This is Pjpalm1964 and you just moved my page (looks like I put it in the wrong place), and removed my question and link to the helpme template.
I am learning as fast as I can, but would like some help on how to collaborate using Talk pages, how to email, and how to join the Automotive project. (Is this the proper way to talk to you?)
Cheers, Paul
This is outsider2810! Thanks for unblocing me, you are the greatest :)
Please take a look at Willis Stephens and 216.45.156.46, an ipvandal who continues to blank the page against the tireless efforts of several editors from very different points of view. MrPrada 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding blocked IP 206.213.157.4, Branham High School, I do not believe that the district has taken action against this individual. Regardless, I am almost confident that he has already completed high school at Branham, so no worries.
Please be advised that user Asams10 keeps deleting relevant links in the AK-47 article. He has been blocked numerous times for repeatedly, unilaterally changing what he calls his "pet articles." See .380 ACP.
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AK-47
Thanks for unblocking me!
You may want to block this one. DG X 19:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I reverted it because the page had been blanked in the edit immediately before it. I wasn't sure if the user had been unblocked or not, and wasn't sure if that was a warning or not, so I reverted on the side of error. Sorry for the inconvenience. KC9CQJ 03:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
is it possible that you could reconsider over this user unblocking request? his block time is now nearly 9 days. He, also, is clearly sorry for any disruption he has caused. And after all he only made ONE offensive comment and even that was pretty mild. Look into it at least Cicero Dog 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you indefinitely blocked User:Jesus On Wheels as an inappropriate username. This person has been making legitimate edits to Wikipedia. Please see his block log entries and note that he was previously unblocked on appeal of being a legitimate user. Further, see his userpage which explains his use of the name. Also, this account has performed no page moves, and doesn't fit the profile of WoW. Pending any further evidence that this contributor is actually a vandal, I think it would be best if you unblocked his account and allow him to continue to contribute. -- Durin 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer (of not wheel warring with me if I unblock), I've decided to take it, and I'm prepared to face the consequences of my actions if it blows up in my face. I'd better go get that face shield. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Jesus On Wheels
(
talk ·
contribs ·
checkuser ·
block user ·
block log ·
edit count) to change it despite the notice Please dont leave me messages to change my name.
Myrtone :-oThanks :) Dlohcierekim 14:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... Something funny just struck me. Looks at User:Myrtone86's signature which says :
Myrtone@Jesus On Wheels.com.au
Hmm.. interesting... DG X 17:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The former is becuase in my preferences (with raw sgniture ticked) I have "Myr'''tone'''@{{PAGENAME}}.com.au," which produces Myrtone@Pgk.com.au.
Thank you! --
Doug (
talk)
18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
For reverting the vandalism done to my userpage, have a cookie. ;)
Rosa
I think that most of the usernames you mentioned on my talk page were registered by the North Carolina vandal. I understand that unblocking IPs used by vandals is a very bad idea. Unfortunately, this vandal is an AOL user, and keeping the IPs blocked will no doubt cause inconvenience to many legitimate editors. -- Ixfd64 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
YOU: Should have expired by now, but saying you didn't know about a rule when you've a warning about it just above from 30 minutes before the block seems somewhat inconsistent.
Yes but I saw that warnig when I've been blocked. So it was to late. -- Stevanb 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I was busy making some changes, so I didn't notice that baner. Anyway it is ok now I'm unlocked. -- Stevanb 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Too much is in that article 50 Cent. I moved the singles to it's own article. Thanks for your cooperation. LILVOKA 22:33 25 May 2006 (UTC)
yes it worked! now lets just hope that i will not get blocked again! thank you Touth 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandal
Thewolfstar (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) using IP
24.161.21.22 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log).
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
16:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia required users to register in order to contribute, and that when registering that user must give a unique e-mail address. That way, when users vandalize, they have only one "self", and when they get blocked, THEY GET BLOCKED. What currently happens is that people create accounts SOLELY for vandalism, and do their business and log out of those accounts before an autoblock is placed. Then they create five more accounts doing the same until they've maxed out of accounts for the 24-hour period. Or instead they take their laptop, jump in their car, and drive around to each wi-fi "hotspot" to vandalize until being blocked, then move on to the next hotspot. This method I've explained would help to seriously hinder vandalism. -- NicAgent 01:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking me. I didn't know about the {{helpme}} feature, so I thought it would help me get unblocked faster. Wrong assumption; sorry about that. Anyway, the person who tried to create an account name like mine WON'T be using my IP address anytime soon, so no worries. I've also password-protected my IP just in case. Anyway, thanks again!
Thistheman 14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I replied to your comment at User talk:69.74.63.194. -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 17:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Commenting on Motorox's unblock request, you have said: "you have a string of other sockpuppets". I am interested: What are User:AppleJuicefromConcentrate's other sockpuppets? (I have added the sockpuppet notice on Motorox's page myself, and I am not aware of any others.) - Mike Rosoft
Thank you for unblocking me.
I' sorry, I didn't know there was Notability requirments. You where right. QwssE 04:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope that does not happen again. DeleteThis 09:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I appreciate the attention. Best..... WBardwin 10:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Permission to publish (whether in print or on the Internet) is always subject to withdrawal regardless of such conditional statements that pretend to have the power to nullify the intent of the law. Copyright permission is always subject to denial. This is the whole point behind the DMCA takedown. You need to read the DMCA signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998 which amends title 17 of the US Code to extend its reach to copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users still requires publishers to comply with any change in owner instructions and will. You need to read the Wikipedia article Digital Millennium Copyright Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pce3@ij.net ( talk • contribs)
message I'm currently getting says this -
Ok, I did not know you were an administrator, because I looked at your user page, and it did not show that you were, so I assumed you were not. Also, are bans put on a permanant record type of list?
Thanks for your help! -- Marysunshine 17:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Came across this one... (Edit: and this one) Radio Kirk talk to me 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that pgk. ;-) DG X 22:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping deal with the vandalism to my Talk page. Al 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
and I will be reporting you for your abusive behavior Lutherian 05:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you again for unblocking me. It's very frustrating to suddenly find a block when you know you've done nothing to even possibly warrant it.-- T smitts 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe I have come across a new sockpuppet of Bugman94:
A quick message he left and then deleted on my talk page, which can be found in my talk page history here clearly suggests that this is the same user.
