This 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

---

being state doesnt mean to be recognized by everyone, UN is just organization UN dont create states

I ask u kindly because u as admin u have codin skills to put flag and coat of arms on top because the is no reason not to do so only if u discriminate kosovo as a state

thank you in advance for your time -- Lontech ( talk) 01:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You might like to know that I have reported 3 users ( Lontech, Sulmues, Spanishboy2006) who are violating Wikipedia consensus on Kosovo to the ArbCom probation enforcement page. Feel free to leave any comments, if you'd like. All the best, -- Cinéma C 02:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I have reviewed the unblock request made by User:Christand Joseph of your indef blocking of his account, and I have reduced it from an indef block to a 24-hour block. A review of Mr. Joseph shows that he did make an attempt to seek clarification of his disputed actions via a message to User:Zhang He, who had issued warnings against Mr. Joseph. However, Zhang He ignored the inquiry and removed Mr. Joseph's input from the Talk Page. Since Mr. Joseph made an effort to seek assistance and it was rebuffed, I cannot consider him to be an unapologetic vandal. However, his persistence in placing the disputed link online does not warrant a full pardon, hence the reduction rather than absolution. If Mr. Joseph doesn't learn from this experience, however, I will have no problems in reblocking him for a greater length of time. Thank you. Pastor Theo ( talk) 02:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Thanks for letting me know. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[1] Half Shadow 03:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please notice the reply to Fastily on my user talk page. I was making a spelling correction. Phallogocentrism is the correct spelling of the term; hence please notice where the link is directing the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.70.254 ( talk) 04:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I read that as, um, something else... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the appropriate action. There is no other way to deal with disruptive users who make edits such as this one [2], as there is no talking to them. I know that you are not heavily involved with the subjects but I just wish to say that the forms of the names I provided are the most common in English hence the name of the articles which are more dedicated to presentation in English. Cheers. Evlekis ( talk) 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in arguing about the content of the edit. I blocked him because he continued edit-warring as soon as his last block expired. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi JD, because I don't want to feed the person's ego I'm not posting to ANI or AIAV - User:Bubba the Elephant is surely another User:Bambifan101 sockpuppet and ought to be blocked per Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Bambifan101. (I used to chase after him in his error-insertion sprees in early 2007, and didn't know he was still around -- is it meaningful to report IPs he used back then, and which aren't already in the list of socks?) -- bonadea contributions talk 16:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, incidentally, there is a lot of overlap between Bambifan101 and User:Woodylogan in terms of the kind of articles they edit(ed), their level of English, and their general habits. Wondering if it's meaningful to pursue that tangent at all, or maybe it's already been checked. -- bonadea contributions talk 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Bubba the Elephant. I don't know about any possible connection between WP and BF. I wasn't really active in 2006, and in any case, running a checkuser now would be useless, since data is only saved for three months. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that about checkuser. Poking around in old vandalism is a bit tedious and probably won't do any good, so I'll let it rest. Thanks! -- bonadea contributions talk 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

If you take a look at the contributions for Anon-IP 70.51.32.39, you'll find that they look remarkably similar to the anon ip from the 70.51 address you just blocked. Just a heads up! Frmatt ( talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Already rangeblocked. I remember this guy from a few months ago, so I didn't bother waiting. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Andre is arguably one of the best receivers in the NFL today. As seen here http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/396162, it says "Andre Johnson is one of the top receivers in the NFL" also "When he's healthy, he's pretty much unstoppable. " you can also go on youtube and watch NFL Defensive backs say, "He is one of the best receivers in the NFL" and if that doesn't qualify for unbiased I don't know what does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.0.118.119 ( talk) 06:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I was just wondering if you had considered putting protection on the Oreo article. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a very long time, but it seems to be vandalized a lot. Have a nice day! -- Darktower 12345 09:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

SOMEBODY'S caffeinated. Probably the fastest block ever out of AIV- two seconds after posting, indef block.

"They call him... Street Sweeper"

Thanks much! -- King ♣ Talk 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw him on Huggle, and hit the revert key, but you apparently were faster. I remembered him from before, so I just blocked, probably while you were saving the AIV request. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Nah, you were beaten to the punch by the one and only Cluebot. I submitted the AIV report after realizing that this was the ONLY edit he'd been making over the last week. -- King ♣ Talk 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Manville, NJ. This article needs to be speedily deleted according to G4.-- Apbiologyrocks ( talk) 19:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know I did that....might be a touchy touch pad. [3]. Very strange. Sorry about that.... RxS ( talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed you've made some barnstar designs so I was wondering, is there a certain software where you can make them. I've made a Wikiproject:Assyria barnstar using copy/and paste as well as paint before but it didn't look as well quality in form like some barnstars. Can you possibly send me a link to downlaod a software? Thanks Schnitzel MannGreek. 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The ones I made were a long time ago, and they both ended up being changed. I don't have very good image editing software available to me, other than GIMP, which I never took the time to learn how to use. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we both pressed revert at the same time (or you rollbacked which made it faster then my twinkle revert which said it completed.) I put a final warning on the worst offendor but since your the one who got the actual revert in and have been around longer please feel free to adjust that if you feel needed.

That's fine. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey,

If I see vandals add obscenities to a page, I usually give them a one and only warning. Is that okay? Do I have to give them a general note first as good faith?-- Apbiologyrocks ( talk) 19:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just do whatever seems appropriate to you. If something is obviously vandalism, and obviously intentional, you don't have to assume good faith. If it's just gibberish, for example, odds are the person was just testing, so you should try to be nice. But there's really no hard-fast rules J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate point of view: it really depends on the situation. I may not block someone who vandalized after an "only warning" if I think the only warning was unnecessarily harsh. This is because it might be a user's first experience and in truth they might not even see the warning before they made their next edit. On the other hand, sometimes an offense is so egregious that there's no point in warning; I blocked someone recently because their edits said "heh I'm in teh wiki vandalizing" and there was no obscenity at all. (Also, people who use racial, ethnic, and sexist slurs or are overtly, intentionally offensive don't even get a warning, but of course if you're not an admin that's not an option.) I guess what I'm saying is this: if you want an "only warning" to stick, make sure the offense justifies it. My two cents.  Frank  |   talk  21:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I don't know how my IP was involved in those edits. I don't even know who those people were, so I'm at a loss as to how those edits were made using my IP. I made an account so as to prevent such confusion...sorry about whatever happened there. Sorry to "Blaxthos" as well. Would you have any knowledge as to how that happened? Frankly I think I've made about one edit on Wikipedia in my life...several years ago.

