This page is an
archive of past discussions for the period May 2006 (
index). 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.
IP addresses
68.239.87.12(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) -- User appeared today and began removing links to material I wrote for think tank where I work, claiming it was original research. Request investigation. I have edited hundreds of pages and seldom add a link to my own work. Others have added links to my work as well. Not always me. This matter has been through arbitration - I try to follow the guidelines. (My outside world identity is
Chip Berlet. I apologize for being a magnet for controversy.//
Cberlet 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
comment All three links in question were to writings by Chip Berlet hosted on the publiceye.org website. All three were added to Wikipedia articles by
User:Cberlet.
Read the rules: "Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - Wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included."
68.239.87.12 02:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
comment the secondUser:Cberlet has again restored the links to his own articles in violation of the above rules. More generally, writings from Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates are questionable as sources on Wikipedia given his peculiar world view, a mutant version of post-1960s identity politics which often veers into an extreme anti-populism analysis. He also continues to be obsessed with keeping old and now irrelevant controversies alive by taking jabs at other groups on the left he had disagreements with, e.g. with the Christic Institute. Is there any way
Use:Cberlet can be directed not to edit any articles on people or groups that he is known as a critic of in real life? It seems that NPOV and basic ethics would demand it.
68.239.87.12 03:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Response: Michael Ruppert. Added critical material written by Norman Solomon, stored on publiceye.org with permission of Solomon. see diff:
[1]. Other link was to online review of articles by many other authors.--
Cberlet 03:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Response: Conspiracism. Created page after conspiracy theorists repeatedly place text on Wikipedia wrongly claiming that I had invented the term. Page identified scholar who actually had popularized the term. See:
[2]. Survived vote for deletion.--
Cberlet 03:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Response: Christic Institute. Added first alternative POV to what was a puff piece on this controversial group. My monograph--published in print form--is one of the few published extensive discussions of the Christic Institute--and text added to Wikipedia primarily cites former Christic client with serious criticism. Prior to my addition, entry failed to mention that Christics's "most high-profile case" had been dismissed by a judge and that the clients had complained about Christic's handling of the case.--
Cberlet 03:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Summary. I have edited hundreds of pages, and before I link to a page at <publiceye.org> I search for other pages that can be linked.--
Cberlet 03:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
64.142.89.105(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) constantly changes articles about bands that have proper nouns for names. For instance, a passage in the
Guns N' Roses article said "Guns N' Roses is" (correct) and he changed it to "Guns N' Roses are" (incorrect). The vandal suggested we discuss it on the Guns N' Roses talk page. We did so and concluded with proper evidence that "Guns N' Roses is" is the correct wording. However, when we go back to revert the changes 64.142.89.105 has made, he reverts back immediately and calls us vandals that should discuss the situation further. He then threatens to report us to Wikipedia, despite the fact that he has been blocked and banned from Wikipedia numerous times for doing the exact same thing. Please prevent him from further trolling and vandalizing Wikipedia.
TheNewMinistry 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Objection - TheNewMinistry has been refusing to discuss his changes on
talk page when I asked him to stop changing "Guns N' Roses are" back to "Guns N' Roses is". I have been trying to prove to him that "Guns N' Roses are" is actually correct.
64.142.89.105 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a lie - the situation has been discussed in full on the talk page, but 64.142.89.105 ignores that fact.
TheNewMinistry 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've semi-protected articles.
Petros471 10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Removed semi-protection.
Petros471 08:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Registered users
User:Billy574 - Billy574 has repeatedly vandalized the user page
User:Oscarthecat. I've reverted several times, but this person is fairly persistent. I'll leave it up to you.--
P-Chan 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Report to
WP:AIV if continues.
Petros471 14:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Nikeman916(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - Images added to several articles with text apparently inviting votes for some competition; I have reverted the changes, but would welcome another opinion. Vandalism/inexperience/self-promotion... or is there really a Wikipedia photo competition going on that I'm not aware of??? //
Charivari 03:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No there isn't, but seems to have stopped so no further action for now.
Petros471 14:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Been blocked under the
WP:3RR.
Petros471 10:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Now indef blocked as a sock.