Whatever it is, it can detect possible impostor names really well! Can you tell me what it is (or wikilink to it?) You and your bot are doing a very good job! Keep it up! =) -- Shultz IV 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Touth is once again blocked. I think it's his IP. Do you want to look into unblocking him? I'm not an admin though. I've warned him about using caps again. ForestH2
thanks for unblocking me and i will let you know how i get on.
by Touth 23:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright thanks, it worked that time. I'm still kinda angry I was blocked since the 3RR report was obviously bogus, I never even reverted 3 times in one day.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
hello again pgk! i am just letting you know that i am still doing ok. i have not been blocked yet which is a good thing! how about you? Touth 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The intro, I made keeps on being delted or removed. It was the result of a long fought compromise and sweet braking work. It is being removed and the eidtos pretend they have no idea what I am talking about. 72.57.230.179
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States
Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.-- Ryz05 t 02:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Pgk,
User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has been blocked by User:HOTR in clear violation of the blocking policy. [1]. He’s posted an unblock template on his talk page, where a discussion is taking place. Fresh from the false ANI report against him and resulting block (for six reverts in six days!), it's starting to look like persecution. I would deeply appreciate your willingness to take a look at this. Timothy Usher 17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
M r. L e fty Talk to me! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I've seen a lot of that particular style of vandalism lately. I smell sockpuppets... M r. L e fty Talk to me! 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the explaination of why I was blocked.
Josen
20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I had already rejected two appeals with explanation above yours, but left the sign there for another admin to have a look. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I was blocked for personal attacks, not 3RR. Why then was the grounds refused based on 3RR?-- PatCheng 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Pgk, please, please sprotect my user talk page again. That was the only peace I've ever known on WP. I've never once gotten a legitimate message from an anon, and now another one - judging from his contributions, clearly another user (though I like how he went to the sandbox first to pretend otherwise) - has been changing existing section headers. Not quite as bad as the last round, but I don't wish to have to stay up all night fighting off anons, or reporting them to ANI (or bothering you) - sprotect is easier for all involved. Timothy Usher 07:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Pgk, I believe it was better to first ask Timothy Usher to explain his logic rather than making accusations against me. According to what policy anon-users can be stopped from edittinga page? Why the issue of changing the title of a section into a neutral one, is this much bothering to Timothy? Good question, isn't it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.26.157 ( talk • contribs)
Pgk, is there anything like "anon-editor rights" in wikipedia (something similar to "human rights", etc) 70.132.26.157 08:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
, but after that [3], you left it out until just now. I think that answers my previous question. Timothy Usher 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Pgk, The Timothy's argument is simply irrelavant. I don't have to make a username in order to edit. Pgk, please see into the issue we were discussing. Pgk, see Timothy's edit summary: "every word has been carefully chosen for its accuracy - now go away, sockpuppet vandal"? This was his answer when he was invited to state his reasons. Do you approve his behavior? Pgk, is there anything like "anon-editor rights" in wikipedia. Is it okay for Timothy to falsely accuse me of vandalism just because he has a username? Pgk, I would like to add that Timothy's above argument shows his chain of thought (and that was mostly developed only after he finally decided to waste his time a bit and explain his view). He evaluates personality of editors rather than their edits. Is this view supportable? 70.132.26.157 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah! Is there anybody here? Pgk believes I am a vandal and has disabled me from editing Timothy Usher's talk page. Seems nobody is at home. Okay bye. 70.132.26.157 08:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Pgk, the anon who vandalized my user page last night (thanks again for sprotect) is now editting from a number of related IP addresses:
User:70.132.26.157, User:70.132.40.180, User:70.132.42.38, User:70.132.58.150, User:70.132.66.114
and is trolling with surreal personal attacks accusing both you and myself of anti-Semitism against anon users (???) and of vandalism [4], [5], [6].
At first I thought it kind of funny, but it’s gotten annoying enough to gather the diffs. What do you think? Timothy Usher 04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Now he's got another one, User:69.235.134.113 - first edit, a revert. Timothy Usher 05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Timothy Usher, nobody is here. Were there anybody here reading my comments, I would have got some reply. Secondly, you were the one who first accused me of vandalism. Now, you are referring to me as a troll. Thirdly, I am not User:69.235.134.113. A new false accusation! Mr. Timothy Usher, an advice that will both help you in wikipedia and in the real life: unless you bring a falsification test along with your claims, they will not have ANY value. 70.231.238.22 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Pgk, this user continues to troll. Latest post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild [7].
Also on the talk page of blocked user User talk:Amibidhrohi to support his vandalism of my user page and personal attacks. Timothy Usher 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Now he's wikistalking me, leaving off-topic messages most everywhere I've posted [8]. I suppose it's not negatively affecting me per se, as any reasonable observer will dismiss (and has dismissed) him as a troll, but it's disrupting Wikipedia. Timothy Usher 06:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Pgk for your comment. I have a couple of questions:
1. Why changing the title of "Re: Amibidhrohi's spam solicitation of religiously-motivated meatpuppetry" to "Amibidhrohi" is vandalism (and an illegitimate edit according to Timothy Usher)? Can you please show me the policy on vandalism and on illegitimate edits?
2. Why do you guys treat me mercilessly? What have I done? Why do you guys ignore me? Just because I don't have a username? I asked you a question on your talk page but you didn’t answer. Honestly, had Timothy Usher asked that question, were you still ignoring him?
3. Pgk, see Timothy's edit summary: "every word has been carefully chosen for its accuracy - now go away, sockpuppet vandal"? This was his answer when he was invited to state his reasons. Do you approve his behavior?
70.231.233.118 06:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you block everyone who has a creative user name and then call them trolls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.19.93.2 ( talk • contribs) on 17:16, 5 June 2006
Notice that the unsigned comment above and this one signed User:Can sleep, clown will not eat me are both, in fact, by the same user: 4.19.93.2. Pinkville 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aido2002
Hello. Please vote for me in my Request for Adminship! Thanks, aido2002 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC) . |
I find this blocking quite ill advised. You blocked him for an inappropriate username, but what's so inappropriate about it? -- THE SUM OF ALL FEARS 23:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
He has been ruining my user page with a mild attack (which I myself have automatically reverted). Please block him for a few months and protect my user page. No one but I has the privilege to edit my own page. -- Slgrandson 13:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice.
I am totally new at this particular medium, and feel pretty lost.
DocDee 08:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of High Culture | |
Awarded for your work in getting Red vs Blue up to featured article status. |
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. DVD+ R/W 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
At the bottom of all pages regarding RuneScape, it says "these articles are also part of the RuneScape series." I wrote an article about RuneScape, how do I make it show up in that list? Thank you. -- Kjgmusic 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't ask the copyright owner for "permission to use the content on Wikipedia." Many people would grant such permission, but if this occurs, the content must be deleted, as the owner has not licensed the work under the GFDL.