ISnowBI ( talk) 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You most likely have a dynamic IP, so someone else had the IP address that you have now at some point in the past. Most likely, they are the ones who vandalized. Just don't worry about it. As long as no new vandalism comes from the address, nothing will happen, and you will not be blamed for it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Stick a fork in him!-- Apbiologyrocks ( talk) 22:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, that page is a redirect. I was merely removing text that was added underneath the redirect code (it is invisible, anyway; just look at the page), so I am not sure why you and two other people reverted me. KypDurron1 ( talk) 01:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This user should have his block extended. See his unblock request.-- Apbiologyrocks ( talk) 01:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi JD (or TPS). Anyone know anything about rangeblocks? I'm battling 209.107.217.21 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 209.107.217.17 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making the same BLP edits to Edward Lehman and now his law firm since I re-directed and semied. Clearly same person, not sure what to do. Semied the article, but not sure what else needs doing. Is this where rangeblock comes in? StarM 02:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=J.delanoy&page=User%3A209.107.217.0%2F24 J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks, rangeblocks totally outside my scope. Have a good night! StarM 02:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

You just reverted one of my edits at NSF and left a warning at my talk page. What happened was that user user 92.138.88.208, who had vandalized a few articles by blanking sections, made this edit and removed the word "Nazi". I reverted it, ClueBot reverted my edit, I filed a report with ClueBot and reverted the edit again, and then you reverted my edit and gave me a warning. I think you misunderstood the nature of my edit and warned me unfairly. Even thought I have some experience here at Wikipedia this account is virtually new and a warning at my talk page looks bad.

Yours sincerely, Dupont och Dupond ( talk) 21:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

An IP user vandalized my talk page with some truly nasty, vitriolic & spiteful language. Could you expunge the record of it from the history? -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 23:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page has a long enough history that I am reluctant to delete it, so I asked an oversighter to get rid of the edit, and she removed the edit summary. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

An article that I wrote was speedily deleted despite the fact that, in my assessment, the material in the article was purely factual and non-advertisement in nature. Moreover, most of the material is freely available from public filings and corporate press releases. I would like to resubmit the article, but the page is now blocked for editing, except by an administrator. I can be reached at max.rapaport@gmail.com or at 212-845-9609, and my username is maxrapaport and password is maxrapp. Please tell me how I can fix this situation. Best, Max Rapaport

The article is below: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordechair ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, articles have to be written from a neutral point of view, and information that would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia should not be included. Your article was written like a sales brochure or a press release. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Can you please explain your indef block of User:Str8xtc? He made a total of two benign edits, received a single warning (not a Level 1 notice, but a Final notice), and got an indef block from you. Isn't this a little heavy-handed on your part? Thanks! Pastor Theo ( talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I also came to ask if you'd object to my unblocking this user. Exploding Boy ( talk) 16:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The page was getting pounded, so I thought it was a single person vandalizing with a lot of accounts. I unblocked him. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? He was a blocked user? Because we've also got an AfD and a couple of other ongoing CfDs for his creations, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh... Well, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ViperNerd. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything that can spot vandalism faster than Lupin? 30 sec. per edit is way too long for an update.-- Apbiologyrocks ( talk) 22:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:HG J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. Drmies ( talk) 02:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you help? ( OMGILOVEPEAS ( talk) 03:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

See this. Improving an article does not increase notability, but like I said, I would suggest waiting until this girl (or boy) accomplishes much more than an appearance to America's Got Talent. Zoo Fari 04:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is acceptable nor necessary for someone to speak to me in this manner [4]. I simply stated what WP:RS says. [5] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Respect you a lot but interesting call on content dispute on Singer;) ? GoRight plus an already blocked sock versus 3 or 4 admins? I thought he had just reached 3RR so there wasn't a need to block him for edit warring, and protection seemed unneeded. But life it too short and maybe I missed something. -- BozMo talk 18:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I saw at least three people on both sides, so protection seemed most appropriate. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion as you at first, J.delanoy, but now am not so sure. GoRight has broken 3RR (the original report was filed incorrectly, but after further digging there are at least 4 reverts) and there doesn't really appear to be anyone else on his side (the only other person who has restored one of his edits is User:Kut or Bait Fish, who appears to be a sock of someone; all the others involved have been reverting GoRight...it's annoying to see that instead of discussion, but anyway it looks like this is just one user against consensus). Anyway, I suggested at the report that perhaps the page be unblocked, and GoRight blocked immediately if he starts messing with the article again (anything even resembling a revert); I don't know if this is the best solution, but figured I'd at least leave you a note so you can comment. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked a checkuser if they could take a look, and I also responded on AN/3RR. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine and I am a strong believer in getting on with life rather than worrying about whether every call we make is right. Which is why I am not going to unprotect the page and block a one person walking edit war. Next time perhaps I will get on an do it myself rather than assuming someone else would, and given my laziness I can hardly blame anyone else. By the way I think checkuser had already refused to check one account because it was "too obviously" a Scibaby sock. -- BozMo talk 20:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a way to keep and discuss the disputed section in talk (as has been tried repeatedly in good faith by GoRight and others, including myself) till the disputed section is resolved without simply freezing the page--it assumes 3RR only applies to individuals rather than "tag teams," which I think underlies the current difficulties. The reverts are often accompanied by snide remarks/no justification and the Fred Singer talk page gets much worse. An example: "Singer['s]...work during the last 30 years is a politically motivated crock of shit...." [strikethrough was in original and was meant as a sarcastic insult--see other similar insults directed at GoRight and others in the same section], so I think GoRight is getting a bad rap here--he is honestly trying to add balance (whether I agree with him or not) and trying to get civil discussions going without much success. The current issue is how to deal with "sourced" ad hominem labels in a held-to-a-higher-standard Biography of living persons. -- John G. Miles ( talk) 03:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well after last night it looks like you were proven right about protection. -- BozMo talk 06:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I just wish the version serendipitously frozen in place wasn't the one reverted to by the editor holding the "Singer['s]...work during the last 30 years is a politically motivated crock of shit" animus. -- John G. Miles ( talk) 08:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What. Ever. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

One can only dream. -- John G. Miles ( talk) 08:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.196.45 ( talk)