Petros471 14:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Czestochowa(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) -- Just appeared. But I reverted a few insertions of spam links (to something in a blog) by
User:130.88.13.207 today, which I first noticed as
[3]; the pattern does look like a continuation of the same thing. There is some subtlety; observe
[4], which inserted an error into a URL that I had just reverted to; followed by
[5] which reinstates the URL I just deleted. I could just revert these pages, but perhaps there is a more appropriate action (e.g. could these links be blocked?)
Notinasnaid 12:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You can request for URLs to be blacklisted, but I don't think there is any need here, as seems to have stopped.
Petros471 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Redjax888(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) -- He is editing an article talk page,
Talk:Bob Brinker, as if it were the article, changing headings and significantly editing, changing, removing previous editor's comments. He seems to be doing it out of ignorance of WP guidelines, though to promote his POV. An IP has done this previously, probably same person, and now this newly registered user is making the same edits. I posted a note on user's talk page, and have (Confession coming, please absolve me) reverted him 3 times within 24 hours. I couldn't find any WP policy I could quote, telling him not to edit other people's comments on an article talk page. What should I do next? //
ॐ Priyanath 03:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Redjax888 continues to remove other people's comments from the
Talk:Bob Brinker page - see
Talk:Bob Brinker history. He has done it seven times now, and possibly more under an IP. He has received four requests/warnings on his talk page
User_talk:Redjax888, from two different editors, including a last warning. A 24 hour block would be most appropriate, I think.
ॐ Priyanath 17:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Redjax888 seems to be back deleting content with his AOL IP address 172.194.65.210
Appears to be a content dispute rather than actual vandalism. I'm attempting to mediate. Request another opinion though. Although, recommend further investigation to the sockpuppetry claims below. ^demon[yell at me] /22:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Appears to be a content dispute rather than actual vandalism. I'm attempting to mediate. Request another opinion though. ^demon[yell at me] /22:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Has stopped editing for now, but still need to check all the images he's uploaded.
Petros471 13:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
All images are now either deleted or up for deletion.
Petros471 19:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
OutRider2003(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). OutRider2003 has on four occasions removed a free image from the
Dalip Singh page and replaced it with a copyrighted image that claims fair use "in the absence of a free alternative". My arguments against this course of action have been somewhat flippantly rebuffed, with OutRider2003 erasing my comments from his talk page. I have warned him that his actions verge on vandalism but this does not appear to have deterred him.
McPhail 21:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Filed 3RR report on the Administrator's Noticeboard
here. --
ZsinjTalk 18:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This person seems to be blanking everything someone says on their talk page immediately after they put it there.
Chuck 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Archived as old report. Please report again with specific diffs if there is still a problem. Also make sure 'free' images really are free.
Petros471 13:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Possibly file a
checkuser request if continues, however I'm not sure the creation of the pool pages is that serious. If suspected socks are affecting more important votes please bring attention to that on the individual voting page.
Petros471 19:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment- With the new arrangement of these pages, I'm not sure if I've put this in the right place, or if something like this needs to be reported at all. However, I felt this case was slightly less benign than most, as the user is obviously fairly familiar with Wikipedia and tried to impersonate Jimbo. Please leave me a message that says something to the effect of "you put this report in the right place" or "this was an absolute waste of time; in the future, please do this..." Thanks. :o)
EWS23 |
(Leave me a message!) 21:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Has been indef blocked for impersonation.
Petros471 19:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Mannaseejah(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) This user keeps putting all these strange, drug induced words and images on
Manna and the
talk page. He's been asked to stop, but refuses. He's convinced that Manna is psychadelic mushrooms and keeps writing about how if you take the drug you will see God. this has been long term abuse. he even states on his user page that this is his ultimate mission.
Sparsefarce 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Has now received a three day block.
Petros471 10:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
All have been blocked.
Petros471 09:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
All except original Tooj117 account that is. Leaving here for a bit to check for return.
Petros471 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Archived. Report Tooj117 again if needed.
Petros471 14:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Dynomites(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) -- This user will not allow any changes to the
digg.com article that remove any of the sprawling, citationless criticisms against the site. Does full reverts either immediately or the following day, against attempts by multiple users (including myself) to clean the article up and reduce it's slant. Responds almost exclusively via the history comments if at all, with lines like "what guidelines?" //
relaxathon 05:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Has been indef blocked.