Got a question for you... without realizing that you had already blocked him the day before (I misunderstood the block log), I just indefinitely blocked User:Carbine bot. Since both were indefs, and the shorter-block-applies rule is irrelevant here, nothing needs to be corrected (i.e. unblock then reblock), right? Just an oversight on my part?
Thanks. Tijuana Brass E@ 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You recently answered my "helpme" tag and I appreciate that. I have a RfC filed against me at the moment. Am I permitted to simply drop the name, or am I restricted because of the current RfC. If you do not know the answer, I would appreciate a possible point in the right direction. I simply do not want to be followed around having editors take up arms against me because of prior differences of opinion. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, When I checked vandalism on your page. Someone vandalized your page like this [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. These three ID were vandalizing your page. It's Personal Attack. In Wikipedia, Personal Attack is not accepted. So, could you block these three ID for indefinite. These ID are User:Average john user, User:Johnny the Portugese Guy, User:Johnny the Spanish Guy, User:Johnny the French Guy, User:Johnny the Cabal, and User:Cool Fish. Because There Five users are only vandal accounts. The ID that I've mentioned alreaby blocked indefinite? Anyways, I hope you could respond in my talk-page. Thanks. *~Daniel~* 03:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
While the legthy criteria may still apply, the name is by no means random. See
Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (in the mainspace) for an explanation. I was just going through a list of banned users (it was a non-sequiter from Raphael1's arcom case) and noticed this one. Not going to press, just wanted to inform :) -
M
ask
20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, pgk, I semiprotected your userpage after three vandalism attacks, as I didn't realize you were online. However, since you are around, I'll leave you to decide what you want. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it (and explaining what the + tab is for!). I do not believe it is a POV dispute--there are several authors who have made constructive changes to the article from varying points of view without blanking it entirely. 216.45.156.46 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is content to delete all of our hard work. Thanks again. MrPrada 17:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems OK for now. Thank you for your attention. There have been a whole series of these foul mouthed user names. Do you think there are several foul mouthed souls, or just one with a really childish attitude? Best wishes. WBardwin 07:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking me :) For some reason my large (~100,000ish) ISP chooses to use the same proxy address for all traffic, so any time somebody acts up I find myself unable to edit. Orderinchaos78 21:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why your page still vandalized everyday. Others must be blocked indefinite because others are also only vandal accounts like ID that I mentioned last week. So, other ID that vandalized already blocked indefinite? Ahh, I feel so bad that many Id vandalized your page. I hope no one will vandalize your page. I was assuming that other user still bother you. Please, You must reply in my talk page. Do not ignore my message.
*~Daniel~* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
*~Daniel~* 04:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you don't understand what I said yesterday. I just asked you that ID that I mentioned were already blocked indefinite. *~Daniel~* 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, with regards to your removals of my unblock request
[15]
[16]
I would like to stress that I find you were wrong and should never do such things again. As
Zocky agrees with me:
A request for unblock is not a request to get told to email the blocking admin.
Socafan
13:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting my talk page. I just hate that vandal...I assume you would too, seeing as you got hit pretty hard yourself. :) Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
"Isn't customary to add the edits according to which the block has been decided?" "No it isn't customary" Does this mean that I get blocked and will never know what I was punished for???-- Panairjdde 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me out while I was away from Wikipedia ( User talk:Panairjdde). You said what I wanted to say more eloquently than I ever would be able to. THUMBS UP! Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for voting! Hello Pgk/Archive3, and thank you so much for |
-- Pilot| guy 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I use Flcelloguy's tool. I can do yours and tell you because it is off site if you wish(check your email).-- Dakota ~ 17:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please just ignore it, sorry.-- Dakota ~ 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Noticed you're around at the moment. I'm relatively new round here, but I think I've spotted some blatant sockpuppetry (and vandalism, needless to say). Interested? -- Dweller 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You helped me SOOOOOOO MUCH today. And when I got done, I ended up with a star. SO, 1/2 of that star is yours, seriously. When I figure out how to do it I will put your name by it. THANK YOU! Ste4k 03:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
25 June 2006 20:06 Ste4k wrote: I'll just tack this one below my other one. Can you get hold of me in IRC please? Edit war is stirring. Thanks.
Considering the number of times you back up my blocks, I'm sure you've done loads the same for plenty of other admins (either that or you stalk my block log!). Much appreciated for those moments when you just can't be bothered arguing any more. Cheers, Petros471 20:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the un-blocking, the proxy servers have had their user pages apended with {{sharedip}} which I am usure of the effects.
The proxy blocked is a manditory route for users of tgpi.com.au ISP and would have been blocking many users in sydney.
Thanks again. Dananimal 11:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I figured out that it was the school computer I was using earlier. Thanks anyways.-- Silver seren 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please unprotect User talk:216.164.203.90. You blocked it about a month ago, it is my IP address’s page, and I would like to place a notice on top of it telling people to leave massages on my talk page as I occasionally forget to logon. Thanks. Nookdog 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello! The Mediation Cabal has created a spiffy new IRC channel, and would like to use a bot that runs a feature similar to the "!helpme" function of helpmebot. Can you give us the script for helpmebot so we can use parts of it to script our bot? -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You're probably aware of this already, but this user isn't just simply adding POV to Wikipedia out of ignorance. If you look at his talk page and contributions, you'll see a long string of problems. In particular, given his previous involvement with the GNAA article, I feel fully justified in describing his random addition of race-related speculation to articles as trolling. I've found explaining policy to him to be pointless—he knows it already, but is subverting it. Of course you're welcome to talk with him for as long as you like, but please do discuss it with me if you're ever tempted to think he deserves to be unblocked. -- SCZenz 09:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the twxt of the message I received: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by InShaneee for the following reason (see our blocking policy): vandalism through possible open IP
Your IP address is 84.190.38.235.
I hope that is the info you asked for. Is the first time I've been blocked and I'm not suere on how does it work.
Thanks to have taken the bolck away anyway! -- Dia^ 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC) PS I notice now that the User that bock my IP is now red...actually when I got the block the user did had an user page...-- Dia^ 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
When you have time, I would like you to help upgrade my bot; right now it is running version 1.00. Also, it has no whitelist, blacklist, etc, just adminlist, it won't report blocks even though it's configured to do so, and so on. Otherwise, it is working fine in lieu of yours but yours is better and more reliable. Thanks, -- Pilotguy ( roger that) 19:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you review Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#Fluxbot_request_for_approval as to the suitability of a flag? Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 04:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Lately I've noticed an unusual type of vandalism that seems to have gone on undetected for months. A few of my old edits have been reverted by anons, without explanations or apparent legitimate reasons. These reverts lack edit summaries, even the usual "rv". I can only assume that these reverts are being made in bad faith. An example is [17] reverted by [18].
