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.

Heya, last night I re-created my once-again delete wikipedia page ( PVDasm), and you've decided to delete it just because you though it was 'copyrighted' material, however, this is completely untrue. I am the author, create and developer of the pvdasm.reverse-engineering.net/ project, and that is the reason I created that page. PVDasm by it self is a free project, and also open sourced, so why would a page on wikipedia have any copyright problems with it in the beginning? please, undelete my page. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanytc ( talk • contribs) 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, J.delanoy, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

On behalf of your first edit (probably) -- Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 03:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for so quickly handling the arv that I thought I had somehow screwed up and not posted correctly! I then found you had already taken care of it! Impressive! Thank you! ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie. See also User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Hi!. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems we have another school IP that has dropped back into persistant vandalism. Is there any chance of a longer term block being imposed? See 65.79.16.78. Richard Harvey ( talk) 19:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Various admins have already blocked ScienceGolfFanatic on three different IP ranges already, but I wouldn't put it past him to go edit from a public library or a friend's house or anywhere that has Internet access. Today we have a crop of users with names similar to Tewapack, such as Təwapack, Tewepack, Tewəpack, and maybe more. Tewapack has been reporting the names to AIV and getting them blocked, but that isn't going to stop more names from being created. Because Tewepeck was determined to be a sock of ScienceGolfFanatic some months ago, it's not a great leap of faith to imagine that these names might be as well, although they have not engaged in much other SGF-like behavior, so it might be a false lead. However, it is clear that some sort of block stronger than a username block is needed here, so I ask you to handle the situation with whatever action you feel is best. -- Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 01:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed. They are editing from a school, so I don't know if a rangeblock is really worth it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi J.delanoy,

I'm looking to retrieve a page I created, "Incredible Two Man Band". It was speedily deleted for A7. I intend to get verifiable sources, but just didn't get them in time. I would like to retrieve the page to keep the formatting intact as well as the content. I'm a beginner Wikipedian, and appreciate your patience!

Thanks in advance,

Tony Coppola Tonyc25sox ( talk) 03:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Any idea who's the sockmaster of those attack accounts? Obviously a long-term troll ... if you could run a check, at least we could find the underlying IP and block it. Blueboy 96 21:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Range is too busy to easily tell, and too big to block. Sorry. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this IP stable enough to indef? I saw this and I take the user at their word. Regards Tide rolls 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, WP:DENY. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks Tide rolls 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, but now anon has taken to targetting my recent edits, like this one. Looks like this could be a long list of IP blocks or semi-protection at this rate. Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 22:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I placed a 12-hour rangeblock. It may or may not be effective. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 23:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there's not really anything else I can do. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

J.delanoy: Thanks for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 02:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you directly, but can you check another new account for sleepers? NNPRecruter ( talk · contribs). The SPI that I filed got archived before a clerk noticed that I added another account. I don't want to re-open the SPI yet again. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 04:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed. No other obvious sleepers. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 17:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was given a warning for vandaling an article I never even edited, let alone visited prior to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rollinman

There shows all I did, which most of them were fixing up graphic problems or talk pages. The article in question was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramblin%27_Wreck

The IP in question was 99.140.199.130, which I don't remember ever using. Rollinman ( talk) 22:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 99.140.199.130 hasn't edited in almost five months. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I try to help the community by stopping someone who frequently uses the wrong warning template to other users and you say that's laughable and have the nerve to call me an idiot? This is an administrator? I'm speechless tommy talk 23:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Giving warnings in order is by no means a requirement. If someone is obviously vandalizing intentionally, I will rarely give them less than a level-3 warning. If someone does extremely blatant vandalism, such as racial slurs or particularly disgusting personal attacks, I typically issue a block with no warning whatsoever. Page-move vandalism, to me, is the ultimate. I show utterly no mercy. One disruptive page-move = indefblock, no questions asked, no hesitation.If you disagree with someone's choice of a warning level, tell them, but do not threaten unless unless it can be shown that the warnings were obviously inappropriate (e.g. giving a level three warning for inserting "hi" into an article, when the account or IP has no other edits, and is not obviously a sock). J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