Good day. I was curious as to know why you removed a tag from an obvious vandal's(PiseedOffDemento) page? I attempted to reinstate it, and have now been accused of being that same vandal! My best guess is that it was not my place as a non-admin to add tags etc. Any explanation would be extremely helpful. Thank you. Maxx Mountain Rock ( talk) 19:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to know when blogs and Twitter pages became valid reference sources. There are some people editing the Law and Order (esp. SVU) and the CSI shows who are using these as references (when they cite at all), and I thought I should get an admin's opinion on this issue, since I am pulling out my silver hair while attempting to hold my temper. Pretty please can you give me an opinion on this? Thank you very much. TristaBella ( talk) 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, blogs and twitter AREN'T reliable sources, except in the case of, say, Bill Johnson's (confirmed, official) blog being quoted on [[Bill Johnson]], or [[Project Bill Johnson is heavily involved in]]. Of course, I'm not actually J.delanoy, so grain-of-salt, etc etc. -- King ÖÖmie III 00:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much what King said above. If the Twitter feed or blog is confirmed as belonging to the person or organization in question, it is definitely appropriate to use them as sources. Otherwise, probably not, unless the blog belongs to someone who also writes for Rolling Stone. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This individual that has manifested him/herself in three different IPs [6], [7], [8]. Has refused to recognized, via talk page, any and all references stating the military prescence of the Serbs at the Battle of Ankara. History of edits to Battle of Ankara article [9]. Is there anything you can do? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking User:195.229.237.39 at the speed of a bot. Cheers, Chevy Impala 2009 02:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

hehe :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, my talk page has been vandalized many times. However if I give them vandalism warnings they ignore me. How can I fix this J.delanoy? Chevy Impala 2009 18:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You can report them to WP:AIV, and if it gets really, really bad even after some of them are blocked, you can ask that your talk page be protected on WP:RFPP. Be aware that you may not get protected for more than a few hours at a time, and some administrators are extremely reluctant to protect talk pages. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I got my talk page vandalized numerous times and I am tired of reporting it for page-protection. So is it really necessary to protect it? P.S. Sometimes when I warn users on Huggle, it says "Did not warn (user): This user has not edited since their last warning". Please reply. Chevy Impala 2009 17:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Also wish to read this. Chevy Impala 2009 18:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The only way to avoid getting your talk page vandalized is to not fight vandalism. And sometimes that doesn't even work. As far as Huggle goes, that is a normal part of the program's operation. If you think it should have left a warning, you can always do it manually or with Twinkle. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello J.delanoy. I have done my best to clean up and neutralize an article named Toughbook, Panasonic's super-rugged super-expensive laptop. I feel now that I have removed most, if not all, of the spam and copyedited out all of the mistakes. Is it possible for me to remove the neutrality tag now, or does an admin have to do that or do we have to reach a consensus...? I just wanted to make sure. Thanks. Airplaneman ^talk 23:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you can just do it if you addressed the concerns. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

K, thanks! Airplaneman ^talk 06:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, J, it's been a while. I've missed your presence! Anyway, could you check out the discussion I had here, Mentifisto (another admin) said he wasn't sure the disputed content was vandalism, and I'm still not fully sure either. Since you are extremely experienced with vandalism, what is your take? (Check my contributions if you are unable to find it in the hist. ceran thor 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring my page on the Gujarati (!) Wiki :) How come you saw that one? Regards Hekerui ( talk) 20:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

hehe. I monitor an IRC channel that reports suspicious edits from quite a few smaller projects, and I saw that IP removing a lot of content from your page. Since he had done the same to several other pages, I assumed he was vandalizing, and reverted. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As you are the admin who correctly protected the Sonia Sotomayor page, I feel most comfortable bringing this up with you first. Under the discussion page their is clear evidence given that she is not the first hispanic supreme court justice. There are many ways to alliviate this situation. Firstly I thought we could directly state that she follows Benjamin N. Cardozo as being the second hispanic supreme court justice. The second option is to mearly state that she is the first hispanic women to be elected to supreme court justice. Even if you do not agree with the facts presented to you, I do request that a neutrality dispute or some other disclmer that you might think is more pertinent be added to the page if no immediate action is taken untill the discussion is resolved. Thanks, -- Jab843 ( talk) 08:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have any opinion regarding the content of the page. I protected it because it was getting vandalized a lot. I don't generally do a lot of work writing articles. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your speedy response! -- Jab843 ( talk) 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should give unprotection a try. Even if just to see how fast it gets vandalized. If I read correctly, it was pre-emptively protected when it was created in May 2008... – xeno ^talk 15:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, but whatever. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And on the flipside, I don't think pre-emptive semi-protection of articles is a good idea. We both know the page will very likely be semi-protected within a matter of hours, but we should at least remain consistent in protecting only after vandalism occurs. Giving it a shot... – xeno ^talk 15:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo JD's sentiment here that this is a bad idea. Just because it wasn't protected properly doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected now. Tan | 39 15:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So we'll get some juvenile vandalism, protection will go back up, and that protection will have a policy-based justification (and come from an admin that's not presently retired and vanished) – xeno ^talk 16:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You'd make a good bureaucrat, literally. :-) Tan | 39 16:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

=] I know, I'm a stickler for these things. – xeno ^talk 16:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If this page doesn't get vandalized, I'll eat my hat. I like the policy backup however. Wperdue ( talk) 16:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

...and the cat came back...the very next day... [10] – xeno ^talk 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just reverted further edits by this editor at Claudio Ranieri. I'd be delighted if you'd follow through with the banning issue. Fol de rol troll ( talk) 18:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If a person has only vandalised one page, ONCE, how can it be persistent? Oh, I do require evidence with time and date.

He requires it, JD. With time and date. Tan | 39 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So I see. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No experience with this sort of stuff yet, but I saw that you were among the last couple of who acted in the above situation. I've just reverted identical vandalism to the Wilson Goode article by User:WinstonSmit, who used an edit summary that makes it clear that they're part of the same group of editors. Not sure whether it's possible to tie this together, or should it just be handled per normal. I'm heading back to warn the user now. Mlaffs ( talk) 01:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked him. Thanks for letting me know. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just ran into this by chance. Tagged. NW ( Talk) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this again, and block user/protect page creation. Thank you, CTJF83 Talk 18:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone else deleted it, and I salted it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was getting tired of creating it...your chess move :) CTJF83 Talk 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted some blatant vandalism on the Hendon article, can you help me with a more difficult problem? User Marcus didley has been subtly vandalising this article with plausible nonsense edits always without citations. I've been looking at his contributions and I think I've identified his original username (The biggest jimmy) and a new sock puppet (Jock MacTaggart). Looking at all the warnings on his original talk page i can't understand why he hasn't already been blocked. But because these warnings aren't recent I'm hesitant to goto WP:AIV. Can anything be done now or should I continue reverting and warning? p.s. he often includes the fictional characters Stan Shah and Reginald Fah-Fah, and the fictional Real English Pigeon Appreciation Society in his edits. Thanks Grim23 ( talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a checkuser request to see if he's on a static IP or a dynamic range, See Checkuser request. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I contacted User:Dominic on IRC, and he's looking at it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