Petros471 13:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The vandal continues with his vandalism in every article he removes the word NAZI from NAZI germany. This causes the problem that when you click on the word germany you come to the germany of today page and not nazi germany. He has done this in many articles if not all that he has seen. Also where there is no link he still removes the word nazi. Which can be seen here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Battle_of_K%C3%B6nigsberg&diff=49776482&oldid=49751473 The he says he removes it because other battle boxes dosent have it. Well that is because he has removed it from the other boxes. He has removed it from other boxes and then says look at the other boxes. He contiunes with his changeing of sourced figures without stateing any source for example here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Battle_of_Kiev_%281941%29&diff=49954899&oldid=48309290 and as always he minimizes axis losses and maximizes allied ones just as he has done in many other articles. And now he has started with grammatical vandalism which can be seen here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Persia&diff=49834302&oldid=49251690 (
Deng 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC))
Deng was posting about Kurt on
Woohookitty's talk as I recall, check there also for info. ~
Chris {
t|
c|
e} 21:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Mines45(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). Mines45 has targeted several professional wrestling articles, most frequently
Amy Dumas. Despite opposition, Mines45 has continually reverted to a version that contains misspellings and other errors. Mines45 has yet to provide a single edit summary in over four months of editing, and has not responded to several messages left on his or her talk page. Mines45 is dogmatically restoring his or her own edits despite opposition and refuses to justify these edits.
McPhail 14:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Followed up with a message on the user's talk page. --
ZsinjTalk 15:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Mines45 has resumed editing the pages in question, again without edit summaries or use of the talk page.
McPhail 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have given a final warning on the user's talk page. Admin intervention would be nice. --
ZsinjTalk 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Mines45 has one again blanked his or her talk page and edited the articles in question.
McPhail 19:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any chance of getting intervention from an administrator? Mines45 continues to unilaterally edit the
Amy Dumas page, and is now making controversial edits to
Torrie Wilson.
McPhail 18:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Mines45 is now blocked for a week.
Petros471 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC).
This page is an
archive of past discussions for the period May 2006 (
index). 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.
IP addresses
68.239.87.12(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) -- User appeared today and began removing links to material I wrote for think tank where I work, claiming it was original research. Request investigation. I have edited hundreds of pages and seldom add a link to my own work. Others have added links to my work as well. Not always me. This matter has been through arbitration - I try to follow the guidelines. (My outside world identity is
Chip Berlet. I apologize for being a magnet for controversy.//
Cberlet 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
comment All three links in question were to writings by Chip Berlet hosted on the publiceye.org website. All three were added to Wikipedia articles by
User:Cberlet.
Read the rules: "Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - Wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included."
68.239.87.12 02:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
comment the secondUser:Cberlet has again restored the links to his own articles in violation of the above rules. More generally, writings from Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates are questionable as sources on Wikipedia given his peculiar world view, a mutant version of post-1960s identity politics which often veers into an extreme anti-populism analysis. He also continues to be obsessed with keeping old and now irrelevant controversies alive by taking jabs at other groups on the left he had disagreements with, e.g. with the Christic Institute. Is there any way
Use:Cberlet can be directed not to edit any articles on people or groups that he is known as a critic of in real life? It seems that NPOV and basic ethics would demand it.
68.239.87.12 03:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Response: Michael Ruppert. Added critical material written by Norman Solomon, stored on publiceye.org with permission of Solomon. see diff:
[1]. Other link was to online review of articles by many other authors.--
Cberlet 03:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Response: Conspiracism. Created page after conspiracy theorists repeatedly place text on Wikipedia wrongly claiming that I had invented the term. Page identified scholar who actually had popularized the term. See:
[2]. Survived vote for deletion.--
Cberlet 03:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Response: Christic Institute. Added first alternative POV to what was a puff piece on this controversial group. My monograph--published in print form--is one of the few published extensive discussions of the Christic Institute--and text added to Wikipedia primarily cites former Christic client with serious criticism. Prior to my addition, entry failed to mention that Christics's "most high-profile case" had been dismissed by a judge and that the clients had complained about Christic's handling of the case.--
Cberlet 03:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Summary. I have edited hundreds of pages, and before I link to a page at <publiceye.org> I search for other pages that can be linked.--
Cberlet 03:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
64.142.89.105(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) constantly changes articles about bands that have proper nouns for names. For instance, a passage in the
Guns N' Roses article said "Guns N' Roses is" (correct) and he changed it to "Guns N' Roses are" (incorrect). The vandal suggested we discuss it on the Guns N' Roses talk page. We did so and concluded with proper evidence that "Guns N' Roses is" is the correct wording. However, when we go back to revert the changes 64.142.89.105 has made, he reverts back immediately and calls us vandals that should discuss the situation further. He then threatens to report us to Wikipedia, despite the fact that he has been blocked and banned from Wikipedia numerous times for doing the exact same thing. Please prevent him from further trolling and vandalizing Wikipedia.