YEah, I did tell him politely. Of course he had to delete it (this was approx 3 weeks ago). And he has used level 4 warnings for little vandalism. If all we needed were level 3 or 4 vandalism templates, that's all that would exist. So, that's why I wasted my time in there with that comment, otherwise I wouldn't care. Your comment, however, given the context was inappropriate to the argument I held. tommy talk 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for implying that you were an idiot. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I reverted his (not so polite) finger-wagging back them because he removed several other sections on my talk page. [1] Calling me a liar [2], well, that was over the top. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Very encouraging... </sarcasm> J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh that IP did lie. tommy talk 00:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I like J. Delanoy because he answers requests for CheckUser quickly. He also rapidly blocks micreant anons. But, nonetheless, I have a question: Why is it appropriate for any anonymous editor to give out warnings? If anons feel so strongly about the Wikipedia project, why don’t they register and show a level of commitment to the project? As it is, anons simply reboot their modems, get new IP addresses, and start vandalizing anew. I’m not speaking about any particular anon involved in this discussion, specifically. It’s just that, at a more general level, the application of warning templates to a user’s talk page is such a powerful tool, resulting in blocks as it so often does, why should such power be vested in persons who won’t even register? A registered user cannot simply reboot his modem and get a new identity (i.e., a new IP). A registered user is held to account when he issues warning templates incorrectly. The anonymous editor issuing them incorrectly can skirt any responsiblity by simply rebooting his modem. So, why are anonymous editors permitted to apply warnings at all? Thanks! — SpikeToronto ( talk) 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why anonymous users should be treated differently than logged-in users. There is no more power vested in an anonymous user warning users or reporting to AIV than there is any user (assuming the user is not an admin). The warnings and/or reports will still be judged based on their merits in either case. If people don't want to create accounts, that is their own choice. Your mention of the IP rebooting their modem applies just as well to any user who is logged in, as they could still log out, reboot their modem, and continue as an IP, making the practical difference irrelevant. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt he used to have an account here. No doubt. He was warning people 4 weeks ago when he had barely anything of a talk page. tommy talk 00:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ever hear of DHCP? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't do computer stuff. But based on the consistent tone and contrib patterns it is the same person w/ some type of experience. tommy talk 00:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He probably has other IPs that he has edited from in the past. Or it is also possible that he had an account, and decided for reasons of his own to let the account lie dormant. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you being so rude?? I mean seriously, I do assume good faith, or at least try. Those edits he mentioned above were not over the top, he did lie to me, or attempt to. I don't pretend to be perfect, and when I do something wrong I apologize but all you are doing is talking down to me and I really don't like it. tommy talk 00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(quick response to Spike) It all goes all the way back to the Founding principles. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 00:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Founding Principles: there are many of us who spend hours reverting the vandalism of anons who do not think that edits should be permitted without registration. WP has grown since the founding principles were first stated and WP has experienced years of anon abuse. Just like a country’s Constitution, sometimes amendments are necessary. Now, going back to DHCP, etc., I thought J. that the purpose of CheckUser was to let you peer behind a registered users account to determine if they are editing as an anon and thus sock puppetting. If all they have to do is reboot their modem and get a new IP address, assuming their ISP uses DHCP (mine uses semi-static IP addresses), and then edit anonymously, how effective is CheckUser and other sock puppet investigative tools? Thanks! — SpikeToronto ( talk) 01:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made more than 275000 edits reverting vandalism. I do not think that IP editing should be disabled. If anything, my experience has shown that while most vandalism does come from IPs, the converse to this is not true. Most IP edits are not vandalism. Unless that changes, my view on IP editing will not change. With regard to checkuser, first, most ISPs only give people access to a small number of IPs, which can be rangeblocked if necessary. Also, some ISPs do not let you get a new IP by simply rebooting your router. I have currently had the same ISP for almost three years. In that time, I have had less than 10 IP addresses, and I can assure you that I have rebooted my router far, far more than ten times in the last three years. Second, even if we did disable anonymous editing, it still would not help, because rebooting your router and vandalizing (without logging in) is only slightly less difficult than rebooting your router, creating a new account, and vandalizing. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Boy, now I am confused. At the beginning your answer made me think, “Ah, good CheckUser has some value and they are able to tell when people are sock puppetting and it’s worth reporting.” But, then J., your last bit about how easy it is for even a registered user to get ’round the failsafes and still vandalize makes me wonder why we should bother. <sigh> Oh, by the way, how did you figure out how many of your edits were vandalism reverts? Is there some special counter somewhere? Just curious … (Sorry to digress so far from your initial issue with Tommy; I just find your talk page instructive …) — SpikeToronto ( talk) 05:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

First, CheckUser does not only look at IP addresses. Second, did you read what I said about most ISPs not allowing their customers access to hundreds of thousands of IP addresses?

I know I have around 275000 reverts/warnings because I have a total of around 287000 edits (including deleted), and something like 12000 edits that are not in the article space or the user talk space. Given that I do revert vandalism in other namespaces than just the mainspace, the fact I do make edits to the mainspace and user talk space that are not related to vandal-patrol tend to even out. Soxred93 has a tool that can tell you how many edits were made with various tools, but it does not work for Huggle before May or June 2008, nor does it work with users with more than one hundred thousand edits. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, J., I did read what you said about “most ISPs not allowing their customers access to hundreds of thousands of IP addresses.” Did you read where I said that even my own ISP keeps one using the same IP address now for months? (That’s why I call it a “semi-dynamic” or “semi-static” IP! :) ) Meaning, I’m well aware of this. No need to be so curt. Anyway, our IPs used to change constantly, but not any more. Here, it’s part of Canadian ISPs wanting to be able to assist law enforcement in cracking down on child pornography. Thankfully they also keep detailed records so when one’s IP changes they record the dates so one is not credited with what others have done with one’s new IP previously, or will do with one’s old IP in the future. As for CheckUser, I did already understand that its purpose is to deal with registered users by looking at which IPs registered accounts use, and which registered accounts use what IPs. (Thanks for that link, by the way! It’s very informative!) So, I guess what you are saying is that, since IP addresses these days don’t tend to change as frequently, it makes CheckUser a useful sock puppet investigative tool. Which is important, because it tells me to continue to have faith in the system. Thanks! — SpikeToronto ( talk) 06:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems I made somebody angry :-) I semi'd it yesterday and the ips (ATT range) switched to undoing a bunch of my edits. Seems my 2 week block of User:KgKris started it. That user even stated that his "friends" were helping in regards an edit war on talk:Human. Seems an indef is in order, but an addit. range block on ATT mightn't be too popular. Any suggestions? Vsmith ( talk) 00:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. 32.0.0.0/8 is waaaaay too big to block. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew that, just trying to figger out how to deal with an irate ip hopper. Vsmith ( talk) 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really anything you can do. Just apply semi-protection without mercy. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, seems to have changed targets :) Vsmith ( talk) 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm used to it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Three entries in a row. This is getting to be a habit. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 01:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to see if two IPs are one in the same? 32.177.111.155 was editing vandalizing a page and after several warnings to that IP, 209.183.55.115 pops up and templates me. The first is out of LA and the second is out of Concord, CA....right next to each other. Obviously a user using either a cell or another computer. Would it be possible to checkuser these accounts and if they are the same block them? Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. What would be gained by having a positive correlation drawn between them? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