looks like GT is involved in this socking. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Aaron Black 11 just created. ceran thor 21:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Already got it :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. :) ceran thor 21:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action on my userpage. feydey ( talk) 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if I could request your help. There is a sockpuppet accusation going on on my page and wondered if you could check it out and provide a neutral party opinion. Thanks. -- Scythre ^Talk _Contribs 21:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude but why does Yakuza keep getting removed? It had a link to a page that said that Yakuza was experimental metal/ avant garde and the page it keeps get removed from is the avant garde page? Is something wrong with the link or is a matter of opinion because it is obvious that yakuza belongs on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.149.30 ( talk) 06:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete that picture i put up of 2 beautiful modern siamese cats? You need to stop living your life on wikipedia and do something yourself. Henny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hennyxlb ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi J.Delanoy, Thank you very much for reverting several edits made by that vandal. He is ebcomign a menace for the site. Unfortunately he uses non-static IP so there are number of IPs to block, I have blocked at least 5-6 IPs in last 2-3 days and just noticed that he has become overwhelmingly active this morning. Is there any way to block all the originating IPs from him?-- Dhaval ^Talk 09:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks dude, Will try the first option you haev provided, as he is becoming more and more virulant, to be on safer side, as it is going to block so many IPs, I would try with blocking him for a month, and it doesn't look like he is an IT freak, it is his Internet provider, who provides him different IPs everytime he logs in, so hope with blocking this range, he would give up, and as you already suggested, if he still continues, will try another option. But I am very much positive that he will step down with our first efforts. Lets hope for the best. Once again Thank you very much for this guidance.-- Dhaval ^Talk 09:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again for reverting his edits, I had just finished reverting his earlier edits and was about to concentrate on another request by a contributor, and saw my talk page wiped out, I have finally Blocked 115.240.128.0/17 for 2 weeks. Lets see how it proves useful.-- Dhaval ^Talk 14:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Here's hoping... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

... Just so I state it in public as well. Apologies for the "ClueBot" reference the other day. It wasn't until later that I realized how it could be taken in several ways. I greatly appreciate your anti-vandalism work here JD, and think you do a GREAT job! — Ched :  ?  10:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to do that. I completely misunderstood what you were referring to. I was talking about the issue on ED, and at first I thought you were saying that you had done that. I had no problem whatsoever with the ClueBot reference. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you semi-protect Chevrolet Astro indefinitely? (versus having a time limit) tedder ( talk) 19:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

whoops. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate that default setting too. tedder ( talk) 19:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you just blocked someone on AIV, so I was wondering if you could take a look at another report on AIV, User:75.83.140.184

They seem to be making constructive edits, assuming they are accurate, but they were blocked before for disruption, including random accent marks. I am an administrator but I can't see very much, so there may be some vandalism that I am not noticing. Can you take a look? Academic Challenger ( talk) 23:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You have edited some of these in the past so please comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_14#Vogue_covers.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 12:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Impala2009's talk page protection expired and the vandalism continues from this range. See history. Maybe those rangeblocks you mentioned there should be imposed. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Added another rangeblock. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you protect my talk page for a short time to stop these anon IP's from bothering me? Momo san ^Gespräch 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected six hours. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) Momo san ^Gespräch 15:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I found an old article, Super Mario Bros. Z which is about a series of Flash videos. This article was tagged for deletion back in May 2007, but it hasn't been deleted yet. I know you are an admin so I was wondering if you could delete this old article after all this time? I would do it myself but I do not have deletion privilages.

Here is the Deletion disscusion in case you need to see it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario Bros. Z

I Feel Tired ( talk) 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Just so you know, it was deleted back then, someone else recreated the page. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I Feel Tired ( talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[11] keeps removing the sharedip template despite me telling him not to do so. Can you please block the IP to stop the disruptive editing? Momo san ^Gespräch 18:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

imo, it's best to take the path of least resistance and let them do it. Add it back at a later date. – xeno ^talk 18:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, i'll give that a try. I can put it back next week, if the IP does take if off again. Momo san ^Gespräch 18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

yea, jmo. JD is free to take a more hardline approach, I'll admit I'm a bit of a softie =) – xeno ^talk 18:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

*growl hiss* ;-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to request the use of the Rollback function to help in the fight against vandalism. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! -- Captain Infinity ( talk) 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions is the centralized location for this sort of thing. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Captain Infinity ( talk) 18:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

When you block, please place a block template on the page, to save other editors time, so we do not place irrelevant warnings or notices on the page you have already blocked for five years, such as [12]. Thanks for you valiant efforts. Edison ( talk) 20:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the weird edits by IPs adding the same spam to various articles, which you did some 5 years blocks for, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IPs. If you could explain the need for the 5 year IP block it would be helpful. Can we be sure no one else will be issued that IP in the future? Edison ( talk) 20:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, they were blocked as open proxies. Nishkid64 caught a few as well, all adding Anontalk spam. And I must admit, seeing someone scold a user with 280,000 edits is like watching someone poke a dragon XD -- King Öomie 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

@Edison - The anontalk spammer always uses open proxies to spam, so I just blocked them assuming that they were proxies. If desired, you are more than welcome to undo any or all of them, and if people think that they are not appropriate, I'll gladly unblock or change the blocks. As to placing block notices, I can if you really want me to, but I don't think there is much use. Anyone using a proxy is unlikely to be doing so with good intentions, so randomly giving them a yellow bar seems kind of pointless. If the proxy is closed, and the person tries to edit, they should be able to request unblock easily.