These are substantial edits, and by the time I discover the reversions, lots more edits have been made, making extra work when I un-revert them.
I would suggest setting up Pgkbot or another bot on
#vandalism-en-wp to check for reversions by diffing against older revisions. Those made by anons or new users, and those without edit summaries, can be considered suspicious. Also, given how long this example vandalism went undiscovered (from April 15 until earlier today), your bot should probably also scan through historical edits as far back as they go.Seahen
Neon
Merlin
07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've brisked over and seen you've been tanked, but just wanted to say thanks for unblocking me. champ. Peter 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask you about a comment Major18 added to his discussion page over vandalism, in which he cited me as one of the vandals. When i tried to remove my username from his list you reverted the edit - i'm just interested to know why :-). For the record i have never vandalised anything on wikipedia, although ironically my own userpage has been vandalised by him! [19] (many thanks to Pilotguy for following it up). Would it be possible to remove me? -- David 23:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Your decision not to unblock my account is unreasonable - I knew nothing about this blocking process, until it happened. I thought you were supposed to discuss it with me? I'm perfectly happy to cooperate with the system, and I'm waiting to repost my material complete with supporting references.
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Addis"
Where did you see the block message?-- Nixer 06:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log) asked to be unblocked. The reason given was: have no clue what I did wrong One or more administrators has reviewed this request and declined to unblock the account. The reason for declining was: Seems pretty transparent to me, a revert war on a template and you just happen to turn up and join in. No unblock
User violated no rules, he made 1 revert (so no 3RR) yet you refused to unblock him. why? Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else
Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I just like to say thank you for letting me do my sandbox. PS: Heres a link if you forget: [User:Philip1992/Sandbox]. -- Philip1992 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Philip1992
RE: I actually know one the person doing this personally, and he is doing it intentionally to prove a point. He will not stop voulentarily. Another user, wikibout, had a history of doing similar edits (claiming he's german) and decided to join in.
I submit that the information contained on Carlos Mencia's official website should be considered priority over all other hearsay. http://carlosmencia.com/content/bio.php
There is no evidence of any kind to support the rogue editors.
Need your help pgk with stopping some vandals. Here's the backround:
The Carlos Mencia page is being vandalised. I have reverted the page many times but it continues to be revandalised with false information.
Requesting a block of IP's that have changed the information about his mother and racial background based on a letter that Joe Rogan wrote on his website, which contains false accusations Carlos Mencia is half german half honduran, and that information about his parents and ethnicity is "sketchy at best" when IMDB, NPR, and countless other credible sources, including Carlos Mencia's own official website, provide detailed history that correctly coincides with the pre-vandaled version of the Carlos Mencia entry.
Thanks, User:Didonato
thank you for all your recent help with the unblock let me know if i can every pay you back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by hunter91 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for adding a protect to the Carlos Mencia page, but can you please make an edit to the vandalism that was there when you set the protection? The birthname is presently "Ned Arnel Holness" from a vandalism right before you protected it, whereas it should be "Ned Arnel Mencia" (as per his official website). thanks.
Thank you very much for making my time in Wikipedia super. I have decided to leave and I don't think I will be back. Thank you again for helping me and making my time in Wikipedia super. Best Regards, ForestH2 t/ c 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi thanks for your advice re English/British. It seems like I'm heading for an edit war with an anonymous editor on bands such as the Style Council, Coldplay and the Pet Shop Boys. Is it also true to say Cardiff should be UK rather than Wales? Bevo74 12:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
As as way of saying thank you for unblocking me from the those autoblocks again and again, I award you this Working Man's Barnstar. FireSpike 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
Just blocked User:Cool_Cat@81.213.136.114 which seemed an odd name to choose, I assume it's not you. -- pgk( talk) 19:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Needs WP:PP - baned user using as a soapbox. Others are linking to it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I dont mean to be rude, but you keep blocking me. What am I doing wrong?
Whoops, sorry, just read about the autoblocker. its coo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foster2008 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for your support with this user. My hope is the block will give him time to calm down a little. I see the possibility of him being a productive editor if he can come to an accomodation with the basic rules. Best, Gwernol 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to be a nice guy, I changed the title with a template hack from User:Pgk to User:pgk. Hope you like this! :-) 1ne 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You should only use the rollback on vandalism. 1ne 17:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
More collateral, 1 autoblock, AOL-- AOL account 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!!! Wandering Star 18:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[20] :) Syrthiss 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help. All works fine now. :-) Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 13:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Currently if a user's greylisted and blacklisted, it reports the greylisting for their edits, rather than the blacklist.
Blacklist entries should be reported over greylist entries, or it should report both, perhaps as "Blacklist, recently reverted" - someone can get on the greylist "accidentally", whereas blacklist means that they have been identifies as a "problem", and therefore its a more "serious" flag. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If there's some way we can show both? I think most blacklistings are probably manual at least for anons, so if we could show some indication when reporting that someone is both blacklisted and greylisted, this would help me somewhat in deciding which edits require the most scrutiny.... - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 14:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for expressing your opinion. My comments are that we disagree about content, which is completely natural. I would suggest there was no requirement for Phil Welch to block me for a content dispute. Also regarding your views about Matrixism, the following provides verifiability [21] and [22]. Addhoc 11:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The quote was from Adam Possamai, who is a recognised expert in sociology of religion. If you are suggesting the references are insufficient to justify an entire article, then I agree. However, I would consider the references sufficient to justify a very brief mention, possibly in religion and the internet. Regardless, my point is this conversation is a content dispute and persons should not be blocked for expressing an opinion. Addhoc 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I saw those in the new users log, right as you left me that note. He just wants to keep recreating a POV fork deleted at AfD, apparently. Just block them all as an attempt to evade the block. :( Kimchi.sg 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
im giving you a break, im gonna play some softball with my 4 buds. you do realize it's 4 guys doing this, not just one?
Just tell the people to vote for the compromised version, and if the vote begins and you leave me a message and a link to the vote, i'll gladly stop.
I expect a message within 3 minutes.
Thanks for removing the autoblock. I didn't try to edit from an IP, I think I just forgot to sign in when I wanted to edit my talkpage. Anyway, thanks. Azmoc 20:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
for undoing an autoblock-- Apeman 21:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I will, just tell CFIF the same thing. CoolKatt number 99999 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
He is being uncivil towards me, please help? CoolKatt number 99999 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is Pjpalm1964 and you just moved my page (looks like I put it in the wrong place), and removed my question and link to the helpme template.