IP sockpuppetry for one. Also, once I said on AIV (where 209.193.55.115 posted also, in an attempt to get me in trouble) where the IPs were located, all activity stopped on both IPs, so I think they knew the jig was up. Just good to have some confirmation for the blocking admin on AIV that there is socks a-foot :) and not just the DUCKs are a-quackin'. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. In particular, the checkuser tool is generally not useful to draw a line connecting two IPs to each other without, say, having an account that has edited from both IPs. Even if I did run the check, it is virtually certain that it would be inconclusive. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, that is cool. To be honest, I didn't think it would show a "line" between the two and now we have a third, so I guess I will relay on my " duck meter". :) Thanks... NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello J.delanoy, you might want to add this :-) (whole point diverted) Regards ≈ Commit charge

How about this? =D Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Some months ago (21 July 2009) you deleted my artist page 'Akahum', the reason was that there was no reliable, third party sources. I realised after scrutinising my page there was little in the way of 'reliable third party sources' and did not pursue the action. However, I now have a review of Akahum from The BBC News. Please can you undelete my Akahum page so I can apply this and other reliable third party sources I now have. Many thanks, Unlimbo ( talk) 09:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC) David Unlimbo Unlimbo ( talk) 09:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  Done Rich  Farmbrough, 07:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

Hello. I just declined a request to protect this page at WP:RFPP under the assumption that since you are currently active, you would protect it yourself if the IP edits were really annoying you. However if my presumption is incorrect and you would like to have the page protected, just lemmie know. Thanks, — Kralizec! ( talk) 02:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Erk. I didn't even think to check to see if you were on and working! *blush* I assumed (yes I know) that you were offline or you would have protected already. Sorry, Kralizec! for the un-needed RFPP.- Sinneed 03:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just protected this page to prevent further carnage...IPs have attacked it overnight. If you have any issues, just ask on my talk page. Willking1979 (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And I went ahead and blocked all of the offending IPs as open proxies. — Kralizec! ( talk) 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

..a new idea for a Wikipedian event. Sometimes, the encyclopedia itself needs a break. A Wikibreak is only necessary whenever a user is feeling Wikistressed, or any other reasons for that matter. In this event, Wikipedia pages cannot be edited by even the largest of the ArbComs, not even Jimbo. Well, to prevent any administator incident and excessive vandalism that continues to occur every single day. Whaddaya think?-- 7107delicious ( talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

...and it sounds strange enough to be familiarized. So a block is requestable, isn't it? By the disruptive editor itself? That's odd! Very odd!-- 7107delicious | ngopi di Warung Cinere, yuukk... 14:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The last time I had someone request a block, it was a school. I looked at the school's website, and contacted their IT department to verify that the person requesting the block did indeed represent the school. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I see you were also around since 2006, so I'm just wondering... This request isn't very urgent, and I'm not sure if this isn't allowed, but do you remember the old WP:LTA articles on Willy on Wheels and MilkMan, and can you provide me a copy of each via e-mail? I understand WP:DENY, but if you can just e-mail me the article copies without userfying, no trolls are fed, and I'm happy. It's just for my own nostalgia, you don't have to do it.

If you can, thanks. If not, thanks anyway. Good day. ^{(C/ SSG)} G2sai_{( talk)} 22:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want them? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi j.delanoy. Thanks for unblocking me from editing. but why did you block me in the first place? Waverly57 ( talk) 03:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)waverly57

FYI, to help resolve the naming dispute, I've created REDIRECTs to Godhra train burning at "Godhra train attack" & "incident" & "massacre", with and without capitalized words, so readers trying to look up any of those titles will see the surviving article. This overwrites your deletions, but I hope that's acceptable to you. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 07:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's perfectly fine. I only deleted them because that's what I normally do. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Has this user been sufficiently warned for conflict of interest violations? I'm not sure if there are any other steps a simple editor can take.-- otherl left 15:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like you deleted a page entitled, Platypus Media. Although you may have not heard of this some-what small publishing house, I believe it is worthy of a page and I urge you to reconsider. I'm going to create a new page with some of the basic info. Let me know if there is something I should specifically do.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorhere ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A reply regarding the Platypus Media article was made at User talk:Trevorhere#Platypus Media. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 20:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've suggested he use his subpages to develop the articles. I took the liberty of copying the "Platypus Media" article there, to preserve his work in case it gets speedied from articlespace. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you went way too soft on blocking the above IP for what he did to Zink Dawg's page... one week is absurd. These are death threats we're talking about, not just a simple "Fuck you" or "Fag." The IP should be blocked indefinately as is appropriate with endless other examples of vandalism on here. Wikipedia has no place for out of control thugs. Do reconsider. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that sort of thing all the time. A week is my usual response. Also, IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely, no matter what they do. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if 72.13.91.132 is using a open proxies because of this edit. The very first edit they did was on my user space. [3] See contributions. User:Mfield Blocked User talk:174.137.53.232 for 24 hours.-- Zink Dawg -- 23:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

