![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I just wanted to say thank you for adding the protection to my userpage, I much prefer it to be in it's current semi-protected state. Thank you again! ZX81 talk 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw [ this] block log and wanted to know how to find the discussion that led to the block. I did global searches for "Priyesh.786" and "User:Priyesh.786" in all namespaces and wasn't able to find anything. Thanks, Bongo matic 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I wanted to know you opinion on starting a MFD on castrated ram's userpage. I am concerned it is a shrine. From other Wikis where they have also vandalised links to page including Uncyclopedia and Wikibooks along with numerous others. There's even a definition at urban dictionary about them. If the page stays do you think it may inspire copycats? Regards-- DFS454 ( talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Drizzt Do'Urden, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) BOZ ( talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that was fun, eh? What glorious lives we admins lead. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You might wanna take a wikibreak when you start doing things like this... So I'ma give you a Smile! :-D
Yamakiri
T
C 01-25-2009 • 21:08:08 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.
Please reconsider your move to unprotect this page. After you approved this request, Barrier, mate went on a move spree and then nominated a page for deletion in a bad faith manner; likely his account was hijacked by a page-move vandal. He has since been indefinitely blocked and I'm not sure if unprotection is prudent based on the requestor. Nate • ( chatter) 07:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - just have to do it. This is just nuts ... - Alison ❤ 09:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jeske, would you be able to restore User:Grsz11/Review archive. Thanks in advance. Grsz 11 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Happens to me all the time. :) seresin ( ¡? ) 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Or should I be embarrassed for that and ashamed of myself? Half Shadow 04:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Unacceptable. If you must block an account in violation of AGF, use a less offensive summary. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. Jéské is currently on two weeks' wikibreak, so if you've admin stuff, feel free to ask me or another admin for assistance. He deserves the rest - Alison ❤ 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I assume you missed the fact, that the talk page you deleted was actually Talk:Austria–Hungary moved by a vandal. -- Pjacobi ( talk) 10:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I am somewhat annoyed that you decided to delete this article under an incorrect criterion, after I had declined it just minutes before and tagged for prod. I request you revise this mistake. Regards So Why 08:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You protected the high school article - now the kiddies have moved on to South Pasadena Middle School. Thanks! :) Doulos Christos ♥ talk 03:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
As well as Spyro (series) The Legend of Spyro: A New Beginning The Legend of Spyro: The Eternal Night and The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon.
Thank you for the full protection on all above articles. However no progress has been made. The opposing party left one reply to my original message and hasn't bothered to continue talking about this. Thus I went to the Requests for Protection and requested for an unprotection and was told to contact you about it.
So could you please protect the coresponding pages and watch them incase the opposing party tries to make the edits he refused to discuss. Thank you.
Why d'ya convert 'mon and 'pets? I like them. -- 98.162.148.46 ( talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe mmackinnon and I are at an impasse. He is particularly interested in including an AANA talking point that happens to be misleading; I am particularly interested in leaving that out. Since he doesn't want a neutral position (but insists on the misleading talking point), mere facts aren't going to convince him. I'd like to ask you to change the section to leave out "CRNAs do not require Anesthesiologist supervision in any state and only require surgeon/dentist/podiatrists to sign the chart for medicare billing in all but 16 states."
I'd obviously prefer my version, but would settle for something like "the precise scope of nurse anesthetist practice varies state by state".
Separately, Finavon and Depstein have contributions that ought to enter the page; these are not politically controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffington ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, what is the next step? Surely it must be something other than "wait until August and then fix things"... Riffington ( talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it was mmackinnon who requested the editprotect, not me. I am not really sure how the moderation system works. Riffington ( talk) 03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not changing my username. Why do you want me to change it?-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean I would have to talk to stewards at Meta or thru IRC (#wikimedia-stewards) to dissolve the resultant unified account of Joey Kaminski ( talk · contribs)? I'm not even on wikimedia? Is that how it got caught? By the way, sorry for all the questions, just trying to figure out how it got hacked into in the first place.-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 06:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I told them to remove the SUL from the Joey Kaminski account and just told them that it will show that the account is blocked, but asked for them to remove that. After that's done, should I reregister the account as an anit-impersonation measure, since I'm not going to use it. If so, what type of username should I type in there, or request it as, or just put anti-impersonation measure on there?-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 04:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I'll Change the sig mczack26 speaktome 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
OK i understand what you are saying i just did not want it added because i was just following what it said on the talk page that don't add thing without reliable resources i was not trying to go against any of Wiki's rules. Kyle1278 ( talk) 02:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The stewards said that would be fine and told me what you said to request it under WP:CHU. Since I'm using the JoeCool950 name, I'll let you guys decide what to change the name to and then you guys can take the block off of it, use it for someone new signing into Wikipedia, if that makes since to you. If you want, you can even handle the changing the Joey Kaminski user name to some account user name for someone new which is what should be done with that username. If someone decides to use Joey Kaminski after me then, it will be on them and not me. Just wanted to clue you in and that's why I lef NEW (NEW) on the request page. Thanks.-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 05:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw a comment of your's. It is signed Jeremy but your name is Jeske. Why the difference. Why not just sign your name Jeske to avoid confusion? FK20 ( talk) 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
...I had already replied at his talk page. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
...for your welcome. No worries about the rollback - it took me a while to figure out what was going on over there, but looks like somewhere in the midst of it someone didn't revert back far enough and the vandal actually reverted themselves...or something. Use once then dispose of safely ( talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jeske
That was not my intention and i apologize. I did not know any other way to contact you to refute the arguments made. Sorry again. Mmackinnon ( talk) 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yah I actually thought i must not have saved it or something. My fault there. Mmackinnon ( talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please template so that editors are warned ;)-- Cerejota ( talk) 10:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to drop a quick note here: Wikipedia:AN/I#unblocked. Perhaps an annotation of the block log would be helpful as well if Orangemike signals he is ok with the user proceeding. – xeno ( talk) 12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
-Axmann8
(Talk) 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.
I was wondering if the Joey Kaminski username is taken care of?-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 03:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jéské Couriano. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero. Thank you. --— Dæ dαlus Contribs 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. No idea what that was all about, and no more idea having read the AN/I thread. But thanks all the same. Best, Knepflerle ( talk) 20:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I took care of getting the Joey Kaminski account annulled, or the SUL annulled. If so, now it can be useable again? Would you mind checking into it and letting me know. Thanks.-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed an ancient bad speedy tag by this user, looked at his contributions and so on, and couldn't miss his most recent edit, [1], claiming that he is ignoring his topic ban for what he calls IAR (not really applicable here). Since you were the admin who last unblocked him (impressive log, that!), I suppose you know more about what caused the topic ban and the actual unblock conditions and so on (his talk page is never archived, often blanked, and a mess to look through). I leave it to you to take any action if needed, or to ignore this edit if it is allright. Fram ( talk) 12:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The user is continuing to attack and soapbox on his talk page, could you please blank it, all the others with a redirect to the main account's userpage, and indefinitely protect them?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jéské; just thought I'd drop in and let you know that we're considering the El Machete Guerrero situation closed and community banning him. Since WP:BAN states that banned users aren't permitted to edit their user talk pages, I was wondering if you'd mind redirecting and protecting Machete's various user talk pages? If you'd rather someone uninvolved do it, I'll just ask at WP:RFPP though. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
For an explanation of my suggestion to wait six months, see Wikipedia:Standard offer. Durova Charge! 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Many respected newspapers in the world have said something like "blacks getting their President". How is it you can take offense? More to the point, what rule did Axmann8 break in uttering those words? I wish I was coming to the defence of a more deserving character, but there is some principle involved here. Habeas_corpus, natural justice. Shame. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 00:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I would really like to see a link to a reputable publication that said anything close to "blacks getting their President" citation needed. – xeno ( talk) 01:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
[Outdent]Here are some of the "openly racist" extracts you seem not to think can exist. From the left-leaning UK Guardian:
From the centrist and free market Economist:
I wasn't even trying. Now what's the WP rule that Axmann8 broke when he said "blacks getting their president"?
Paul Beardsell ( talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy, I remain interested as to why you took offense at Axmann8's remark. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 04:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
A matter you have been involved with is under discussion here.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
While I appreciate your diligence in protecting my user page with this diff, I have returned it for a short. The account was not blocked until 2 hours later, and so at the time you removed this from my page it had not been a restricted account. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 13:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeske, an IP, 68.101.104.146, keeps vandalizing my user page. You blocked them here for a week, and unfortunately they're at it again, see this edit, reverted by a helpful editor. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jéské, while interacting with another editor in several discussions he has levelled several claims against me of harassment and sexual harassment. Our entire history can be found at Talk:Bono#? and User talk:MelicansMatkin#SEE HERE. The editor has stated that he will report me, and I have provided him with several links as to how he can do so if he is really so concerned. He has yet to go any further but I have told him that I will bring the issue to ANI if he does not, and if he continues to make these claims against me. I intend to do so only if he responds with further claims against me on my talk page. Do you believe I should ignore this issue or make good on my word if he does? MelicansMatkin ( talk) 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't threaten me. I wasnt wrong in making my harassment claim He followed my edit and undid it. Hes in the wrong so dont come threatening some one whos not. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 01:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And now your name calling I'd suggest you don't do that or the exact same threats that you said to me will happen to you. Also for all I know the reason you know it is because you both know each other and your just taking his side either way it leads to a biased threat. Now I'd suggest you stay out of it and quit your name calling. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 02:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
May not be a insult but still name calling Kepp it up and you will be blocked. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Besides not its not a baseless accusation he said on the Bono talk page he had been reviewing my edits and then he undoes one coincidence? I think not. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 02:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Your name is mentioned here - just thought I'd let you know! Cheers, Majorly talk 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You indef blocked the subject user a couple of hours ago and he has made a good-faith appeal of his block per your notice. I am still, however, concerned that this username is a WP:U violation, specifically that it represents a company and is only used to edit articles related to that company. This is also evidenced by the third-person wording of the block appeal. I am not nor was I ever opposed to this person continuing to edit the article in good faith as an individual employee of the company, not as the company itself. KuyaBriBri Talk 19:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?
I know you don't have the kind of free time you'd like to have, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)
If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ ( talk) 17:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see the relevant thread, here.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeske, you've warned and blocked an IP once or twice for vandalizing my user page. Well, they're at it again, and if you look at their edits you'll see that, well, that's pretty much the only thing that IP does, and I'm sick of it. Would you consider swinging your big administrator's stick? And I mean big, since temporary blocks don't seem to do much. Thanks. 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
as I half expected, he hit me no sooner than the previous had expired. What a pain in the ass troll. StarM 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You left a comment on my page about semi-protection of the Bianca Ryan page, followed immediately by a comment saying the request is declined. Was this request already discussed or are you just taking it upon yourself to decide semi-protection isn't needed? There's an ongoing pattern of vandalism on this page. Two weeks isn't a significant amount of time. Docsavage20 ( talk) 05:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeske, I have created a user page draft Just Like the Son. Request is made for Unprotection for the creation of the article. 2009nyc1 ( talk) 10:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Please leave a note on my talk page once you have, thanks.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
User talk:207.73.252.254 It's back. Enigma msg 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Responded to ya. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Popartpete has responded on his talk page and is willing to go into mentoring. I think he will place a proper unblock request soon. I have been emailing him and talking him down from his earlier volatile nature and giving him advice. It seems he is finally listening to reason. Drew Smith W hat I've done 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No response received on WP:AN, I see. My concern with the full protection of the talk page was that I didn't feel that I'd received my right to appeal to administrators. There were no indeed no administrators willing to unblock on WP:ANI, but I doubt that many had gone to all the trouble of reading the entire talk page of the disputed article, and because the protecting admin had deleted all of my arguments, I had no opportunity to appeal to other administrators on the talk page. That's why I don't feel that it would be appropriate to contact ArbCom at this time; my full right to appeal to other administrators has not yet been expended. 71.103.106.177 ( talk) 09:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Anesthesia is currently full-protected and due to expire in August. However, the users who had been edit-warring on it have not edited (at all) for nearly two months. Today somebody wanted to edit the article and had to use the talk page even though they were auto-confirmed because the article is still full-protected. I think the protection has served its purpose and should be removed. Soap Talk/ Contributions 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this [3] a bit fast? Shouldn't the other editors involved get a chance to explain their actions? They are being (wrongly) accused of corruption and ganging up, after all. Yintaɳ 22:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The brand new Wikiproject User Rehab is being proposed for deletion. After our escapade with Popartpete, perhaps you could take a look at the project, and weigh in at the deletion discussion? Drew Smith What I've done 01:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your unblock of my account! Wireless Keyboard Click! Clack! 23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
...for taking a few minutes to deal with SonofFeanor and his socks. Yilloslime T C 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom seems a bit much. He's rarely more than a minor nuisance now. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jéské, I noticed that on your user page you've formatted it so that your userboxes are contained within several drop-down menus. I've been looking to do something similar with my page since it's becoming rather disorganized and cluttered. I was wondering how you formatted it? MelicansMatkin ( talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking him. Given his massive level of talkpage abuse, can he be re-blocked without the ability to edit his own page? Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag► First Secretary of State─╢ 20:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Re your message: Argh! I didn't notice that. I'll put them back without the CSD tags. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Too bad you're not paid by the hour ;) or I could have made both of you a small fortune. Tombstone ( talk) 07:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
My IP stalker appears to have showed up, this time under a username, see here.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
Seeyou ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
As your comment has nothing to do with development of the article, I think it better to reply here.
I think you mean "I think you're process-wonking right there". As I explained to you I have not accused anyone of sockpuppetry, nor have I have made an allegation. I would object to the removal of anything I have written to talk:Wikinfo, and I can see noting in the guidelines which would warrant you making such a removal, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments, and even if you consider it to be a personal attack -- which I do not -- I do not think you can justify it under either Wikipedia:Civility#Removal of uncivil comments) or Wikipedia:personal attacks#Removal of text. -- PBS ( talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
check my talk page, i've answered ur post Asdfhgjgiewiuweroiuwer ( talk) 21:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rachel Armstrong, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jack Merridew 10:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Rachel Armstrong, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
Hi! Rather surprised to see you at the bottom of the undeleted history here; what was it on the more recent AfD 140 characters? Sheesh. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This past week Blastoise and Jynx articles have been made. Blastoise was made off the hope that a few mentions in magazine would be enough to establish notability, although it is being debated for AfD. Jynx was made because of it being banned from episodes, TCG, and ect, due to the controversy over its skin color, and it has survived so far. I dug up the old Mudkip article and rewrote it in hopes that the "so i herd u leik mudkipz" meme, and it being featured in different polls because of it would be enough to establish notability. I found a few references about it on "knowyourmeme.com" and "blogspot", but apparently those werent good references so Kung Fu Man found new references from dA itself, and The Wall Street Journal. There is a discussion here about it, and since you were one of the people who were the main contributers in that area, would you like to add something to the discussion? -- Blake ( talk) 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This edit and this edit on the meme. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 01:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you undelete this please? While the latest report may have been created by a banned editor, the many previous reports were not. Thank you. O Fenian ( talk) 01:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Not that it's of any great importance, but were you able to decide whether that was cluelessness or intentional vandalism? Sometimes I come across users where I'm never able to decide.— Kww( talk) 01:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Left_4_Dead_2. 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.
Otterathome (
talk)
20:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Within the next two minutes, regarding a deletion you just made. NW ( Talk) 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
that I'll give you a few "best wishes", with this.
Enjoy. ;)
Ncmvocalist (
talk)
08:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the person recently editing Española Valley High School is another sock of banned user PoliticianTexas, but would like another pair of eyes on it. What do you think? Ladyof Shalott 04:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Just with regards to my block of RetroS1mone, fair enough; I'm not well-versed in block lengths yet, and will bear this in mind in future. The reason I selected a long block length was because of the length of time the user was editing disruptively; my apologies if the length was a bad idea. Colds7ream ( talk) 15:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for unblocking. The new admin says I am editing disruptively, and apologizes for length but not timing of block that imo and i do not want attack any one but it is obvious, it is after I file ANI about the user's earlier templates on my page. Do you have suggestions, how this admin and me can resolve the problem? Thank you!! RetroS1mone talk 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
In light of the recent concerns expressed by RetroS1mone towards Colds7ream, I would appreciate a second opinion about the validity of an RfC about RetroS1mone. Since it was an unusal RfC, in that it was for a pattern of disruptive editing at large, I asked Colds7ream to take a look at it and rule on whether it was a valid RfC or not. I tried to pick an admin in such a way that it didn't look like cherry-picking, but RetroS1mone has pointed out the flaws in my thinking, stating that she believes I picked an inexperienced admin from that list in a deliberate attempt to get her blocked. While this is not at all the case (for which you only have my word), I think I speak for both RetroS1mone and myself in saying that we would appreciate the views of a more experienced Admin on the matter. Given that you were the unblocking admin in her recent block, I think your opinion, whatever it is, would be invaluable. Also note that there have been several follow-up posts by all involved on the RfC talk page.
As you note at the top of your talk page, I welcome input into, and questions about, my own actions in this string of issues as well - heck, I even asked for an editor review at one point, though nobody actually commented on it.
Thanks for your time! -- RobinHood70 ( talk) 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
In regards to your comment about blocking that user's talk page. I have filed an RPP request about just that. This has been going on for 3 hours now and that user just ain't getting it. Several users have explained and they just ain't getting it. If you would, please, block that talk page for the next 45 1/2 hours, it would make my headache go away, I know that :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to remove the talkpageblock you applied to this editor. In short, stubbornness shouldn't be ignored, and I don't think the block is a fair one. Indeed, if the editor is endlessly reciting an argument, such a block is far from ideal. Would you be adverse to my lifting the block? AGK 11:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Since you made the situation worse with the clueless talk page block, please comment at WP:AN#IP user repeatedly removing WHOIS template from talk page. Hans Adler 12:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Dude, you have provided me a moment of relief from those vandals. I am in no way saying that your protection of article Marwat is an endorsement of the current version by Wikipedia; however, I would still like to warn you about those single purpose accounts created just for editing the same article. In addition to this as one of the co-creators of article on Marwat I am open to any kind of constructive edits but only after thorough and civilized discussion. Anyway, many thanks for this noble deed for the time being.Xoxo-- MARWAT 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Now what to say? Isn't there any one who can tackle the greatest vandaliser of Wikipedia that is User:Marwatt? User:Marwatt has also started Edit War at Article Anwar Kamal Khan and have inserted the citation tags 3-4 times within 24 hours and is keen to reveert its position. The claim for which he is demanding citation is has been refered and there is a reference proving what has been written there. Despite my continuous pleading that he must read the references before adding Citation tag, he is blindly reverting the article on the Disputed status. The article must be protected and he must be banned, as his intentions are proved i.e. to disgrace and manipulate the notables of rival clan. -- LineofWisdom ( talk) 18:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed you seem to follow or at least be aware of the messes theserialcomma ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) gets involved in. He's filed another ANI against Koalorka. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#personal_attack_from_recently_unblocked_User:_Koalorka Some guy ( talk) 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you'd chime in at this ANI discussion. I wasn't aware of it until late last night. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Archiving; this discussion isn't going to go any further since I'm not allowing any further comments from LineofWisdom.
Since the edit war, which was started by unsigned users using different I.P addresses and mainly by two editors, including myself and Marwatt both of us even got blocked and banned, I would like to request un-protection of the artilce, as I am sure none of the editors would vandalise or frankly edit the article until unless a consensus is built. Beside this, I assure that with a warning of long-time banning and blocking, none of the editors would dare to vandalise the article or make any edits without discussing it on discussion page. It would be appreciated, even if the page is semi-protected. Warm regards, -- LineofWisdom ( talk) 12:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you speedy'd the page on Whyte Lightning, I was hoping to work on this page and was wondering if you could transfer it to my userspace. Curtis ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw that you blocked Onikiri several times six months ago, but I'm afraid he's back to his antics here as 216.184.121.126, 66.249.203.19, 190.57.5.231 and 168.243.218.154 (the last of which he had already used four months ago in the exact same manner, along with a lot of other IP addresses [5])...
Although a bit peeved (it's not the first time I run into him), I tried to explain myself and invited him to discuss all this on the talk page, but he simply doesn't care, apparently: he's just right, and the other editors should give up as their arguments don't matter. At this point, it's vandalism, in my opinion.
What would the best course of action be, according to you? Erigu ( talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy
While I appreciate the need to remove the material, simply shouting in your edit summary may not be as informative as posting a link to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for those who watch your page (I assume you replied privately to the user with the original request).
Bongo matic 22:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{ talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.
Has been confirmed to be LoW. Nice catch.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure why but the block just went away after a while. I appreciate your help though, thanks :D GroundZ3R0 002 ( talk) 07:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh that explains it. Thanks. I was also wondering if you could, since you're an admin, close out the Aug 31 files for deletion discussion on the Saw image. Here's the URL to make it simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_31#Saw_Videogame_Screen_18.jpeg . Thanks again GroundZ3R0 002 ( talk) 07:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay will do. Thanks again for your time and help. GroundZ3R0 002 ( talk) 07:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you were a blocking admin on this user back in August, you may want to comment on the current ANI thread ongoing here. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek. 69 talk 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk)
01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
After you unprotected my talk page, I made an unblock request that was granted and then revoked because there was a dispute about the conditions of a topic ban that the unblocking admin wanted imposed and then a denial of another request by another admin who openly admits ideological bias against my perspective, which he falsely depicts as something deviant in nature, and now refuses to respond to my comments on his own statements regarding my block. I mentioned this on WP:AN, but my request was deleted. I was wondering if you could also contribute somehow, since you were involved earlier and were familiar with the case. Thanks. 71.103.96.80 ( talk) 05:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Honestly? The user I targeted is a particularly dedicated vandal. Who has made personal attacks against me out of the blue if you'd care to look at the history of this page. The user has been banned from editing before, but that was temporary. I emplore somebody, anybody - the user must be banned permanently.
Sorry about the rant, but I don't like it when I get insulted, so the user I targeted is... well, targeted. I'll refrain from vandalising his talk page, but I can't promise that I'll do it totally calmly. Because nobody likes being insulted. -- LordNecronus ( talk) 22:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Novickas; I think my indentation makes it pretty clear? Anyway, just because having written a major @ for arbcom I feel like I am in the sharing mood: I am pretty certain your name was never mentioned :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
With respect to Tannim1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) what lie was he caught in? I see little harm in occasionally giving blocked and troublesome users a chance to try out editing again after they had received counseling about responsible editing. Fred Talk 12:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I just wanted to say thank you for adding the protection to my userpage, I much prefer it to be in it's current semi-protected state. Thank you again! ZX81 talk 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw [ this] block log and wanted to know how to find the discussion that led to the block. I did global searches for "Priyesh.786" and "User:Priyesh.786" in all namespaces and wasn't able to find anything. Thanks, Bongo matic 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I wanted to know you opinion on starting a MFD on castrated ram's userpage. I am concerned it is a shrine. From other Wikis where they have also vandalised links to page including Uncyclopedia and Wikibooks along with numerous others. There's even a definition at urban dictionary about them. If the page stays do you think it may inspire copycats? Regards-- DFS454 ( talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Drizzt Do'Urden, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) BOZ ( talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that was fun, eh? What glorious lives we admins lead. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You might wanna take a wikibreak when you start doing things like this... So I'ma give you a Smile! :-D
Yamakiri
T
C 01-25-2009 • 21:08:08 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.
Please reconsider your move to unprotect this page. After you approved this request, Barrier, mate went on a move spree and then nominated a page for deletion in a bad faith manner; likely his account was hijacked by a page-move vandal. He has since been indefinitely blocked and I'm not sure if unprotection is prudent based on the requestor. Nate • ( chatter) 07:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - just have to do it. This is just nuts ... - Alison ❤ 09:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jeske, would you be able to restore User:Grsz11/Review archive. Thanks in advance. Grsz 11 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Happens to me all the time. :) seresin ( ¡? ) 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Or should I be embarrassed for that and ashamed of myself? Half Shadow 04:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Unacceptable. If you must block an account in violation of AGF, use a less offensive summary. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. Jéské is currently on two weeks' wikibreak, so if you've admin stuff, feel free to ask me or another admin for assistance. He deserves the rest - Alison ❤ 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I assume you missed the fact, that the talk page you deleted was actually Talk:Austria–Hungary moved by a vandal. -- Pjacobi ( talk) 10:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I am somewhat annoyed that you decided to delete this article under an incorrect criterion, after I had declined it just minutes before and tagged for prod. I request you revise this mistake. Regards So Why 08:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You protected the high school article - now the kiddies have moved on to South Pasadena Middle School. Thanks! :) Doulos Christos ♥ talk 03:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
As well as Spyro (series) The Legend of Spyro: A New Beginning The Legend of Spyro: The Eternal Night and The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon.
Thank you for the full protection on all above articles. However no progress has been made. The opposing party left one reply to my original message and hasn't bothered to continue talking about this. Thus I went to the Requests for Protection and requested for an unprotection and was told to contact you about it.
So could you please protect the coresponding pages and watch them incase the opposing party tries to make the edits he refused to discuss. Thank you.
Why d'ya convert 'mon and 'pets? I like them. -- 98.162.148.46 ( talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe mmackinnon and I are at an impasse. He is particularly interested in including an AANA talking point that happens to be misleading; I am particularly interested in leaving that out. Since he doesn't want a neutral position (but insists on the misleading talking point), mere facts aren't going to convince him. I'd like to ask you to change the section to leave out "CRNAs do not require Anesthesiologist supervision in any state and only require surgeon/dentist/podiatrists to sign the chart for medicare billing in all but 16 states."
I'd obviously prefer my version, but would settle for something like "the precise scope of nurse anesthetist practice varies state by state".
Separately, Finavon and Depstein have contributions that ought to enter the page; these are not politically controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffington ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, what is the next step? Surely it must be something other than "wait until August and then fix things"... Riffington ( talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it was mmackinnon who requested the editprotect, not me. I am not really sure how the moderation system works. Riffington ( talk) 03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not changing my username. Why do you want me to change it?-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean I would have to talk to stewards at Meta or thru IRC (#wikimedia-stewards) to dissolve the resultant unified account of Joey Kaminski ( talk · contribs)? I'm not even on wikimedia? Is that how it got caught? By the way, sorry for all the questions, just trying to figure out how it got hacked into in the first place.-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 06:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I told them to remove the SUL from the Joey Kaminski account and just told them that it will show that the account is blocked, but asked for them to remove that. After that's done, should I reregister the account as an anit-impersonation measure, since I'm not going to use it. If so, what type of username should I type in there, or request it as, or just put anti-impersonation measure on there?-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 04:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I'll Change the sig mczack26 speaktome 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
OK i understand what you are saying i just did not want it added because i was just following what it said on the talk page that don't add thing without reliable resources i was not trying to go against any of Wiki's rules. Kyle1278 ( talk) 02:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The stewards said that would be fine and told me what you said to request it under WP:CHU. Since I'm using the JoeCool950 name, I'll let you guys decide what to change the name to and then you guys can take the block off of it, use it for someone new signing into Wikipedia, if that makes since to you. If you want, you can even handle the changing the Joey Kaminski user name to some account user name for someone new which is what should be done with that username. If someone decides to use Joey Kaminski after me then, it will be on them and not me. Just wanted to clue you in and that's why I lef NEW (NEW) on the request page. Thanks.-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 05:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw a comment of your's. It is signed Jeremy but your name is Jeske. Why the difference. Why not just sign your name Jeske to avoid confusion? FK20 ( talk) 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
...I had already replied at his talk page. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
...for your welcome. No worries about the rollback - it took me a while to figure out what was going on over there, but looks like somewhere in the midst of it someone didn't revert back far enough and the vandal actually reverted themselves...or something. Use once then dispose of safely ( talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jeske
That was not my intention and i apologize. I did not know any other way to contact you to refute the arguments made. Sorry again. Mmackinnon ( talk) 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yah I actually thought i must not have saved it or something. My fault there. Mmackinnon ( talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please template so that editors are warned ;)-- Cerejota ( talk) 10:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to drop a quick note here: Wikipedia:AN/I#unblocked. Perhaps an annotation of the block log would be helpful as well if Orangemike signals he is ok with the user proceeding. – xeno ( talk) 12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
-Axmann8
(Talk) 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.
I was wondering if the Joey Kaminski username is taken care of?-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 03:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jéské Couriano. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero. Thank you. --— Dæ dαlus Contribs 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. No idea what that was all about, and no more idea having read the AN/I thread. But thanks all the same. Best, Knepflerle ( talk) 20:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I took care of getting the Joey Kaminski account annulled, or the SUL annulled. If so, now it can be useable again? Would you mind checking into it and letting me know. Thanks.-- JoeCool950 ( talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed an ancient bad speedy tag by this user, looked at his contributions and so on, and couldn't miss his most recent edit, [1], claiming that he is ignoring his topic ban for what he calls IAR (not really applicable here). Since you were the admin who last unblocked him (impressive log, that!), I suppose you know more about what caused the topic ban and the actual unblock conditions and so on (his talk page is never archived, often blanked, and a mess to look through). I leave it to you to take any action if needed, or to ignore this edit if it is allright. Fram ( talk) 12:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The user is continuing to attack and soapbox on his talk page, could you please blank it, all the others with a redirect to the main account's userpage, and indefinitely protect them?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jéské; just thought I'd drop in and let you know that we're considering the El Machete Guerrero situation closed and community banning him. Since WP:BAN states that banned users aren't permitted to edit their user talk pages, I was wondering if you'd mind redirecting and protecting Machete's various user talk pages? If you'd rather someone uninvolved do it, I'll just ask at WP:RFPP though. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
For an explanation of my suggestion to wait six months, see Wikipedia:Standard offer. Durova Charge! 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Many respected newspapers in the world have said something like "blacks getting their President". How is it you can take offense? More to the point, what rule did Axmann8 break in uttering those words? I wish I was coming to the defence of a more deserving character, but there is some principle involved here. Habeas_corpus, natural justice. Shame. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 00:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I would really like to see a link to a reputable publication that said anything close to "blacks getting their President" citation needed. – xeno ( talk) 01:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
[Outdent]Here are some of the "openly racist" extracts you seem not to think can exist. From the left-leaning UK Guardian:
From the centrist and free market Economist:
I wasn't even trying. Now what's the WP rule that Axmann8 broke when he said "blacks getting their president"?
Paul Beardsell ( talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy, I remain interested as to why you took offense at Axmann8's remark. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 04:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
A matter you have been involved with is under discussion here.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
While I appreciate your diligence in protecting my user page with this diff, I have returned it for a short. The account was not blocked until 2 hours later, and so at the time you removed this from my page it had not been a restricted account. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 13:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeske, an IP, 68.101.104.146, keeps vandalizing my user page. You blocked them here for a week, and unfortunately they're at it again, see this edit, reverted by a helpful editor. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jéské, while interacting with another editor in several discussions he has levelled several claims against me of harassment and sexual harassment. Our entire history can be found at Talk:Bono#? and User talk:MelicansMatkin#SEE HERE. The editor has stated that he will report me, and I have provided him with several links as to how he can do so if he is really so concerned. He has yet to go any further but I have told him that I will bring the issue to ANI if he does not, and if he continues to make these claims against me. I intend to do so only if he responds with further claims against me on my talk page. Do you believe I should ignore this issue or make good on my word if he does? MelicansMatkin ( talk) 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't threaten me. I wasnt wrong in making my harassment claim He followed my edit and undid it. Hes in the wrong so dont come threatening some one whos not. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 01:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And now your name calling I'd suggest you don't do that or the exact same threats that you said to me will happen to you. Also for all I know the reason you know it is because you both know each other and your just taking his side either way it leads to a biased threat. Now I'd suggest you stay out of it and quit your name calling. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 02:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
May not be a insult but still name calling Kepp it up and you will be blocked. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Besides not its not a baseless accusation he said on the Bono talk page he had been reviewing my edits and then he undoes one coincidence? I think not. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 02:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Your name is mentioned here - just thought I'd let you know! Cheers, Majorly talk 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You indef blocked the subject user a couple of hours ago and he has made a good-faith appeal of his block per your notice. I am still, however, concerned that this username is a WP:U violation, specifically that it represents a company and is only used to edit articles related to that company. This is also evidenced by the third-person wording of the block appeal. I am not nor was I ever opposed to this person continuing to edit the article in good faith as an individual employee of the company, not as the company itself. KuyaBriBri Talk 19:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?
I know you don't have the kind of free time you'd like to have, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)
If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ ( talk) 17:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see the relevant thread, here.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeske, you've warned and blocked an IP once or twice for vandalizing my user page. Well, they're at it again, and if you look at their edits you'll see that, well, that's pretty much the only thing that IP does, and I'm sick of it. Would you consider swinging your big administrator's stick? And I mean big, since temporary blocks don't seem to do much. Thanks. 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
as I half expected, he hit me no sooner than the previous had expired. What a pain in the ass troll. StarM 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You left a comment on my page about semi-protection of the Bianca Ryan page, followed immediately by a comment saying the request is declined. Was this request already discussed or are you just taking it upon yourself to decide semi-protection isn't needed? There's an ongoing pattern of vandalism on this page. Two weeks isn't a significant amount of time. Docsavage20 ( talk) 05:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeske, I have created a user page draft Just Like the Son. Request is made for Unprotection for the creation of the article. 2009nyc1 ( talk) 10:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Please leave a note on my talk page once you have, thanks.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
User talk:207.73.252.254 It's back. Enigma msg 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Responded to ya. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Popartpete has responded on his talk page and is willing to go into mentoring. I think he will place a proper unblock request soon. I have been emailing him and talking him down from his earlier volatile nature and giving him advice. It seems he is finally listening to reason. Drew Smith W hat I've done 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No response received on WP:AN, I see. My concern with the full protection of the talk page was that I didn't feel that I'd received my right to appeal to administrators. There were no indeed no administrators willing to unblock on WP:ANI, but I doubt that many had gone to all the trouble of reading the entire talk page of the disputed article, and because the protecting admin had deleted all of my arguments, I had no opportunity to appeal to other administrators on the talk page. That's why I don't feel that it would be appropriate to contact ArbCom at this time; my full right to appeal to other administrators has not yet been expended. 71.103.106.177 ( talk) 09:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Anesthesia is currently full-protected and due to expire in August. However, the users who had been edit-warring on it have not edited (at all) for nearly two months. Today somebody wanted to edit the article and had to use the talk page even though they were auto-confirmed because the article is still full-protected. I think the protection has served its purpose and should be removed. Soap Talk/ Contributions 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this [3] a bit fast? Shouldn't the other editors involved get a chance to explain their actions? They are being (wrongly) accused of corruption and ganging up, after all. Yintaɳ 22:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The brand new Wikiproject User Rehab is being proposed for deletion. After our escapade with Popartpete, perhaps you could take a look at the project, and weigh in at the deletion discussion? Drew Smith What I've done 01:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your unblock of my account! Wireless Keyboard Click! Clack! 23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
...for taking a few minutes to deal with SonofFeanor and his socks. Yilloslime T C 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom seems a bit much. He's rarely more than a minor nuisance now. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jéské, I noticed that on your user page you've formatted it so that your userboxes are contained within several drop-down menus. I've been looking to do something similar with my page since it's becoming rather disorganized and cluttered. I was wondering how you formatted it? MelicansMatkin ( talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking him. Given his massive level of talkpage abuse, can he be re-blocked without the ability to edit his own page? Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag► First Secretary of State─╢ 20:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Re your message: Argh! I didn't notice that. I'll put them back without the CSD tags. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Too bad you're not paid by the hour ;) or I could have made both of you a small fortune. Tombstone ( talk) 07:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
My IP stalker appears to have showed up, this time under a username, see here.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
Seeyou ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
As your comment has nothing to do with development of the article, I think it better to reply here.
I think you mean "I think you're process-wonking right there". As I explained to you I have not accused anyone of sockpuppetry, nor have I have made an allegation. I would object to the removal of anything I have written to talk:Wikinfo, and I can see noting in the guidelines which would warrant you making such a removal, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments, and even if you consider it to be a personal attack -- which I do not -- I do not think you can justify it under either Wikipedia:Civility#Removal of uncivil comments) or Wikipedia:personal attacks#Removal of text. -- PBS ( talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
check my talk page, i've answered ur post Asdfhgjgiewiuweroiuwer ( talk) 21:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rachel Armstrong, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jack Merridew 10:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Rachel Armstrong, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
Hi! Rather surprised to see you at the bottom of the undeleted history here; what was it on the more recent AfD 140 characters? Sheesh. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This past week Blastoise and Jynx articles have been made. Blastoise was made off the hope that a few mentions in magazine would be enough to establish notability, although it is being debated for AfD. Jynx was made because of it being banned from episodes, TCG, and ect, due to the controversy over its skin color, and it has survived so far. I dug up the old Mudkip article and rewrote it in hopes that the "so i herd u leik mudkipz" meme, and it being featured in different polls because of it would be enough to establish notability. I found a few references about it on "knowyourmeme.com" and "blogspot", but apparently those werent good references so Kung Fu Man found new references from dA itself, and The Wall Street Journal. There is a discussion here about it, and since you were one of the people who were the main contributers in that area, would you like to add something to the discussion? -- Blake ( talk) 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This edit and this edit on the meme. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 01:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you undelete this please? While the latest report may have been created by a banned editor, the many previous reports were not. Thank you. O Fenian ( talk) 01:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Not that it's of any great importance, but were you able to decide whether that was cluelessness or intentional vandalism? Sometimes I come across users where I'm never able to decide.— Kww( talk) 01:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Left_4_Dead_2. 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.
Otterathome (
talk)
20:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Within the next two minutes, regarding a deletion you just made. NW ( Talk) 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
that I'll give you a few "best wishes", with this.
Enjoy. ;)
Ncmvocalist (
talk)
08:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the person recently editing Española Valley High School is another sock of banned user PoliticianTexas, but would like another pair of eyes on it. What do you think? Ladyof Shalott 04:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Just with regards to my block of RetroS1mone, fair enough; I'm not well-versed in block lengths yet, and will bear this in mind in future. The reason I selected a long block length was because of the length of time the user was editing disruptively; my apologies if the length was a bad idea. Colds7ream ( talk) 15:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for unblocking. The new admin says I am editing disruptively, and apologizes for length but not timing of block that imo and i do not want attack any one but it is obvious, it is after I file ANI about the user's earlier templates on my page. Do you have suggestions, how this admin and me can resolve the problem? Thank you!! RetroS1mone talk 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
In light of the recent concerns expressed by RetroS1mone towards Colds7ream, I would appreciate a second opinion about the validity of an RfC about RetroS1mone. Since it was an unusal RfC, in that it was for a pattern of disruptive editing at large, I asked Colds7ream to take a look at it and rule on whether it was a valid RfC or not. I tried to pick an admin in such a way that it didn't look like cherry-picking, but RetroS1mone has pointed out the flaws in my thinking, stating that she believes I picked an inexperienced admin from that list in a deliberate attempt to get her blocked. While this is not at all the case (for which you only have my word), I think I speak for both RetroS1mone and myself in saying that we would appreciate the views of a more experienced Admin on the matter. Given that you were the unblocking admin in her recent block, I think your opinion, whatever it is, would be invaluable. Also note that there have been several follow-up posts by all involved on the RfC talk page.
As you note at the top of your talk page, I welcome input into, and questions about, my own actions in this string of issues as well - heck, I even asked for an editor review at one point, though nobody actually commented on it.
Thanks for your time! -- RobinHood70 ( talk) 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
In regards to your comment about blocking that user's talk page. I have filed an RPP request about just that. This has been going on for 3 hours now and that user just ain't getting it. Several users have explained and they just ain't getting it. If you would, please, block that talk page for the next 45 1/2 hours, it would make my headache go away, I know that :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to remove the talkpageblock you applied to this editor. In short, stubbornness shouldn't be ignored, and I don't think the block is a fair one. Indeed, if the editor is endlessly reciting an argument, such a block is far from ideal. Would you be adverse to my lifting the block? AGK 11:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Since you made the situation worse with the clueless talk page block, please comment at WP:AN#IP user repeatedly removing WHOIS template from talk page. Hans Adler 12:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Dude, you have provided me a moment of relief from those vandals. I am in no way saying that your protection of article Marwat is an endorsement of the current version by Wikipedia; however, I would still like to warn you about those single purpose accounts created just for editing the same article. In addition to this as one of the co-creators of article on Marwat I am open to any kind of constructive edits but only after thorough and civilized discussion. Anyway, many thanks for this noble deed for the time being.Xoxo-- MARWAT 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Now what to say? Isn't there any one who can tackle the greatest vandaliser of Wikipedia that is User:Marwatt? User:Marwatt has also started Edit War at Article Anwar Kamal Khan and have inserted the citation tags 3-4 times within 24 hours and is keen to reveert its position. The claim for which he is demanding citation is has been refered and there is a reference proving what has been written there. Despite my continuous pleading that he must read the references before adding Citation tag, he is blindly reverting the article on the Disputed status. The article must be protected and he must be banned, as his intentions are proved i.e. to disgrace and manipulate the notables of rival clan. -- LineofWisdom ( talk) 18:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed you seem to follow or at least be aware of the messes theserialcomma ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) gets involved in. He's filed another ANI against Koalorka. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#personal_attack_from_recently_unblocked_User:_Koalorka Some guy ( talk) 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you'd chime in at this ANI discussion. I wasn't aware of it until late last night. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Archiving; this discussion isn't going to go any further since I'm not allowing any further comments from LineofWisdom.
Since the edit war, which was started by unsigned users using different I.P addresses and mainly by two editors, including myself and Marwatt both of us even got blocked and banned, I would like to request un-protection of the artilce, as I am sure none of the editors would vandalise or frankly edit the article until unless a consensus is built. Beside this, I assure that with a warning of long-time banning and blocking, none of the editors would dare to vandalise the article or make any edits without discussing it on discussion page. It would be appreciated, even if the page is semi-protected. Warm regards, -- LineofWisdom ( talk) 12:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you speedy'd the page on Whyte Lightning, I was hoping to work on this page and was wondering if you could transfer it to my userspace. Curtis ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw that you blocked Onikiri several times six months ago, but I'm afraid he's back to his antics here as 216.184.121.126, 66.249.203.19, 190.57.5.231 and 168.243.218.154 (the last of which he had already used four months ago in the exact same manner, along with a lot of other IP addresses [5])...
Although a bit peeved (it's not the first time I run into him), I tried to explain myself and invited him to discuss all this on the talk page, but he simply doesn't care, apparently: he's just right, and the other editors should give up as their arguments don't matter. At this point, it's vandalism, in my opinion.
What would the best course of action be, according to you? Erigu ( talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy
While I appreciate the need to remove the material, simply shouting in your edit summary may not be as informative as posting a link to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for those who watch your page (I assume you replied privately to the user with the original request).
Bongo matic 22:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{ talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.
Has been confirmed to be LoW. Nice catch.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure why but the block just went away after a while. I appreciate your help though, thanks :D GroundZ3R0 002 ( talk) 07:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh that explains it. Thanks. I was also wondering if you could, since you're an admin, close out the Aug 31 files for deletion discussion on the Saw image. Here's the URL to make it simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_31#Saw_Videogame_Screen_18.jpeg . Thanks again GroundZ3R0 002 ( talk) 07:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay will do. Thanks again for your time and help. GroundZ3R0 002 ( talk) 07:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you were a blocking admin on this user back in August, you may want to comment on the current ANI thread ongoing here. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek. 69 talk 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk)
01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
After you unprotected my talk page, I made an unblock request that was granted and then revoked because there was a dispute about the conditions of a topic ban that the unblocking admin wanted imposed and then a denial of another request by another admin who openly admits ideological bias against my perspective, which he falsely depicts as something deviant in nature, and now refuses to respond to my comments on his own statements regarding my block. I mentioned this on WP:AN, but my request was deleted. I was wondering if you could also contribute somehow, since you were involved earlier and were familiar with the case. Thanks. 71.103.96.80 ( talk) 05:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Honestly? The user I targeted is a particularly dedicated vandal. Who has made personal attacks against me out of the blue if you'd care to look at the history of this page. The user has been banned from editing before, but that was temporary. I emplore somebody, anybody - the user must be banned permanently.
Sorry about the rant, but I don't like it when I get insulted, so the user I targeted is... well, targeted. I'll refrain from vandalising his talk page, but I can't promise that I'll do it totally calmly. Because nobody likes being insulted. -- LordNecronus ( talk) 22:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Novickas; I think my indentation makes it pretty clear? Anyway, just because having written a major @ for arbcom I feel like I am in the sharing mood: I am pretty certain your name was never mentioned :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
With respect to Tannim1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) what lie was he caught in? I see little harm in occasionally giving blocked and troublesome users a chance to try out editing again after they had received counseling about responsible editing. Fred Talk 12:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)