@King - 280000 edits does not mean anything, really. I am still human, and I do still make mistakes, so if you ever see me do something that makes you go "huh?", feel free to challenge me. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a running assumption that a user with THAT much experience has an intricate knowledge of what he's doing, but of course it doesn't make anyone infallible. And no offense intended towards Edison or his course of action, of course! -- King Öomie 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As with any spambot or vandalbot, the AT spammer always uses HTTP proxies, which are notoriously dynamic and short lived. I would estimate less than 5% will still be open proxies after one year - after two years virtually none. There's a useful link over at WP:IPB. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you want me to go through and shorten the blocks? :-( J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just saying so you know for next time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi J.delanoy, I see you warned 202.156.14.42 about vandalizing a month ago ( User_talk:202.156.14.42) He/she has blanked or vandalized a few more pages since then (and got 4 more warnings by bots), last one yesterday ( Special:Contributions/202.156.14.42). Can you take a look at it, or should I ask at AIV? Thanks! :) -- Cmontero ( talk) 02:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a shared IP, so it's probably not the same person. If a lot of vandalism comes along in a short time, I'd say go ahead and make a report on AIV. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll keep an eye on it :) -- Cmontero ( talk) 10:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert me? 121.218.191.100 ( talk) 03:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summaries. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So you revert a useful edit because you don't like an edit summary? Did you even stop to think about that? Do your parents know you're using the computer? 121.218.191.100 ( talk) 03:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If the edit summary is ridiculous, then the content is obviously disputed. Zoo Fari 03:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone (i.e. you) is immature enough to call another person a "douche", the odds of their edit being mature and/or undisputed are essentially nil. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So your recent changes patrolling amounts to a woefully inadequate probabilistic algorithm? "Probably disputed" *click* "Yeah, probably vandalism" *click*. You're an idiot, do the project a favour and leave it alone. 121.218.191.100 ( talk) 03:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If believing that helps you justify your attacks in your own mind, more power to you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently entered some new info on various artistic and design topics. I wondered if it was possible to revert these or let me know why this may not be possible? They are based on information I took from the Design Archives at University of Brighton and other authoritative UK museums.

I also noticed another user had deleted info I had added on the artist Ronald Moody, but they have also deleted previous content provided by another user and I don't think they would have meant to do that! It's quite strange as the previous content (a list of Moody's key artworks) doesn't show up on any of the old versions on the history page at all. Anyway, thought I should point it out to someone.

Thanks for your help. Liquidstockings ( talk) 00:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The article World domination has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is strictly original research. No evidence is given that any of the real historical information is related to the topic of "world domination." No references are given for fictional "world domination", or that it has even been discussed in secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Dufour ( talk) 02:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I didn't create the article... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say something, but you beat me to it. You didn't seem like the world domination type (unless you really are a robot :)) and User:J.J. was the creator of the article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are still online, could you take a look at 65.49.162.41 on AIV? I am getting ALOT of vandalism from this user. Came off a 1 week block just recently and is a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. A double whammy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I missed ya. The situation in question was taken care of by another admin. Have a Good Evening. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You recently blocked Rayofwisom per my request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LineofWisdom, with autoblock enabled. However, LineofWisdom is still able to edit after the autoblock. Could you perform a checkuser and see if they are in the same range? Thanks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No' I assure and challenge that I am not using any Sock. I am not Rayofwisom. Infact, we are opposing each other and even voted against each other's opinion at Articles for Deletion. I request you to clear such immoral blame which is "pasted" upon my repute. Make a quick inquiry about the Sock. So I could be cleared, as I know, and am sure that I am not that RayofWisom of whatever. -- LineofWisdom ( talk) 08:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think J. has signed off for the night. If this is a concern that needs addressed immediately, consider taking it to WP:ANI. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think King is aware of AN/I. ;) He's asking JD as the one who performed a block and the one who is currently a checkuser. JD, I don't know whether LoW has been socking, but he's edits have not been helpful. I'm close to blocking him myself just for being uncivil and edit-warring. Enigma ^msg 12:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, being as I am a newb, I'm not sure whether to say it's  Possible or  Likely, but I'm leaning toward the former. They are editing from the same ISP, but it's a very large range (/8), and the IPs are somewhat far apart. Also, the user agents do not overlap. It could be the same person editing in two different locations, or it could just be two people interested in the same thing. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on being appointed as a checkuser. I remember how scary those first few checks can be, so I wanted to assure you that it does get easier, and that I'll try to keep myself available on IRC at #wikipedia-en-admins and #wikipedia-en-checkuser (which I've added you to the access list, though I can't get you an invite exemption since I can't remember your cloak offhand) so I can help you out with those crucial first few checks. Don't be afraid to ask me any and all questions you might have. Have fun! -- Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well done my friend - good hunting and best wishes. -- VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You always seem to be in the right place at the right time to help me revert vandalism. Jeffrey Mall ( talk • contribs) - 16:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I handle an AIV report, I check to make sure the vandal doesn't have anything that hasn't been reverted. I guess Huggle marked those edits as from a blocked user at about the same time I opened his contributions page. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You should see me on a good day; scares the shit out of some people. Half Shadow 16:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some notes here, after your CU investigation [13]. It includes an extra CU request on User:Baksando SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 21:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

a little insignificant 18:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

heh. Thanks :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Just a heads up to let you know a persistant school IP vandal 165.138.0.20has started vandalising again, with three edits today. It has had seven blocking periods so far, the last being for six months. I wonder if its time to do the 12 month anon block before it gets into its swing? Richard Harvey ( talk) 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking User:161.149.63.50, just letting you know we have another at User:190.14.173.190. Also, congrats on the CheckUser :D - Kingpin ¹³ ( talk) 23:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Administrator's Barnstar
		For helping me out and blocking those spam socks. Jeffrey Mall ( talk • contribs) - 23:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :D J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

..On article Steel coils, user:Helpful4sure has placed an AfD notice, copied wholesale from A J M Industries, LLC.

An AfD Discussion has NOT been opened, nor has the AfD been added to the proper log.

I was tempted to remove this AfD notice, but have not, due to lack of discussion and consensus.

I have no urge to see this article deleted, nor do I have any wish to have further discussion with the editor who created the article and placed the AfD notice, due to his rather unusual, and extremely verbose, debating style at an AfD for another of his articles.

