![]() | 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. |
Hello Josh,
Please stop harassing me and do not protect my talkpage. If I had not mentioned you in that conversation, or your friend Ryulong (or rather your friendship), then you would never have done such a thing. Remember, you were the one who started it this time, by using your protection tool, and this is not harassment to tell you that this is abuse of the protection tool. Don't pick on me because I am not armed with a friend like you to stick up for me when someone criticizes me. Jonas Rand (and yes this is my real name and I am never referred to Ionas in real life) 68.96.209.19 ( talk) 04:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{ Sockpuppet category}} template. I've added the template.
I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 02:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you declined a block request by the above editor. As the blocking admin I made this comment regarding the unblock request. I wonder if you might glance over it again. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How, if at all, would one say on the talk page of the above article that SkyWriter doesn't seem to be coming back, given he has been blocked indefinitely for legal threats? John Carter ( talk) 00:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Meaningless and pathetic really, but just so you know, [1]-- Jac16888 Talk 15:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I note that you had blocked the following accounts for sockpuppetry: Special:Contributions/JustOneMoreQuestion, Special:Contributions/IfYouDontMind, Special:Contributions/Goesquack. Do you think that Special:Contributions/Canvasback may be related, given that the account started editing shortly after you blocked those three accounts, and has similar interest in the various "X-Y relations" AfDs? Also compare this edit with this edit. DHowell ( talk) 07:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
See User:Markacohen. Dougweller ( talk) 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jpgordon:
On 9 April, I was looking at the Wikipedia page on The Uncounted Enemy, a 1982 CBS documentary. I knew where the complete transcript of the documentary was available online, on a web page at Texas Tech University, so I added a link to that web page. On 26 April you deleted that link. Could you please explain why? Were you somehow under the impression that the web page at Texas Tech was mine, and that my linking to it was in violation of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies? Ed Moise ( talk) 15:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Roman_Koudelka&action=history
Can you take a look and possibly get rid of some IPs? J.delanoy gabs adds 15:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Per User:Jpgordon#Ironically you claim to have a crusade against (useless / overused to the point of uselessness) adverbs. However, have you considered the possibility that you are simply allergic to the letter i at the beginning of words?
Regards, Bongo matic 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
p.s. I remember flipping the switches on a friend's IMSAI 8080 (we didn't have one ourselves—instead we had a Z80-based NorthStar Horizon). Not the most efficient way to program, especially for the error-prone.
Curious about the numbers beside your name here. Is this correct? If so, why the departure from the norm? Durova Charge! 20:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what did you tell him? - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Josh, Hoary suggested I contacted you as we have a dispute about the notability of the photographer Errol Sawyer. You seem to have a good taste in collecting photographs. On top of that Errol and your cousin have something in common: they are both photographed by Diane Arbus. This fact amongst others was already taken out of Errol's article as some editors seem to be determined that Errol Sawyer is not notable. I would really appreciate your honest opinion and if possible help. 1027E ( talk) 14:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't you feel that you can better the situation? As an European I am sincerely amazed by the way Americans treat their African American inheritance. The Schomburg Library of Culture does not even have the money to digitize their archives. I edited racism out for you. 1027E ( talk) 06:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Josh, I am only trying to do the right thing and I am sorry that you feel personally offended by just mentioning the facts. Yes, I have asked for assistance already in the Wiki project of History of Photography. The amazing thing is that a lot of photographers in this project have references that are less accurate than the one of Errol Sawyer. Errol Sawyer is according DGG reaching the demands of notability. He has his work in important museum collections and important collectors have bought his work. There is an important article written about him in the most prestigious Dutch Photography Magazine: PF Magazine. On top of that he was the only African- American photographer who worked on top level in Paris in the 70s and he is the only African-American photographer in Amsterdam on top level. But the editors I am dealing want all the references digitally accessible within a split second. So they cannot find PF Magazine as their server is slow and they don't accept the reference of Schomburg Library of Black Culture as their archives are not digitized yet. As an architect/ building engineer who is also writing a thesis, I find this hilarious but what can I do? I ask help of older editors like you. There has also been a problem with an editor who would not accept that Errol sawyer discovered Christie Brinkley as a model in April, 1973. He, Mbineri, kept taking this out of her article and did not want to accept the reference of the book of Michael Gross. Now it is in finally. He also takes away all the time African in front of American before Errol Sawyer 's name. (Obama calls himself an African-American too). Now he is slaughtering Errol Sawyer's article again and he did put all the tags which is not reasonable at all. As you have collected pictures of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, I thought that you are a man with integrity. By the way, I come from a musical family too. My grandfather was a 1st violinist in the Bach Vereniging in Amsterdam. My sister has 3 children of a very known Dutch Musician. Her children all make music too, singing, guitar, bass guitar, violin and piano. I have a harpsichord myself and our 4 year old son just said that he wants to play violin together with mama. As we live in a 300 years old mainly wooden house in the center of Amsterdam the acoustics are very sensitive, to say the least, so piano is too much noise. Well. I took a lot of your time. In Holland we speak very freely about political problems and maybe we differ in that way. 1027E ( talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the spam!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Gordon,
I note that you have placed an objection in the above article. Could you please explain in non-jargon terms, what you are referring to?
Thanking you in advance,
Rotterdam1953 ( talk) 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Fondesep (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Horneldinkrag (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
I've got a hunch these are offshoots from a user who got blocked around Jan-Feb, but I would rather not say too much here - and it might be stale anyway. Is it worth pursuing?
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots
05:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you perhaps like to make a note about your findings at this SPI.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Manzanita-critters.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 06:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Say by any chance this might be Arma virumque cano that you CheckUsered? -- PirateSmackK Arrrr! 17:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
PirateSmackK
Arrrr! has given you a
kitten! Kittens promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Yeah, it was, but consider that it was his fourth request in a very short time basically making the same argument as his other requests in the face of what two people said was very solid evidence.
And next time I'll remember to stick up for you :-).
I was sort of inspired by a passage in The Gulag Archipelago where someone who had just been charged with a crime that, he pointed out to the court, he would have committed at the age of five or so, was told "don't slander the Soviet intelligence services!"
(As an aside, maybe we should make up a special unblock template for users blocked due to Checkuser? It would help steer those of us who don't have access to it and can't really respond to unblock requests requiring review of that evidence away from them toward unblock requests we can review). Daniel Case ( talk) 23:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Because you have edited the ADL page, I thought you would be interested in the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League Historicist ( talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
HI JP, I noticed you blocked Nocal100 for violating the ARBCOM "ruling". I was curios how you came about suspecting that user was a sock. From what I see there were no interactions between the two of you. Did someone bring their suspicions to you? And if that is the case, would you mind telling me who brought their suspicions to you? Thanks, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Received your email. Sorry I couldn't respond until now, RL is taking my life over. If as you say, you are drama averse, the last thing you would want to do is run secret checkusers and give the impression that there's fishing going on. When I have the time, I will gather together the issues into an RFCU or ANI. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way you can block the underlying IP? This puppet show must not go on. Blueboy 96 06:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Why did you erase my edit in Autumn Leaves, where I've added information about Grace Jones' cover of the song? I think it isn't irelevant. -- Ogggy ( talk) 15:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Dunno if you know about this, or if you even care, but Special:Contributions/Not to be blacklisted and Special:Contributions/Pay for the can at once spells out threats against you. → Aza Toth 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Avraham reported that these are not related to the User:CENSEI sock farm. The M.O. seems more like that of the banned User:Pioneercourthouse's sock farm. He came in with knowledge of certain users, which could also suggest User:Ron liebman, but this doesn't fit the M.O. - although both of those guys (who as far as I know are unrelated) edited within the last week. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, did you click the link on his page? In the box, it says "suspected sockpuppets," which links to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Beganlocal. It's a redlink category, but it still lists the sockpuppet.
Beganlocal began deleting content from the talk page for Jewish-American organized crime, labeling it "illegal content." Three days later, Friends seated ( talk · contribs) opened their account and immediately began edit-warring the same tactic, deleting content and using the edit summary "illegal content." I've blocked them for violating the three-revert rule for 31 hours; it remains to be seen whether the individual returns to their same activity. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. -- Årvasbåo ( talk) 10:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock! Highspeed ( talk) 07:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey man thx for the advice I created a new account, but can I change the signature on the discussion on the Bosniaks article, because I signed as Der Stürmer so I'm wontering can I change it since I'm blocked. Can you also tell me where can I ask for a third opinion because some guy is reverting my edits, but I have better arguments which I have put on the discussion page. Stürmkrieger ( talk) 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I note that you changed my edit about their Internet service provider. On the talk page it is mentioned that it is incorrect to state that SF do not need an ISP. I altered this to do not need a website hosting provider as they have their own servers. You have reverted this edit and the article is once again incorrect. I would be obliged if you would correct this. I'm quite happy to take the rest to Talk:Stormfront (website). Thanks. Beganlocal ( talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Not_resolved. Durova 282 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Jpgordon: User:Supreme Deliciousness continues to label another user as my sock and meatpuppet as a defence for his violation of the 3RR, in spite of 2 SPI's that he had initiated and that have resulted in "Declined" and "Unrelated", respectively. You have previously written a comment on my Talk page in this regard, which was appreciated. He also calls me a "liar" and other names. Where do I make a formal complaint on this matter? -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 11:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I decided not to burden Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories with discussion of this edit by you, but I'll mention here that I disagree with you.
The source (Ambinder) used "diffuse" when what was probably meant was "defuse". A reader encountering the quotation with "diffuse" in our article might logically wonder whether the error was Ambinder's or whether a Wikipedian transcribed the quotation incorrectly. The "sic" there is useful to answer that reader's question without putting him or her to the necessity of clicking through to the source. I agree with you that we shouldn't use "sneer quotes" but the purpose here isn't to make fun of the source. JamesMLane t c 08:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The block of account creation is standard with a spamusername block, since they've shown an intention to spam. They are provided with instructions on how to appeal, which seems to me sufficient. -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless you know something that I do not, Wiki-Piiiz has only been behaviourally confirmed, not checkuser confirmed. Another editor inserted the request for checkuser while processing WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233, IPs in the range that are obviously Wiki-Piiiiz have been confirmed as Wiki-11233, but there has not been direct checkuser confirmation.— Kww( talk) 18:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You have decline my request to revert my I block asserting that I was the same person, how could you do that?
Ooops forgotten to sign :D Fringescience ( talk) 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you mind extending the block of User:98.211.215.58 and protecting User talk:98.211.215.58 against anon editing due to this? I don't want to do it myself, due to the obvious COI (it'd be a direct response to the user). tedder ( talk) 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
i'm the guy u answer my music question the other day and this is ur answer below: It means you shouldn't notate rests as tied or continued over beats. So, for example, in 4/4, if your bar starts with a dotted quarter note, then a full beat of rest, then another dotted quarter note, you're expected to notate the rest as two eighth rests, rather than a single quarter rest
thax!but i still have problem with it because i'm from Taiwan so my English isn't that good..... so ,for example, "rests as tied or continued over beats" can u explain all more plainly?? and i can't really understand your example= = by the way,i know that quarter means crotchet,but what does full beat means? does it last 1 beat or 4 in 4/4?? sorry to cause u so much problem... this matter let me know that although music can be played everywhere,but language is still the barier... Vincecarter159753 ( talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)vincecarter159753
Any comments on the individual IP?— Kww( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Jpgordon. Thanks for freeing me. The IP address is slightly different from the one I had years ago. Is the fact that I got a new computer 2-yrs ago, the reason for the different IP? GoodDay ( talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I had previously posted this info on User talk:Versageek and will also be taking it to User:Bigtimepeace:
The account Childof12AM ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious impostor of User:ChildofMidnight. He shows no contribs [3] because his attempts to edit my page (and presumably to stir something up) were blocked. I just wonder if this is part of the Liebman family of socks, or if its coming from somewhere else, like maybe the Pioneercourthouse sockfarm? Those are the most obvious possibilities that come to mind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
And another impostor, calling himself BBBfan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up, also trying to foment trouble, i.e. to interfere with the contact ban between me and User:ChildofMidnight. I'm suspicious of Pioneercourthouse, just because he's also been active in the last couple of days. However, PCH is jumping from one country to another with his IP's, so there's probably not much that can be done there except to whack the moles as they pop up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey. I saw that you've made some edits on this article. Someone just went through and pretty thoroughly gutted the article. Rather than get into an edit war, I was wondering if you could weigh in on the issue. It may very well be that people prefer the smaller version, but another opinion is always welcome. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Jonund is back on the talk page, saying that it is an "unfair demand" that he be asked to provide sourcing for including information regarding King's sexual proclivities. There's this phrase I've heard , although I'm not sure if its really appropriate for this instance, "topic ban"? John Carter ( talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You just declined User:Inuit18 request for unblock, he is a sockpuppet of banned User:Šāhzādé (a.k.a User:Draco of Utopia, User:Germany2008, User:Anoshirawan...), just compare his edit summary, behaviour and articles worked on. If you do a Check User it will confirm,,,, he is a racist, cursing at people of other race and all his edits are racist. His usual IP should be in Germany.-- 119.73.4.166 ( talk) 22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Please use WP:SPI for this. Thank you. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
According to many wikipedians this IP is the banned user NisarKand. I am a new user on wikipedia and I am not a sockpuppet. none of these links can prove that I am this Anoshirawan.-- Inuit18 ( talk) 08:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I know that WP:Flag policy says if there is an flag in the infobox of a sportsperson it should only BE flags of the country the person represented internationally and if someone hasn't played international they get the country they played in or the country they have expressed loyalty to. You see if you look at most WikiProject Ice Hockey articles this is not the case for most articles. So before I new about WP:Flag policy I assumed that it was if you are allowed to represent a country then you get that flag. So I put a Canadian flag on Alexei Ponikarovsky (He's canadian but hasn't represented team Canada just Team Ukraine) page and got referred to WP:Flag policy. So then I took off a Ukraine flag on Nikolai Zherdev because he has only represented Russia and has never represented Ukraine. Weirdly enough the same user that stopped from taking off a flag on Alexei stopped me taking one off on Nikolai. So there seems to be a weird double standard with the people a part of [[[WikiProject Ice Hockey]] and to make things worse they do not comply with wikipedia policy. I have no clue what to do because what WikiProject Ice Hockey is doing is contradiictary to wikipedia policy, but they also seem have a double standard that most of them all agree with. I would think they couldn't change wikipedia policy in their one corner and would have to take it up with administers, but that is not what they have done. If you can get back to me it'll be nice. --Thx Fire 55 ( talk) 08:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
YO YO YO WASSUP MA HOMIES N BI TCHES? WAS YO PUNK ASS UP TO THESE DAYS INNIT YO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.234.82 ( talk) 10:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but don't you think this is a little obtuse given the reams of text placed immediately following the template. At least give the guy a fair hearing even if he can't work out how to use the template properly. GDallimore ( Talk) 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for cutting the Gordian knot. I apologise for omitting you in my little list; I felt a single revert wasn't enough to justify inclusion. ;-) Hans Adler 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there; this user has apparently been caught up in a checkuser block applied by you to IP 194.176.105.40. He is asking for IP exemption. He has only a sparse editing history, but it does reach back to 2007, so may well be ok. I do note that two years ago he was caught in an autoblock of IP 194.176.105.39, which may be wholly irrelevant. I am unhappy awarding IP exemption without your approval; perhaps you could look at his request? -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 08:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my contribution to the September 11 Attacks article. I'm a senior lecturer at a university in the UK. I include a lecture on 9/11 as part of a philosophy course I lead to illustrate the contested and constructed nature of knowledge and truth. I am well aware of the key issues raised by 9/11, and the contested nature of 'truth' on this subject. The current article does not provide balanced coverage of key claims about 9/11. It is the lack of awareness about the contested nature of events on September 11 that makes the current article weak. Many citations in the current article are based on press reports (these are poor quality when compared to peer-reviewed journal articles). My new contributions to the article are based on peer-reviewed journal articles and there cannot, therefore, be any justifiable reason for omitting them from the main article.
The current set of changes, therefore, counter bias in the article and ensure that overall it is written from a neutral point of view. I have not removed any existing material to ensure that existing views remain (I'm not censoring others points of view, even though the press sources used are of low credibility). I've added well-documented perspectives, supported by the work of relevant academics, that challenge some of the claims currently made. This should not be censored. The only neutral course of action in these circumstances is to report the contested nature of claims on this subject.
I assert strongly that there is no 'bias' in reporting that there are court cases and journal articles that question the version of truth presented in the current article. These are matters of fact, not opinion, and it distorts understanding to omit this fact from the article and give the impression that the statements are uncontested. No judgement is made on the which version of the truth is more 'true' - the edits simply make people aware that the events described are contested by credible contributions to the debate about September 11.
I notice that many articles on Wikipedia are flagged for "bias". If there is a further attempt to reverse my contributions, I would like to flag the article for "bias" so other contributors can ensure it is more balanced.
Best wishes Dr Rory Ridley-Duff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Bupsiij ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on unblock-en-l apologizing. I have reduced his block to 6 months. Fred Talk 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
How would I get a consensus on whether or not a page should be included in a category? Jwh335 ( talk) 03:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, over a year ago you asked a question on the Larry McDonald talk page. I'm informing you that I've answered your question, in case you still care. -- darolew ( talk) 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm bringing this up here so as not to embarass you. You can erase this after reading it.
I've read POINT. It says in bold "State your point; do not prove it experimentally"
I never said those other examples should be kept or deleted. Nothing was trying to be proved.
I merely started a discussion about consistency and if these were related.
You may or may not intend this, but when you write things, you come off as very aggressive. If your job involves writing, please reconsider this. This is to help you personally. Again, after reading this, you may remove it. If your job involves face to face contact, then maybe aggressive writing is not a problem because most of your work is verbal.
This Wikipedia thing is too aggressive for me. I am quitting as of now. I might come back but not anytime soon. Dellcomputermouse ( talk) 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It certainly appears Show-Truth has returned as INTEL-12 ( talk · contribs), opening up a new thread at the BLP board about Chima. Just passing it on. Thanks! Dayewalker ( talk) 01:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:dreamshit blocked for username violation - review please for details. Regards So Why 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Awarded in recognition of your help with a disruptive editor on the Karl Rove page last month; many thanks! Jusdafax ( talk) 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I also ask that you please unblock IronAngelAlice, as I feel responsible for getting her blocked. Soxwon ( talk) 23:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Merci fellow Vegan. And my G-d, I love Oingo Boingo and Woodie Guthrie (saw your Antique RS bit). Too cool....-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 17:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give me your latest list of sources you consider banned without argument. I've had run-ins with you before about this and would rather not waste my time given your advance position that you do not entertain argument about the reliability of sources on your ban list. Bdell555 ( talk) 02:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey :) Can you have a second look at this user please? He's requesting unblock and after a very quick look, I wasn't able to find a relationship with the master. Thanks! -- Luk talk 11:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This was an edit "antonio" made a week or two ago. Not five years ago. Also, Benji's DISCUSSION page should be a DISCUSSION page, like I assumed it was, since that's what everbody else's is. If you don't want to help, please butt out. -- 98.232.181.201 ( talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi JP, just wondering if you could tell me how I become a Wiki Admin, I've seen a lot of vandalism lately and it really bothers me.I mean, it's all I can think about, I can't even sleep knowing someone on the internet has written something I disagree with. I just wish I could do something about it...please, it's incredibly important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.6.134 ( talk) 22:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Malke's block has expired, but he seems to think there's an autoblock on his account. Autoblock detector isn't finding anything, but I'm so not tech. :) Can you help out at User talk:Malke 2010? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Such correct people like you are too rare. I think I need a break after this. Thank you. -- 91.130.91.26 ( talk) 15:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you were an unblocking 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)
You unblocked this user, but he was not exactly blocked for uncivility. He was blocked before that under another IP account for edit warring and sock puppeting. When he posted his comments on ANI, he was actually evading his block. That's the reson, and several admins have noted it while declining his request. Any comments? Shahid • Talk2me 14:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, im not sure of the exact situation with that person but i'd just like to clarify the information he gave. It was true that Derek Llambias did strip off and streak across the pitch at St.James Park, it was witnessed by renowned journalist Alan Oliver who i believe wrote up the story in 2 different newspapers. One could have been the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, so is this vandalism when the story is true? cheers -- The Mercenary 73 ( talk) 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not remember clealy whether you ever had any negative encounters with Stevertigo back in the day. Juuuust in case you did, you should know about this - otherwise, ignore it, and sorry to have troubled you, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday you declined an unblock for MattiasGoyle ( talk · contribs) with the comment "Checkuser verified abusive alternate account of blocked user". It has occurred to me that the reason why Camponhoyle and his socks were quiet from July until now was school holidays: with the new term, suddenly several more appeared and were blocked yesterday, and today there are two more already, TheTraitor ( talk · contribs) and Servanthoyle3 ( talk · contribs). Did your checkuser by any chance identify a school IP as the origin of these socks? If so, a schoolblock including account-creation blocking might save a good deal of trouble. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 19:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note I read on this user's talk page. I had been part of assessing this user's articles (and my opinions of their utility were unfavourable as you can see from the associated AfD to which I contributed). However, even though they made a very poor start, I actually thought they were trying to contribute usefully; perhaps, as sometimes happens, I was too naive. I'm also very inexperienced with blocking/unblocking, so I was trying to identify if indeed this username had been blocked before I went further. Anyway, I do respect your judgment about the spam links; I'll help the user if they request it of me, but I'm not going to make it possible for them to spam. If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
My watch list notified me of your blocking of User:Spzmnky, (which i'm not saying I agree/disagree with), But I didn't see a blocked template on their page? abc518 ( talk) 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
About your blocks of User:Sandra.henred and User:JME8205... I agree they weren't doing the encyclopedia any good (and in fact, I blocked several sockpuppets of one of their friends), but at the same time, neither of them seem to have edited in several days, or to have done any Myspacing since I warned them, so is a block necessary? (That being said, if they're gone anyway then it doesn't make much difference; I just don't want to encourage them to become trolls, like one of their friends briefly did.) rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris -- Cjones132002 ( talk) 19:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I responded to your post on PhilKnight's talk page. I don't feel I was being BITEy, I do feel I was within reason in my discussion and later warnings. If you felt I was, please discuss that with me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you are one of a very few admins online right now. Would you mind having a look at AIV, it is quite backlogged. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have uncovered a tremendous COI that pertains to the redacted IP address. How should I proceed without outing the user?-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 23:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm extremely cautious these days regarding Reversion of pages. Here's an article that's been reverted against my work. The editor admitted (I think) not knowing anything about the Protocols of Zion, yet Reverted my work without discussion. There is no one who objected to my work on this article. I only have a difference over Content with this one editor. I would appreciate it very much if you looked into the matter. Any guidance you give me on how to handle the situation - will carry great weight with me. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 01:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I just found the above - and now there's no consensus: it's two against two (an outside editor, no name, has reverted. The article in question also involves the Protocols of Zion. So I could use your advise on how to deal with the situation. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 06:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm contacting you now because you're and Administrator and knowledgeable about the above. The above is now the {{Main}} article in relation to The Beckwith Company which published the second American edition, in book form, of " The Protocols" under the title " Praemonitus Praemunitus." Now I suspect that a possible {{WP:Troll}} appeared on the scene because I commenced an "ANI" against him previously which I subsequently dropped. I do not know how to handle the situation. He may just be uninformed. But he also appears, by the versions he re-writes, to wish to promote his POV that The Protocols are true. I've tried to tell him that he must be guide by the "Main" article. But I'm not sure he understands me. How do I handle that bpredicament? -- Ludvikus ( talk) 21:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
PS1: It's the same editor I mentioned above. I though the problem was solved. I made a new section here because I wanted to be clearer about which article is involved. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 21:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
PS2: The guy thanked me for supplying footnotes, so I think it was after all a misunderstand. Again, I'm sorry to have bothered you. We just worked on Harris A. Houghton, the anonymous editor of "The Protocols."
I like how you can give, but not take. If you are going to act the big man, learn to deal with a response. Ceoil ( talk) 06:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the intrusion, but I'd like your opinion as an honest broker at the above. I absolutely do not regard the proposers, especially User:Ched Davis, as being honest brokers. In fact, I have my suspicions regarding Ched Davis and favoritism (see his treatment of ObserverNY, ChildofMidnight, and JohnHistory), though nothing that yet rises to the level of ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!1!!. -- Calton | Talk 05:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this, I this a CU finding or merely based on this diff? I am mostly just curious, but I am hoping it is the former since that diff is hardly compelling evidence by itself. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain this edit? I don't see any sign that you made any attempt to merge the data from the movie into Story. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Ricky3374 is a clear sock of Pecker3378 you blocked in August. Do I need to open a new case? - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you please explain your reversion of this to Deborah Lipstadt on Talk:Deborah Lipstadt? Your edit history doesn't say why. I didn't make the edit, but the editor who did seemed to justify it on the talk page. It does not appear to be vandalism or even WP:NPOV to me, although I admit I am not an expert on the subject (I just have the page on my Watchlist, looking for vandalism). Thank you, -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 00:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik ( talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] He and Inuit18 ( talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher. "The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim ( talk · contribs) is him.
Ricky3374 and Egar3767 blocked. Can you please explain. 138.89.39.190 ( talk) 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at whats going on at the Jimmy Hoffa page. It seems that there are editors with a personal beef with an author/book I have written about. You seem to have an interest in that page. -- Theboss1970 ( talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if you'd seen the SPI when you were blocking. Glad to have it confirmed; I'm not sure how I got roped into the mess of it in the first place, but it's nice to start putting the socks together. Are you comfortable tagging User:Nugglesmom? tedder ( talk) 04:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
you think that a Book Published by Cambridge University is not verifiable reference.
Blanking Vandalism: Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary.-- LONTECH Talk 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jp,
Hi! Why have u done this? Take care of yourself, please! -- Dimitree ( talk) 21:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you correct the links to the SPI, please? Since CoE asked for my help getting him started up on Wikipedia, I'm curious about reading them but "Hawner;g" is a red link. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 12:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
He just left a message on my talk page via an unblocked IP. I'm not sure whether to believe him or not, especially since I found this edit to another talk page which seems to contradict my known information. He also made this edit recently. As the blocking admin, I thought you should be aware if you weren't already, and take appropriate action. However, it seems odd that he didn't simply place another unblock request on his user page (and odder still that he came to me). -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just thought I'd apologize for being deceptive in my attempts to post new info about the Hoffa case. If at all possible, could you have a look at the information and see if you and Tedder and HU12 can come to some kind of understanding with me about the revelence that the information has to the public. I do not seek links to my website or any third party sites like amazon.com and only want to share the information I have uncovered. The links to the outside media sources would be beneficial to folks who are looking to conduct research on the subject of the Hoffa disappearance. Sincerely-- Spectre7277 ( talk) 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The back-and-forth at Hayden Christensen is on again. I've reverted her twice, and am now reluctant to do a third revert for fear some admin like Chamal N will make the same mistake and block me. I've tried reasoning with User:Priscila Herig; nothing seems to help. I've been told that instead of getting into wars with vandals, I should ask for help, so I'm asking. -- Zsero ( talk) 18:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, would you be kind enough to address the abuse I've been getting by User Jusdafax on the Karl Rove talk page [15]? (Scroll down to the end of the talk page to see the latest comment.) This user has a history of these sorts of derogatory comments against me. It seems he attacks people whenever they want to change anything on Karl Rove's page, but he does seem to be especially vitriolic when it comes to me and any edits or comments I've made. This behavior rises above just being uncivil as it seems he does it to make an example of me so that others will not agree with me for fear of the same vitriole being aimed at them and also to isolate me so that others will gang up on me to gain favor from Jusdafax. I believe it is time for this user to be temporarily blocked. Would you please take a look at these comments and if you like, I can come up with the comments in the Archives, they are really awful. Thank you, Malke 2010 ( talk) 11:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This is my post which was not directed at anybody in particular, just a general statement:
"Please refrain from using as your sources gossip and supposition. Just because you've put up a source next to a claim you're making does not mean it is a source as recognized by Wikipedia. Please remember the talk page is not a blog for your personal opinions and/or personal attacks against other editors. Please see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and please supply "full citations" to reliable verifiable sources. For related guidelines and policies concerning addition of sources, please see: Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Reliable sources; WP:Attribution. Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)"
This is his response:
"Here again, Malke, you try to use the tactics of intimidation. Your comments have only a specious plausibility, and in my view your intent is to discourage truthful additions to this article. You have previously used terms like 'libel' to further this aim; despite your being a Wikipedian just over a week you come off like a wikilawyer, pompous and overbearing citing this and that. I urge all to ignore your blather. Jusdafax (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)]"
There's clearly a pattern and a design here. Thanks for your help Malke 2010 ( talk) 11:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought all caps was screaming, and sorry, but I don't sound like a loon. Jusdafax sounds like a loon. For certain. LOL. Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I asked for help earlier and was wondering what happend with that? thanks, Malke 2010 ( talk) 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I just went to the Soxred thing to see my usage, and under User it has me, and you, and something called, Malke_2010/Karl Rove. What's up with that? Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
← Aww, don't! She's cute. Just put a second picture up. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 01:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Here she is at a bit over a year old, enjoying the incredible spring we had this year in Kernville. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 03:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, There are a couple of photos over on Jonas Salk's page that are scheduled for deletion. Something about the source of the photos, but they are in the public domain. Why would photos get deleted especially if they offer insight into the times/the subject/etc., and how can I try to keep that from happening? I'll go back and reference for the photos for you. Malke 2010 ( talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I declined his next unblock, but I think he has a point here. I know people say that all the time, and that I'm not perfect in that area myself, but do try to avoid that level of sarcasm in the future. I shouldn't have to be apologizing, even tacitly, to a blocked vandal on behalf of a fellow admin, much less an arbitrator. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I googled references for Karl Rove and found this [20]. Then when I looked for the guy on wikipedia I found this: [21]. Obviously same guy, but is he back with the new user I.D.? Can this page be deleted? I think he's the one who wrote the original KR article because the writing, entries are identical, which explains a lot about why the article is slanted the way it is. Also, am wondering if the reason a certain editor or two is/are so determined to discourage any changes to the article is because they represent a new sock(s). Malke 2010 ( talk) 15:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your acknowledgement that a c/u request may not always be reliable where large institutions are concerned. I've started a discussion here to see if we can brainstorm some ways to ensure this type of thing happens less frequently in the future. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks again! Throwaway85 ( talk) 03:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note, it wasn't an edit it was a selfrevert. My facts were part of the WP page before the warning. As you can see from the current message on the page in question, AUA is trying to "Protect" this page, which is nothing more than controlling this page from the facts. I feel this further proves their bias and use of WP as nothing more than advertising their business. ZQPM2941 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you only blocked me and not the individuals that REVERT information without discussion. This is against WP rules.
Please note on the American University of Antigua history the warning was given before the information was reverted, 1:51, 2 December 2009. Then User Leuko reverted the facts. I only selfreverted the facts I posted! Again I ask you what do you need for me to provide to prove this information is not original research? I can provide these final grades, my grades AUA sent me, court exibits of the grades. These are not original research these facts are AUA documents! AUA is using WP as an advertising tool. If you research the history page you will see that they have reverted this information based on bias, neutrality, now original research(again when they know its they're documentation). Please do not make this site private this will only allow AUA to post bias information to advertise for them. I feel you are doing future students a grave injustice by not allowing facts like these from being posted. These are facts! ZQPM2941 ( talk) 19:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I split the Karl Rove page a while back on the suggestion and how to of another editor. The new split article is called "Karl Rove in the Geo.W.Bush Admin." I made the talk page, but is this article still part of the University of Texas bio project? and if so, how do I get that notice [22] up on the talk page for the new article? Thanks, Malke 2010 ( talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Texas}}
. That's what makes that all happen. --
jpgordon
::==( o )
23:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Please tell me how to stop please from reverting my information w/o cause? If you research the history page you'll see all I did was selfrevert which isn't against the rules. Any input would be greatly appreciated. ZQPM2941 ( talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could get you to speedy delete User:Mathsci's outting of me on my talk page. I had already put in a request to have other details pertaining to the case deleted, but this one is much more egregious, and I thought I'd contact you directly for the speediest resolution. Thanks, Throwaway85 ( talk) 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The AN/I thread being closed, I would still appreciate the information being removed. Thanks. Throwaway85 ( talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Jpgordon I posted AUA documentation on their site “Final Grades”. This is their documentation and shows how this institution does business, which is fraud. I asked numerous times for them to show otherwise, to show proof this was not AUA documentation, which instead my edit was reverted, without talking, even though I requested dialog. I propose the following: I uncover my name from the Final grades image; show the original email notifying me of these grades, and the Out Patient evaluation that was signed by the doctor and has a court exhibit sticker on it. How much more documentation, proof would be required to show that the Final Grades document is real and that these other editors are purposefully blocking the facts about this institution. Then how do I protect that edit from people reverting it, so I will not be acused of warring when I put it back. I don't see how these facts are any more or less bias than AUA's claims of students filing lawsuits against Arkansas
ZQPM2941 ( talk) 20:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC) ZQPM2941 ( talk) 20:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi JP, This user is making nonsense edits, and has been blocked several times on various accounts. He's at it again, and leaving silly messages on my talk page. Please help. Regards -- Sikh-History 17:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Please give me an example of this advise, becuase I haven't seen it. I've seen AUA using every excuse they can to stop the facts from being posted but not advice as to keep the facts posted... The only usable advise is to what report the users that revert my facts. 200.7.58.98 ( talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Since it seems like I'm the only one that was blocked for this "war". I would like to avoid being blocked again(permanently) I would like the facts to be published without being reverted and since it appears AUA is requesting a "private" page with limited access I need to avoid this mostly, so this page does not turn into another one sided advertisement page for them So I need as much advise on what I publish, unrefuted proof that it's from them to show facts concerning this institutions business practice... If someone reverts my facts without just cause and without a viable explanation. What do I do. It has to be obvious that they have tried to use: bias, nuetrality, legal, and lastly original source(even though the facts are from them) as excuses So what is concidered unrefuted facts that they can't revert? I do not want to cause an edit war, so what is your advice on what to do when they use they tactics to start an edit war? Just report it to you? 200.7.58.98 ( talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.
This is interesting since it's AUA's documentation not mine. Thanks let me put more of their information together that proves it's theirs. Thanks again for the help, 200.7.58.98 ( talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand perfectly. You said it yourself and AUA demonstrates it on their page as the admins of wiki have. It’s OK for the AUA to use references that are from their own Web page, without verification, and site articles that shine them in a favorable light. When there's truth about them that shines a different color is turned on it is not acceptable. That’s sad. Was it money, legal threats or what???? You don't have to answer that, I wanted to say that even though I'm sure you wouldn't. Thanks for the help. Here's an idea for wiki, why not make a private advertisement page for institutions like AUA. While they're at it why not petition the congress to take away the first amendment? What was I thinking, here I thought wiki was suppose to be based on facts. 200.7.55.184 ( talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, You had previously blocked indefinitely multiple accounts relating to the sockpuppets of Anne Teedham. I'm just making you aware that there is another one, who is vandalizing multiple articles within Wikipedia again/currently User:Merry_Yellow. I know you're busy but you can refer to your block for "Abusing multiple accounts" [ here]. If you can please look into this it would be much appreciated. Desertfae ( talk) 07:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This posting of a name and phone number may need to be oversighted. I have no idea if the information is accurate, as Banksy is anonymous, but the name and phone number are still private information clearly added for the purpose of disruption. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the reminder, but there was no need. I wasn't planning on more edits. I only added comments to the discussion page. Is that still okay? I'm done with that page for a while. I wasn't aware that adding comments to the discussion page is an edit. However, I have said what I needed to for the day. -- CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested in ProudAmerican93's user page. APK whisper in my ear 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Certainly an easier way to do it than trying to ferry a reply to a SPI report. tedder ( talk) 07:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I was wondering what happened with the Karl Rove issue that had been up on the BLP noticeboard for so long. I went to check on it today and I don't see it. How do I find out what the resolution was? Is there a place on wikipedia that shows this? Thanks Malke 2010 ( talk) 16:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. His last edit to Poland has more or less convinced me that something needs to be done, but I'm not sure what, perhaps just keep a watch for a while. And is this a request to prove a negative? I'm away tomorrow or I might have taken this to ANI tonight. Dougweller ( talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this case, it is said that you ran a CU on both accounts. Could you please express your findings on such a matter? Different city? State? Country? Also, I personally don't wish the case to be closed, too many things don't add up.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the unblock. re 'highly dynamic range' - i dont know much/anything about ip addresses, anything i can do? -- Brunk500 ( talk) 04:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Mljet is yet another very obvious sock of User:Ragusino, could you quickly block the fellow pls? Its Christmas eve, he keeps editing, and I'd rather not go through all the red tape. By next day he will have vandalized more articles - more work for me :). Thanks in advance -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read this about user:Direktor:
Mljet ( TALK) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.37.78 ( talk)
A Merry Kringle (or whatever) to you! Thank you for, as always, keeping an avuncular eye on Kwanzaa; but the would-be creators of Crackerpedia don't give up that easily, as we see in (for example) this rancid edit. You may wish to put Ron Karenga on your watchlist, if he's not there already. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
That matter aside . . . odd how the most confident pronouncements on the language and its grammer are made by those who -- oh, whoops, right, NPA, AGF, alphabet soup. Hoary ( talk) 00:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
|
![]() |
Incidentally, would you think it would be harsh of me to call Goal setting a load of bollocks? I've already removed one spammy chunk from it (see its talk page) but the remainder strikes me as no better. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC) .... PS Holy intercoursing demiurge, something purporting to be an encyclopedia is calling this gibberish "scientific". I hardly know where to start. No, I don't want to start: let these management "gurus" have their time- and money-wasting seminars; with a bit of luck the suits who are forced to attend by their stupider bosses can manage to ignore the rubbish spouted at them and at the end of the day can get drunk and/or laid. Bah humbug! -- Hoary ( talk) 01:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Seasons Greetings! and thank you for the revision and comment on the external link: Critical Study of Holocaust Story Published in Japan - Institute for Historical Review. However I'd also like to note the incident and world wide media coverage at that time was quite extensive; and if suitable, would like to substitue it with another link: Holocaust Denial in Japan: Marco Polo Demonstrates Insensitivity - Japan Policy Research Institute, JPRI Critique Vol. II No. 3: March 1995. A revisionist incident involving a major conservative japanese media.
Revisionist views in general, may still have some major momentum among main-stream conservatives in Japan ja:ホロコースト否認, ja:日本の戦争犯罪, together with the denial of the Nanking Massacre (see The Truth about Nanjing, Japan ruling MPs call Nanjing massacre fabrication, 2007), Comfort women issues(see Comfort women#Abe controversy, [25]), and it's history in whole (see Japan's History Wars and Popular Consciousness - David McNeill, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus).
-- Makesdark ( talk) 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to report a threat made against me on here. How do I do this? This person needs to be block. He threatened to hunt me down and cut my nuts off. 76.177.133.247 ( talk) 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.138.232.253 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.133.247 ( talk) 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
He must have erased it. It is in the history. It all started over his editing and my editing of Alben Barkley. Barkley had an issue with income tax evasion. I found sources from after he died pointing to the fact the IRS took near half of his estate to pay for this. Barkley died in '56. This editor kept erasing my edits before finding an earlier source that makes his income tax evasion look "noble", because apparently Barkley took on some speaking engagements for pay in order to pay for his wife's health care. He has a source, but it can't be linked to for me to see, so I can't say that this is 100% true or not. Whatever the case, this does not change the fact the man did not pay taxes for income after his wife died and the IRS was getting ready to come down on him when he died, and did eventually come down on him through the estate. The sources I have found can be linked and apparently this guy wants to hide this, and if he can't hide it he want's to paint a rosy noble picture of someone who evaded paying tax.
Apparently after I told him I would contact authorities if he threatened me again, he went back and took that part out and said "whatever have it your way." I have no problem with his source being used along with the sources I have found. Can you please point me to help on noting multiple sources? Also, if a source can't be linked to can it be utilized. Thanks. 76.177.133.247 ( talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello jpgordon, Please go to my talk page and see what's been going on with this user. Can you help me, or do I post to the AN/I? This fellow seems to need a break from editing. Thanks. Malke 2010 02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know what is motivating the jade falcon to interfer in this, but this fellow Daedalus969 needs to be blocked for these posts. [27]. This is just beyond what is reasonable anger. And frankly, what got him set off in the first place was he didn't like that I wrote, "added comment" in an edit summary of a message from him that I deleted from my talk page. Malke 2010 03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for noticing. I'm unsure how to proceed: the CU didn't report on the IP socks listed, but I don't want to nag if it is just a work in progress. Given the contribs from those IP socks its just ducky that they are the same as the named user account, but were used to avoid clear responsibility for the actions evoked by the "coaching". LeadSongDog come howl 17:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I came across this watching recent changes. I'd like your opinion on this version of the article versus the present ([ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Functionalism_versus_intentionalism&diff=335676608&oldid=335676493) version. I don't know enough of the subject to know which is better. I wanted to revert to the vesion with references, but honestly I didn't know if that would be a mistake. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Tide rolls 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for taking my time in responding to your question. I've been under some real life constraints and was also unsure on how to explain myself without making a seemingly delicate situation problematic. Anyways, I felt that extending the template to have a unique value for Israel alone while having a different value for other countries is (in my eyes, at least) in poor taste. There are many places when such changes can be made and I am not aware of any where such a solution is actually implemented.
Warm regards,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I wondered if I could ask you to expand a bit on your findings to confirm how widespread the cross over between IPs wass with this user? If one IP is the main one with the the other ip used was only during the blocks it gives credence to this being two users, plus are their any occasions when the ips were being used separately to edit different articles at the same time? I realise CU isn't magic pixie dust but the answers to this would help disentangle if we had one or two editors here. Thanks for your help. Spartaz Humbug! 14:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Jessica is fun to play with sometimes... Did you havta do that? -- Jayron 32 07:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
>>One must wonder: why have you been autoblocked twice, on two different IPs, because of blocks upon User:Haida chieftain? Is it just coincidence that you've edited on different IPS, within minutes of each other as this editor? -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)<<
All the editing I've done recently on Wikipedia - and virtually all the editing I've ever done - has been on public access terminals provided by the branches of my local library. Unfortunately one of the many other library patrons who avail themselves of this library service is evidently using poor judgement in his or her editing of Wikipedia causing these IP address autoblock issues that have effected me. That the IP address of the computer system in my local libraries is subject to change is an evident attribute of my local libraries' computer system that I really cannot comment on.-- Cherrylimerickey ( talk) 01:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Jpgordon, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing here. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop ( talk) 19:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. I noticed your recent edit to User:Dock26 Pwnage's talk page, and I was wondering what his "latest" sockpuppet was you were referring to. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you have blocked this user for multiple account abuse, I have had a fair bit of connection with this editor in the recent week, I can't find the details could you please provide me with a link to the details, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how I'm supposed to deal with the situation. My defense on the sockpuppet page has been ignored and I have yet to receive a response even though the case is marked as closed. I can't appeal any of my blocks because I can't even edit my talk pages. I'm not allowed to start over and create a new account, even if I don't vandalize and make legitimate edits. I joined Wikipedia with User:NYyankees51 in May 2006 and had few problems since then, and now I'm blocked forever. I really have no idea what I'm supposed to do. 71.178.26.97 ( talk) 21:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Re [28], guessing its your turn next :).-- Jac16888 Talk 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
On December 9, 2009 you wrote the following in response to a comment on Harry Reid's talk page: "We're not a news feed; you can find all you want about that elsewhere. And, since the polls quite clearly show the majority of Americans actually do favor that version of reform, we've no need to insert opinionated lies."
I'm very much offended by your statements. First of all, the polls did not "quite clearly show the majority of Americans" favored that version of reform. I looked up old polls and the first 5 I found stated that more Americans opposed it than supported it, while one was a dead heat. (None of those polls I found were from conservative-biased sources like Fox News either). You should really refrain from being so biased in how you deal with Wiki editing. He/she didn't insert any "opinionated lies". In fact he was very much correct (about the polls, nothing else). I don't even know why you had to put that last sentence in. Saying, "We're not a news feed; you can find all you want about that elsewhere." The thing is I know you know this from looking at your talk page. You've done tons of edits. I've only been doing this for a couple of weeks really, and I know better than that.
That guy/gal you were responding to was very wrong as well. Now that it has been a couple of months since Reid's comments and they haven't come up in the news since, it appears his comments blew over and should definitely. He was most definitely unfamiliar with recentism issues and he was not assuming any sort of good faith. However, I don't think this excuses you from lashing out and making accusations.
I'm putting this here too, because, once again, I don't know if you'd ever read this comment if I put it on Reid's talk page.
Kgromann ( talk) 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose any unblocking of this account. The user created a new sock today, FrenchNerd487 ( talk · contribs), and the user posted the exact same thing on the User talk:Gigogag page (of whom I just revoked his talk page access today and directed him to email unblock-en-l for any further requests). I recommend declining CabbageBrain's block and revoking that user's talk page access also. Regards, – MuZemike 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Have a nice day! Kearney Zzyzwicz ( talk) 09:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Made me laugh. Thanks! Throwaway85 ( talk) 12:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Defender 911 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, ♠ TomasBat 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I apologize for the account creation. I just wanted to edit the Mohammad al Durah article under another name. I shoudn't have done that. Sorry. TwoHorned ( talk) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't this account a sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi? - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Either User:Watchover or User:KAPITALIST88 (both are at the "Stravin" SPI for reference's sake). Orderinchaos 17:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
HOW????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdoyouknowitsme ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you prepared to confirm whether YourBrain was editing from a Texas location? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you around to do a quick one? -- Flyguy649 talk 16:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you handled this editor's recent unblock request. After noticing some poor quality edits by the editor at a different article ( Jehovah's Witnesses), I found the telephone article they'd also substantially contributed to, which has many problems regarding encyclopedic tone and presentation. I performed a copyedit of the article [29], but the editor objected, claiming the copyedit was vandalism, and reverted the article to their previous version [30]. The editor is proving difficult to deal with in discussion, and also attempted to provoke me via Wikipedia's e-mail function. Could you please take a look at the discussion on the editor's Talk page?-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 05:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Per your comment [31] on SPI, Checkuser User:Dominic has now confirmed the widespread Fairfield/MUM/TM-Org sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. I've asked Will Beback [32], who commenced the SPI, what's the next step in this process. Fladrif ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation movement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, – MuZemike 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Funny :). I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. So, wait, why did u ban me? I didn't make a single contribution! I am just getting started as a newbie to editing. -- 75.61.81.28 ( talk) 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork * YES! 10:23, 17 February 2010 (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/Transcendental Meditation movement/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/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
For verifying this. My nose is usually pretty good. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I am returning to Wikipedia upon creating an account. The first course of action I must take is pursue defense of my actions on my previous account, 207.97.213.170. I was blocked by Materialscientist for 31 hours with the claim of "[d]isruptive editing". I am fully infuriated by such an unjust block. However, you dismissed my unblock request, saying that there was "no . . . chance [that I] have some magical right to vandalize until a particular number of warnings have been given". That is ridiculous. I protested and protested, but you refused to respect my opinion and failed to assume good faith. As an administrator, you should be cognizant of your responsibilities on Wikipedia. I am utterly ashamed of you. On the other hand, you ARE an administrator. Yes! Yes, that's it! You can push me around and slap me and whip me with impunity. That's how all administrators act. Good day, sir. I look forward to your response. Hiineedrequestforcomment ( talk) 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason you blocked me or do you just like blocking innocent people? Sub! 05:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
How many are authorized by Dean Young and how many unauthorized? Why would he allow such that have no mention of the comic strip? Pepso2 ( talk) 17:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, here is the list of [33] confirmed socks for The7thdr. I also posted it on the SPI in the CU section-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reduced your block of Funny110 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to one year. He appealed via unblock-en-l on the basis that he only did it because he thought it was funny. Fred Talk 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
" Decline reason: "Please familiarize yourself with our rules regarding conflict of interest; nobody is allowed to write about themselves, their organizations, their employers, etc. on Wikipedia. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"" Unless I am misreading WP:COI, isn't that false? We discourage people in editing in areas they have a COI in; not prohibit them entirely, especially if they have useful information to add. NW ( Talk) 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, since you originally blocked User:Hiineedrequestforcomment, you may be interested in the thread I have just started at WP:ANI#Block review of The Reformed Editor. Thanks — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You blocked Crockadoc ( talk · contribs) for "abusing multiple accounts". Is there checkuser evidence, or good behavioral evidence? If so, could you please post an explanation somewhere (at the very least, a message on his talkpage or in his block log saying which blocked sockpuppeteer he's associated with)? Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Watching TCM Savolya ( talk) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd really like to see this stopped: 1st this: [34] Then this: [35] Now this: [36] and this: [37] and the admin said this: [38] but he's not satisfied. Any suggestions? I'd really appreciate your comments. Thanks. Malke 2010 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You want me to continue using my old account? But sorry, I can't! You see, when I created my new account User:Bowei Huang 1, I changed the password of User:A1DF67 to some password that I do not know what it is and nobody knows what it is so I would be unable to get back into it. I can't get back into to my account! So I could now only use a new account now! I did the same to User:Bowei Huang and User:Brickfield. I also did the same to User:Bowei Huang 1 when I created the account User:An Unknown Person. Let me tell you the truth! I am telling you the truth! Can you please unblock this account because I cannot get back into my old account now even if I wanted to! I am not using multiple accounts because when I created a new account I made myself unable to get back into the old account! I do not have multiple account right now! So this is the only account I have right now. So can you please let me use this account or use another account but not use this account now?
Wikipedia says that you should not use more than one account at the same time, but it does not say that you should not create a new account if you are deciding not to use your old account ever again. So can you please let me create a new account if I am not deciding to use my old account ever again?
How did you know and find out that I was User:Bowei Huang? Can you please tell me and explain to me?
I didn't sign my tides from User:A1DF67 because I couldn't login to User:A1DF67 now anymore.
Now that I am unable to go back into User:A1DF67 or any of those other accounts, there is something I want to ask you to do. Instead of unblocking this account, there is something else I want to ask you to do. Can you please just simply let me and allow me or ask Wikipedia to let me and allow me to create and use a new account called User:Bowei Huang 2? This account would continue to be blocked but that would be the account that you or Wikipedia would let me use. I promise that after I do so, I would only use that account only and I would not create or use any other new accounts. That account would be my only account. That account would be the account I will be going to use. Can you please do that? Please?