I am learning as fast as I can, but would like some help on how to collaborate using Talk pages, how to email, and how to join the Automotive project. (Is this the proper way to talk to you?)
Cheers, Paul
This is outsider2810! Thanks for unblocing me, you are the greatest :)
Please take a look at Willis Stephens and 216.45.156.46, an ipvandal who continues to blank the page against the tireless efforts of several editors from very different points of view. MrPrada 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding blocked IP 206.213.157.4, Branham High School, I do not believe that the district has taken action against this individual. Regardless, I am almost confident that he has already completed high school at Branham, so no worries.
Please be advised that user Asams10 keeps deleting relevant links in the AK-47 article. He has been blocked numerous times for repeatedly, unilaterally changing what he calls his "pet articles." See .380 ACP.
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AK-47
Thanks for unblocking me!
You may want to block this one. DG X 19:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I reverted it because the page had been blanked in the edit immediately before it. I wasn't sure if the user had been unblocked or not, and wasn't sure if that was a warning or not, so I reverted on the side of error. Sorry for the inconvenience. KC9CQJ 03:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
is it possible that you could reconsider over this user unblocking request? his block time is now nearly 9 days. He, also, is clearly sorry for any disruption he has caused. And after all he only made ONE offensive comment and even that was pretty mild. Look into it at least Cicero Dog 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you indefinitely blocked User:Jesus On Wheels as an inappropriate username. This person has been making legitimate edits to Wikipedia. Please see his block log entries and note that he was previously unblocked on appeal of being a legitimate user. Further, see his userpage which explains his use of the name. Also, this account has performed no page moves, and doesn't fit the profile of WoW. Pending any further evidence that this contributor is actually a vandal, I think it would be best if you unblocked his account and allow him to continue to contribute. -- Durin 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer (of not wheel warring with me if I unblock), I've decided to take it, and I'm prepared to face the consequences of my actions if it blows up in my face. I'd better go get that face shield. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Jesus On Wheels
(
talk ·
contribs ·
checkuser ·
block user ·
block log ·
edit count) to change it despite the notice Please dont leave me messages to change my name.
Myrtone :-oThanks :) Dlohcierekim 14:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... Something funny just struck me. Looks at User:Myrtone86's signature which says :
Myrtone@Jesus On Wheels.com.au
Hmm.. interesting... DG X 17:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The former is becuase in my preferences (with raw sgniture ticked) I have "Myr'''tone'''@{{PAGENAME}}.com.au," which produces Myrtone@Pgk.com.au.
Thank you! --
Doug (
talk)
18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
For reverting the vandalism done to my userpage, have a cookie. ;)
Rosa
I think that most of the usernames you mentioned on my talk page were registered by the North Carolina vandal. I understand that unblocking IPs used by vandals is a very bad idea. Unfortunately, this vandal is an AOL user, and keeping the IPs blocked will no doubt cause inconvenience to many legitimate editors. -- Ixfd64 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
YOU: Should have expired by now, but saying you didn't know about a rule when you've a warning about it just above from 30 minutes before the block seems somewhat inconsistent.
Yes but I saw that warnig when I've been blocked. So it was to late. -- Stevanb 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I was busy making some changes, so I didn't notice that baner. Anyway it is ok now I'm unlocked. -- Stevanb 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Too much is in that article 50 Cent. I moved the singles to it's own article. Thanks for your cooperation. LILVOKA 22:33 25 May 2006 (UTC)
yes it worked! now lets just hope that i will not get blocked again! thank you Touth 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandal
Thewolfstar (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) using IP
24.161.21.22 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log).
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
16:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia required users to register in order to contribute, and that when registering that user must give a unique e-mail address. That way, when users vandalize, they have only one "self", and when they get blocked, THEY GET BLOCKED. What currently happens is that people create accounts SOLELY for vandalism, and do their business and log out of those accounts before an autoblock is placed. Then they create five more accounts doing the same until they've maxed out of accounts for the 24-hour period. Or instead they take their laptop, jump in their car, and drive around to each wi-fi "hotspot" to vandalize until being blocked, then move on to the next hotspot. This method I've explained would help to seriously hinder vandalism. -- NicAgent 01:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking me. I didn't know about the {{helpme}} feature, so I thought it would help me get unblocked faster. Wrong assumption; sorry about that. Anyway, the person who tried to create an account name like mine WON'T be using my IP address anytime soon, so no worries. I've also password-protected my IP just in case. Anyway, thanks again!
Thistheman 14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I replied to your comment at User talk:69.74.63.194. -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 17:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Commenting on Motorox's unblock request, you have said: "you have a string of other sockpuppets". I am interested: What are User:AppleJuicefromConcentrate's other sockpuppets? (I have added the sockpuppet notice on Motorox's page myself, and I am not aware of any others.) - Mike Rosoft
Thank you for unblocking me.
I' sorry, I didn't know there was Notability requirments. You where right. QwssE 04:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope that does not happen again. DeleteThis 09:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I appreciate the attention. Best..... WBardwin 10:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Permission to publish (whether in print or on the Internet) is always subject to withdrawal regardless of such conditional statements that pretend to have the power to nullify the intent of the law. Copyright permission is always subject to denial. This is the whole point behind the DMCA takedown. You need to read the DMCA signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998 which amends title 17 of the US Code to extend its reach to copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users still requires publishers to comply with any change in owner instructions and will. You need to read the Wikipedia article Digital Millennium Copyright Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pce3@ij.net ( talk • contribs)
message I'm currently getting says this -
Ok, I did not know you were an administrator, because I looked at your user page, and it did not show that you were, so I assumed you were not. Also, are bans put on a permanant record type of list?
Thanks for your help! -- Marysunshine 17:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Came across this one... (Edit: and this one) Radio Kirk talk to me 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that pgk. ;-) DG X 22:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping deal with the vandalism to my Talk page. Al 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
and I will be reporting you for your abusive behavior Lutherian 05:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you again for unblocking me. It's very frustrating to suddenly find a block when you know you've done nothing to even possibly warrant it.-- T smitts 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe I have come across a new sockpuppet of Bugman94:
A quick message he left and then deleted on my talk page, which can be found in my talk page history here clearly suggests that this is the same user.
Whatever it is, it can detect possible impostor names really well! Can you tell me what it is (or wikilink to it?) You and your bot are doing a very good job! Keep it up! =) -- Shultz IV 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Touth is once again blocked. I think it's his IP. Do you want to look into unblocking him? I'm not an admin though. I've warned him about using caps again. ForestH2
thanks for unblocking me and i will let you know how i get on.
by Touth 23:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright thanks, it worked that time. I'm still kinda angry I was blocked since the 3RR report was obviously bogus, I never even reverted 3 times in one day.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
hello again pgk! i am just letting you know that i am still doing ok. i have not been blocked yet which is a good thing! how about you? Touth 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The intro, I made keeps on being delted or removed. It was the result of a long fought compromise and sweet braking work. It is being removed and the eidtos pretend they have no idea what I am talking about. 72.57.230.179
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States
Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.-- Ryz05 t 02:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Pgk,
User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has been blocked by User:HOTR in clear violation of the blocking policy. [1]. He’s posted an unblock template on his talk page, where a discussion is taking place. Fresh from the false ANI report against him and resulting block (for six reverts in six days!), it's starting to look like persecution. I would deeply appreciate your willingness to take a look at this. Timothy Usher 17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
M r. L e fty Talk to me! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I've seen a lot of that particular style of vandalism lately. I smell sockpuppets... M r. L e fty Talk to me! 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the explaination of why I was blocked.
Josen
20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I had already rejected two appeals with explanation above yours, but left the sign there for another admin to have a look. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I was blocked for personal attacks, not 3RR. Why then was the grounds refused based on 3RR?-- PatCheng 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Pgk, please, please sprotect my user talk page again. That was the only peace I've ever known on WP. I've never once gotten a legitimate message from an anon, and now another one - judging from his contributions, clearly another user (though I like how he went to the sandbox first to pretend otherwise) - has been changing existing section headers. Not quite as bad as the last round, but I don't wish to have to stay up all night fighting off anons, or reporting them to ANI (or bothering you) - sprotect is easier for all involved. Timothy Usher 07:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Pgk, I believe it was better to first ask Timothy Usher to explain his logic rather than making accusations against me. According to what policy anon-users can be stopped from edittinga page? Why the issue of changing the title of a section into a neutral one, is this much bothering to Timothy? Good question, isn't it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.26.157 ( talk • contribs)
Pgk, is there anything like "anon-editor rights" in wikipedia (something similar to "human rights", etc) 70.132.26.157 08:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
, but after that [3], you left it out until just now. I think that answers my previous question. Timothy Usher 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Pgk, The Timothy's argument is simply irrelavant. I don't have to make a username in order to edit. Pgk, please see into the issue we were discussing. Pgk, see Timothy's edit summary: "every word has been carefully chosen for its accuracy - now go away, sockpuppet vandal"? This was his answer when he was invited to state his reasons. Do you approve his behavior? Pgk, is there anything like "anon-editor rights" in wikipedia. Is it okay for Timothy to falsely accuse me of vandalism just because he has a username? Pgk, I would like to add that Timothy's above argument shows his chain of thought (and that was mostly developed only after he finally decided to waste his time a bit and explain his view). He evaluates personality of editors rather than their edits. Is this view supportable? 70.132.26.157 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah! Is there anybody here? Pgk believes I am a vandal and has disabled me from editing Timothy Usher's talk page. Seems nobody is at home. Okay bye. 70.132.26.157 08:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Pgk, the anon who vandalized my user page last night (thanks again for sprotect) is now editting from a number of related IP addresses:
User:70.132.26.157, User:70.132.40.180, User:70.132.42.38, User:70.132.58.150, User:70.132.66.114
and is trolling with surreal personal attacks accusing both you and myself of anti-Semitism against anon users (???) and of vandalism [4], [5], [6].
At first I thought it kind of funny, but it’s gotten annoying enough to gather the diffs. What do you think? Timothy Usher 04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Now he's got another one, User:69.235.134.113 - first edit, a revert. Timothy Usher 05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Timothy Usher, nobody is here. Were there anybody here reading my comments, I would have got some reply. Secondly, you were the one who first accused me of vandalism. Now, you are referring to me as a troll. Thirdly, I am not User:69.235.134.113. A new false accusation! Mr. Timothy Usher, an advice that will both help you in wikipedia and in the real life: unless you bring a falsification test along with your claims, they will not have ANY value. 70.231.238.22 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Pgk, this user continues to troll. Latest post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild [7].
Also on the talk page of blocked user User talk:Amibidhrohi to support his vandalism of my user page and personal attacks. Timothy Usher 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Now he's wikistalking me, leaving off-topic messages most everywhere I've posted [8]. I suppose it's not negatively affecting me per se, as any reasonable observer will dismiss (and has dismissed) him as a troll, but it's disrupting Wikipedia. Timothy Usher 06:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Pgk for your comment. I have a couple of questions:
1. Why changing the title of "Re: Amibidhrohi's spam solicitation of religiously-motivated meatpuppetry" to "Amibidhrohi" is vandalism (and an illegitimate edit according to Timothy Usher)? Can you please show me the policy on vandalism and on illegitimate edits?
2. Why do you guys treat me mercilessly? What have I done? Why do you guys ignore me? Just because I don't have a username? I asked you a question on your talk page but you didn’t answer. Honestly, had Timothy Usher asked that question, were you still ignoring him?
3. Pgk, see Timothy's edit summary: "every word has been carefully chosen for its accuracy - now go away, sockpuppet vandal"? This was his answer when he was invited to state his reasons. Do you approve his behavior?
70.231.233.118 06:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you block everyone who has a creative user name and then call them trolls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.19.93.2 ( talk • contribs) on 17:16, 5 June 2006
Notice that the unsigned comment above and this one signed User:Can sleep, clown will not eat me are both, in fact, by the same user: 4.19.93.2. Pinkville 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aido2002
Hello. Please vote for me in my Request for Adminship! Thanks, aido2002 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC) . |
I find this blocking quite ill advised. You blocked him for an inappropriate username, but what's so inappropriate about it? -- THE SUM OF ALL FEARS 23:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
He has been ruining my user page with a mild attack (which I myself have automatically reverted). Please block him for a few months and protect my user page. No one but I has the privilege to edit my own page. -- Slgrandson 13:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice.
I am totally new at this particular medium, and feel pretty lost.
DocDee 08:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of High Culture | |
Awarded for your work in getting Red vs Blue up to featured article status. |
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. DVD+ R/W 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
At the bottom of all pages regarding RuneScape, it says "these articles are also part of the RuneScape series." I wrote an article about RuneScape, how do I make it show up in that list? Thank you. -- Kjgmusic 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't ask the copyright owner for "permission to use the content on Wikipedia." Many people would grant such permission, but if this occurs, the content must be deleted, as the owner has not licensed the work under the GFDL.