If you could suggest a non controversial course of action, or handle this malformed AfD nomination in whatever way you see fit, it would be greatly appreciated. Wuh Wuz Dat 01:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Wuh Wuz Dat 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking cuttymonsters...i was waiting for him to be blocked before I went to bed, so thanks.( Zaxby ( talk) 05:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

You're welcome. :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I got a message that I had edited an article "Distance education". Now I cannot......... well you know what I'm not allowed to do. My problem is that 'I Did Not Edit That Article' and I swear no other person could have been using my computer. I feeling pretty bad that I am now counted as a vandal among wikipedians. Can you please look into the matter? P.S. I'm right on my knees. Please look into the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajnikanth007 ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

On what account was this message placed? Not the one you're using now, I take it. You should be aware that creating an account to circumvent a block actually leads to an EXTENDED block. There are avenues you can take to dispute a block from the blocked account, most popular being the {{unblock|your message here}} template. -- King Öomie 14:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi dude, though you had earlier on blocked a sock of this user LineofWisdom but now it appears that probably he has created another sock today by the name of Marwat786. Kindly look into this issue as both of them are once again vandalizing the parent article of Marwat and its ancillary articles. They have been placing AFD's on old articles and submitting fake votes so as to increase their tally. I hope sanity will prevail this time and this user LineofWisdom will also be banned along with his sock. Apart from this I am 100% positive that he is an old vandal who used to have an account by the name of A M. Khan and used to desecrate this fantastic article on Marwat whom I co-created some 5 years ago. Please have a look into this issue. Thanks. Xoxo --  MARWAT  12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Listento me too, dude. I am surfing Wikipedia since 2008, atleast once in fortnight. I recently created this I.D when it felt that being a native and Marwat myself, I must not keep quite on the issues relating to my tribe and its elder. I don't know how Marwatt is so confidant that I am Sock of other user who is much criticised for none. Now, when he has challenged my indetity, it is his moral duty to prove that I am using sock. Actually, he cannot see someone voting against him. He neverwants someone else than him, espcially from Marwat tribe, to speak and have freedom of writing here. If I am uneligible to vote on the very first day - my aim for making this I.D is cleared above - then my vote be declared null and void. But I request you administrators to track the previous record (from 2006 to date) of this user Marwatt to know his state of mind on article Marwat. It wonders me that he never talks regarding the deletion or whatever the subject is, but always challenges the Users' authority to defend any of the Articles that he wants to be here, wether of a Notable or obscure personality. In the end, is it fair to talk about users at Article for Deletions, rather debating and addressing the issues? Is there no administrator to stop his such notorious writings? As far as vandalising is concerned, you could see that it is only user Marwatt who is doing it by editing the version set by two different Administrators. When it is upto his nerves, he nevber respects an Administrator's decission because he, at every cost want the article to be set according to his wishes and desires. It is too much. Please, take action against him, upon the charges I have quotes in this discussion. This would oblige wikipedia which is turned into a Family Battles Field by him. -- Marwat786 ( talk) 17:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

J.delanoy, just to let you know, I've blocked Marwat786 as a sock and blocked LineofWisdom for a week. There are a number of things about this account that make me believe it is a fabrication of User:LineofWisdom, most primarily that all of Marwat786's edits have been in disputes LineofWisdom is involved in. Also, note the contents of LineofWisdom's userpage: I do encourage you to run a check, because it sounds as if LineofWisdom is a reincarnation of old accounts, and given this abuse I don't think those accounts should be left unblocked... and I wonder if any of those accounts were blocked. Mango juice ^talk 05:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it's  Likely that LineofWisdom ( talk · contribs) = Marwat786 ( talk · contribs). They are editing from the same ISP, and the same node, and there is an overlap between useragents. However, it is a fairly busy range, and I am not absolutely certain. Also, because of the busy range, I can't tell if LineofWisdom is a reincarnation of someone else. Do you know of anyone specific who you think may be related to him? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No one specific. Just figured, if anything showed up in the magic checkuser tea leaves... :) Thanks for running that check, though -- LineofWisdom is appealing the block, protesting (predictably) that the other account isn't him. Mango juice ^talk 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My last four blocks were sockpuppets of User:ClaimJumperPete and seem to have all been on the same IP. Would you mind checking to see if I missed any? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bagged two more. Thanks for your all your work around here. If I didn't know better, I'd be prepared to swear you never sleep ;-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Could I get a checkuser on Ricardojose20027? The edits coming from this account are very much like that of indef blocked Dingbat2007. Lots can be found out about the latter user in checkuser. Thanks... NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Account has been indef blocked, so urgency isn't as great as earlier, but checkuser is still required to make sure Dingbat has no other socks or if it isn't Dingbat, the blocked user has no socks waiting. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that particular sock, so you'd probably be better off asking someone else. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked Luna Santin, he knows a little more about Dingbat. I thought he was still on vacation, hence why I asked you. :) Take Care... NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My friend Frania has been kicking some proverbial butt in the French royalty articles, specifically the House of Bourbon. I was wondering if there is a barnstar designated for the French royalty articles. If not, where would I go to get one made? Thanks in advance. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 03:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. I found the barnstar I needed. :-D -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 07:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time my IP address range has been blocked because of sockpuppetry by the user Swamilive. Is there anything i can do to prevent him from using my IP adress range?( Goldengun80 ( talk) 18:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Hello J.delanoy. I know the newpage patrol script I stole from you isn't really your script, but I have a question. You know how the unhighlighted articles are supposed to be patrolled? Well, I clicked on one and the Mark as patrolled button was still there. I thought that was strange, so I tried again. And again and again... And every time it was the same. Is it an error in the highlighting or Wikipedia? Thanks. Airplaneman ^talk 01:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the &rcid=12345678 part of it. I just tried it now, and it doesn't show a new entry in the patrol log. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The &rcid=12345678 bit is which revision to patrol. When you click on a link to a page from Special:NewPages (or the newpage toolbox), it allows you to patrol that revision. But because the link is there when you click from newpages, not when it's not patrolled, it doesn't go away when you patrol (it's required to mark as patrolled). But it doesn't do anything either. - Kingpin ¹³ ( talk) 01:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I see. Thanks for the explanation! Airplaneman ^talk 05:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I reported a couple of IP's, but they only got blocked 72 hours, 200.40.47.2 and 119.62.128.38. Momo san ^Gespräch 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your block of this IP is probably a tad long. I believe it is the dial-up AOL user that I previously blocked under 172.164.201.151 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 172.164.248.32 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). In another five minutes he or she will have obtained another IP, so the final 10,075 minutes of your block is overkill at best, and collateral damage at worst. Regards, — Kralizec! ( talk) 03:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah right, I A Fuck Head I Know. Changed to 31 hours. Thanks! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi J.delanoy. I was wondering, why do administrators disable account creation privileges to blocked users? Regards,-- ROT9 ( talk) 08:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because if they didn't, then the blocked users could create multiple accounts to avoid blocks with ease. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 10:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's what we Wikipedians call sockpuppets, right?-- BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ( talk) 13:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I placed 7472u3 on Missing Wikipedians, and placed a tag on his user and talk page stating that he has not edited Wikipedia since December 9 last year. Do you see the presence of that user?-- BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ( talk) 14:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the user from the list, per "Please do not add people to this list who were never an integral part of the community. Don't add users with fewer than about 1,000 edits." Until It Sleeps ^alternate 15:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You told me about that on my talk page. Now, I'm asking J.delanoy if he knows the presence of this user.-- BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ( talk) 01:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Plus, what do you mean as an "integral part" of the community?-- BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ( talk) 01:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I never saw him before. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. How do you delete an article? Paul Raymond TV needs to be deleted as there is an article for Top Shelf TV which is the same channel--Scorpio95 20:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 ( talk • contribs)

You can look at WP:DELETE to see what you need to do. In this case, I think proposed deletion would be most appropriate. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am writing to ask why you decided to undo my edit to the Brendon Rodgers page. I wrote accuratly and i used evidnce. There is much more i can write about him, but i just stuck with one point. whats the problem :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.244.11 ( talk) 21:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Blatant attacks are not allowed, and any negative content must be reliably sourced. The forum you used as your "reference" is unquestionably not reliable. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, hope you don't mind but I made a minor change to the first block tag on User_talk:203.36.236.98 here as you must have been in a hurry to block them as it said the IP was blocked for a "period of never". Jeffrey Mall ( talk • contribs) - 01:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's fine. It must have been a bug with the script I'm using. If you're just changing something like that, you don't have to tell me that you are doing it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok just making sure :-). Jeffrey Mall ( talk • contribs) - 02:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Could I get the pages made by this user deleted? One is a blantant hoax (tagged as such) and one is a blatant copy of another page to Swq (tagged as such). If you could delete them, it would be appreciated. Thanks... NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

May I be the first of many to congratulate you on your new checkuser status. May I also be the first to present you with the follow userbox:

Again, congrats! Now I know you to bug when I need a checkuser :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) It's a bit much to take in, so I probably won't be up to 100% for a few weeks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I don't often need a checkuser :) When you are up to speed on the whole checkuser thing, let me know so if I need one, I can ask ya :) Take Care and Have a Good Sunday... NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, often need a checkuser. ;) Congrats, Enigma ^msg 06:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations J.delanoy for your recent promotion. Best regards, — df| 08:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What they said. Congrats! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! May you stop many a sockpuppet in their grubby little tracks. -- King Öomie 15:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well! :D Jamie S93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats for your recent promotion.-- BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ( talk) 13:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your tireless work against vandalism. BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ( talk) 13:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You recently told me that I made an unnecessary retraction to the page on Denmark. I have never visited this page, much less edited it. Rudy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.211.43 ( talk) 03:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a dynamic IP, so it was probably someone else who vandalized, and then the IP got rotated to you later. Just don't worry about it, and if you get misdirected warnings a lot, you can avoid them by just creating an account and setting it to keep you logged in. Then, the only messages you get will be intended solely for you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi J.delanoy. I browsed Pacific Place Jakarta the other day, and when I looked at the page it was a mess, and considered promotional. When you check the article, please nominate it for deletion, as it violates Wikipedia's article guidelines. Regards,-- BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ^{Contact Jakarta Center at 121.965} 04:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

161.225.196.111 is back on another IP. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. If he shows up again, I'll rangeblock him. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi J.delanoy. I was wondering, which of these levels is higher? id-5 or id-N (native) and en-5 or en-N.-- BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ^{Contact Jakarta Center at 121.965} 10:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The "-N" means that the language is your native one, the one that you learned naturally as you grew up. I don't really know what the difference between -4 and -5 is, but I would guess that -5 would mean that you have such a mastery of a language that not even a native speaker would be able to tell that you are not a native speaker. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

do you know about the matter that you disputed on and removed the editing I made more than once ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawesalm ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you only complaining now, more than a month after I undid your edits? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Just for perspective, I have a discussion, if that word applies, going with this user on my talk page. Cheers, Favonian ( talk) 16:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, J.delanoy. It is happening exactly what I was pinpointing. User Direktor and other communists (BTW, nice photo of Che Guevara on the user page of user:Producer...) quickly erase evidences and data about Tito's massacres.-- Formyopinion ( talk) 16:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

uh, what? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read talkpage of Jimbo ("about communist propaganda inside wikipedia").GPU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.1.43 ( talk) 18:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That was quick! Are you guys getting better tools, or is it a bit quite at the moment? I've noticed a lot less vandalism/POV editing on wikipedia over the last few days (which coincided with my laptop screen deciding to stay in suspend for two days, and a holiday in Nice - but I'm sure I wasn't the vandal!) Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, or even POV pushers need a holiday.... Thanks! Verbal chat 21:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it's mainly because most schools aren't in session yet, but I could be wrong. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare gave me your name in an ongoing discussion I've been having with him and Luna Santin about the problem with Section Headers. Rather than repeat them all, I will give you links to the 2 discussions:

1. Thread#1
2. Thread#2

From what I understand, the software problems have been corrected for the most part, and from what I've seen, the problem now is that when one SPI is introduced with section headers, the problems that occur now are because some SPIs are in the old form and some with section headers, so the sequencing gets hosed up. This is that situation which I set up in my sandbox and NuclearWarfare verified that this is what he saw when I tried to put through an SPI with section headers (BullRangifer had section headers, Egglianderou does not) [14]. I am trying to set up a "form" with section headers that would be transcluded correctly, and make it easier for the checkuser to go through the SPIs. Here is what I came up with (now both SPIs use the same new form): [15]. I just chose pink at random - the delination can be any color. If you have some time to look at it, I would appreciate it. If you see any problems or have any comments, please feel free to add them - I guess on NuclearWarfare's talk page, as it looks like the discussion is continuing there. Thanks. -- stmrlbs| talk 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This hasn't been a significant problem; I'm not sure changing it is necessary. Nathan ^T 02:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem with processing an SPI, but trying to edit an SPI is a real pain for the people involved. It is having to edit the entire page to add your comments.. finding the right place in the wiki code, etc. Not very user friendly. Having sections would make it much easier for the different people entering their comments at different points in the SPI. -- stmrlbs| talk 05:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