Thank you for archiving the wiki thing but someone else has commented. [39] Could please close it again? Maybe even make suggestions to all involved? Thanks. Malke 2010 23:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Josh, As a 60 something Brit this makes no sense, although I did give it some thought when it was originally posted. But since your post I am curious to know what the joke is. Can you enlighten me? Best, Richard Avery ( talk) 07:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Waah, that's serious geek humour, I'd never haver got that in millenia. Thanks for the pointer. Richard Avery ( talk) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I want a proper apology for the comment you typed on the Bill Clinton Talk Page. This is a the only IP address for Hennepin County Libraries, if you didn't see the talk page for the IP address. Also, could I please become a registered user. Dr real ( talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I was at an Internet cafe-type thing, and saw some guy on Wikipedia; so when he got off his computer, I decided to get on my account, since I hadn't for a while. He had left it on the page he had been on, so I logged in and edited that page first, because I thought it would be a helpful edit. That's why I was on right after a person who apparently was doing vandalism. I PROMISE I didn't do it. I only do helpful edits, to improve Wikipedia. :) P.S. I would recommend blocking the actual user who was doing the vandalism, not the IP address. Then he couldn't edit, but other people who get on that computer still could. :)
Molly moon 23:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Well you would be if this young sir had his way! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Re, AGodBlessOurTroops's block log, could you please tell us who the sockmaster is so we can tag the page appropriately?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I live in Hennepin County, and Hennepin County Libraries have the same IP address. You told my friend he the was the same user who made a comment on the Bill Clinton talk page, and he was not. Daily, at least 300 people use these computers. Also, my home area has many Bill Clinton supporters, so don't assume that he was the only one who didn't see the Bill Clinton article and wanted to comment on a bad piece of content he saw. You also never know when a person will create a new account from a shared IP address, and you cannot automatic tell who the account because of the shared address The comment on the page was very offending and prejudice I suggest next time you look to see if IP addresses are shared before you tell people they are the same person, and respect the good faith policy. Tyyp ( talk) 18:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I was typing a complaint on the Wikiquette page, and I noticed a user named Dr real was complaining that you personally attacked him for my comment. 204.169.161.1 ( talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC) This IP address belongs to Hennepin County Libraries, and is a public computer. 204.169.161.1 ( talk) 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know how a genius like me was able to be found. It was the perfect plan. 204.169.161.1 ( talk) 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to point out user:Einkleinestier seems to be restoring the reverted edits of user:THEQUEEN99. 88.106.83.219 ( talk) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Caller ID is a great invention. It has saved me from many an abusive caller and/or telemarketer. As far as your being "outed", I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict that you're a part of the Gordon family tree.
You could mock the character that tried to give too much info by having one of your pictures captioned, "This is me on an outing..." ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→
06:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
98.122.100.249 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
While I've got your unmultiplied attention, is it appropriate for a blocked IP to be totally blanking his talk page? My claim there was that others might have that IP (though that might be doubtful) and would want to know why it was blocked. But I don't feel like getting into a stupid edit war over it. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, keep up the good work :) Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nusrullah Khan Noori did you mean socks of Iamsaa? Typo? Esowteric+ Talk 15:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Jp. I was helping to create this via a user subpage and I basically removed the promotional content; you should have seen it before I edited it. :) Anyway, the organization in question is part of the Croatian Government and not private enterprise. Could I impose on you to review the deletion log and perhaps restore the content? If it's still too promotional for inclusion, just let me know what you feel needs to be done and I'll clean it up on the subpage. Thanks! Best, -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi JP, an IP has raised an AN/I about SPS concerns at the Iamsaa-related articles here. Perhaps you'd like to comment. Many thanks, Esowteric+ Talk 10:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:AN#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. – xeno talk 17:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Josh,
I was approached by the original author of
BICRO (which you speedied as blatant promotion), asking me for help with it. Apparently,
PMDrive1061 (
talk ·
contribs) had helped him prepare it at
User:Ivan Pakšec/BICRO from an original draft. From a look at it, that is a government program, under their Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, and the editor doesn't appear to be strongly associated with it. It looks salvageable, I'd say, if only a few of the more blatant fragments are removed, or thrown out. Would you mind if I restored it, and took care of that? The userspace draft will need moving over as well, for attribution.
Cheers,
Amalthea
12:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Re your message: Not really sure. I noticed your re-blocking of somebody caught up in my autoblock. I was going to say that the original account was User:Marytrotter, but I'm beginning to wonder if it is User:DailyWikiHelp. I was just about to file a CU, but do you want to look instead?
All of these are related:
Same ISP as this one:
...whom DailyWikiHelp was busy reverting. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Possibly related: b:User talk:DailyWikiHelp filled with references to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Free Belarus. No idea why. Wknight94 talk 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this vandal has really learned any lessons. Take a look at his deleted edits. Bearian ( talk) 14:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Jpgordon, thank you very much for preforming a check on this case. I've left a note there asking whether or not Unreal Engine 5 ( talk · contribs) is related to Dr Roots ( talk · contribs). Please take a look in your own time. Kindest regards, Spitfire Tally-ho! 13:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If you don't find a good, legal explanation to explain yourself, I will inform the police. Also, don't you dare bother to erase your comments, or even erase your record, because I have printed them out on paper. 70.13.18.78 ( talk) 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I was only luring you into confessing this with the comments I typed two weeks ago. You made a stupid move by saying that you knew it was a public computer and that Wikipedia has special ways of being able to detect users. 70.13.18.78 ( talk) 18:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Also, don't try to say my writing styles were easy to match, and all, I said, as Dr real, was I agree. I am training myself to become a cop, so don't think you will escape without giving me a good explanation. Since practically the beginning, I was only making myself look like a Sockpuppet so you would talk. 70.13.18.78 ( talk) 19:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC) It's called good detective work. 70.13.18.78 ( talk) 19:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Were there any sleeper socks found, or are you not done yet? CTJF83 chat 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon. Rin tin tin 1996 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Tim Song ( talk) 03:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Could I ask you to look at this page? I have never asked for a checkuser investigation and don't know if it would be helpful there. Rmhermen ( talk) 03:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
and now for some reason I'm in the mood for manicotti.... KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
jpgordon,You are such a nice administrator,please forgive me if i did anything wrong,sir i accept that i did many mistakes and repeated them again and again,But sir from last one month i am asking for one last chance to me,i will not repeat or disrupt any wikipedia policy,i promise you,please give me last chance,If i ever repeat my mistake then block me and never responce too,Sir you should remove crime not criminals,I hope you will give me last and final chance--{user|mkbdtu} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.93.179 ( talk) 15:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
sir i promise you if you unblock me first of all i will not edit any article for 3 months,i will ask my query on talk page only,sir i was new in wikipedia,i didnot understand how my foolishness can take me faraway from wikipedia,sir I have realised that I was wrong,Sir Now i have learned all rules,I promise you i will never repeat mmy mistake,Sir i am a student and had naughty mind so i did that kind of disruption,but now i realise that it will harm my career on wikipedia,Sir My last hope is you,please forgive me and tell me solution to me,I will be gratefull to you,May god bless you}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.50.57 ( talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for guidin me,will they hear my request-- 115.242.50.57 ( talk) 16:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello JP, further to your recent blocking of User:Spalatino et al, there's another blatant User:Brunodam sock. See Special:Contributions/U-1948 - this "new" user's only contributions so far have been to restore one of Bruno's old articles [40]. I can open an SPI if you think it's appropriate, but it's rather backlogged and this one's sufficiently obvious to be nuked without further ado, I suspect. Please let me know if you disagree, and I'll open an SPI in the normal way. In addition, User:Rubinmar is also Bruno, as evidenced by his/her being one of those, like User:3leopard, who appeared as if by magic to support the removal of the POV tag from the article on the Thornton expedition - see [41]. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 10:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that's what I should have done. I'm not that familiar with Wiki coding, I just pick stuff up by finding it somewhere and copy pasting. I'm guessing the "t" in hat is top and the "b" in hab is bottom? Burpelson AFB ( talk) 21:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello JP, there are two more User:Brunodam accounts, User:Sanfeliciano and User:1992Boca. Sanfeliciano ties to 207.69.xxx.xx [42] [43] [44], a known Bruno IP [45], and welcomes User:1992Boca within hours of his arrival [46], who then goes on to focus on Italian irredentist articles [47], all of which were originally created by Bruno [48] [49] [50]. Once again, if you think it appropriate, I will take the two accounts to SPI, but I think they are blatant enough to be nuked without further ado. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Regards this comment, do you think the behavioural evidence is sufficient to block? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Banned Iamsaa ( talk · contribs) is still claiming that he has nothing to do with the edit warring and sock puppetry which is still rife in the Younus AlGohar-related articles and redirects.
If you have a free mo', is there any way you can link the recent IPs which follow to Iamsaa (who also edited his talk page later today)?
Or should I file a checkuser instead? Sorry, not hot on correct protocol.
On reflection, I'll go through official checkuser channels.
Many thanks in advance, Esowteric+ Talk 13:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Any chance you could do a quick check on Divine truths ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)? — Scien tizzle 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Fuck off and die old man
Hi, the links you refer to lead to pages with unnecessarily explicit content, so I suggest it would make sense either to replace the offending photographs with diagrams, remove the links to such pages, or at least give a warning to the unsuspecting user. Where I come from most people don't appreciate being subjected to such imagery! Cheers Ben Dawid ( talk) 03:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I hope that you are doing well! It's been a while since I contacted you. If you can, could you please delete this picture [53] that I uploaded sometime ago. I am guessing that you are still an administrator with the power to do this. I wish to appear more anonymous on Wikipedia. Your Wikifriend, David-- Drboisclair ( talk) 01:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
User:A1DF67 has been renamed User:Bowei Huang 2. [54] Can you please redirect User:Bowei Huang to User:Bowei Huang 2 and User talk:Bowei Huang to User talk:Bowei Huang 2?
Bowei Huang 2 ( talk) 03:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Just as an FYI of sorts, other than the problem described at bugzilla:22033, "EFM" should not be required by those with +sysop to view private filters. – xeno talk 16:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was going to put Davidmedlar's signature on it, but then I had to leave. I think your solution is better. :) NotAnonymous0 did I err?| Contribs 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The two edits you link in the report don't match up. Slight error? The report has been archived.. but, could you fix it?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Have I missed something here? No Checkuser evidence that I can see. Rodhull andemu 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Blackmagic24084 is a sock-puppet of User:Kagome_85 and so is User:Blackmagic2604
I am a little angry at this I mean Blackmagic24084 is a user-name I am known to use on different sites. To the point look here
Where she said It's NOT, such as with the whatever Blackmagic2604 page. That was probably YOU creating the account to screw up your own userpage, then blame it on me.
And yet here you caught her as that account... Now why would I make Blackmagic2604? I can't stand zero posters on forums so why would I make a account for a one time use.. thats right I wouldn't .. She has gone to far I'm telling you I am on the brink of emotional collapse. That girl is breaking the barrier which is keeping my anger from hurting people...
I am sorry for typing this to you its just she created two accounts Blackmagic24084 and Blackmagic2604 and then tried to blame me for the vandalism. I am down right annoyed, upset... steaming .. again I am sorry for telling you all this I just needed someone to talk to ... and Thank You for putting a stop to her.. Moukity ( talk) 07:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
From sock blocking, to arbitration, to ANI, to talk pages, to plain ol' editing, in every situation, irrespective of namespace, action, result or intent, every opportunity I have had to interact with or witness your actions, has resulted in a superb outcome. I very much appreciate all the work you do and have done on Wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC) |
RivenMythrunner ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) has emailed me claiming that he was editing through a proxy due to military service and was mistakenly blocked as a WiccaWeb sock. As you are the CU who ran the check, can you take another look? Thanks. Tim Song ( talk) 02:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
By your response to me here. Excuse me, do not abate the validity of my appeal. My misuse of the convention was justifiable, and therefore does not constitute abuse (barring the fact that I've potentially made an unnecessary entry in a master data table with my injurious use of a dedicated template). If you believe I wasted your time, that's your prerogative, but I believe my time is worth as much as yours.
If it was not your intention to offend me, then you should not so quickly dismiss someone with a vainglorious reprisal for having wasted a dedicated resource. If you feel my misuse of the template was more injurious to the project than that which I'm appealing against then perhaps you should reexamine your intention in volunteering. Finally; if you lack the wealth of time required to be tactful, then again, reexamine your intention in volunteering. I have a couple of friends who spend as much time doing administrative work on Wikipedia as anyone, and I am sure each of them is able to find the time to exercise sagacity in their reprisals. I know for a fact that tact does not require an advanced degree, nor does the latter bar someone from being impetuous. >:| Jamouse ( talk) 22:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI.......the complaining editor posted this on the Klan talk page.
Hello, Jpgordon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I concur. Since its at least two of us that agree that behaviorally, it likely isn't him, AND that Hersfold is unavailible, I think an unblock (and apology) may be in order. -- Jayron 32 05:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please look at this SPI and block the underlying IP? They won't stop and Shirik will likely leave soon, leaving a mess. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 04:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, just stopping by to let you know I've left you a message at the above case, please take a look whenever is convenient for you. Thanks for running a check on the case. Kind regards, Spitfire Tally-ho! 21:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Since you've been dealing with socks of this user before, I thought that maybe I could save people's time at SPI requests page and ask you directly to check another suspicious account. Could you please check if Ionidasz ( talk · contribs) has any connection to Paligun ( talk · contribs), as it is very strange for a brand new account to follow me to an obscure discussion board and post a message there. It could also be another banned user, Hetoum I ( talk · contribs). I can post another SPI request, if needed. Thanks very much. Grand master 06:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The level of disruption in AA does not justify requesting a CU for a user who has zero contribution in those articles neither their talkpage. And you still claim that I am a newibie, when I wrote that I am not and explained why this account. CU is not for fishing and runing a CU without providing any evidences as to why a user is believed to be a banned user X or Y should not be allowed. You requested a CU on the ground that it's fishy a newbie will find his way. Since I explained from the start that I am not a newbie and did not edit any of those articles, you failed to explain how this applies to me. Go ahead, request a recheck of this Hetoum socks, to see if my name will come up. That's not what you did, you requested a check on my name with Hetoums' socks. Even if I am not him, my primary account will be known by the CU when I did nothing, absolutly nothing wrong. For God sake, I did not even edit those articles!!! Ionidasz ( talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to block his talk page access? It isn't quite encouraging to see his response to the block to be added personal attacks like "kiss my ass you filthy zionist". Breein1007 ( talk) 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jp, I hope you are well. I've come across two more of Bruno's alteregos. User:N48 and User:Researcheronly. I suspect this game may go on and on. Do please let me know if you would like me to take it somewhere else for administration. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 ( talk) 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who endorsed the CU on that case. I see you and I share the opinion that creating a sock to comment on other editors in wikispace is not a legitimate use of a sock. I actually thought that was written in policy somewhere, but now I can't seem to find it. The only relevant policy I can find is regarding SPA and "good hand/bad hand" socks. But in my mind, creating a sock to complain about another user in wikispace should not be legitimate. I like to think our due process should include the right to face one's accuser. Your thoughts? Respond here if you like. Auntie E. ( talk) 20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Honorable collegue, user:ptmccain, permanently banned editor is again editing the Book of Concord article. His new anonymous address is 70.253.172.5. I reverted his edits, which were not only obviously "illegal" but also inferior. This article MAY need protection as it is one of his pets. It appears that he has put in internet links to his website and blog. Even if his edits were superior, they should not be allowed to stand because he is permanently banned by Jimmy Wales, et alii. With kindest regards,-- Drboisclair ( talk) 04:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I suspect we have a few more Anne Teedham sock puppets starting up. Would you mind looking into these users? They are just getting started tampering with pages related to the ones the Anne Teedham socks were vandalizing. No major damage yet. 24.170.242.101, 24.170.225.180, 24.49.51.81 Thanks for your efforts! Winksatfriend ( talk) 04:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend
One of the original Teedham socks was 24.170.224.225 another was Hag2. 24.170.242.101 and 24.29.51.81 are also both out of Hagerstown, MD. One of them was offended by a Teedham sockpuppet notice and removed it. I'm not worried about that, just think it is suspicious in light of the server it's coming from. If you don't think there's enough to be concerned about, I'm okay with your decision, but please be aware that the Teedham socks accused one vandalism target, Michael Riconosciuto, of three homicides and left a note on Lex Coleman discussion indicating that alterations were being made at the request of an employer, and were being made from the employer's IP. As there are past and current homicide investigations for which Riconosciuto is a witness and has provided extensive documentation, this is a serious problem. I think the water is being tested, so to speak, and anticipate another flareup of activity. Winksatfriend ( talk) 15:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend
![]() | 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. |
Hello Josh,
Please stop harassing me and do not protect my talkpage. If I had not mentioned you in that conversation, or your friend Ryulong (or rather your friendship), then you would never have done such a thing. Remember, you were the one who started it this time, by using your protection tool, and this is not harassment to tell you that this is abuse of the protection tool. Don't pick on me because I am not armed with a friend like you to stick up for me when someone criticizes me. Jonas Rand (and yes this is my real name and I am never referred to Ionas in real life) 68.96.209.19 ( talk) 04:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{ Sockpuppet category}} template. I've added the template.
I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 02:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you declined a block request by the above editor. As the blocking admin I made this comment regarding the unblock request. I wonder if you might glance over it again. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How, if at all, would one say on the talk page of the above article that SkyWriter doesn't seem to be coming back, given he has been blocked indefinitely for legal threats? John Carter ( talk) 00:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Meaningless and pathetic really, but just so you know, [1]-- Jac16888 Talk 15:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I note that you had blocked the following accounts for sockpuppetry: Special:Contributions/JustOneMoreQuestion, Special:Contributions/IfYouDontMind, Special:Contributions/Goesquack. Do you think that Special:Contributions/Canvasback may be related, given that the account started editing shortly after you blocked those three accounts, and has similar interest in the various "X-Y relations" AfDs? Also compare this edit with this edit. DHowell ( talk) 07:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
See User:Markacohen. Dougweller ( talk) 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jpgordon:
On 9 April, I was looking at the Wikipedia page on The Uncounted Enemy, a 1982 CBS documentary. I knew where the complete transcript of the documentary was available online, on a web page at Texas Tech University, so I added a link to that web page. On 26 April you deleted that link. Could you please explain why? Were you somehow under the impression that the web page at Texas Tech was mine, and that my linking to it was in violation of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies? Ed Moise ( talk) 15:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Roman_Koudelka&action=history
Can you take a look and possibly get rid of some IPs? J.delanoy gabs adds 15:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Per User:Jpgordon#Ironically you claim to have a crusade against (useless / overused to the point of uselessness) adverbs. However, have you considered the possibility that you are simply allergic to the letter i at the beginning of words?
Regards, Bongo matic 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
p.s. I remember flipping the switches on a friend's IMSAI 8080 (we didn't have one ourselves—instead we had a Z80-based NorthStar Horizon). Not the most efficient way to program, especially for the error-prone.
Curious about the numbers beside your name here. Is this correct? If so, why the departure from the norm? Durova Charge! 20:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what did you tell him? - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Josh, Hoary suggested I contacted you as we have a dispute about the notability of the photographer Errol Sawyer. You seem to have a good taste in collecting photographs. On top of that Errol and your cousin have something in common: they are both photographed by Diane Arbus. This fact amongst others was already taken out of Errol's article as some editors seem to be determined that Errol Sawyer is not notable. I would really appreciate your honest opinion and if possible help. 1027E ( talk) 14:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't you feel that you can better the situation? As an European I am sincerely amazed by the way Americans treat their African American inheritance. The Schomburg Library of Culture does not even have the money to digitize their archives. I edited racism out for you. 1027E ( talk) 06:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Josh, I am only trying to do the right thing and I am sorry that you feel personally offended by just mentioning the facts. Yes, I have asked for assistance already in the Wiki project of History of Photography. The amazing thing is that a lot of photographers in this project have references that are less accurate than the one of Errol Sawyer. Errol Sawyer is according DGG reaching the demands of notability. He has his work in important museum collections and important collectors have bought his work. There is an important article written about him in the most prestigious Dutch Photography Magazine: PF Magazine. On top of that he was the only African- American photographer who worked on top level in Paris in the 70s and he is the only African-American photographer in Amsterdam on top level. But the editors I am dealing want all the references digitally accessible within a split second. So they cannot find PF Magazine as their server is slow and they don't accept the reference of Schomburg Library of Black Culture as their archives are not digitized yet. As an architect/ building engineer who is also writing a thesis, I find this hilarious but what can I do? I ask help of older editors like you. There has also been a problem with an editor who would not accept that Errol sawyer discovered Christie Brinkley as a model in April, 1973. He, Mbineri, kept taking this out of her article and did not want to accept the reference of the book of Michael Gross. Now it is in finally. He also takes away all the time African in front of American before Errol Sawyer 's name. (Obama calls himself an African-American too). Now he is slaughtering Errol Sawyer's article again and he did put all the tags which is not reasonable at all. As you have collected pictures of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, I thought that you are a man with integrity. By the way, I come from a musical family too. My grandfather was a 1st violinist in the Bach Vereniging in Amsterdam. My sister has 3 children of a very known Dutch Musician. Her children all make music too, singing, guitar, bass guitar, violin and piano. I have a harpsichord myself and our 4 year old son just said that he wants to play violin together with mama. As we live in a 300 years old mainly wooden house in the center of Amsterdam the acoustics are very sensitive, to say the least, so piano is too much noise. Well. I took a lot of your time. In Holland we speak very freely about political problems and maybe we differ in that way. 1027E ( talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the spam!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Gordon,
I note that you have placed an objection in the above article. Could you please explain in non-jargon terms, what you are referring to?
Thanking you in advance,
Rotterdam1953 ( talk) 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Fondesep (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Horneldinkrag (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
I've got a hunch these are offshoots from a user who got blocked around Jan-Feb, but I would rather not say too much here - and it might be stale anyway. Is it worth pursuing?
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots
05:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you perhaps like to make a note about your findings at this SPI.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Manzanita-critters.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 06:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Say by any chance this might be Arma virumque cano that you CheckUsered? -- PirateSmackK Arrrr! 17:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
PirateSmackK
Arrrr! has given you a
kitten! Kittens promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Yeah, it was, but consider that it was his fourth request in a very short time basically making the same argument as his other requests in the face of what two people said was very solid evidence.
And next time I'll remember to stick up for you :-).
I was sort of inspired by a passage in The Gulag Archipelago where someone who had just been charged with a crime that, he pointed out to the court, he would have committed at the age of five or so, was told "don't slander the Soviet intelligence services!"
(As an aside, maybe we should make up a special unblock template for users blocked due to Checkuser? It would help steer those of us who don't have access to it and can't really respond to unblock requests requiring review of that evidence away from them toward unblock requests we can review). Daniel Case ( talk) 23:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Because you have edited the ADL page, I thought you would be interested in the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League Historicist ( talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
HI JP, I noticed you blocked Nocal100 for violating the ARBCOM "ruling". I was curios how you came about suspecting that user was a sock. From what I see there were no interactions between the two of you. Did someone bring their suspicions to you? And if that is the case, would you mind telling me who brought their suspicions to you? Thanks, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Received your email. Sorry I couldn't respond until now, RL is taking my life over. If as you say, you are drama averse, the last thing you would want to do is run secret checkusers and give the impression that there's fishing going on. When I have the time, I will gather together the issues into an RFCU or ANI. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way you can block the underlying IP? This puppet show must not go on. Blueboy 96 06:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Why did you erase my edit in Autumn Leaves, where I've added information about Grace Jones' cover of the song? I think it isn't irelevant. -- Ogggy ( talk) 15:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Dunno if you know about this, or if you even care, but Special:Contributions/Not to be blacklisted and Special:Contributions/Pay for the can at once spells out threats against you. → Aza Toth 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Avraham reported that these are not related to the User:CENSEI sock farm. The M.O. seems more like that of the banned User:Pioneercourthouse's sock farm. He came in with knowledge of certain users, which could also suggest User:Ron liebman, but this doesn't fit the M.O. - although both of those guys (who as far as I know are unrelated) edited within the last week. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, did you click the link on his page? In the box, it says "suspected sockpuppets," which links to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Beganlocal. It's a redlink category, but it still lists the sockpuppet.
Beganlocal began deleting content from the talk page for Jewish-American organized crime, labeling it "illegal content." Three days later, Friends seated ( talk · contribs) opened their account and immediately began edit-warring the same tactic, deleting content and using the edit summary "illegal content." I've blocked them for violating the three-revert rule for 31 hours; it remains to be seen whether the individual returns to their same activity. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. -- Årvasbåo ( talk) 10:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock! Highspeed ( talk) 07:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey man thx for the advice I created a new account, but can I change the signature on the discussion on the Bosniaks article, because I signed as Der Stürmer so I'm wontering can I change it since I'm blocked. Can you also tell me where can I ask for a third opinion because some guy is reverting my edits, but I have better arguments which I have put on the discussion page. Stürmkrieger ( talk) 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I note that you changed my edit about their Internet service provider. On the talk page it is mentioned that it is incorrect to state that SF do not need an ISP. I altered this to do not need a website hosting provider as they have their own servers. You have reverted this edit and the article is once again incorrect. I would be obliged if you would correct this. I'm quite happy to take the rest to Talk:Stormfront (website). Thanks. Beganlocal ( talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Not_resolved. Durova 282 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Jpgordon: User:Supreme Deliciousness continues to label another user as my sock and meatpuppet as a defence for his violation of the 3RR, in spite of 2 SPI's that he had initiated and that have resulted in "Declined" and "Unrelated", respectively. You have previously written a comment on my Talk page in this regard, which was appreciated. He also calls me a "liar" and other names. Where do I make a formal complaint on this matter? -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 11:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I decided not to burden Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories with discussion of this edit by you, but I'll mention here that I disagree with you.
The source (Ambinder) used "diffuse" when what was probably meant was "defuse". A reader encountering the quotation with "diffuse" in our article might logically wonder whether the error was Ambinder's or whether a Wikipedian transcribed the quotation incorrectly. The "sic" there is useful to answer that reader's question without putting him or her to the necessity of clicking through to the source. I agree with you that we shouldn't use "sneer quotes" but the purpose here isn't to make fun of the source. JamesMLane t c 08:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The block of account creation is standard with a spamusername block, since they've shown an intention to spam. They are provided with instructions on how to appeal, which seems to me sufficient. -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless you know something that I do not, Wiki-Piiiz has only been behaviourally confirmed, not checkuser confirmed. Another editor inserted the request for checkuser while processing WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233, IPs in the range that are obviously Wiki-Piiiiz have been confirmed as Wiki-11233, but there has not been direct checkuser confirmation.— Kww( talk) 18:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You have decline my request to revert my I block asserting that I was the same person, how could you do that?
Ooops forgotten to sign :D Fringescience ( talk) 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you mind extending the block of User:98.211.215.58 and protecting User talk:98.211.215.58 against anon editing due to this? I don't want to do it myself, due to the obvious COI (it'd be a direct response to the user). tedder ( talk) 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
i'm the guy u answer my music question the other day and this is ur answer below: It means you shouldn't notate rests as tied or continued over beats. So, for example, in 4/4, if your bar starts with a dotted quarter note, then a full beat of rest, then another dotted quarter note, you're expected to notate the rest as two eighth rests, rather than a single quarter rest
thax!but i still have problem with it because i'm from Taiwan so my English isn't that good..... so ,for example, "rests as tied or continued over beats" can u explain all more plainly?? and i can't really understand your example= = by the way,i know that quarter means crotchet,but what does full beat means? does it last 1 beat or 4 in 4/4?? sorry to cause u so much problem... this matter let me know that although music can be played everywhere,but language is still the barier... Vincecarter159753 ( talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)vincecarter159753
Any comments on the individual IP?— Kww( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Jpgordon. Thanks for freeing me. The IP address is slightly different from the one I had years ago. Is the fact that I got a new computer 2-yrs ago, the reason for the different IP? GoodDay ( talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I had previously posted this info on User talk:Versageek and will also be taking it to User:Bigtimepeace:
The account Childof12AM ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious impostor of User:ChildofMidnight. He shows no contribs [3] because his attempts to edit my page (and presumably to stir something up) were blocked. I just wonder if this is part of the Liebman family of socks, or if its coming from somewhere else, like maybe the Pioneercourthouse sockfarm? Those are the most obvious possibilities that come to mind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
And another impostor, calling himself BBBfan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up, also trying to foment trouble, i.e. to interfere with the contact ban between me and User:ChildofMidnight. I'm suspicious of Pioneercourthouse, just because he's also been active in the last couple of days. However, PCH is jumping from one country to another with his IP's, so there's probably not much that can be done there except to whack the moles as they pop up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey. I saw that you've made some edits on this article. Someone just went through and pretty thoroughly gutted the article. Rather than get into an edit war, I was wondering if you could weigh in on the issue. It may very well be that people prefer the smaller version, but another opinion is always welcome. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Jonund is back on the talk page, saying that it is an "unfair demand" that he be asked to provide sourcing for including information regarding King's sexual proclivities. There's this phrase I've heard , although I'm not sure if its really appropriate for this instance, "topic ban"? John Carter ( talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You just declined User:Inuit18 request for unblock, he is a sockpuppet of banned User:Šāhzādé (a.k.a User:Draco of Utopia, User:Germany2008, User:Anoshirawan...), just compare his edit summary, behaviour and articles worked on. If you do a Check User it will confirm,,,, he is a racist, cursing at people of other race and all his edits are racist. His usual IP should be in Germany.-- 119.73.4.166 ( talk) 22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Please use WP:SPI for this. Thank you. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
According to many wikipedians this IP is the banned user NisarKand. I am a new user on wikipedia and I am not a sockpuppet. none of these links can prove that I am this Anoshirawan.-- Inuit18 ( talk) 08:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I know that WP:Flag policy says if there is an flag in the infobox of a sportsperson it should only BE flags of the country the person represented internationally and if someone hasn't played international they get the country they played in or the country they have expressed loyalty to. You see if you look at most WikiProject Ice Hockey articles this is not the case for most articles. So before I new about WP:Flag policy I assumed that it was if you are allowed to represent a country then you get that flag. So I put a Canadian flag on Alexei Ponikarovsky (He's canadian but hasn't represented team Canada just Team Ukraine) page and got referred to WP:Flag policy. So then I took off a Ukraine flag on Nikolai Zherdev because he has only represented Russia and has never represented Ukraine. Weirdly enough the same user that stopped from taking off a flag on Alexei stopped me taking one off on Nikolai. So there seems to be a weird double standard with the people a part of [[[WikiProject Ice Hockey]] and to make things worse they do not comply with wikipedia policy. I have no clue what to do because what WikiProject Ice Hockey is doing is contradiictary to wikipedia policy, but they also seem have a double standard that most of them all agree with. I would think they couldn't change wikipedia policy in their one corner and would have to take it up with administers, but that is not what they have done. If you can get back to me it'll be nice. --Thx Fire 55 ( talk) 08:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
YO YO YO WASSUP MA HOMIES N BI TCHES? WAS YO PUNK ASS UP TO THESE DAYS INNIT YO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.234.82 ( talk) 10:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but don't you think this is a little obtuse given the reams of text placed immediately following the template. At least give the guy a fair hearing even if he can't work out how to use the template properly. GDallimore ( Talk) 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for cutting the Gordian knot. I apologise for omitting you in my little list; I felt a single revert wasn't enough to justify inclusion. ;-) Hans Adler 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there; this user has apparently been caught up in a checkuser block applied by you to IP 194.176.105.40. He is asking for IP exemption. He has only a sparse editing history, but it does reach back to 2007, so may well be ok. I do note that two years ago he was caught in an autoblock of IP 194.176.105.39, which may be wholly irrelevant. I am unhappy awarding IP exemption without your approval; perhaps you could look at his request? -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 08:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my contribution to the September 11 Attacks article. I'm a senior lecturer at a university in the UK. I include a lecture on 9/11 as part of a philosophy course I lead to illustrate the contested and constructed nature of knowledge and truth. I am well aware of the key issues raised by 9/11, and the contested nature of 'truth' on this subject. The current article does not provide balanced coverage of key claims about 9/11. It is the lack of awareness about the contested nature of events on September 11 that makes the current article weak. Many citations in the current article are based on press reports (these are poor quality when compared to peer-reviewed journal articles). My new contributions to the article are based on peer-reviewed journal articles and there cannot, therefore, be any justifiable reason for omitting them from the main article.
The current set of changes, therefore, counter bias in the article and ensure that overall it is written from a neutral point of view. I have not removed any existing material to ensure that existing views remain (I'm not censoring others points of view, even though the press sources used are of low credibility). I've added well-documented perspectives, supported by the work of relevant academics, that challenge some of the claims currently made. This should not be censored. The only neutral course of action in these circumstances is to report the contested nature of claims on this subject.
I assert strongly that there is no 'bias' in reporting that there are court cases and journal articles that question the version of truth presented in the current article. These are matters of fact, not opinion, and it distorts understanding to omit this fact from the article and give the impression that the statements are uncontested. No judgement is made on the which version of the truth is more 'true' - the edits simply make people aware that the events described are contested by credible contributions to the debate about September 11.
I notice that many articles on Wikipedia are flagged for "bias". If there is a further attempt to reverse my contributions, I would like to flag the article for "bias" so other contributors can ensure it is more balanced.