See this, A new death threat form 72.13.91.132. I think.-- Zink Dawg -- 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have rangeblocked 174.137.53.0/24 for a month, there were no contributions from this entire block other than these harrassments from two IPs in the range that have been used so far. Mfield ( Oi!) 19:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. And bro you need to call the police. Did you know that hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal in California? He may be violating our tough state hate crimes law. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 20:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wayne has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!

Yeah, I was tired and overworked, then I saw the list of humor on your page. COMPLETELY MADE MY DAY!!! Keep up the great work! The Dark Knight ★ of Wikipedia 00:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed my list :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you can bet I did. The Dark Knight ★ of Wikipedia 22:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping you can help me with User:Minosufge who keeps removing an AfD template from the article Damon Tajrobehkar. This user, along with what I can only assume are meatpuppets, have been inserting trivial unsourced info into this BLP for some time and I keep deleting it as unsourced. When I tried to find reliable sourceS myself it became apparent (to me at least) that that article did not meet notability criteria and I nominated it as such. Since then the AfD template has been removed at least twice and multiple new users keep reinserting the trivia. In addition, there is a duplicate article at Damon Tajrobehkar-Dana that I redirected to the target article that is up for AfD. Now that redirect has been removed. I'm going offline and won't be able to monitor the situation and it appears I'm the only person actively watchlisting these articles, so I was hoping perhaps you could take a look? Apologies for the long message and thanks for any guidance you can provide. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 21:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I found three accounts. I blocked two of them, and I will warn the first one about sockpuppetry. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks J – you're a star! Note that your warning apparently fell on deaf ears as two more warnings have been added to the talk page since your clear message.Regardless, there appears to be more eyes on the situation now, so thank you kindly for your swift response. Cheers, -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 02:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, J.delanoy, for checking and for letting me know. I hope this naughty user won't mess things up at DYK again. Happy editing. Cheers! -- PFHLai ( talk) 19:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the new user Special:Contributions/Smakbot. Every article he vandalized was one I was recently active at, so I have to conclude he was targeting me. Binksternet ( talk) 20:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the SPI I filed ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.244.107.246‎). I don't mean to question your ability to do your job, but it seems to me that the size of the subnet shouldn't matter - if it is somebody logging out to make the edit the logs should show someone using that account a short time before the edit. If the logs don't show that, it rules out my proposed explanation. If they logged out and disconnected from the net and reconnected to change their IP, there would be still be someone editing from that range shortly before the edit - it seems unlikely there would be multiple ref desk regulars editing from that range in that short time period. I know CUs don't like to give out too much information about how they do their jobs to avoid giving out information people could use to hide, but I would like to understand why no useful information could be found here. -- Tango ( talk) 23:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have dealt with this vandal quite a few times in the past, and I have found that he usually hops all over the place on the range (which is quite busy), and he often switches browsers as well. He has been continuing his campaign against BB for much longer than I have been a checkuser, and if he ever was a legitimate user, the data has almost certainly long since gone stale. The checkuser tool cannot look at ranges larger than a /16, so checking the entire node would be impractical, and given the amount of activity on the range, it probably wouldn't help even if I could. Because of how dynamic this range is, I am reluctant to attempt to target blocks on accounts with no behavioral evidence to correlate the CheckUser evidence. Also, I have never been able to find any obvious "master" accounts, and I only rarely see accounts vandalizing soon after IPs, and vice-versa. He is very meticulous at avoiding having more than one account/IP blocked with one checkuser. You might try asking Nishkid64 or another "older" checkuser if they were ever able to figure out who the person behind the attacks on BB is, but as far as I know, his identity, if he even has a "real" one, is unknown. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for trying! -- Tango ( talk) 23:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I sent you another e-mail. → Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about, becoming a administrator. What do I need to do to get started. I also like to know the Policies and guidelines. Can you send me some links to my talk page. Thanks-- Zink Dawg -- 04:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Since J.delanoy is away, I will answer the best I can. Normally, you would need a little experience in Wikipedia. I recommend getting involved in discussions and learning the ropes at WP:ANI and WP:AN. From there that will give you some experience in how the ins and outs of the discussion process work. I would also recommend working (creating as well) some articles. Some people want to see you know how to edit and create articles before even thinking of approving you for adminship. Also learning the ins and outs of WP:AfD would be good to know as well, as when you become an admin, you may work on closing AfDs. Voting on those is a good way to start. J.delanoy will probably have more links, but that is a start for you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? You'd send him to ANI? Myself, I am more inclined to recommend the reliable sources noticeboard or the biographies noticeboard, where he can also learn more about our core policies without...ummm...well, let's put it this way. Most admins don't watch ANI. ;-) Risker ( talk) 05:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I need a link to the Policies and guidelines. -- Zink Dawg -- 14:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You may find them here. Much of what the other editors are suggesting is useful, in-depth stuff that an administrator should know, but understanding the basics of neutrality, verifiability, and no original research is a great way to start. Those are the three cores of Wikipedia. Along the way you will also learn to decode the endless abbreviations (editors are terribly lazy!) and get a sense of how consensus works, both of which are necessary to navigate this site. If you hope to be an administrator, or really just an editor, always remember that written communication lacks the non-verbal cues that help us understand one another (eye contact, body language, tone of voice), and so it's very easy to get the wrong meaning from what another editor types. That's why assuming good faith is critical - it's entirely possible that an edit made to an article, or a comment on a talk page, was made with a very different meaning in mind than what you get from it as a reader. Best of luck, and I hope to see you achieve your goal one day!-- otherl left 16:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, me and you go way back, is true. Thanks for the message. It's always good to hear from you! <3 -- A3RO (mailbox) 04:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please log out and get some sleep. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