..is our good friend JarlaxleArtemis, who apparently doesn't feel like studying tonight. Could you check for more? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 01:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Already done :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Really stupid of him to go back to explicit death threats -- that's what got him in trouble last spring. It'll be worse for him now. NawlinWiki ( talk) 01:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One more, User:Lrn2read, digging himself deeper. NawlinWiki ( talk) 03:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious sleepers. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP you banned a few days ago for repeatedly removing text from this article appears to be back with a real account. He is now reverting my copyedits as well as the valid info on the disputes regarding Cobb's records. - Dewelar ( talk) 01:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing vandalism from my user page. Do you think we need to Semi-protect my user page. I know that user pages are rarely protected, But I think it’s a good idea to protect. -- David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's just one time, so I don't know. If you want, you can ask on WP:RFPP. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks-- David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No edits, but one attempt at an edit that was blocked by the filter. It's Pioneercourthouse, I am sure of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The joe the plumber page should be discussed in the discussion page do not revert You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I am not in violation of the three-revert rule. You are. Your edits are also in violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding biography articles about living people. I would advise you to stop re-adding that content. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

U dont run wikipedia, i changed it and i dont care what that dude says that you are taking up for, you are colluding because u have the same point of view... let the people choose and stop trying to be a WikiTyrant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.63.139 ( talk) 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Colluding"? "Let the people choose"? As far as I'm aware, J.del is a "person" as well. -- King Öomie 17:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding your two week block of Mattisse. Your actions are within your discretion, however there is a feeling that blocking without warning may be a bit harsh, especially given that in the ArbCom agreed plan the wording for "Consequences for failure to adhere to plan" are: "Short blocks after a warning". Mattisse has acted inappropriately here, and the exposure of what she has done will attract enough criticism to punish her - a block on top of that, preventing one of our more able and valued contributors from building the encyclopedia, is perhaps rather unhelpful and excessive. Would you be prepared to reassess your block now that you are more familiar with some of the background? Regards SilkTork * ^YES! 11:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I commented further there, largely in support of your actions, but I would appreciate some clarification. Geometry guy 21:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you response and your rationale. I disagree that blocking in this instance was a more constructive way of dealing with the situation than discussing the matter with the person responsible, but that is just our differing philosophies. I accept that you did nothing inappropriate, and I appreciate that you gave Mattisse a lesser block than you normally would have. Regards SilkTork * ^YES! 23:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - I'm a huge fan of the Cancer Bats and I noticed a fairly shoddy image of them on the main Wiki entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Bats). I just uploaded a proper image of the lead singer on Commons, but alas - I can't upload an image to any Wikipedia entry yet. I noticed you made some changes to the page recently and was hoping you could upload it for me. I took to image myself at a show in Barcelona last year - you can find it here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LiamCormier.JPG

Thanks! Been using Wikipedia for years but have finally decided to start contributing as opposed to purely being a mooch. Not even sure this is appropriate so let me know if I'm out of line with this request or posting on your page....

Thanks a mil!

- Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumbleman ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you're perfectly fine :-) Welcome aboard!

With regard to the image in question, images on Commons are automatically available on Wikipedia as soon as they are uploaded there, so there is no need to upload it twice.

For example, the image to the right is hosted on Commons, not on Wikipedia, but the code to display the image:

[[File:Methane-3D-space-filling.svg|thumb|right|150px|This image, a model of a [[methane]] molocule, is hosted on Commons.]]

is identical to what you would use if the file was hosted locally. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips... don't want to turn this into a help discussion but I am still having a little trouble - I used your code and it works fine, but extra code seems to be appearing. Perhaps I should clarify: I want to change the main article image at the top (the one appearing above the band info). I insert this:

[[File:LiamCormier.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Liam Cormier performing at a Cancer Bats show in Barcelona in June 2008]]

But when I preview, the following appears on the page, above the image:

[[Image: |220px|alt=|]]

Any idea what the problem is? It's strange, especially because the extra code is NOT in the source - it just displays on the rendered page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumbleman ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's because it's inside of an infobox. For those, you just have to put the name of the file, so just File:LiamCormier.JPG or possibly without the "File:". J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing! thanks so much - I omitted the "file:" and it worked great! Even got a caption on there. You rock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumbleman ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember how a month or so ago I asked you to delete the Super Mario Bros. Z page because concensus was to delete it? Well it was recreated and I have nominated it for deletion and I was wondering what I should do now. Should I just wait or do the circumstances allow it to be deleted more immediately? Sorry to bother you with this again. Thanks for your help. I Feel Tired ( talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally, WP:CSD#G4 may be used only when the article in question is substantially similar to the one that was deleted via a discussion. In this case, it is not, so I'd say just leave the PROD tag there and see what happens. If someone removes it, probably send it to AfD again. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but someone else deleted it so we don't have to worry anymore. I Feel Tired ( talk) 19:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello J.delanoy, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Night I Called the Old Man Out has been removed. It was removed by Moviefangirl077 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Moviefangirl077 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 02:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)

(see filter 52, just letting you know). NawlinWiki ( talk) 03:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for blocking those. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

To refactor another editors talk page? [ [16]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clarly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 09:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the situation if you wish, however the prevailing opinion has been if you make 60,000 edits it's ok to discount others polite opinion because "they have bit a newbie (once) and have poor grammer." This wasn't a personal issue but a disturbing attitude trend. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 11:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Impala2009's talk page has been attacked by the 70.245 range, like you said. Additionally, 70.242 and 70.249 and 70.247 are visible too, see the history. I will watch that page. WimpyKid ( talk* sandbox) 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

...and 70.246 WimpyKid ( talk* sandbox) 18:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Respected Sir/Madam,

Since you were involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heliosphere/Archive so please help

I would like to point towards an injustice which happened in the past. 3 editors were blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1. I along with some unknown innocent editor User: Gurbinder_singh1 were blocked in this RFC, i.e. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 because no check-user investigation was done at that time. An administrator User: Nathan later documented that User: Gurbinder_singh1 was totally un-related to this case but it appears that no one has cared to unblock him and clear out his blocking history.

Actually, User: Morbid Fairy kept violating Wikipedia policies so he was later caught per ‘’’my’’’ evidences ^[1] and hence a range block was implemented against his IP addresses and his user IDs (except one) were blocked as well ^[2].

User: Gurbinder_singh1 was lucky that his user account was finally investigated, and he was found innocent through check-user during User:Morbid Fairy’s new sockpuppet investigation ^[3]BUT even though it was me only who did days and days of research to expose User: Morbid Fairy aka User: Heliosphere ^[4] but no one has (check-user) investigated so far if I am sock of any of these guys.

Since a truth has come out, so please do justice and unblock an innocent editor User: Gurbinder_singh1 and please clear my blocking record as well. It hurts me all the time that some injustice had happened with me and other innocent editor and my IP was tagged with a blocking history for life.-- 98.207.210.210 ( talk) 05:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.