Best wishes Dr Rory Ridley-Duff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Bupsiij ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on unblock-en-l apologizing. I have reduced his block to 6 months. Fred Talk 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
How would I get a consensus on whether or not a page should be included in a category? Jwh335 ( talk) 03:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, over a year ago you asked a question on the Larry McDonald talk page. I'm informing you that I've answered your question, in case you still care. -- darolew ( talk) 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm bringing this up here so as not to embarass you. You can erase this after reading it.
I've read POINT. It says in bold "State your point; do not prove it experimentally"
I never said those other examples should be kept or deleted. Nothing was trying to be proved.
I merely started a discussion about consistency and if these were related.
You may or may not intend this, but when you write things, you come off as very aggressive. If your job involves writing, please reconsider this. This is to help you personally. Again, after reading this, you may remove it. If your job involves face to face contact, then maybe aggressive writing is not a problem because most of your work is verbal.
This Wikipedia thing is too aggressive for me. I am quitting as of now. I might come back but not anytime soon. Dellcomputermouse ( talk) 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It certainly appears Show-Truth has returned as INTEL-12 ( talk · contribs), opening up a new thread at the BLP board about Chima. Just passing it on. Thanks! Dayewalker ( talk) 01:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:dreamshit blocked for username violation - review please for details. Regards So Why 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Awarded in recognition of your help with a disruptive editor on the Karl Rove page last month; many thanks! Jusdafax ( talk) 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I also ask that you please unblock IronAngelAlice, as I feel responsible for getting her blocked. Soxwon ( talk) 23:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Merci fellow Vegan. And my G-d, I love Oingo Boingo and Woodie Guthrie (saw your Antique RS bit). Too cool....-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 17:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give me your latest list of sources you consider banned without argument. I've had run-ins with you before about this and would rather not waste my time given your advance position that you do not entertain argument about the reliability of sources on your ban list. Bdell555 ( talk) 02:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey :) Can you have a second look at this user please? He's requesting unblock and after a very quick look, I wasn't able to find a relationship with the master. Thanks! -- Luk talk 11:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This was an edit "antonio" made a week or two ago. Not five years ago. Also, Benji's DISCUSSION page should be a DISCUSSION page, like I assumed it was, since that's what everbody else's is. If you don't want to help, please butt out. -- 98.232.181.201 ( talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi JP, just wondering if you could tell me how I become a Wiki Admin, I've seen a lot of vandalism lately and it really bothers me.I mean, it's all I can think about, I can't even sleep knowing someone on the internet has written something I disagree with. I just wish I could do something about it...please, it's incredibly important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.6.134 ( talk) 22:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Malke's block has expired, but he seems to think there's an autoblock on his account. Autoblock detector isn't finding anything, but I'm so not tech. :) Can you help out at User talk:Malke 2010? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Such correct people like you are too rare. I think I need a break after this. Thank you. -- 91.130.91.26 ( talk) 15:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you were an unblocking 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)
You unblocked this user, but he was not exactly blocked for uncivility. He was blocked before that under another IP account for edit warring and sock puppeting. When he posted his comments on ANI, he was actually evading his block. That's the reson, and several admins have noted it while declining his request. Any comments? Shahid • Talk2me 14:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, im not sure of the exact situation with that person but i'd just like to clarify the information he gave. It was true that Derek Llambias did strip off and streak across the pitch at St.James Park, it was witnessed by renowned journalist Alan Oliver who i believe wrote up the story in 2 different newspapers. One could have been the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, so is this vandalism when the story is true? cheers -- The Mercenary 73 ( talk) 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not remember clealy whether you ever had any negative encounters with Stevertigo back in the day. Juuuust in case you did, you should know about this - otherwise, ignore it, and sorry to have troubled you, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday you declined an unblock for MattiasGoyle ( talk · contribs) with the comment "Checkuser verified abusive alternate account of blocked user". It has occurred to me that the reason why Camponhoyle and his socks were quiet from July until now was school holidays: with the new term, suddenly several more appeared and were blocked yesterday, and today there are two more already, TheTraitor ( talk · contribs) and Servanthoyle3 ( talk · contribs). Did your checkuser by any chance identify a school IP as the origin of these socks? If so, a schoolblock including account-creation blocking might save a good deal of trouble. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 19:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note I read on this user's talk page. I had been part of assessing this user's articles (and my opinions of their utility were unfavourable as you can see from the associated AfD to which I contributed). However, even though they made a very poor start, I actually thought they were trying to contribute usefully; perhaps, as sometimes happens, I was too naive. I'm also very inexperienced with blocking/unblocking, so I was trying to identify if indeed this username had been blocked before I went further. Anyway, I do respect your judgment about the spam links; I'll help the user if they request it of me, but I'm not going to make it possible for them to spam. If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
My watch list notified me of your blocking of User:Spzmnky, (which i'm not saying I agree/disagree with), But I didn't see a blocked template on their page? abc518 ( talk) 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
About your blocks of User:Sandra.henred and User:JME8205... I agree they weren't doing the encyclopedia any good (and in fact, I blocked several sockpuppets of one of their friends), but at the same time, neither of them seem to have edited in several days, or to have done any Myspacing since I warned them, so is a block necessary? (That being said, if they're gone anyway then it doesn't make much difference; I just don't want to encourage them to become trolls, like one of their friends briefly did.) rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris -- Cjones132002 ( talk) 19:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I responded to your post on PhilKnight's talk page. I don't feel I was being BITEy, I do feel I was within reason in my discussion and later warnings. If you felt I was, please discuss that with me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you are one of a very few admins online right now. Would you mind having a look at AIV, it is quite backlogged. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have uncovered a tremendous COI that pertains to the redacted IP address. How should I proceed without outing the user?-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 23:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm extremely cautious these days regarding Reversion of pages. Here's an article that's been reverted against my work. The editor admitted (I think) not knowing anything about the Protocols of Zion, yet Reverted my work without discussion. There is no one who objected to my work on this article. I only have a difference over Content with this one editor. I would appreciate it very much if you looked into the matter. Any guidance you give me on how to handle the situation - will carry great weight with me. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 01:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I just found the above - and now there's no consensus: it's two against two (an outside editor, no name, has reverted. The article in question also involves the Protocols of Zion. So I could use your advise on how to deal with the situation. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 06:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm contacting you now because you're and Administrator and knowledgeable about the above. The above is now the {{Main}} article in relation to The Beckwith Company which published the second American edition, in book form, of " The Protocols" under the title " Praemonitus Praemunitus." Now I suspect that a possible {{WP:Troll}} appeared on the scene because I commenced an "ANI" against him previously which I subsequently dropped. I do not know how to handle the situation. He may just be uninformed. But he also appears, by the versions he re-writes, to wish to promote his POV that The Protocols are true. I've tried to tell him that he must be guide by the "Main" article. But I'm not sure he understands me. How do I handle that bpredicament? -- Ludvikus ( talk) 21:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
PS1: It's the same editor I mentioned above. I though the problem was solved. I made a new section here because I wanted to be clearer about which article is involved. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 21:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
PS2: The guy thanked me for supplying footnotes, so I think it was after all a misunderstand. Again, I'm sorry to have bothered you. We just worked on Harris A. Houghton, the anonymous editor of "The Protocols."
I like how you can give, but not take. If you are going to act the big man, learn to deal with a response. Ceoil ( talk) 06:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the intrusion, but I'd like your opinion as an honest broker at the above. I absolutely do not regard the proposers, especially User:Ched Davis, as being honest brokers. In fact, I have my suspicions regarding Ched Davis and favoritism (see his treatment of ObserverNY, ChildofMidnight, and JohnHistory), though nothing that yet rises to the level of ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!1!!. -- Calton | Talk 05:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this, I this a CU finding or merely based on this diff? I am mostly just curious, but I am hoping it is the former since that diff is hardly compelling evidence by itself. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain this edit? I don't see any sign that you made any attempt to merge the data from the movie into Story. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Ricky3374 is a clear sock of Pecker3378 you blocked in August. Do I need to open a new case? - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you please explain your reversion of this to Deborah Lipstadt on Talk:Deborah Lipstadt? Your edit history doesn't say why. I didn't make the edit, but the editor who did seemed to justify it on the talk page. It does not appear to be vandalism or even WP:NPOV to me, although I admit I am not an expert on the subject (I just have the page on my Watchlist, looking for vandalism). Thank you, -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 00:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik ( talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] He and Inuit18 ( talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher. "The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim ( talk · contribs) is him.
Ricky3374 and Egar3767 blocked. Can you please explain. 138.89.39.190 ( talk) 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at whats going on at the Jimmy Hoffa page. It seems that there are editors with a personal beef with an author/book I have written about. You seem to have an interest in that page. -- Theboss1970 ( talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if you'd seen the SPI when you were blocking. Glad to have it confirmed; I'm not sure how I got roped into the mess of it in the first place, but it's nice to start putting the socks together. Are you comfortable tagging User:Nugglesmom? tedder ( talk) 04:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
you think that a Book Published by Cambridge University is not verifiable reference.
Blanking Vandalism: Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary.-- LONTECH Talk 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jp,
Hi! Why have u done this? Take care of yourself, please! -- Dimitree ( talk) 21:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you correct the links to the SPI, please? Since CoE asked for my help getting him started up on Wikipedia, I'm curious about reading them but "Hawner;g" is a red link. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 12:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
He just left a message on my talk page via an unblocked IP. I'm not sure whether to believe him or not, especially since I found this edit to another talk page which seems to contradict my known information. He also made this edit recently. As the blocking admin, I thought you should be aware if you weren't already, and take appropriate action. However, it seems odd that he didn't simply place another unblock request on his user page (and odder still that he came to me). -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just thought I'd apologize for being deceptive in my attempts to post new info about the Hoffa case. If at all possible, could you have a look at the information and see if you and Tedder and HU12 can come to some kind of understanding with me about the revelence that the information has to the public. I do not seek links to my website or any third party sites like amazon.com and only want to share the information I have uncovered. The links to the outside media sources would be beneficial to folks who are looking to conduct research on the subject of the Hoffa disappearance. Sincerely-- Spectre7277 ( talk) 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The back-and-forth at Hayden Christensen is on again. I've reverted her twice, and am now reluctant to do a third revert for fear some admin like Chamal N will make the same mistake and block me. I've tried reasoning with User:Priscila Herig; nothing seems to help. I've been told that instead of getting into wars with vandals, I should ask for help, so I'm asking. -- Zsero ( talk) 18:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, would you be kind enough to address the abuse I've been getting by User Jusdafax on the Karl Rove talk page [15]? (Scroll down to the end of the talk page to see the latest comment.) This user has a history of these sorts of derogatory comments against me. It seems he attacks people whenever they want to change anything on Karl Rove's page, but he does seem to be especially vitriolic when it comes to me and any edits or comments I've made. This behavior rises above just being uncivil as it seems he does it to make an example of me so that others will not agree with me for fear of the same vitriole being aimed at them and also to isolate me so that others will gang up on me to gain favor from Jusdafax. I believe it is time for this user to be temporarily blocked. Would you please take a look at these comments and if you like, I can come up with the comments in the Archives, they are really awful. Thank you, Malke 2010 ( talk) 11:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This is my post which was not directed at anybody in particular, just a general statement:
"Please refrain from using as your sources gossip and supposition. Just because you've put up a source next to a claim you're making does not mean it is a source as recognized by Wikipedia. Please remember the talk page is not a blog for your personal opinions and/or personal attacks against other editors. Please see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and please supply "full citations" to reliable verifiable sources. For related guidelines and policies concerning addition of sources, please see: Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Reliable sources; WP:Attribution. Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)"
This is his response:
"Here again, Malke, you try to use the tactics of intimidation. Your comments have only a specious plausibility, and in my view your intent is to discourage truthful additions to this article. You have previously used terms like 'libel' to further this aim; despite your being a Wikipedian just over a week you come off like a wikilawyer, pompous and overbearing citing this and that. I urge all to ignore your blather. Jusdafax (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)]"
There's clearly a pattern and a design here. Thanks for your help Malke 2010 ( talk) 11:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought all caps was screaming, and sorry, but I don't sound like a loon. Jusdafax sounds like a loon. For certain. LOL. Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I asked for help earlier and was wondering what happend with that? thanks, Malke 2010 ( talk) 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I just went to the Soxred thing to see my usage, and under User it has me, and you, and something called, Malke_2010/Karl Rove. What's up with that? Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
← Aww, don't! She's cute. Just put a second picture up. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 01:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Here she is at a bit over a year old, enjoying the incredible spring we had this year in Kernville. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 03:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, There are a couple of photos over on Jonas Salk's page that are scheduled for deletion. Something about the source of the photos, but they are in the public domain. Why would photos get deleted especially if they offer insight into the times/the subject/etc., and how can I try to keep that from happening? I'll go back and reference for the photos for you. Malke 2010 ( talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I declined his next unblock, but I think he has a point here. I know people say that all the time, and that I'm not perfect in that area myself, but do try to avoid that level of sarcasm in the future. I shouldn't have to be apologizing, even tacitly, to a blocked vandal on behalf of a fellow admin, much less an arbitrator. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I googled references for Karl Rove and found this [20]. Then when I looked for the guy on wikipedia I found this: [21]. Obviously same guy, but is he back with the new user I.D.? Can this page be deleted? I think he's the one who wrote the original KR article because the writing, entries are identical, which explains a lot about why the article is slanted the way it is. Also, am wondering if the reason a certain editor or two is/are so determined to discourage any changes to the article is because they represent a new sock(s). Malke 2010 ( talk) 15:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your acknowledgement that a c/u request may not always be reliable where large institutions are concerned. I've started a discussion here to see if we can brainstorm some ways to ensure this type of thing happens less frequently in the future. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks again! Throwaway85 ( talk) 03:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note, it wasn't an edit it was a selfrevert. My facts were part of the WP page before the warning. As you can see from the current message on the page in question, AUA is trying to "Protect" this page, which is nothing more than controlling this page from the facts. I feel this further proves their bias and use of WP as nothing more than advertising their business. ZQPM2941 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you only blocked me and not the individuals that REVERT information without discussion. This is against WP rules.
Please note on the American University of Antigua history the warning was given before the information was reverted, 1:51, 2 December 2009. Then User Leuko reverted the facts. I only selfreverted the facts I posted! Again I ask you what do you need for me to provide to prove this information is not original research? I can provide these final grades, my grades AUA sent me, court exibits of the grades. These are not original research these facts are AUA documents! AUA is using WP as an advertising tool. If you research the history page you will see that they have reverted this information based on bias, neutrality, now original research(again when they know its they're documentation). Please do not make this site private this will only allow AUA to post bias information to advertise for them. I feel you are doing future students a grave injustice by not allowing facts like these from being posted. These are facts! ZQPM2941 ( talk) 19:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I split the Karl Rove page a while back on the suggestion and how to of another editor. The new split article is called "Karl Rove in the Geo.W.Bush Admin." I made the talk page, but is this article still part of the University of Texas bio project? and if so, how do I get that notice [22] up on the talk page for the new article? Thanks, Malke 2010 ( talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Texas}}
. That's what makes that all happen. --
jpgordon
::==( o )
23:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Please tell me how to stop please from reverting my information w/o cause? If you research the history page you'll see all I did was selfrevert which isn't against the rules. Any input would be greatly appreciated. ZQPM2941 ( talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could get you to speedy delete User:Mathsci's outting of me on my talk page. I had already put in a request to have other details pertaining to the case deleted, but this one is much more egregious, and I thought I'd contact you directly for the speediest resolution. Thanks, Throwaway85 ( talk) 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The AN/I thread being closed, I would still appreciate the information being removed. Thanks. Throwaway85 ( talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Jpgordon I posted AUA documentation on their site “Final Grades”. This is their documentation and shows how this institution does business, which is fraud. I asked numerous times for them to show otherwise, to show proof this was not AUA documentation, which instead my edit was reverted, without talking, even though I requested dialog. I propose the following: I uncover my name from the Final grades image; show the original email notifying me of these grades, and the Out Patient evaluation that was signed by the doctor and has a court exhibit sticker on it. How much more documentation, proof would be required to show that the Final Grades document is real and that these other editors are purposefully blocking the facts about this institution. Then how do I protect that edit from people reverting it, so I will not be acused of warring when I put it back. I don't see how these facts are any more or less bias than AUA's claims of students filing lawsuits against Arkansas
ZQPM2941 ( talk) 20:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC) ZQPM2941 ( talk) 20:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi JP, This user is making nonsense edits, and has been blocked several times on various accounts. He's at it again, and leaving silly messages on my talk page. Please help. Regards -- Sikh-History 17:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Please give me an example of this advise, becuase I haven't seen it. I've seen AUA using every excuse they can to stop the facts from being posted but not advice as to keep the facts posted... The only usable advise is to what report the users that revert my facts. 200.7.58.98 ( talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Since it seems like I'm the only one that was blocked for this "war". I would like to avoid being blocked again(permanently) I would like the facts to be published without being reverted and since it appears AUA is requesting a "private" page with limited access I need to avoid this mostly, so this page does not turn into another one sided advertisement page for them So I need as much advise on what I publish, unrefuted proof that it's from them to show facts concerning this institutions business practice... If someone reverts my facts without just cause and without a viable explanation. What do I do. It has to be obvious that they have tried to use: bias, nuetrality, legal, and lastly original source(even though the facts are from them) as excuses So what is concidered unrefuted facts that they can't revert? I do not want to cause an edit war, so what is your advice on what to do when they use they tactics to start an edit war? Just report it to you? 200.7.58.98 ( talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.
This is interesting since it's AUA's documentation not mine. Thanks let me put more of their information together that proves it's theirs. Thanks again for the help, 200.7.58.98 ( talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand perfectly. You said it yourself and AUA demonstrates it on their page as the admins of wiki have. It’s OK for the AUA to use references that are from their own Web page, without verification, and site articles that shine them in a favorable light. When there's truth about them that shines a different color is turned on it is not acceptable. That’s sad. Was it money, legal threats or what???? You don't have to answer that, I wanted to say that even though I'm sure you wouldn't. Thanks for the help. Here's an idea for wiki, why not make a private advertisement page for institutions like AUA. While they're at it why not petition the congress to take away the first amendment? What was I thinking, here I thought wiki was suppose to be based on facts. 200.7.55.184 ( talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, You had previously blocked indefinitely multiple accounts relating to the sockpuppets of Anne Teedham. I'm just making you aware that there is another one, who is vandalizing multiple articles within Wikipedia again/currently User:Merry_Yellow. I know you're busy but you can refer to your block for "Abusing multiple accounts" [ here]. If you can please look into this it would be much appreciated. Desertfae ( talk) 07:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This posting of a name and phone number may need to be oversighted. I have no idea if the information is accurate, as Banksy is anonymous, but the name and phone number are still private information clearly added for the purpose of disruption. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the reminder, but there was no need. I wasn't planning on more edits. I only added comments to the discussion page. Is that still okay? I'm done with that page for a while. I wasn't aware that adding comments to the discussion page is an edit. However, I have said what I needed to for the day. -- CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested in ProudAmerican93's user page. APK whisper in my ear 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Certainly an easier way to do it than trying to ferry a reply to a SPI report. tedder ( talk) 07:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I was wondering what happened with the Karl Rove issue that had been up on the BLP noticeboard for so long. I went to check on it today and I don't see it. How do I find out what the resolution was? Is there a place on wikipedia that shows this? Thanks Malke 2010 ( talk) 16:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. His last edit to Poland has more or less convinced me that something needs to be done, but I'm not sure what, perhaps just keep a watch for a while. And is this a request to prove a negative? I'm away tomorrow or I might have taken this to ANI tonight. Dougweller ( talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this case, it is said that you ran a CU on both accounts. Could you please express your findings on such a matter? Different city? State? Country? Also, I personally don't wish the case to be closed, too many things don't add up.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the unblock. re 'highly dynamic range' - i dont know much/anything about ip addresses, anything i can do? -- Brunk500 ( talk) 04:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Mljet is yet another very obvious sock of User:Ragusino, could you quickly block the fellow pls? Its Christmas eve, he keeps editing, and I'd rather not go through all the red tape. By next day he will have vandalized more articles - more work for me :). Thanks in advance -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read this about user:Direktor:
Mljet ( TALK) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.37.78 ( talk)
A Merry Kringle (or whatever) to you! Thank you for, as always, keeping an avuncular eye on Kwanzaa; but the would-be creators of Crackerpedia don't give up that easily, as we see in (for example) this rancid edit. You may wish to put Ron Karenga on your watchlist, if he's not there already. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
That matter aside . . . odd how the most confident pronouncements on the language and its grammer are made by those who -- oh, whoops, right, NPA, AGF, alphabet soup. Hoary ( talk) 00:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
|
![]() |
Incidentally, would you think it would be harsh of me to call Goal setting a load of bollocks? I've already removed one spammy chunk from it (see its talk page) but the remainder strikes me as no better. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC) .... PS Holy intercoursing demiurge, something purporting to be an encyclopedia is calling this gibberish "scientific". I hardly know where to start. No, I don't want to start: let these management "gurus" have their time- and money-wasting seminars; with a bit of luck the suits who are forced to attend by their stupider bosses can manage to ignore the rubbish spouted at them and at the end of the day can get drunk and/or laid. Bah humbug! -- Hoary ( talk) 01:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Seasons Greetings! and thank you for the revision and comment on the external link: Critical Study of Holocaust Story Published in Japan - Institute for Historical Review. However I'd also like to note the incident and world wide media coverage at that time was quite extensive; and if suitable, would like to substitue it with another link: Holocaust Denial in Japan: Marco Polo Demonstrates Insensitivity - Japan Policy Research Institute, JPRI Critique Vol. II No. 3: March 1995. A revisionist incident involving a major conservative japanese media.
Revisionist views in general, may still have some major momentum among main-stream conservatives in Japan ja:ホロコースト否認, ja:日本の戦争犯罪, together with the denial of the Nanking Massacre (see The Truth about Nanjing, Japan ruling MPs call Nanjing massacre fabrication, 2007), Comfort women issues(see Comfort women#Abe controversy, [25]), and it's history in whole (see Japan's History Wars and Popular Consciousness - David McNeill, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus).
-- Makesdark ( talk) 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to report a threat made against me on here. How do I do this? This person needs to be block. He threatened to hunt me down and cut my nuts off. 76.177.133.247 ( talk) 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.138.232.253 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.133.247 ( talk) 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
He must have erased it. It is in the history. It all started over his editing and my editing of Alben Barkley. Barkley had an issue with income tax evasion. I found sources from after he died pointing to the fact the IRS took near half of his estate to pay for this. Barkley died in '56. This editor kept erasing my edits before finding an earlier source that makes his income tax evasion look "noble", because apparently Barkley took on some speaking engagements for pay in order to pay for his wife's health care. He has a source, but it can't be linked to for me to see, so I can't say that this is 100% true or not. Whatever the case, this does not change the fact the man did not pay taxes for income after his wife died and the IRS was getting ready to come down on him when he died, and did eventually come down on him through the estate. The sources I have found can be linked and apparently this guy wants to hide this, and if he can't hide it he want's to paint a rosy noble picture of someone who evaded paying tax.
Apparently after I told him I would contact authorities if he threatened me again, he went back and took that part out and said "whatever have it your way." I have no problem with his source being used along with the sources I have found. Can you please point me to help on noting multiple sources? Also, if a source can't be linked to can it be utilized. Thanks. 76.177.133.247 ( talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello jpgordon, Please go to my talk page and see what's been going on with this user. Can you help me, or do I post to the AN/I? This fellow seems to need a break from editing. Thanks. Malke 2010 02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know what is motivating the jade falcon to interfer in this, but this fellow Daedalus969 needs to be blocked for these posts. [27]. This is just beyond what is reasonable anger. And frankly, what got him set off in the first place was he didn't like that I wrote, "added comment" in an edit summary of a message from him that I deleted from my talk page. Malke 2010 03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for noticing. I'm unsure how to proceed: the CU didn't report on the IP socks listed, but I don't want to nag if it is just a work in progress. Given the contribs from those IP socks its just ducky that they are the same as the named user account, but were used to avoid clear responsibility for the actions evoked by the "coaching". LeadSongDog come howl 17:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I came across this watching recent changes. I'd like your opinion on this version of the article versus the present ([ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Functionalism_versus_intentionalism&diff=335676608&oldid=335676493) version. I don't know enough of the subject to know which is better. I wanted to revert to the vesion with references, but honestly I didn't know if that would be a mistake. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Tide rolls 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for taking my time in responding to your question. I've been under some real life constraints and was also unsure on how to explain myself without making a seemingly delicate situation problematic. Anyways, I felt that extending the template to have a unique value for Israel alone while having a different value for other countries is (in my eyes, at least) in poor taste. There are many places when such changes can be made and I am not aware of any where such a solution is actually implemented.
Warm regards,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I wondered if I could ask you to expand a bit on your findings to confirm how widespread the cross over between IPs wass with this user? If one IP is the main one with the the other ip used was only during the blocks it gives credence to this being two users, plus are their any occasions when the ips were being used separately to edit different articles at the same time? I realise CU isn't magic pixie dust but the answers to this would help disentangle if we had one or two editors here. Thanks for your help. Spartaz Humbug! 14:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Jessica is fun to play with sometimes... Did you havta do that? -- Jayron 32 07:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
>>One must wonder: why have you been autoblocked twice, on two different IPs, because of blocks upon User:Haida chieftain? Is it just coincidence that you've edited on different IPS, within minutes of each other as this editor? -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)<<
All the editing I've done recently on Wikipedia - and virtually all the editing I've ever done - has been on public access terminals provided by the branches of my local library. Unfortunately one of the many other library patrons who avail themselves of this library service is evidently using poor judgement in his or her editing of Wikipedia causing these IP address autoblock issues that have effected me. That the IP address of the computer system in my local libraries is subject to change is an evident attribute of my local libraries' computer system that I really cannot comment on.-- Cherrylimerickey ( talk) 01:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Jpgordon, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing here. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop ( talk) 19:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. I noticed your recent edit to User:Dock26 Pwnage's talk page, and I was wondering what his "latest" sockpuppet was you were referring to. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you have blocked this user for multiple account abuse, I have had a fair bit of connection with this editor in the recent week, I can't find the details could you please provide me with a link to the details, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how I'm supposed to deal with the situation. My defense on the sockpuppet page has been ignored and I have yet to receive a response even though the case is marked as closed. I can't appeal any of my blocks because I can't even edit my talk pages. I'm not allowed to start over and create a new account, even if I don't vandalize and make legitimate edits. I joined Wikipedia with User:NYyankees51 in May 2006 and had few problems since then, and now I'm blocked forever. I really have no idea what I'm supposed to do. 71.178.26.97 ( talk) 21:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Re [28], guessing its your turn next :).-- Jac16888 Talk 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
On December 9, 2009 you wrote the following in response to a comment on Harry Reid's talk page: "We're not a news feed; you can find all you want about that elsewhere. And, since the polls quite clearly show the majority of Americans actually do favor that version of reform, we've no need to insert opinionated lies."
I'm very much offended by your statements. First of all, the polls did not "quite clearly show the majority of Americans" favored that version of reform. I looked up old polls and the first 5 I found stated that more Americans opposed it than supported it, while one was a dead heat. (None of those polls I found were from conservative-biased sources like Fox News either). You should really refrain from being so biased in how you deal with Wiki editing. He/she didn't insert any "opinionated lies". In fact he was very much correct (about the polls, nothing else). I don't even know why you had to put that last sentence in. Saying, "We're not a news feed; you can find all you want about that elsewhere." The thing is I know you know this from looking at your talk page. You've done tons of edits. I've only been doing this for a couple of weeks really, and I know better than that.
That guy/gal you were responding to was very wrong as well. Now that it has been a couple of months since Reid's comments and they haven't come up in the news since, it appears his comments blew over and should definitely. He was most definitely unfamiliar with recentism issues and he was not assuming any sort of good faith. However, I don't think this excuses you from lashing out and making accusations.
I'm putting this here too, because, once again, I don't know if you'd ever read this comment if I put it on Reid's talk page.
Kgromann ( talk) 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose any unblocking of this account. The user created a new sock today, FrenchNerd487 ( talk · contribs), and the user posted the exact same thing on the User talk:Gigogag page (of whom I just revoked his talk page access today and directed him to email unblock-en-l for any further requests). I recommend declining CabbageBrain's block and revoking that user's talk page access also. Regards, – MuZemike 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Have a nice day! Kearney Zzyzwicz ( talk) 09:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Made me laugh. Thanks! Throwaway85 ( talk) 12:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Defender 911 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, ♠ TomasBat 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I apologize for the account creation. I just wanted to edit the Mohammad al Durah article under another name. I shoudn't have done that. Sorry. TwoHorned ( talk) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't this account a sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi? - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Either User:Watchover or User:KAPITALIST88 (both are at the "Stravin" SPI for reference's sake). Orderinchaos 17:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
HOW????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdoyouknowitsme ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you prepared to confirm whether YourBrain was editing from a Texas location? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you around to do a quick one? -- Flyguy649 talk 16:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you handled this editor's recent unblock request. After noticing some poor quality edits by the editor at a different article ( Jehovah's Witnesses), I found the telephone article they'd also substantially contributed to, which has many problems regarding encyclopedic tone and presentation. I performed a copyedit of the article [29], but the editor objected, claiming the copyedit was vandalism, and reverted the article to their previous version [30]. The editor is proving difficult to deal with in discussion, and also attempted to provoke me via Wikipedia's e-mail function. Could you please take a look at the discussion on the editor's Talk page?-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 05:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Per your comment [31] on SPI, Checkuser User:Dominic has now confirmed the widespread Fairfield/MUM/TM-Org sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. I've asked Will Beback [32], who commenced the SPI, what's the next step in this process. Fladrif ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation movement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, – MuZemike 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Funny :). I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. So, wait, why did u ban me? I didn't make a single contribution! I am just getting started as a newbie to editing. -- 75.61.81.28 ( talk) 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork * YES! 10:23, 17 February 2010 (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/Transcendental Meditation movement/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/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
For verifying this. My nose is usually pretty good. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I am returning to Wikipedia upon creating an account. The first course of action I must take is pursue defense of my actions on my previous account, 207.97.213.170. I was blocked by Materialscientist for 31 hours with the claim of "[d]isruptive editing". I am fully infuriated by such an unjust block. However, you dismissed my unblock request, saying that there was "no . . . chance [that I] have some magical right to vandalize until a particular number of warnings have been given". That is ridiculous. I protested and protested, but you refused to respect my opinion and failed to assume good faith. As an administrator, you should be cognizant of your responsibilities on Wikipedia. I am utterly ashamed of you. On the other hand, you ARE an administrator. Yes! Yes, that's it! You can push me around and slap me and whip me with impunity. That's how all administrators act. Good day, sir. I look forward to your response. Hiineedrequestforcomment ( talk) 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason you blocked me or do you just like blocking innocent people? Sub! 05:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
How many are authorized by Dean Young and how many unauthorized? Why would he allow such that have no mention of the comic strip? Pepso2 ( talk) 17:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, here is the list of [33] confirmed socks for The7thdr. I also posted it on the SPI in the CU section-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reduced your block of Funny110 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to one year. He appealed via unblock-en-l on the basis that he only did it because he thought it was funny. Fred Talk 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
" Decline reason: "Please familiarize yourself with our rules regarding conflict of interest; nobody is allowed to write about themselves, their organizations, their employers, etc. on Wikipedia. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"" Unless I am misreading WP:COI, isn't that false? We discourage people in editing in areas they have a COI in; not prohibit them entirely, especially if they have useful information to add. NW ( Talk) 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, since you originally blocked User:Hiineedrequestforcomment, you may be interested in the thread I have just started at WP:ANI#Block review of The Reformed Editor. Thanks — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You blocked Crockadoc ( talk · contribs) for "abusing multiple accounts". Is there checkuser evidence, or good behavioral evidence? If so, could you please post an explanation somewhere (at the very least, a message on his talkpage or in his block log saying which blocked sockpuppeteer he's associated with)? Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Watching TCM Savolya ( talk) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd really like to see this stopped: 1st this: [34] Then this: [35] Now this: [36] and this: [37] and the admin said this: [38] but he's not satisfied. Any suggestions? I'd really appreciate your comments. Thanks. Malke 2010 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You want me to continue using my old account? But sorry, I can't! You see, when I created my new account User:Bowei Huang 1, I changed the password of User:A1DF67 to some password that I do not know what it is and nobody knows what it is so I would be unable to get back into it. I can't get back into to my account! So I could now only use a new account now! I did the same to User:Bowei Huang and User:Brickfield. I also did the same to User:Bowei Huang 1 when I created the account User:An Unknown Person. Let me tell you the truth! I am telling you the truth! Can you please unblock this account because I cannot get back into my old account now even if I wanted to! I am not using multiple accounts because when I created a new account I made myself unable to get back into the old account! I do not have multiple account right now! So this is the only account I have right now. So can you please let me use this account or use another account but not use this account now?
Wikipedia says that you should not use more than one account at the same time, but it does not say that you should not create a new account if you are deciding not to use your old account ever again. So can you please let me create a new account if I am not deciding to use my old account ever again?
How did you know and find out that I was User:Bowei Huang? Can you please tell me and explain to me?
I didn't sign my tides from User:A1DF67 because I couldn't login to User:A1DF67 now anymore.
Now that I am unable to go back into User:A1DF67 or any of those other accounts, there is something I want to ask you to do. Instead of unblocking this account, there is something else I want to ask you to do. Can you please just simply let me and allow me or ask Wikipedia to let me and allow me to create and use a new account called User:Bowei Huang 2? This account would continue to be blocked but that would be the account that you or Wikipedia would let me use. I promise that after I do so, I would only use that account only and I would not create or use any other new accounts. That account would be my only account. That account would be the account I will be going to use. Can you please do that? Please?