TheNewMinistry 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Objection - TheNewMinistry has been refusing to discuss his changes on
talk page when I asked him to stop changing "Guns N' Roses are" back to "Guns N' Roses is". I have been trying to prove to him that "Guns N' Roses are" is actually correct.
64.142.89.105 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a lie - the situation has been discussed in full on the talk page, but 64.142.89.105 ignores that fact.
TheNewMinistry 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've semi-protected articles.
Petros471 10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Removed semi-protection.
Petros471 08:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Registered users
User:Billy574 - Billy574 has repeatedly vandalized the user page
User:Oscarthecat. I've reverted several times, but this person is fairly persistent. I'll leave it up to you.--
P-Chan 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Report to
WP:AIV if continues.
Petros471 14:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Nikeman916(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - Images added to several articles with text apparently inviting votes for some competition; I have reverted the changes, but would welcome another opinion. Vandalism/inexperience/self-promotion... or is there really a Wikipedia photo competition going on that I'm not aware of??? //
Charivari 03:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No there isn't, but seems to have stopped so no further action for now.
Petros471 14:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Been blocked under the
WP:3RR.
Petros471 10:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Now indef blocked as a sock.
Petros471 14:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Czestochowa(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) -- Just appeared. But I reverted a few insertions of spam links (to something in a blog) by
User:130.88.13.207 today, which I first noticed as
[3]; the pattern does look like a continuation of the same thing. There is some subtlety; observe
[4], which inserted an error into a URL that I had just reverted to; followed by
[5] which reinstates the URL I just deleted. I could just revert these pages, but perhaps there is a more appropriate action (e.g. could these links be blocked?)
Notinasnaid 12:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You can request for URLs to be blacklisted, but I don't think there is any need here, as seems to have stopped.
Petros471 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Redjax888(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) -- He is editing an article talk page,
Talk:Bob Brinker, as if it were the article, changing headings and significantly editing, changing, removing previous editor's comments. He seems to be doing it out of ignorance of WP guidelines, though to promote his POV. An IP has done this previously, probably same person, and now this newly registered user is making the same edits. I posted a note on user's talk page, and have (Confession coming, please absolve me) reverted him 3 times within 24 hours. I couldn't find any WP policy I could quote, telling him not to edit other people's comments on an article talk page. What should I do next? //
ॐ Priyanath 03:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Redjax888 continues to remove other people's comments from the
Talk:Bob Brinker page - see
Talk:Bob Brinker history. He has done it seven times now, and possibly more under an IP. He has received four requests/warnings on his talk page
User_talk:Redjax888, from two different editors, including a last warning. A 24 hour block would be most appropriate, I think.
ॐ Priyanath 17:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Redjax888 seems to be back deleting content with his AOL IP address 172.194.65.210
Appears to be a content dispute rather than actual vandalism. I'm attempting to mediate. Request another opinion though. Although, recommend further investigation to the sockpuppetry claims below. ^demon[yell at me] /22:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Appears to be a content dispute rather than actual vandalism. I'm attempting to mediate. Request another opinion though. ^demon[yell at me] /22:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Has stopped editing for now, but still need to check all the images he's uploaded.
Petros471 13:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
All images are now either deleted or up for deletion.
Petros471 19:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
OutRider2003(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). OutRider2003 has on four occasions removed a free image from the
Dalip Singh page and replaced it with a copyrighted image that claims fair use "in the absence of a free alternative". My arguments against this course of action have been somewhat flippantly rebuffed, with OutRider2003 erasing my comments from his talk page. I have warned him that his actions verge on vandalism but this does not appear to have deterred him.
McPhail 21:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Filed 3RR report on the Administrator's Noticeboard
here. --
ZsinjTalk 18:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This person seems to be blanking everything someone says on their talk page immediately after they put it there.
Chuck 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Archived as old report. Please report again with specific diffs if there is still a problem. Also make sure 'free' images really are free.
Petros471 13:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Possibly file a
checkuser request if continues, however I'm not sure the creation of the pool pages is that serious. If suspected socks are affecting more important votes please bring attention to that on the individual voting page.
Petros471 19:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment- With the new arrangement of these pages, I'm not sure if I've put this in the right place, or if something like this needs to be reported at all. However, I felt this case was slightly less benign than most, as the user is obviously fairly familiar with Wikipedia and tried to impersonate Jimbo. Please leave me a message that says something to the effect of "you put this report in the right place" or "this was an absolute waste of time; in the future, please do this..." Thanks. :o)
EWS23 |
(Leave me a message!) 21:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Has been indef blocked for impersonation.
Petros471 19:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Mannaseejah(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) This user keeps putting all these strange, drug induced words and images on
Manna and the
talk page. He's been asked to stop, but refuses. He's convinced that Manna is psychadelic mushrooms and keeps writing about how if you take the drug you will see God. this has been long term abuse. he even states on his user page that this is his ultimate mission.
Sparsefarce 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Has now received a three day block.
Petros471 10:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
All have been blocked.
Petros471 09:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
All except original Tooj117 account that is. Leaving here for a bit to check for return.
Petros471 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Archived. Report Tooj117 again if needed.
Petros471 14:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Dynomites(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) -- This user will not allow any changes to the
digg.com article that remove any of the sprawling, citationless criticisms against the site. Does full reverts either immediately or the following day, against attempts by multiple users (including myself) to clean the article up and reduce it's slant. Responds almost exclusively via the history comments if at all, with lines like "what guidelines?" //
relaxathon 05:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Has been indef blocked.
Petros471 13:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The vandal continues with his vandalism in every article he removes the word NAZI from NAZI germany. This causes the problem that when you click on the word germany you come to the germany of today page and not nazi germany. He has done this in many articles if not all that he has seen. Also where there is no link he still removes the word nazi. Which can be seen here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Battle_of_K%C3%B6nigsberg&diff=49776482&oldid=49751473 The he says he removes it because other battle boxes dosent have it. Well that is because he has removed it from the other boxes. He has removed it from other boxes and then says look at the other boxes. He contiunes with his changeing of sourced figures without stateing any source for example here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Battle_of_Kiev_%281941%29&diff=49954899&oldid=48309290 and as always he minimizes axis losses and maximizes allied ones just as he has done in many other articles. And now he has started with grammatical vandalism which can be seen here
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Persia&diff=49834302&oldid=49251690 (
Deng 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC))
Deng was posting about Kurt on
Woohookitty's talk as I recall, check there also for info. ~
Chris {
t|
c|
e} 21:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Mines45(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). Mines45 has targeted several professional wrestling articles, most frequently
Amy Dumas. Despite opposition, Mines45 has continually reverted to a version that contains misspellings and other errors. Mines45 has yet to provide a single edit summary in over four months of editing, and has not responded to several messages left on his or her talk page. Mines45 is dogmatically restoring his or her own edits despite opposition and refuses to justify these edits.
McPhail 14:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Followed up with a message on the user's talk page. --
ZsinjTalk 15:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Mines45 has resumed editing the pages in question, again without edit summaries or use of the talk page.
McPhail 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have given a final warning on the user's talk page. Admin intervention would be nice. --
ZsinjTalk 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Mines45 has one again blanked his or her talk page and edited the articles in question.
McPhail 19:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any chance of getting intervention from an administrator? Mines45 continues to unilaterally edit the
Amy Dumas page, and is now making controversial edits to
Torrie Wilson.
McPhail 18:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Mines45 is now blocked for a week.
Petros471 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC).