocking it would affect the whole NHS". This IP address is one of a block of addresses at 194.189.32.0/20 - that is, one of approximately 1000 IP addresses, registered to a single NHS trust. Whether the trust managers would be sanguine about the usage to which that IP address is being put is a moot point - recent events in the news show that there may be a certain sensitivity in UK public offices regarding misuse of publicly-funded Internet connections. Also, the IP has been "consulting his solicitor" who is of the opinion that WP is in "direct breach of the Human Rights Act (1999)[sic]". They need a new solicitor; that's the Human Rights Act 1998 (not 1999), and I'm not aware that the remit of either the Human Rights Act (1998) or the ECHR runs as far as Florida. Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 22:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen, I recently received a reply from you on my request to unblock account Kurdish land. You refused to unblock my account on the basis that my contribution was disruptive. I tried to edit Al Qamishli article based on factual unbiased information. I've been resident of Qamishly for my whole life. At the moment I live in UK and a Human rights activist. The History part of article Al Qamishli represents Syrian Authorities opinion, which is discriminational against majority of Al Qamishli population who are Kurds. I am copying here my reply from the discussion page of Al Qamishli article. Have a read more about this issue from independent sources, not arabic media. "In my knowledge Qamishli is not an Assyrian town historically. During genocide in Turkey Assyrians fled to Syria and settled in a camp in Qamishly as a refugees. The Syrian government then gave them rights as Syrian citizens. Qamishly has always been predominantly kurdish The article Al Qamishli - especially "History" part is factually incorrect and offensive towards Kurdish population. It states someones personal opinion, not historical facts. It says that on 12 March 2004 Kurds start a riot. Have a look at the information regarding this event on Amnesty international and Human Right websites. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=15984 I am surprised that such political discrimination against Qamishli Kurds is allowed on wikipedia. This opinion is of Syrian authorities to protect their crimes against Kurdish population of Qamishli. I hope that administrators will check facts regarding information on this page. I hope that they are aware about arabic-kurdish conflict and understand that article should be impartial to both sides" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qamishlo ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to argue about unblocking my account. I don't know who to discuss the new wording with, who created this article originally? All I see is that users there revert article to original version every time, the one that is offensive against Qamishli kurds. This group of users organized by Syrian authority to offend kurdish population of Qamishli, how am I going to discuss it with them. Read their comments, they write like kurdish nation does not exist. They also create different accounts every time, why they are not blocked. Qamishlo
Thank you for trying to help. I would like to follow wikipedia's rules, but I cant sign in into my farhanbavealan account, my password does not work any more. So I don't know how to apply to unblock this account,because i can't sign in. User:Farhanbavealan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.72.107 ( talk) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Please extend the block of this bastard for a long time: [3] [4] [5] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:91.108.227.162]
Based on my observations, Farhanbavealan was an WP:SPA used only for edit warring. However, I will assume good faith and unblock based on the condition that he initiate a discussion about his edits on the talk page as opposed to sterile reverting. The article was also protected because the banned user Am6212 was being disruptive. The Suryoyo Sat article was protected for the same reason. Khoi khoi 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear FisherQueen, I am the other editor 70.71.22.45 was referring to in his comments. I don't know 70.71.22.45, and didn't realize she/he had been blocked until last night. However, since I think 70.71.22.45 was just trying to help me, I've added some comments and background about how 70.71.22.45 walked into the 3RR, for the record. I posted my comments here. Thanks, -- strmlbs| talk 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC) (Responding to your comment) Too true! I've been starting to feel that the entire issue of nationalist WP:BATTLEGROUNDing deserves to be under general sanctions. Not just Ireland/UK, not just Israel/Palestine, not just India/Pakistan, not just Eastern Europe, but everywhere. It's gotten to the point where any specific nationalist conflict not under general sanctions ends up giving way too much leniency to users who are here, fundamentally, to use Wikipedia to right great wrongs. You know what else makes me cringe? Unblock requests that are basically, "oh, I'm sorry I didn't spam properly. I promise I will spam according to Wikipedia expectations from now on, please unblock me." Mango juice talk 14:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi FQ, You're tagging socks ( [6]; [7], etc.), I think you're tagging socks of User:ResearchEditor. Unfortunately I can only do a RfCU if the account gets used more than once - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ResearchEditor/Archive. ResearchEditor uses a lot of throwaway accounts and doesn't tend to revisit the same account, meaning I can't request a checkuser (I read this guidance somewhere but can't find it right now). I requested a hardblock, but apparently that's a no-go. Which makes me sad because I'd be much more productive if I didn't have to track down socks all the time. I don't even bother tagging the accounts anymore. Referring to your comment in this edit summary, ResearchEditor is permablocked for socking (even though his arb hearing was a year block, he managed to up it to indef through abuse of mutliple accounts). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Undent. Here's a question, do you think page protection would be an option? Single-purpose, blatantly sockpuppet throwaway accounts are doing drive-by edits to the article and reverting to the same version pretty much every day. Indef page protection would pretty much solve the problem - throwaway accounts wouldn't work, and if they ended up accumulating enough edits to actually edit a semiprotected page, that means a RFCU would be allowed (which would also turn up socks who I haven't found yet). What do you think of the idea as an admin? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Undent. No worries, they've actually got a plan for that - see, they (whoever "they" are, possible contestants include the CIA, the worldwide satanic conspiracy, Freemasons, baby-eating alien-lizard hybrids and transdimensional baby-eating alien-lizard hybrids) use torture and drugs to induce an endless series of alternate personalities, each with a specific role - assassin, baby breeder, sex slave, footstool, the list is endless. So really, they could use anyone as an assassin because their techniques are just that good. Oh, and the technique was created by a Satanic Jew (?) working with the Nazis (??) who then moved to the United States to work for the CIA (???) who control the entire world but leave no evidence except for children who finally break their programming after months of coercive questioning and grown-ups recovering their memories of this abuse after months of therapy, and then go on to pronounce the conspiracy of world-controlling CIA/Freemasons/Satanists/baby-eating alien-lizard hybrids/transdimensional baby-eating alien-lizard hybrids on Geraldo. I think the specific techniques involve drugs, torture (that leaves no physical evidence), and a box of some sort. It's all very complicated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I had no idea about all of that stuff concerning those two companies aside from one appearing to capitalize on the other's reputation after the fact. Thanks for being the voice of reason and restoring my faith in the wiki process!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to reconsider your 48 hour block of User:Alwaysright101. Even though technically in violation of 3rr if you include the IP edit, after recieving information about edit wars being a bad thing, the editor, rather than reverting made a good faith modification edit rather than reversion edit. [10] Also, such a block after your editing of the article for content reasons could be considered bad form. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. I do need your help. I left a longer message on my talk page. BlinkyMcChuck Talk 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Please protect this talk page as he keeps removing the isp template which is againest WP:BLANKING. Momo san Gespräch 22:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Following on from my previous blocking, I have now resumed editing. I reverted edits made to the page "Cilla Black", removing all the unsourced, unverified and unreliable comments. The administrator "rodhullandemu" posted a message on my talk page saying that he would allow the edits. Prevously he deleted the exact same edits, claiming he thought it was "butchery". Hardly consistent. For whatever reason, he seems to insist on posting comments to my User talk page. I have deleted them as they seem deliberately provocative and I do not intend to rise to his bait and earn another block. After removing the last of his comments, I also posted a warning on the page regarding unwanted comments. This warning was COPIED directly from rodhullandemu's talk page. It seemed to me that if it is appropriate for his page, then it must be appropriate for mine or indeed any other user. He not only deleted the warning, but deleted my entire talk page. I have now had to recreate this. On the last occasion I complained about his behavior, his uncivil manner - he has previously called me a "troll", a "loser" and a "whinger" - he belittled me by describing my complaints as "whingeing". I trust that as an administrator who has involved herself in this dispute in the past, you will not take the same attitude and will assist me in stopping this administrator from abusing me and abusing his power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 ( talk) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) As a footnote, having agreed the edits I made to the Cilla Black page, administrator rodhullandemu has now reversed them and locked the page. I expect to receive a block within the next few minutes. It's a shame that administrators abuse the 'powers' that wiki grants them. He is not the first administrator to lock pages and issue bans simply because he cannot get his own way. I would be very interested to know your thoughts on my "whingeing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 ( talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why I bothered. I was advised not to appeal to you specifically, but I thought it was worth the shot. As a final note, I will just point out that in deleting my User Talk page, rodhullandemu also successfully deleted the entire history of the back and forth that had occured before I contacted you. I don't know how he did that, but as an administrator, it is clearly within his power. Shoot the insults, create the problem and then hide your tracks. Very egalitarian. Very honest. Very professional. Enjoy the benefits of belonging to the administrator's club, where wiki laws no longer apply. It clearly does something for you both. From my view point, it just makes you very sad individuals. Good bye. Good luck. But above all, good riddance to you both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 ( talk) 11:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Much easier for you to patronize than to engage in any research into what this administrator is actually up to. Civility is a stranger to him, and it appears, to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 ( talk) 12:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Meh. All the "English-English"/"American-English" language wars, come to that similar wars regarding US as opposed to GB foreign policy come down to this – what we Brits need to realise is that Yanks are actually not Britain, you're a different nation, just like what Laos is, or Portugal (but a bit bigger). As a great writer once said: …he realised now that Americans were foreigners and not, as he had thought at home, a kind of obstinate Colonial English, who persisted in speaking and behaving in a queer and rather objectionable fashion. First time I've read J. B. Priestley (that's from Faraway), but it won't be the last! Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 00:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I'm tired and off to bed, but I think that 144xwhatever has been arguing against any link at all, whereas MarkaCohen clearly wants a link. I may be confused again - it was on the Leuchter talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 21:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm letting you know that I've mentioned you in a statement I made at a request for arbitration. See here. It relates to an unblock decline you made. Would you be able to comment there? Carcharoth ( talk) 01:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Two editors have removed a cited direct quotation from the
Soliton article (an article that has precious few inline citations) stating that the quotation is not relevant. I consider that it is relevant, they consider that it is not. They have suggested creating another article but that seems ridiculous to me considering the article is still little more than a stub. May I please have some advice about how to progress this stalemate? Please refer article talk page.
Hello, I just reverted an IP talk page which had been blanked, supposedly "according to DOD policy". The edit is here. I thought you should know because similar blankings have been happening. Thanks. Loves Macs (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
|