Got a question for you... without realizing that you had already blocked him the day before (I misunderstood the block log), I just indefinitely blocked User:Carbine bot. Since both were indefs, and the shorter-block-applies rule is irrelevant here, nothing needs to be corrected (i.e. unblock then reblock), right? Just an oversight on my part?
Thanks. Tijuana Brass E@ 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You recently answered my "helpme" tag and I appreciate that. I have a RfC filed against me at the moment. Am I permitted to simply drop the name, or am I restricted because of the current RfC. If you do not know the answer, I would appreciate a possible point in the right direction. I simply do not want to be followed around having editors take up arms against me because of prior differences of opinion. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, When I checked vandalism on your page. Someone vandalized your page like this [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. These three ID were vandalizing your page. It's Personal Attack. In Wikipedia, Personal Attack is not accepted. So, could you block these three ID for indefinite. These ID are User:Average john user, User:Johnny the Portugese Guy, User:Johnny the Spanish Guy, User:Johnny the French Guy, User:Johnny the Cabal, and User:Cool Fish. Because There Five users are only vandal accounts. The ID that I've mentioned alreaby blocked indefinite? Anyways, I hope you could respond in my talk-page. Thanks. *~Daniel~* 03:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
While the legthy criteria may still apply, the name is by no means random. See
Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (in the mainspace) for an explanation. I was just going through a list of banned users (it was a non-sequiter from Raphael1's arcom case) and noticed this one. Not going to press, just wanted to inform :) -
M
ask
20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, pgk, I semiprotected your userpage after three vandalism attacks, as I didn't realize you were online. However, since you are around, I'll leave you to decide what you want. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it (and explaining what the + tab is for!). I do not believe it is a POV dispute--there are several authors who have made constructive changes to the article from varying points of view without blanking it entirely. 216.45.156.46 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is content to delete all of our hard work. Thanks again. MrPrada 17:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems OK for now. Thank you for your attention. There have been a whole series of these foul mouthed user names. Do you think there are several foul mouthed souls, or just one with a really childish attitude? Best wishes. WBardwin 07:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking me :) For some reason my large (~100,000ish) ISP chooses to use the same proxy address for all traffic, so any time somebody acts up I find myself unable to edit. Orderinchaos78 21:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why your page still vandalized everyday. Others must be blocked indefinite because others are also only vandal accounts like ID that I mentioned last week. So, other ID that vandalized already blocked indefinite? Ahh, I feel so bad that many Id vandalized your page. I hope no one will vandalize your page. I was assuming that other user still bother you. Please, You must reply in my talk page. Do not ignore my message.
*~Daniel~* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
*~Daniel~* 04:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you don't understand what I said yesterday. I just asked you that ID that I mentioned were already blocked indefinite. *~Daniel~* 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, with regards to your removals of my unblock request
[15]
[16]
I would like to stress that I find you were wrong and should never do such things again. As
Zocky agrees with me:
A request for unblock is not a request to get told to email the blocking admin.
Socafan
13:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting my talk page. I just hate that vandal...I assume you would too, seeing as you got hit pretty hard yourself. :) Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
"Isn't customary to add the edits according to which the block has been decided?" "No it isn't customary" Does this mean that I get blocked and will never know what I was punished for???-- Panairjdde 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me out while I was away from Wikipedia ( User talk:Panairjdde). You said what I wanted to say more eloquently than I ever would be able to. THUMBS UP! Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for voting! Hello Pgk/Archive3, and thank you so much for |
-- Pilot| guy 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I use Flcelloguy's tool. I can do yours and tell you because it is off site if you wish(check your email).-- Dakota ~ 17:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please just ignore it, sorry.-- Dakota ~ 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Noticed you're around at the moment. I'm relatively new round here, but I think I've spotted some blatant sockpuppetry (and vandalism, needless to say). Interested? -- Dweller 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You helped me SOOOOOOO MUCH today. And when I got done, I ended up with a star. SO, 1/2 of that star is yours, seriously. When I figure out how to do it I will put your name by it. THANK YOU! Ste4k 03:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
25 June 2006 20:06 Ste4k wrote: I'll just tack this one below my other one. Can you get hold of me in IRC please? Edit war is stirring. Thanks.
Considering the number of times you back up my blocks, I'm sure you've done loads the same for plenty of other admins (either that or you stalk my block log!). Much appreciated for those moments when you just can't be bothered arguing any more. Cheers, Petros471 20:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the un-blocking, the proxy servers have had their user pages apended with {{sharedip}} which I am usure of the effects.
The proxy blocked is a manditory route for users of tgpi.com.au ISP and would have been blocking many users in sydney.
Thanks again. Dananimal 11:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I figured out that it was the school computer I was using earlier. Thanks anyways.-- Silver seren 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please unprotect User talk:216.164.203.90. You blocked it about a month ago, it is my IP address’s page, and I would like to place a notice on top of it telling people to leave massages on my talk page as I occasionally forget to logon. Thanks. Nookdog 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello! The Mediation Cabal has created a spiffy new IRC channel, and would like to use a bot that runs a feature similar to the "!helpme" function of helpmebot. Can you give us the script for helpmebot so we can use parts of it to script our bot? -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You're probably aware of this already, but this user isn't just simply adding POV to Wikipedia out of ignorance. If you look at his talk page and contributions, you'll see a long string of problems. In particular, given his previous involvement with the GNAA article, I feel fully justified in describing his random addition of race-related speculation to articles as trolling. I've found explaining policy to him to be pointless—he knows it already, but is subverting it. Of course you're welcome to talk with him for as long as you like, but please do discuss it with me if you're ever tempted to think he deserves to be unblocked. -- SCZenz 09:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the twxt of the message I received: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by InShaneee for the following reason (see our blocking policy): vandalism through possible open IP
Your IP address is 84.190.38.235.
I hope that is the info you asked for. Is the first time I've been blocked and I'm not suere on how does it work.
Thanks to have taken the bolck away anyway! -- Dia^ 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC) PS I notice now that the User that bock my IP is now red...actually when I got the block the user did had an user page...-- Dia^ 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
When you have time, I would like you to help upgrade my bot; right now it is running version 1.00. Also, it has no whitelist, blacklist, etc, just adminlist, it won't report blocks even though it's configured to do so, and so on. Otherwise, it is working fine in lieu of yours but yours is better and more reliable. Thanks, -- Pilotguy ( roger that) 19:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you review Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#Fluxbot_request_for_approval as to the suitability of a flag? Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 04:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Lately I've noticed an unusual type of vandalism that seems to have gone on undetected for months. A few of my old edits have been reverted by anons, without explanations or apparent legitimate reasons. These reverts lack edit summaries, even the usual "rv". I can only assume that these reverts are being made in bad faith. An example is [17] reverted by [18].
These are substantial edits, and by the time I discover the reversions, lots more edits have been made, making extra work when I un-revert them.
I would suggest setting up Pgkbot or another bot on
#vandalism-en-wp to check for reversions by diffing against older revisions. Those made by anons or new users, and those without edit summaries, can be considered suspicious. Also, given how long this example vandalism went undiscovered (from April 15 until earlier today), your bot should probably also scan through historical edits as far back as they go.Seahen
Neon
Merlin
07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've brisked over and seen you've been tanked, but just wanted to say thanks for unblocking me. champ. Peter 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask you about a comment Major18 added to his discussion page over vandalism, in which he cited me as one of the vandals. When i tried to remove my username from his list you reverted the edit - i'm just interested to know why :-). For the record i have never vandalised anything on wikipedia, although ironically my own userpage has been vandalised by him! [19] (many thanks to Pilotguy for following it up). Would it be possible to remove me? -- David 23:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Your decision not to unblock my account is unreasonable - I knew nothing about this blocking process, until it happened. I thought you were supposed to discuss it with me? I'm perfectly happy to cooperate with the system, and I'm waiting to repost my material complete with supporting references.
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Addis"
Where did you see the block message?-- Nixer 06:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log) asked to be unblocked. The reason given was: have no clue what I did wrong One or more administrators has reviewed this request and declined to unblock the account. The reason for declining was: Seems pretty transparent to me, a revert war on a template and you just happen to turn up and join in. No unblock
User violated no rules, he made 1 revert (so no 3RR) yet you refused to unblock him. why? Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else
Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I just like to say thank you for letting me do my sandbox. PS: Heres a link if you forget: [User:Philip1992/Sandbox]. -- Philip1992 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Philip1992
RE: I actually know one the person doing this personally, and he is doing it intentionally to prove a point. He will not stop voulentarily. Another user, wikibout, had a history of doing similar edits (claiming he's german) and decided to join in.
I submit that the information contained on Carlos Mencia's official website should be considered priority over all other hearsay. http://carlosmencia.com/content/bio.php
There is no evidence of any kind to support the rogue editors.
Need your help pgk with stopping some vandals. Here's the backround:
The Carlos Mencia page is being vandalised. I have reverted the page many times but it continues to be revandalised with false information.
Requesting a block of IP's that have changed the information about his mother and racial background based on a letter that Joe Rogan wrote on his website, which contains false accusations Carlos Mencia is half german half honduran, and that information about his parents and ethnicity is "sketchy at best" when IMDB, NPR, and countless other credible sources, including Carlos Mencia's own official website, provide detailed history that correctly coincides with the pre-vandaled version of the Carlos Mencia entry.
Thanks, User:Didonato
thank you for all your recent help with the unblock let me know if i can every pay you back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by hunter91 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for adding a protect to the Carlos Mencia page, but can you please make an edit to the vandalism that was there when you set the protection? The birthname is presently "Ned Arnel Holness" from a vandalism right before you protected it, whereas it should be "Ned Arnel Mencia" (as per his official website). thanks.
Thank you very much for making my time in Wikipedia super. I have decided to leave and I don't think I will be back. Thank you again for helping me and making my time in Wikipedia super. Best Regards, ForestH2 t/ c 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi thanks for your advice re English/British. It seems like I'm heading for an edit war with an anonymous editor on bands such as the Style Council, Coldplay and the Pet Shop Boys. Is it also true to say Cardiff should be UK rather than Wales? Bevo74 12:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
As as way of saying thank you for unblocking me from the those autoblocks again and again, I award you this Working Man's Barnstar. FireSpike 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
Just blocked User:Cool_Cat@81.213.136.114 which seemed an odd name to choose, I assume it's not you. -- pgk( talk) 19:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Needs WP:PP - baned user using as a soapbox. Others are linking to it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I dont mean to be rude, but you keep blocking me. What am I doing wrong?
Whoops, sorry, just read about the autoblocker. its coo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foster2008 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for your support with this user. My hope is the block will give him time to calm down a little. I see the possibility of him being a productive editor if he can come to an accomodation with the basic rules. Best, Gwernol 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to be a nice guy, I changed the title with a template hack from User:Pgk to User:pgk. Hope you like this! :-) 1ne 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You should only use the rollback on vandalism. 1ne 17:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
More collateral, 1 autoblock, AOL-- AOL account 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!!! Wandering Star 18:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[20] :) Syrthiss 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help. All works fine now. :-) Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 13:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Currently if a user's greylisted and blacklisted, it reports the greylisting for their edits, rather than the blacklist.
Blacklist entries should be reported over greylist entries, or it should report both, perhaps as "Blacklist, recently reverted" - someone can get on the greylist "accidentally", whereas blacklist means that they have been identifies as a "problem", and therefore its a more "serious" flag. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If there's some way we can show both? I think most blacklistings are probably manual at least for anons, so if we could show some indication when reporting that someone is both blacklisted and greylisted, this would help me somewhat in deciding which edits require the most scrutiny.... - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 14:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for expressing your opinion. My comments are that we disagree about content, which is completely natural. I would suggest there was no requirement for Phil Welch to block me for a content dispute. Also regarding your views about Matrixism, the following provides verifiability [21] and [22]. Addhoc 11:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The quote was from Adam Possamai, who is a recognised expert in sociology of religion. If you are suggesting the references are insufficient to justify an entire article, then I agree. However, I would consider the references sufficient to justify a very brief mention, possibly in religion and the internet. Regardless, my point is this conversation is a content dispute and persons should not be blocked for expressing an opinion. Addhoc 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I saw those in the new users log, right as you left me that note. He just wants to keep recreating a POV fork deleted at AfD, apparently. Just block them all as an attempt to evade the block. :( Kimchi.sg 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
im giving you a break, im gonna play some softball with my 4 buds. you do realize it's 4 guys doing this, not just one?
Just tell the people to vote for the compromised version, and if the vote begins and you leave me a message and a link to the vote, i'll gladly stop.
I expect a message within 3 minutes.
Thanks for removing the autoblock. I didn't try to edit from an IP, I think I just forgot to sign in when I wanted to edit my talkpage. Anyway, thanks. Azmoc 20:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
for undoing an autoblock-- Apeman 21:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I will, just tell CFIF the same thing. CoolKatt number 99999 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
He is being uncivil towards me, please help? CoolKatt number 99999 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)