With love <3, G'Night :) -- A3RO (mailbox) 04:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you showed up in the edit list of the article. If you read the discussion, I'm sure you know who I am. Nevertheless I want to repeat again that I became involved after a lot of edits and reverts have been done already. And I'm not the one who re-added it again and again. I only removed some editions later which were definitely wrong statements.

This all seems to be endless. Also I don't understand why this discussion is happening at all.

Those admins who are removing the links again and again are insisting on WP:RS and want reliable sources, being fully aware that these RS rules can't be fully applied to video games for the most part and although it is very obvious that the game itself will never be popular enough again to be mentioned in any of the bigger "news-pages" or somewhere else outside the community and the community pages, which are completely ignored too.

It also seems to be fully ok to mention ports and continued work for video games on other wiki game pages, like for example Doom_(video_game)#Clones_and_related_products, Descent_(video_game) and many more. It is also obviously valid to link to the UT port which only uses the content to play the game in Linux instead of stating that there is a native port now also.

What made this link different (last edit) compared to adding a statement for 227 real native port? Oldunreal serves now the community for over 9 years as a non commercial community page, I made the page 06-jun-2000, years before I got the sources by epic and made the patch. I think this makes me at least to some expert for this game also even if the patch wouldn't be made by me.

Also the stupid discussion if Epic approves my work. Of course they won't give any statement which could make them responsible in any legal way for my work, but its clear as daylight that without the sources they gave me this patch couldn't have been done. What more proof is needed for that? The additional forum statement by their senior producer is ignored also.

Of course I'm biased, it's my work as well as the contributions made by the community to create this patch but this doesn't mean it's wrong to argue that this can't be right whats happening there at the moment.

Anyway, thanks for reading all this. Maybe it leads somewhere.

-- Smirftsch ( talk) 10:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, all I did on that article was make a revert, and I don't even remember why I did that, so I don't think I can help you. Sorry. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey. MC10 ( talk · contribs) is requesting that his checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry block be overturned, due to the fact that he in fact has two younger brothers who caught him up in their shenanigans. Brandon was the checkusering admin on the case, but he has not edited since. Could you have a look? More information is at MC10's talk page. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can remove a prod, including the creator. So I don't think that would be considered abusing multiple accounts. – xeno ^talk 15:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no legitimate reason for him to do it with a different account. The only possible reason would be to create the impression that another person, other than the article's creator, thinks highly enough of the page that they would want to remove the prod tag. If you want to unblock, be my guest, but I see no legitimate purpose for that account's existance. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. No, I shan't unblock. – xeno ^talk 15:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see now there was more to it than just the prod removal, apologies. – xeno ^talk 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

An apology is not necessary. You are actually the one who made me notice the SPI page, by mentioning that the non-ALLCAPS version of the title had been salted. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, – xeno ^talk 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I see you've deleted the article for atomic traps. Would it be okay if re-created it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A4MES1 ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Should get me a vandalism counter. Favonian ( talk) 17:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello... with regards to the redirect the IP is pursuing, I've no particular preference at all with regards to what the page ends up being, and am fine with leaving it to your discretion. My concern here is only with the process involved, given that the page was originally converted from a redirect without suitable discussion. (Please note that the IP 24.*'s involvement stems not from an interest in the redirect, but from a decision to mirror my edits, since he/she is irked that their changes to Chevrolet Tahoe were rejected.) Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Cheers. -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an imposter of you "D.Jelanoy" FYI. 64.15.147.70 ( talk) 17:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's blocked, but thanks! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sir, in all due respect this does not concern you in the least. Furthermore, I am not "annoyed" by anything that User;Cirt did. In fact, I am trying to clarify his decision to delete an article, which at the moment seems vague.-- 173.33.217.192 ( talk) 20:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I emailed you with a question and was wondering if you received it. Thanks,

Jim Steele ( talk) 23:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[Question prompted by this AN/I thread
So is it the case that these days basically nobody from a Tivoli IP address can register an account without getting blocked, or do they get blocked only if their actions are particularly suspicious? (This is a curiosity question; no value judgement implied either way.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 16:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

First, what is Tivoli? I have never heard of an ISP by that name. I assume you meant Tiscali. In any case, a large provider like Tiscali does not have only a few IP addresses. Your average medium-to-large ISP will have close to a million IP addresses, and some (particularly in India, Southeast Asia, and the United States) have tens of millions. The largest number of addresses that CheckUser lets me look at with one query is 65,536. Even assuming I was just blocking accounts randomly, without giving any consideration whatsoever to whether they were doing anything wrong, it would take an insane amount of work to block even an extremely small fraction of the accounts being created from Tiscali's ranges.

Second, do you know how Extension:CheckUser works? If you do not, I suggest that you learn what it does and how it works before you make an implied accusation against me. Nearly 100% of the time, I can very easily tell which accounts belong to a vandal and which do not.

Third, you have utterly no idea how many accounts are being created on that range. The range the refdesk vandal is editing from is incredibly busy, one of the busiest I have ever seen. Even assuming that you are speaking only of accounts being created from the vandal's particular node, if "it [was] the case that these days basically nobody from a Tivoli [sic] IP address can register an account without getting blocked", my block log would be very, very, very, very long. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for being so patronizing in my comments above. I am currently extremely annoyed at something IRL, and I should not have taken it out on you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. (RL can be the pits some times, I know.) For the record:

• Yes, I did mean Tiscali, sorry.
• Yes, I (thought I) know how checkuser works.
• No, I certainly wasn't implying any accusation against you. (The parenthetical in my initial query was sincere.)
• You're correct, I don't have any idea how active that range is, which is why I was asking.

The (former?) Avril Lavigne refdesk vandal is alleging that he can't register a new account because everyone from Tiscali is assumed to be Light Current, and blocked. Me, I assume he's getting blocked not because he's assumed to be Light Current, not because everyone from Tiscali is blocked, but simply because he's the Avril Lavigne vandal. *If* essentially everyone from Tiscali was getting blocked (which, no, I didn't believe, and which I guess I didn't know quite enough about Checkuser to know how impossible it would be), I wanted to know that (and just for future reference, not even to be particularly concerned about), and since I happen to be exceedingly bored in RL today, I thought I'd check. Sorry for hitting you at a bad moment. — Steve Summit ( talk) 18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you beyond all possible doubt that this user is unable to create an account from that range without being blocked because he or she is still vandalizing with IPs. Also, this person has no way to know if "essentially all" accounts from Tiscali are being blocked on sight. I can also assure you that this is emphatically not the case. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds

And I can assure you that I was not trying to stick up for either user. Thanks for your time. — Steve Summit ( talk) 20:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your inquiry on my own talk page. Please let me know if you'd rather I leave my responses on yours instead.- PassionoftheDamon ( talk) 00:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sent you a Mail-- NotedGrant Talk 05:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I noticed you have contributed recently to one or more of the decade articles ( 1990s, 1960s etc). I am proposing some major changes to these articles, as I have outlined in Talk:1990s/Archives/2012#Suggested_reform_of_decade_articles, and I would be interested in hearing your views in the first instance. Thanks. Kransky ( talk) 09:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi J.delanoy. User:Omega735 was created on 17 October 2009 at 06:20. The account made its first edit 40 minutes later on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Audi152 (See their contribs). I get the feeling User:Omega735 is a sockpuppet, judging by their contribs and this but am not sure what to look for. Please help, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein already blocked, and I picked up a couple of socks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I just sent you an e-mail. → Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 14:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I just happened on this block log, where your block should have expired a few days ago. Yet according to its contributions page, the IP is still (or again?) blocked. How can the IP be blocked without a corresponding entry in the block log? Is that a side effect of some IP rangeblock? I'm not personally involved with the vandal IP, I'm just curious and would be grateful for a short explanation. Yours, Huon ( talk) 20:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I rangeblocked him after blocking that IP. That particular user has been harassing Impala for quite some time, and experience has shown that the only effective way to stop him is a rangeblock. Luckily, he does not have access to busy ranges, so I can place quite lengthy range blocks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds

Thanks, I learned something today. :-) Huon ( talk) 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you clarify which of the two IPs Raizen1984 was using? Just recently, 24.4.180.2 (a Comcast user) has done the same actions mentioned in the checkuser request. Since it is no coincidence the whole sequence of events is started by Raizen1984, I am wondering if it is just simple sockpuppetry or involves meatpuppetry. Jappalang ( talk) 01:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, apologies for being so blunt, but why do you need to know? I don't like directly connecting someone to their IP address under any circumstances, but I will if needed. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have make myself clearer. I understand that checkuser information is confidential, but I have raised two ISPs for consideration and the checkuser states one of them is connected to the user in question. Now one of those IPs is continuing to proceed against consensus (disruptive behavior) but since I do not know if this is the IP explicitly connected to the user, I do not know how to proceed (whether to raise a request for intervention on the basis of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry). Regardless, I have talked to 24.4.180.2, treating him as a different user in the hopes that the matter comes to a stop. If the IP, however, continues, do you have any suggestion what I should do? Should I tag this new IP to the Raizen1984's SPI report (would that be considered fishing?), or get an admin to intervene? Since the changes to the article in question are at a slow pace, RFP is unlikely to be accepted. Jappalang ( talk) 02:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The ip mentioned = raizen. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

what do you know about VP-10 or the P-3? it a relic of the cold war deemed obsolete by everyone including the USA (look up the P-8). besides there is no "Petty Admiral" rank in the US Navy so edit that. This doesn't flag your attention either? "Today the RED LANCER team continues to set the standard hating and blowing things" but my additions do bother you? this is why wikipedia fails..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontlikevp10 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to stop by and tell you how impressed I've been with your work over this year and last; and that I'm glad you're a well-known and respected editor, administrator, and CheckUser; and clearly one of our greatest vandal-fighters (over 275,000 edits!)...it feels like yesterday that this and this happened: you've done very well, and I'm proud. Best. Acalamari 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

hahaha! Yep, I remember that :-) I bet you didn't know what you unlocked, huh? :P J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not have an e-mail address. -- Nemesis of Reason 18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You probably should have logged in as Orangesodakid to type that. –Katerenka (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, J.delanoy. You have new messages at Orangesodakid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BTW, I'm not NoR.

I would like to defend NoR and OSK but I myself dont want to be blocked. What should I do?-- Coldplay Expert 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Um... don't reply to comments left for other people before they do? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No not like that. What can I do to help them?-- Coldplay Expert 10:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When I get a chance, I'll look closely at their editing patterns vs their IP addresses and user agents. That should make it clear whether they are socks or not, but right now, I don't have time to do that. If you want, you could try asking another checkuser to do this. Jdelanoy ^{Main talk} 14:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for looking at it when you get the chance. Im sure OSK likes it. I hope that in the end the check user will prove once and for all that OSK has no socks (with the exeption of Gurrenlaggan)-- Coldplay Expert 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I revert vandalism on your talkpage or userpage via TWINKLE it stops in it's process, gives me a warning message (something like it can't retrieve the page or something) and won't revert. It isn't that someone else has already reverted (which does happen sometimes), it just won't revert. Any idea why? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. It does that for me and at least a couple of other people as well. I usually just revert with navpopups, or occasionally manually. Jdelanoy ^{Main talk} 14:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you check out User:74.248.93.105. All their contributions is removing text from article's. They keep saying "unreferenced" and "removing copyvio text" without giving a link of the copyvio text. If someone adds something they remove it. I guess this is a new way to do vandalism. I tried to contact the user a few times. I keep telling the user. "If you want to removed content from a article, please discuss it on the article's talk page" No response from the user.-- Zink Dawg -- 02:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing user Autobot50000 ( talk · contribs). Someone has already welcomed the user and pointed out the problem with the name, however I notice that the account was created on 15 October 2009 and that their first edit was vandalism involving "THIS IS SPARTA!", followed next day by adding a welcome to the talk page of four new users with no contributions. The users were created on 20 October 2009 between 14:20 and 14:23, while the welcomes were added on the same day between 14:20 and 14:24. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I just changed my username and now I only have 23 edits. I am supposed to have over 1,500 edits. How can I restore my edits? By the way I am RuneScape Adventure. RSA 23 ^Sign! 22:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

According to both Lupin's Popups, and the toolserver, you have 1,500+ edits... I believe you trying to get the editcount of your old username, as that has 25 edits. You might still be logged into, and editing from that one. Try logging into RSA23, and see what happens. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 01:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I asked another person and they told me to log in with new username so I did and now I have my edits back. I needed it right away, but J.Delanoy wasn't on so I asked someone else. Thanks though! RSA 23 ^Sign! 01:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You blocked this user with a checkuser block. Whose sock are they? I wish to tag the userpage appropriately.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I recently indef'd User:NotASeaOtter for some egregious vandalism, including inserting what appeared to be innocent people's home phone numbers? Could you run a check and block the underlying IP so he won't get around the autoblock. Would also appreciate contacting this bottom-feeder's ISP as well. Blueboy 96 19:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi J., yes, six or seven I can't decide what presents a better scenario. And do you have any ideas for a better name than "coordinators"? Tony (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In my own view, having an uneven number of people would be best, because that would make a deadlock extremely unlikely.

Possible alternatives: "custodians", "overseers", "moderators", possibly "supervisors". I personally like "custodians" best. Actually, admins should be called custodians, but that's another matter... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, J. I think there's some chance that next year the new ArbCom might at least consider the formation of a subcommittee to take on something like this role. In that case, the term would be easy, I guess: "members" (of the sub-committee). Tony (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for your quick blocking of this problematic user. However, 75.216.107.183's contribs indicate that it is a vandalism-only account. Also, he said "**** you wikipedia". Personally, I think a block of only 31 hours is a bit too short, don't you think? -- Addihockey ^{( t/ c)} 04:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, 31 hours is standard for an IP who does normal vandalism (i.e. no racism, similar stuff) and has never been blocked before. Since most IPs are dynamic, I doubt whoever that is will be editing from the same IP by the time the block expires. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh... I believe you missed this diff. It has racism in it, sorry I thought you caught that one. -- Addihockey ^{( t/ c)} 04:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It has profanity in it, yes, including racially oriented profanity, but it seems to be intended to be simply offensive rather than directly racist. The 31 hour block here seems fine. The person who made these edits has probably grown bored and moved on anyway. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I don't know how you put up with it. I'd virtually eStrangle some poor bonehead through teh interwebz, I know I would. Thanks for doing the admin thing! PS - >287K edits?!!?! Yer crazy... :) ... in a great way. - Sinneed 22:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an administrator and bureaucrat over on cy: and would like to know if it was really you who reverted an edit tonight under this user name at 2037 ([ [4]]). The edit reverted was vandalism, of course, and I know who the IP contributor and ' J deloney' really are, i.e. Bambifan101, but need to check who's who here before I apply some blocks. Typical of the confusion for admins Our Boy likes to create! Thanks in advance, Enaidmawr ( talk) 21:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am the person who made this revert. J.delanoy is my username, J_deloney is an impersonator. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A steward locked the impersonator, so you probably don't have to block it locally. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I take it you mean a global block for the impersonator? Just placed a fairly hefty range block either side of the IP addy - we can afford it on cy: as any 'collateral damage' for Georgia is purely academic, unfortunately! - but he keeps getting round them. Short of blocking the entire state, but then again...! Enaidmawr ( talk) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I finally need to know something about transcluding, but I think it's not much. I want to respond to a request placed with the {{request edit}} template, and to do so properly will mean I must untransclude it. How do I go about doing that?-- otherl left 00:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Try subst-ing it? (I'm not certain what you are asking :/ ) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that might be it, so hopefully I was clear enough to get an answer!  ;)-- otherl left 00:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi J.delanoy! I just recently reported Alex Ji LT-21. Can you take a look and see? Tell me what you think when you read this. Thanks! RSA 23 ^Sign! 02:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what the hell is going on with you all? What sort of game are you playing? Is one of your friends trying to get you all blocked? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MC10/Archive; "Madden NFL 21" has already been indef-blocked as an MC10 sockpuppet, and "Alex Ji LT-21" has received final warning for vandalism (a very similar editing pattern to "Madden"'s). That doesn't seem like a "game" to me, it seems like a valid report. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 08:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you could see the checkuser results, you would know why I reacted like I did. And I assume that RSA knows too. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I wasn't here for the conversation. Let me get this straight. None of our friends are geting us blocked. It's one of our brothers that is trying to get me and MC10 blocked. If you need more details, since MC10 is my brother, ask him or ask download since he knows us in real life. Thanks! RSA 23 ^Sign! 21:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with RSA23, please see my recent talk archive for more information. Apparently my youngest brother has somehow created these new accounts. Could someone block the IP account creation for a month if I give the IP? — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L• EM) 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I hardblocked your IP. Now even if he creates accounts elsewhere, he can't use them at home. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of re-tagging the "sockpuppets of MC10" as "sockpuppets of Madden NFL 21", since MC10 was cleared in the matter. (MC10, rather than removing tags altogether, you might want to attach correct tags likewise.) — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 23:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

@J.delanoy: That's great.

@Sizzle Flambé: Thanks for doing so, there was no SPI for Madden NFL 21 at the time.

Thanks all of you. — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L• EM) 02:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Just wondered if you had spotted this users activities 65.211.22.60 (School IP). Since 1 October it has become nothing more than a vandalism only account, with Short blocks and multiple warnings. Perhaps a long term Anon Block will see the offender curtailed, until the end of the school term, to save editors from constantly reverting his/her edits, sometimes offensive edits. Richard Harvey ( talk) 22:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I declined this request but thought you'd want to know. Wknight94 ^talk 02:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, that's odd. My talk page hasn't been semi-protected for almost a week... Probably just a troll. Thanks for letting me know, though :-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he may have meant your user page, not your talk page. Still odd - maybe even more so... Wknight94 ^talk 12:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right. Yeah, that would be bad... Thanks for declining it. Jdelanoy ^{Main talk} 15:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, J.delanoy. I know I've bumped into your edits quite a few times on Wikipedia and I hope you don't mind that I WikiStalked some [many] of your edits. I would like to ask, if you are not busy or currently preoccupied with someone else, for some of your time as my admin coach. I understand if this is not possible at the moment. Thanks for your consideration. — Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!) ^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 09:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In the past few weeks, my activity on WP has been erratic due to real-world commitments, and I don't want to leave you hanging out to dry, so to speak. Also, my RfA was largely an anomaly. Very few people have successfully passed an RfA with what I had (45000 HG edits, not much else), so I'm probably not the best person to ask about this. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:J.delanoy can you unprotect your user page please because it's protected still thanks! 75.141.100.115 75.141.100.115 —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

I don't think jdelanoy has lost enough of his mental faculties to open himself up to the copious amounts of vandalism that would ensue from that. - Jeremy ^{( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'm really wondering is, how did an IP user post to this semiprotected page to ask for it to be unprotected? -- King Öomie 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This page hasn't been protected in a week. The IP is asking for J's userpage to be unprotected, which is just silly. Tan | 39 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

( edit conflict)It's semi-protected? Last I saw, the protection expired on the 20th... Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 23:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I came to correct myself. Blast this slow internet. The "(indefinite)" in the protection log fooled me. -- King Öomie 23:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want me to unprotect my userpage? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[5] I believe this is why that's not gonna happen...-- SKATER ^Speak. 04:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So you can edit your user page without being protected. 75.141.100.115 75.141.100.115 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

J.delanoy can edit thru a prot, 75. - Jeremy ^{( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your block of 69.234.138.1 just now, but I must admit I was hoping for a bit more than 31 hours for a death threat. Thanks for any reconsideration you can give to this one. Best, Jusda fax 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Jusda fax 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental rollback on Windows Movie Maker. I think I tried it at the same time as you. - xpclient ^Talk 15:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:09, 31 October 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.