Thank you for archiving the wiki thing but someone else has commented. [39] Could please close it again? Maybe even make suggestions to all involved? Thanks. Malke 2010 23:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Josh, As a 60 something Brit this makes no sense, although I did give it some thought when it was originally posted. But since your post I am curious to know what the joke is. Can you enlighten me? Best, Richard Avery ( talk) 07:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Waah, that's serious geek humour, I'd never haver got that in millenia. Thanks for the pointer. Richard Avery ( talk) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I want a proper apology for the comment you typed on the Bill Clinton Talk Page. This is a the only IP address for Hennepin County Libraries, if you didn't see the talk page for the IP address. Also, could I please become a registered user. Dr real ( talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I was at an Internet cafe-type thing, and saw some guy on Wikipedia; so when he got off his computer, I decided to get on my account, since I hadn't for a while. He had left it on the page he had been on, so I logged in and edited that page first, because I thought it would be a helpful edit. That's why I was on right after a person who apparently was doing vandalism. I PROMISE I didn't do it. I only do helpful edits, to improve Wikipedia. :) P.S. I would recommend blocking the actual user who was doing the vandalism, not the IP address. Then he couldn't edit, but other people who get on that computer still could. :)
Molly moon 23:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Well you would be if this young sir had his way! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Re, AGodBlessOurTroops's block log, could you please tell us who the sockmaster is so we can tag the page appropriately?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I live in Hennepin County, and Hennepin County Libraries have the same IP address. You told my friend he the was the same user who made a comment on the Bill Clinton talk page, and he was not. Daily, at least 300 people use these computers. Also, my home area has many Bill Clinton supporters, so don't assume that he was the only one who didn't see the Bill Clinton article and wanted to comment on a bad piece of content he saw. You also never know when a person will create a new account from a shared IP address, and you cannot automatic tell who the account because of the shared address The comment on the page was very offending and prejudice I suggest next time you look to see if IP addresses are shared before you tell people they are the same person, and respect the good faith policy. Tyyp ( talk) 18:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I was typing a complaint on the Wikiquette page, and I noticed a user named Dr real was complaining that you personally attacked him for my comment. 204.169.161.1 ( talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC) This IP address belongs to Hennepin County Libraries, and is a public computer. 204.169.161.1 ( talk) 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know how a genius like me was able to be found. It was the perfect plan. 204.169.161.1 ( talk) 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to point out user:Einkleinestier seems to be restoring the reverted edits of user:THEQUEEN99. 88.106.83.219 ( talk) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Caller ID is a great invention. It has saved me from many an abusive caller and/or telemarketer. As far as your being "outed", I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict that you're a part of the Gordon family tree.
You could mock the character that tried to give too much info by having one of your pictures captioned, "This is me on an outing..." ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→
06:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
98.122.100.249 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
While I've got your unmultiplied attention, is it appropriate for a blocked IP to be totally blanking his talk page? My claim there was that others might have that IP (though that might be doubtful) and would want to know why it was blocked. But I don't feel like getting into a stupid edit war over it. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, keep up the good work :) Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nusrullah Khan Noori did you mean socks of Iamsaa? Typo? Esowteric+ Talk 15:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Jp. I was helping to create this via a user subpage and I basically removed the promotional content; you should have seen it before I edited it. :) Anyway, the organization in question is part of the Croatian Government and not private enterprise. Could I impose on you to review the deletion log and perhaps restore the content? If it's still too promotional for inclusion, just let me know what you feel needs to be done and I'll clean it up on the subpage. Thanks! Best, -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi JP, an IP has raised an AN/I about SPS concerns at the Iamsaa-related articles here. Perhaps you'd like to comment. Many thanks, Esowteric+ Talk 10:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:AN#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. – xeno talk 17:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Josh,
I was approached by the original author of
BICRO (which you speedied as blatant promotion), asking me for help with it. Apparently,
PMDrive1061 (
talk ·
contribs) had helped him prepare it at
User:Ivan Pakšec/BICRO from an original draft. From a look at it, that is a government program, under their Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, and the editor doesn't appear to be strongly associated with it. It looks salvageable, I'd say, if only a few of the more blatant fragments are removed, or thrown out. Would you mind if I restored it, and took care of that? The userspace draft will need moving over as well, for attribution.
Cheers,
Amalthea
12:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Re your message: Not really sure. I noticed your re-blocking of somebody caught up in my autoblock. I was going to say that the original account was User:Marytrotter, but I'm beginning to wonder if it is User:DailyWikiHelp. I was just about to file a CU, but do you want to look instead?
All of these are related:
Same ISP as this one:
...whom DailyWikiHelp was busy reverting. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Possibly related: b:User talk:DailyWikiHelp filled with references to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Free Belarus. No idea why. Wknight94 talk 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this vandal has really learned any lessons. Take a look at his deleted edits. Bearian ( talk) 14:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Jpgordon, thank you very much for preforming a check on this case. I've left a note there asking whether or not Unreal Engine 5 ( talk · contribs) is related to Dr Roots ( talk · contribs). Please take a look in your own time. Kindest regards, Spitfire Tally-ho! 13:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If you don't find a good, legal explanation to explain yourself, I will inform the police. Also, don't you dare bother to erase your comments, or even erase your record, because I have printed them out on paper. 70.13.18.78 ( talk) 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I was only luring you into confessing this with the comments I typed two weeks ago. You made a stupid move by saying that you knew it was a public computer and that Wikipedia has special ways of being able to detect users. 70.13.18.78 ( talk) 18:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Also, don't try to say my writing styles were easy to match, and all, I said, as Dr real, was I agree. I am training myself to become a cop, so don't think you will escape without giving me a good explanation. Since practically the beginning, I was only making myself look like a Sockpuppet so you would talk. 70.13.18.78 ( talk) 19:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC) It's called good detective work. 70.13.18.78 ( talk) 19:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Were there any sleeper socks found, or are you not done yet? CTJF83 chat 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon. Rin tin tin 1996 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Tim Song ( talk) 03:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Could I ask you to look at this page? I have never asked for a checkuser investigation and don't know if it would be helpful there. Rmhermen ( talk) 03:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
and now for some reason I'm in the mood for manicotti.... KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
jpgordon,You are such a nice administrator,please forgive me if i did anything wrong,sir i accept that i did many mistakes and repeated them again and again,But sir from last one month i am asking for one last chance to me,i will not repeat or disrupt any wikipedia policy,i promise you,please give me last chance,If i ever repeat my mistake then block me and never responce too,Sir you should remove crime not criminals,I hope you will give me last and final chance--{user|mkbdtu} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.93.179 ( talk) 15:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
sir i promise you if you unblock me first of all i will not edit any article for 3 months,i will ask my query on talk page only,sir i was new in wikipedia,i didnot understand how my foolishness can take me faraway from wikipedia,sir I have realised that I was wrong,Sir Now i have learned all rules,I promise you i will never repeat mmy mistake,Sir i am a student and had naughty mind so i did that kind of disruption,but now i realise that it will harm my career on wikipedia,Sir My last hope is you,please forgive me and tell me solution to me,I will be gratefull to you,May god bless you}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.50.57 ( talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for guidin me,will they hear my request-- 115.242.50.57 ( talk) 16:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello JP, further to your recent blocking of User:Spalatino et al, there's another blatant User:Brunodam sock. See Special:Contributions/U-1948 - this "new" user's only contributions so far have been to restore one of Bruno's old articles [40]. I can open an SPI if you think it's appropriate, but it's rather backlogged and this one's sufficiently obvious to be nuked without further ado, I suspect. Please let me know if you disagree, and I'll open an SPI in the normal way. In addition, User:Rubinmar is also Bruno, as evidenced by his/her being one of those, like User:3leopard, who appeared as if by magic to support the removal of the POV tag from the article on the Thornton expedition - see [41]. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 10:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that's what I should have done. I'm not that familiar with Wiki coding, I just pick stuff up by finding it somewhere and copy pasting. I'm guessing the "t" in hat is top and the "b" in hab is bottom? Burpelson AFB ( talk) 21:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello JP, there are two more User:Brunodam accounts, User:Sanfeliciano and User:1992Boca. Sanfeliciano ties to 207.69.xxx.xx [42] [43] [44], a known Bruno IP [45], and welcomes User:1992Boca within hours of his arrival [46], who then goes on to focus on Italian irredentist articles [47], all of which were originally created by Bruno [48] [49] [50]. Once again, if you think it appropriate, I will take the two accounts to SPI, but I think they are blatant enough to be nuked without further ado. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Regards this comment, do you think the behavioural evidence is sufficient to block? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Banned Iamsaa ( talk · contribs) is still claiming that he has nothing to do with the edit warring and sock puppetry which is still rife in the Younus AlGohar-related articles and redirects.
If you have a free mo', is there any way you can link the recent IPs which follow to Iamsaa (who also edited his talk page later today)?
Or should I file a checkuser instead? Sorry, not hot on correct protocol.
On reflection, I'll go through official checkuser channels.
Many thanks in advance, Esowteric+ Talk 13:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Any chance you could do a quick check on Divine truths ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)? — Scien tizzle 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Fuck off and die old man
Hi, the links you refer to lead to pages with unnecessarily explicit content, so I suggest it would make sense either to replace the offending photographs with diagrams, remove the links to such pages, or at least give a warning to the unsuspecting user. Where I come from most people don't appreciate being subjected to such imagery! Cheers Ben Dawid ( talk) 03:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I hope that you are doing well! It's been a while since I contacted you. If you can, could you please delete this picture [53] that I uploaded sometime ago. I am guessing that you are still an administrator with the power to do this. I wish to appear more anonymous on Wikipedia. Your Wikifriend, David-- Drboisclair ( talk) 01:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
User:A1DF67 has been renamed User:Bowei Huang 2. [54] Can you please redirect User:Bowei Huang to User:Bowei Huang 2 and User talk:Bowei Huang to User talk:Bowei Huang 2?
Bowei Huang 2 ( talk) 03:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Just as an FYI of sorts, other than the problem described at bugzilla:22033, "EFM" should not be required by those with +sysop to view private filters. – xeno talk 16:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was going to put Davidmedlar's signature on it, but then I had to leave. I think your solution is better. :) NotAnonymous0 did I err?| Contribs 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The two edits you link in the report don't match up. Slight error? The report has been archived.. but, could you fix it?— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Have I missed something here? No Checkuser evidence that I can see. Rodhull andemu 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Blackmagic24084 is a sock-puppet of User:Kagome_85 and so is User:Blackmagic2604
I am a little angry at this I mean Blackmagic24084 is a user-name I am known to use on different sites. To the point look here
Where she said It's NOT, such as with the whatever Blackmagic2604 page. That was probably YOU creating the account to screw up your own userpage, then blame it on me.
And yet here you caught her as that account... Now why would I make Blackmagic2604? I can't stand zero posters on forums so why would I make a account for a one time use.. thats right I wouldn't .. She has gone to far I'm telling you I am on the brink of emotional collapse. That girl is breaking the barrier which is keeping my anger from hurting people...
I am sorry for typing this to you its just she created two accounts Blackmagic24084 and Blackmagic2604 and then tried to blame me for the vandalism. I am down right annoyed, upset... steaming .. again I am sorry for telling you all this I just needed someone to talk to ... and Thank You for putting a stop to her.. Moukity ( talk) 07:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
From sock blocking, to arbitration, to ANI, to talk pages, to plain ol' editing, in every situation, irrespective of namespace, action, result or intent, every opportunity I have had to interact with or witness your actions, has resulted in a superb outcome. I very much appreciate all the work you do and have done on Wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC) |
RivenMythrunner ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) has emailed me claiming that he was editing through a proxy due to military service and was mistakenly blocked as a WiccaWeb sock. As you are the CU who ran the check, can you take another look? Thanks. Tim Song ( talk) 02:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
By your response to me here. Excuse me, do not abate the validity of my appeal. My misuse of the convention was justifiable, and therefore does not constitute abuse (barring the fact that I've potentially made an unnecessary entry in a master data table with my injurious use of a dedicated template). If you believe I wasted your time, that's your prerogative, but I believe my time is worth as much as yours.
If it was not your intention to offend me, then you should not so quickly dismiss someone with a vainglorious reprisal for having wasted a dedicated resource. If you feel my misuse of the template was more injurious to the project than that which I'm appealing against then perhaps you should reexamine your intention in volunteering. Finally; if you lack the wealth of time required to be tactful, then again, reexamine your intention in volunteering. I have a couple of friends who spend as much time doing administrative work on Wikipedia as anyone, and I am sure each of them is able to find the time to exercise sagacity in their reprisals. I know for a fact that tact does not require an advanced degree, nor does the latter bar someone from being impetuous. >:| Jamouse ( talk) 22:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI.......the complaining editor posted this on the Klan talk page.
Hello, Jpgordon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I concur. Since its at least two of us that agree that behaviorally, it likely isn't him, AND that Hersfold is unavailible, I think an unblock (and apology) may be in order. -- Jayron 32 05:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please look at this SPI and block the underlying IP? They won't stop and Shirik will likely leave soon, leaving a mess. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 04:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, just stopping by to let you know I've left you a message at the above case, please take a look whenever is convenient for you. Thanks for running a check on the case. Kind regards, Spitfire Tally-ho! 21:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Since you've been dealing with socks of this user before, I thought that maybe I could save people's time at SPI requests page and ask you directly to check another suspicious account. Could you please check if Ionidasz ( talk · contribs) has any connection to Paligun ( talk · contribs), as it is very strange for a brand new account to follow me to an obscure discussion board and post a message there. It could also be another banned user, Hetoum I ( talk · contribs). I can post another SPI request, if needed. Thanks very much. Grand master 06:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The level of disruption in AA does not justify requesting a CU for a user who has zero contribution in those articles neither their talkpage. And you still claim that I am a newibie, when I wrote that I am not and explained why this account. CU is not for fishing and runing a CU without providing any evidences as to why a user is believed to be a banned user X or Y should not be allowed. You requested a CU on the ground that it's fishy a newbie will find his way. Since I explained from the start that I am not a newbie and did not edit any of those articles, you failed to explain how this applies to me. Go ahead, request a recheck of this Hetoum socks, to see if my name will come up. That's not what you did, you requested a check on my name with Hetoums' socks. Even if I am not him, my primary account will be known by the CU when I did nothing, absolutly nothing wrong. For God sake, I did not even edit those articles!!! Ionidasz ( talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to block his talk page access? It isn't quite encouraging to see his response to the block to be added personal attacks like "kiss my ass you filthy zionist". Breein1007 ( talk) 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jp, I hope you are well. I've come across two more of Bruno's alteregos. User:N48 and User:Researcheronly. I suspect this game may go on and on. Do please let me know if you would like me to take it somewhere else for administration. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 ( talk) 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who endorsed the CU on that case. I see you and I share the opinion that creating a sock to comment on other editors in wikispace is not a legitimate use of a sock. I actually thought that was written in policy somewhere, but now I can't seem to find it. The only relevant policy I can find is regarding SPA and "good hand/bad hand" socks. But in my mind, creating a sock to complain about another user in wikispace should not be legitimate. I like to think our due process should include the right to face one's accuser. Your thoughts? Respond here if you like. Auntie E. ( talk) 20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Honorable collegue, user:ptmccain, permanently banned editor is again editing the Book of Concord article. His new anonymous address is 70.253.172.5. I reverted his edits, which were not only obviously "illegal" but also inferior. This article MAY need protection as it is one of his pets. It appears that he has put in internet links to his website and blog. Even if his edits were superior, they should not be allowed to stand because he is permanently banned by Jimmy Wales, et alii. With kindest regards,-- Drboisclair ( talk) 04:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I suspect we have a few more Anne Teedham sock puppets starting up. Would you mind looking into these users? They are just getting started tampering with pages related to the ones the Anne Teedham socks were vandalizing. No major damage yet. 24.170.242.101, 24.170.225.180, 24.49.51.81 Thanks for your efforts! Winksatfriend ( talk) 04:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend
One of the original Teedham socks was 24.170.224.225 another was Hag2. 24.170.242.101 and 24.29.51.81 are also both out of Hagerstown, MD. One of them was offended by a Teedham sockpuppet notice and removed it. I'm not worried about that, just think it is suspicious in light of the server it's coming from. If you don't think there's enough to be concerned about, I'm okay with your decision, but please be aware that the Teedham socks accused one vandalism target, Michael Riconosciuto, of three homicides and left a note on Lex Coleman discussion indicating that alterations were being made at the request of an employer, and were being made from the employer's IP. As there are past and current homicide investigations for which Riconosciuto is a witness and has provided extensive documentation, this is a serious problem. I think the water is being tested, so to speak, and anticipate another flareup of activity. Winksatfriend ( talk) 15:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend